The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

A 30-year
The measurement of flow and systematic
social flow at work: a 30-year review of the
literature
systematic review of the literature
Pedro Jácome de Moura Jr and Carlo Gabriel Porto Bellini
Department of Management,
Received 5 July 2018
Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil Revised 17 December 2018
29 April 2019
Accepted 9 July 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review three decades of the literature on flow measurement and
propose issues to advance research on the measurement of social flow at work.
Design/methodology/approach – In a systematic literature review, the authors analyzed 143 articles
published in the first three decades (1983–2013) of scholarly publications on flow measurement, of which
84 articles used scales to measure flow and 16 articles used scales to measure flow at work.
Findings – The main findings are: flow is frequently measured in association with other constructs or by
means of proxies; flow measurement is highly dependent on a study’s purposes and context; flow is mostly
studied at the level of the individual and, when studied beyond the individual, the measurement of flow in
groups is simplified as an aggregation of individual-level measures; and social flow at work is an
underresearched construct that nevertheless impacts organizations in important ways, thus deserving a
specific research agenda.
Research limitations/implications – The first limitation refers to the databases included in the review.
There is always the possibility that important works were ignored. Another limitation is that the coding
procedure was highly dependent on the authors’ discretion, as it did not include independent coding and
formal assessment of agreement among coders. But the greatest limitation may refer to our very perspectives
on flow, flow measurement and social flow at work, as they are highly attached to current models instead of
seeing the issues with different lenses. This limitation is also present in the literature.
Practical implications – Reviewing three decades of scholarly publications on how flow has been
measured contributes to organizations in their planning for person-job fit. The measurement of flow can
reveal if and when flow correlates with personal characteristics and organizational events, thus serving to
inform initiatives on personnel development, acculturation and job design. However, considering that flow as
a social phenomenon has been conceived in superficial terms, that a vast number of empirical studies were
developed with non-professional subjects, and that flow measurement involves significant adaptations to
each situation, organizations are thus advised to be careful in adopting extant instruments.
Originality/value – This study provides a rich account on how flow measurement has been addressed in the
scholarly literature, and it calls attention to research opportunities on social flow at work.
Keywords Systematic literature review, Flow theory, Measurement, Flow at work, Social flow,
Positive psychology, Team motivation, Team performance
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
The relationship between strategies for human resources management and organizational
performance has been investigated at the individual, group and organizational levels
(Den Hartog et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2012). Continuously surveying employee motivation is
one of such strategies (Den Hartog et al., 2013), and research on the related phenomenon of
team motivation is organized in six topics: team design, team needs, team goals, team
self-regulation, team efficacy and team affect (Park et al., 2013). Such topics are among the
interests of positive psychology (Bandura, 1977; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Demerouti et al.,
2012), a field that has been instrumental to frame the human factors and performance in the
work environment (Demerouti et al., 2012).
Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) pioneered the positive psychology movement. Personnel Review
It conceives human motivation as potentially self-rewarding (autotelic) and posits that high © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
levels of personal commitment to a task occur when an individual is in a mental state known DOI 10.1108/PR-07-2018-0240
PR as flow. Flow depends on the balance between a challenge (environmental opportunities for
action) and one’s skills to act on the challenge, as well as on that balance being constantly
shaken by the challenge’s increasing complexity (Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini, 1985).
Flow is influenced by the presence of other individuals (Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter, 2003;
Privette and Bundrick, 1991), thus, in social contexts, the occurrence of flow in an individual
tends to be perceived by others, what in turn may lead to a shared state of flow, or social
flow (Engeser and Schiepe-Tiska, 2012).
Although the measurement of flow has been a concern since the first studies of the
phenomenon (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1977) and systematic compilations are available
(e.g. Engeser, 2012; Swann et al., 2012; Hoffman and Novak, 2009), measurement remains
focused on individual perceptions of flow, thus imposing limits to a more complete
understanding of the experience at a social level. Moreover, a number of other interests are
also not addressed in current reviews: the scales that are used for flow measurement both in
individuals and in work teams; the contexts of flow (such as in learning situations, at work,
during sport activities, recreation, etc.); the scales that are used in each context;
the constructs that are possibly measured with flow in order to address the subtleties of the
phenomenon and particular manifestations; and multiple methodological aspects of scale
development. The present study addresses such issues in a systematic literature review,
and, in doing so, sheds light on the particular interest of measuring social flow at work.
Our intention to review the measurement of social flow at work is further motivated by
three issues. First, flow in individuals is consistently reported as having a positive influence on
work outcomes (Heyne et al., 2011). Second, the increasing complexity of work has led
organizations to count on teams to achieve their goals (Katzenbach and Smith, 2003). And
third, as an individual in flow may “contaminate” others to pursue their own states of flow at
work (Bakker et al., 2011, p. 443), it is likely that social flow at work is present in organizations
and, as such, the literature may have already reported the phenomenon to some degree.
The article is organized as follows. First, we present a brief view of flow theory in the
positive psychology literature, highlighting issues that are well established and issues that
deserve more attention in empirical studies. Second, we present our systematic literature
review, which consists of two broad searches: a first search based on a snowball rationale
aimed at building a chain of connected studies on flow measurement starting with a
previous literature review; and a second search based on the more traditional procedure of
searching for specific strings in electronic databases. Third, we discuss the results of the
searches along with implications for research and practice, limitations and future studies.
And fourth, we present conclusions, which are mostly concerned with the still fragile idea of
a social perspective of flow and the need to establish a specific research agenda for it.

Theoretical background
Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982) explains human motivation in dimensions that
characterize an individual’s self-rewarding experience and the attainment of high degrees of
personal engagement in tasks – what is best known as the state of flow, one in which “an
individual is immersed in an activity without reflective self-consciousness but with deep
sense of control” (Engeser and Schiepe-Tiska, 2012, p. 1). Flow is originally defined in nine
dimensions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Engeser, 2012): definition of the tasks to be done
(the balance between challenge and skills); definition of clear goals; immediate feedback;
sense of control over actions; deep involvement that leads to automation and spontaneity
( fusion of action and consciousness); deep involvement that removes frustrations and
concerns from consciousness; forgetfulness of the self (loss of self-consciousness); changes
in the perception of time; and autotelic (self-rewarding) experience.
At work, there is evidence that in-flow individuals are cognitively more efficient than
others (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and that flow correlates with performance scores
(Demerouti, 2006). Outstanding performance is due to the flow experience itself, as it A 30-year
stimulates the search for better outcomes, but also due to satisfaction that is leveraged by systematic
those outcomes, which returns to the process as reinforcing inputs (Engeser and Rheinberg, review of the
2008). The occurrence of flow at work also influences the well-being of individuals after the
work hours, particularly regarding the levels of energy and exhaustion (Demerouti et al., literature
2012; Schippers and Hogenes, 2011). Much like the levels of motivation in individuals being
associated with the presence of flow and leading to important work outcomes, team
motivation is a concern that has been attracting greater interest in the literature (Park et al.,
2013). Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that team motivation will be related with
manifestations of flow at the level of organizational groups, thus our interest in the study of
social flow at work.
Another interest refers to how flow is measured. The measurement of flow was first
addressed in Larson and Csikszentmihalyi (1983) with the experience-sampling
method (ESM). ESM appeared in the literature in 1977, but not for flow measurement at
that time, as a result of a 1976 work by Prescott, Csikszentmihalyi and Graef
(Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1977). The 1976 proposition was published only in 1981 (Prescott
et al., 1981). The ESM method requires participants to answer a short questionnaire, which
is usually focused on the challenge-skill dimension of flow ( Jackson and Eklund, 2002)
whenever participants receive a randomly sent signal through a communication device
(Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini, 1985). ESM has been used in this sense in the human
and social sciences (Fatemeh, 2013; Uy et al., 2010) by means of a data collection
instrument (usually, a questionnaire-type scale) developed specifically for each study
(e.g. Novak et al., 2000).
However, the application of ESM interrupts the activity being done by the individual,
thus arguably interfering on that individual’s state of flow. As an alternative, the use of
scales to measure flow during interview sessions has been proposed, such as the flow state
scale (FSS, Jackson and Marsh, 1996) and one of its extensions (FSS-2, Jackson and Eklund,
2002), as well as the dispositional flow scale (DFS, Jackson et al., 2008; Jackson and Eklund,
2002; Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) and the flow short scale (FKS, Engeser
and Rheinberg, 2008; Rheinberg et al., 2003). Those scales have been used to measure
phenomena occurring along with flow (e.g. absorption and concentration), and flow is not
necessarily measured in all its nine original dimensions. Moreover, the specific dimension
on the balance between challenge and skills is often used alone to measure flow
(e.g. Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1987; Moneta, 2012). Also of note is that “anti-flow”
constructs have been of interest for measurement, such as anxiety, boredom and frustration
(Allison and Duncan, 1987), thus adding complexity to the tradition of correlating flow with
other constructs (Engeser and Schiepe-Tiska, 2012).
Overall, the idea of flow appeals to common sense and is related with other constructs of
much interest in the human factors and organizational literature. However, this is also
reason for some conceptual overlapping and misunderstanding, what has eventually led to
poorly defined constructs (Webster et al., 1993) and problems for measurement
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Jackson et al., 2008; Jackson and Eklund, 2002). Thus, a review
of the literature on flow, flow measurement, flow in groups and flow at work should consider
that other phenomena that are closely related with, but different from, flow may have been
instrumental to address flow in practice.

Method
Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are employed to find insightful knowledge on a topic of
interest in relevant literature by means of rigorous search, analysis and synthesis. SLRs
follow a protocol that specifies the research questions and procedures, including the
definition and documentation of the search strategy, the description of the criteria for
PR inclusion and exclusion of relevant documents, the description of the quality evaluation
mechanisms for each document, and the description of inter-rater analytical processes aimed
at reducing individual biases (Kitchenham, 2004).
Mapping studies represent one of the SLR modalities. Those studies deal with general
issues rather than specific questions, being appropriate when one wants to answer
questions such as what is known about a broad topic (Kitchenham et al., 2009). Mapping
studies often present more research questions than conventional SLRs, and they usually
involve more primary studies as well (Kitchenham et al., 2011), that is, the documents that
are retrieved in the literature search and considered relevant for analysis. Our review is a
mapping study, as described next.
We searched for an answer to the question of how flow measurement was approached
in the first three decades after the first known scholarly study on the topic was published,
and we had a special interest in social flow at work. We performed two procedures to
collect the primary studies for review. Initially, a snowball process (Kitchenham and
Brereton, 2013) was implemented to identify a first set of relevant studies starting with
another recent review of the literature on flow (Swann et al., 2012). The process was aimed
at building a chain of studies linked by their references and coherently to that
previous review. Table I shows all the scales used to measure flow that were found in the
snowball search.
The second procedure was a search in electronic databases of reputed literature. We
opted to search in the Scopus database, in the database of particular publishers
(Emerald, Springer and Wiley), and in the database of a professional society on computer
information systems (Association for Information Systems). The reason to search in specific
publishers is twofold: first, the snowball process revealed that those three publishers had
the largest amount of studies on flow; and second, not all journals from those publishers are
necessarily included in the Scopus database. As for the search in the database of a computer
society, it is due to the state of flow being typical among computer workers (Armour, 2006).
The search strings are given below. “Csikszentmihalyi” and “flow” were used in all
searches due to their intrinsic relationship as well as to exclude undesirable studies that
mention flow, such as studies about the flow of people, flow of information, etc. We applied
the search strings to the titles, abstracts and keywords of documents.

Year Study’s title Authorship Source’s title Scale

1977 The ecology of adolescent Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, Journal of Youth and ESM
activity and experience and Prescott Adolescence
1983 The experience sampling Larson and New Directions for ESM
method Csikszentmihalyi Methodology of Social
and Behavioral Science
1992 Athletes in flow: A qualitative Jackson Journal of Applied Sport FSS and DFS
investigation of flow states in Psychology
elite figure skaters
1996 Development and validation Jackson and Marsh Journal of Sport and FSS and DFS
of a scale to measure Exercise Psychology
optimal experience:
The flow state scale
2002 Assessing flow in physical Jackson and Eklund Journal of Sport and FSS-2 and
activity: The flow state scale-2 Exercise Psychology DFS-2
and dispositional flow scale-2
Table I. 2003 Die erfassung des Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, Diagnostik von FKS
Works on flow flow-erlebens and Engeser Motivation und
measurement Selbstkonzept
Search strings: A 30-year
• “flow” AND “Csikszentmihalyi” AND (“experience-sampling method” OR “experience systematic
sampling method” OR “ESM”) review of the
• “flow” AND “Csikszentmihalyi” AND (“flow state scale” OR “FSS” OR “flow state literature
scale-2” OR “FSS-2”)
• “flow” AND “Csikszentmihalyi” AND (“dispositional flow scale” OR “DFS” OR
“dispositional flow scale-2” OR “DFS-2”)
• “flow” AND “Csikszentmihalyi” AND “flow short scale”
• “Csikszentmihalyi” AND (“flow measure” OR “measures flow” OR “flow measurement”
OR “measure of flow” OR “assess flow” OR “assessing flow” OR “measuring flow”)
The period for the review was set to publications between 1983 and 2013. The starting year
is given by the first mention to flow measurement in the academic literature (Larson and
Csikszentmihalyi, 1983), and we planned for a 30-year review of relevant studies.
Table II shows the number of articles identified in the search.
As the search strings focused on Csikszentmihalyi’s tradition of flow studies as well as
on scales to measure flow, we decided to analyze all 147 retrieved studies. However, four

Articles retrieved Articles read

Journal or academic meeting (publisher or society) (Qty) (Qty)

Applied Psychology: An International Review (Wiley) 2 2

Computers and Education (Elsevier) 8 8
Information Management and Computer Security (Emerald) 1 1
Information Systems Journal (Wiley) 2 1
Information Technology and People (Emerald) 4 4
International Journal of Human Capital and IT Professionals (IGI) 2 1
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
(Emerald) 1 1
Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Wiley) 5 5
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (Taylor and Francis) 2 1
Journal of Business Research (Elsevier) 2 2
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Elsevier) 2 2
Journal of Happiness Studies (Springer) 22 22
Journal of Knowledge Management (Emerald) 6 6
Journal of Leisure Research (Sagamore) 1 1
Journal of Managerial Psychology (Emerald) 17 17
Journal of Organizational Behavior (Wiley) 8 7
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (NASPSPA) 6 6
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (Springer) 16 16
Leadership Quarterly (Elsevier) 2 2
MIS Quarterly (AIS) 1 1
Motivation and Emotion (Springer) 11 11
New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science
( Jossey-Bass) 1 1
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (Elsevier) 2 2
Psychology of Sport and Exercise (Elsevier) 8 8
Team Performance Management (Emerald) 2 2
Americas Conference on Information Systems (Association for
Information Systems) 10 10
International Conference on Information Systems (Association for Table II.
Information Systems) 3 3 Articles by journal
Total 147 143 and academic meeting
PR documents were not available or had redundant information for the purposes of our study,
thus we ended up reading 143 primary studies. The coding process of the data to be
retrieved from the studies was defined by the two authors and two PhD candidates during
the weekly meetings of their research team. As for the assessment of agreement among
coders, no specific method was adopted, but the resulting codes were consensually accepted
by the researchers during those meetings.
The 143 primary studies were analyzed in terms of their scale for flow measurement, the
sample used for scale validation, the measurement model (reflective or formative), the level of
analysis (individual or team/group), scale validation ( face, content, convergent, discriminant,
nomological and external), scale reliability, type of scale (Likert, Guttman, etc.), the context of
flow and the constructs possibly associated with flow for measurement purposes in each
particular study. Bibliometric data about author affiliation (universities and countries) were
also collected. The studies were processed according to the algorithm described below.
Algorithm for processing the primary studies:
Step
(1) Definition of search strings
1.1 Level 1: flow OR Csikszentmihalyi OR Mihalyi
1.2 Level 2: measurement OR measure OR measures OR metric OR metrics OR
assessment
1.3 Level 3: validity OR reliability OR discriminant OR convergent OR nomologic
OR nomological OR face OR content OR generalization OR external
(2) Search for string level 1
2.1 If there is level 1 in the text then read the passage and go to step 2.2; else, go to step 4
2.2 If the reading of the passage indicates flow measurement then go to step 3; else,
go to step 4
(3) Excerpt from the text the mentions to flow measurement, record excerpt in the
database (DB2), and go to step 4
(4) Search for string level 2
4.1 If there is level 2 in the text then read the passage and go to step 4.2; else, go to step 5
4.2 If the reading of the excerpt indicates constructs related to flow under
measurement, extract excerpt from the text, record excerpt in DB2 and go to step 5
(5) Search for string level 3
5.1 If there is level 3 in the text, read the passage and go to step 5.2; else, go to step 6
5.2 If the reading of the excerpt indicates validity of flow measurement scales,
extract excerpt from the text, record excerpt in DB2 and go to step 6
(6) Read the abstract and go to step 7
(7) Classify the article according to rating tables generated by content analysis, record
the classification in DB2, and finish

Results and discussion

A total of 84 studies (58.7 percent) used scales to measure flow directly or by means of other
constructs. Table III shows the contexts of flow measurement as provided in the
original articles. There is prevalence of flow measurement in teaching/learning contexts
Context Articles (Qty) Articles (%)
A 30-year
systematic
Teaching/learning 20 23.8 review of the
Work 16 19.0
Sports (including sport as a profession) 16 19.0 literature
Quality of life, well-being, happiness and self-esteem 11 13.1
Online shopping 4 4.8
Buying intention (online and in person) 3 3.6
Games 3 3.6
Web navigation 2 2.4
Family 1 1.2
Human-computer interaction 1 1.2
Leisure 1 1.2 Table III.
(Unspecified) 5 6.0 Contexts of flow
Total 84 100 measurement

(23.8 percent), work (19 percent), sports (19 percent) and in studies on quality of life,
well-being, happiness or self-esteem (13.1 percent). In 6 percent of cases, it was not possible
to identify the context. The important fact here for the purposes of our study is that flow at
work is of high interest in the literature, representing one in five published articles. Table III
also reveals that flow measurement appears in at least 11 different contexts, meaning that
flow is highly representative of human behavior.
Table IV shows the scales used to measure flow. FSS and FSS-2 dominate when
considered together (18 articles, 21.4 percent). ESM with specific questionnaires accounts for
14.3 percent of cases, and scales that are customized for each study also account for
14.3 percent. The remaining cases represent specific scales to measure flow-related
constructs. Despite the concentration of studies with FSS and FSS-2 scales, a considerable
variety of scales is present (25 in total) along with the combination of scales for specific
purposes. Together with the diversity of contexts, a diversity of instruments suggests that
flow measurement is highly dependent on measurement intents, thus focused studies such
as ours (on social flow at work) are needed.
As seen in Table IV, items are added to or excluded from scales according to a study’s
particular needs even in consolidated scales like the flow questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi,
1982), FSS, FSS-2 and DFS2 ( Jackson and Eklund, 2002), FKS (Rheinberg et al., 2003),
Work-Related Flow Inventory Scale (WOLF) (Bakker, 2008) and Short Flow Scale (Martin
and Jackson, 2008). Scale associations are also found, such as FSS-2 with DFS2, ESM with
variants of the flow questionnaire ( for instance, the experience sampling form – ESF),
ESM with FKS, and ESM with WOLF. Thus, besides flow being a typical phenomenon in
multiple domains of human behavior, it also possesses specific attributes and manifests in
specific ways, and as such must be approached idiosyncratically according to the
context. This means that flow may be a slightly different construct in each study, what
contributes to our argument on the need to develop the construct of social flow at work
instead of merely relying on the aggregation of measures of flow at the individual level in
work contexts.
The association of scales developed in independent studies, though, is a highly
questionable procedure. For instance, some authors argue in favor of replicating ESM due to
the validity of the method (e.g. Bassi and Delle-Fave, 2012; Shernoff and Vandell, 2007),
which is assumed from previous studies (such as Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1987).
However, as ESM has been used with various questionnaires, oftentimes with additional or
fewer items, blindly assuming validity in a new application is not recommended. This is
also evident from our previous discussion that flow measurement should be tailored to
PR IDa Scale Articles (Qty) Articles (%) Commentb

15 ESM with specific questionnaire 12 14.3 6; 21; 26; 27; (+)

10 Specific scale (a mix of different scales) 12 14.3 16
2 FSS ( Jackson and Marsh, 1996) 9 10.7 4; (−)
4 FSS-2 ( Jackson and Eklund, 2002) 9 10.7 5; 24; (+)
9 ESM with experience sampling form (ESF) 6 7.1
1 Flow questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982) 6 7.1 15; (+)
6 FKS (Rheinberg et al., 2003) 4 4.8 (+)
5 DFS-2 ( Jackson and Eklund, 2002) 3 3.6 (−)
7 Perceived enjoyment (Davis et al., 1992) 2 2.4
13 Playfulness (Moon and Kim, 2001) 2 2.4
24 Short flow scale (Martin and Jackson, 2008) 2 2.4 28; (+)
11 UWES – Utrecht work engagement scale
(Schaufeli et al., 2002) 2 2.4
21 WOLF – work-related flow inventory scale (Bakker, 2008) 2 2.4 15; (−)
8 ESM with no specific questionnaire 1 1.2
12 Engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) 1 1.2
19 Happiness-inducing (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005) 1 1.2 (−)
17 Involvement (Keller and Bless, 2008) 1 1.2
14 Learning experience survey (Pearce et al., 2005) 1 1.2
18 Openness to experience (Engvik, 1993) 1 1.2
20 PEAQ-S (Waterman et al., 2008) 1 1.2
25 Quality of experience (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1987) 1 1.2
16 Telepresence (Novak et al., 2000) 1 1.2
27 Control scale (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) – – 15
28 Core flow scale (Martin and Jackson, 2008) – – 24
26 Optimal experience (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993) – – 15
(Unspecified) 4 4.8
Total 84 100
Notes: aScale identifier needed for referential purposes in column Comment and in Table V. IDs number 3, 22
Table IV. and 23 are not shown in the table as they were excluded during the many rounds of validation. bNumbers
Flow represent the ID of the scale; “(+)” means that items were added to the scale mentioned in the row; “(−)” means
measurement scales that items were deleted from the scale mentioned in the row

each study. As such, questionnaires that contain any specific measure require validation,
particularly when there is a need to adapt to specific situations. Validity depends on items,
situations and people (Larson and Csikszentmihalyi, 1983).
Table V shows the scales to measure flow in work contexts. We found eight different
scales in 16 distinct articles. Flow at work has been measured with specific scales and ESM
with specific questionnaires. The association of scales and the manipulation of items
(new items or less items) are not as frequent as in other contexts. However, the
predominance of specific scales derived from joining different scales suggests that the
two scales identified as specific for measuring flow at work, i.e., Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES) and WOLF, have been largely disregarded. The reason may be that other
scales were adopted before UWES and WOLF were widely known by means of diffusion
and maturation in the literature.
Table VI shows the number of measures (items) in each flow measurement scale in
work contexts. The measures are grouped according to the nine original dimensions of flow
( full scales are available in Table AI). At work, flow has been addressed with measures of
autotelic experience and concentration, what is different from the long tradition, in other
contexts, of taking the balance between challenge and skills as the preferred dimension to
measure flow (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1987; Moneta, 2012). The table also reveals
the use of dimensions and constructs that do not directly correspond to flow. Hereafter we
IDa Scale Articles (Qty)b Commentc
A 30-year
systematic
15 ESM with specific questionnaire 5 6; 21; 27; (+) review of the
10 Specific scale (a mix of different scales) 4 –
24 Short flow scale (Martin and Jackson, 2008) 2 28 literature
11 UWES – Utrecht work engagement scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002) 2 –
21 WOLF – work-related flow inventory scale (Bakker, 2008) 2 15
28 Core flow scale (Martin and Jackson, 2008) 1 24
1 Flow questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982) 1 –
4 FSS-2 ( Jackson and Eklund, 2002) 1 –
Notes: aScale identifier in reference to Table IV. bIt is meaningless to count the grand total of articles in this Table V.
column, since some articles used more than one scale, thus the count would be greater than 16 (the total of Flow measurement
distinct articles that used scales to measure flow at work). cNumbers represent the ID of the scale, according to scales in work
Table IV; “(+)” means that items were added to the scale mentioned in the row contexts

Original dimension of flow Related dimension (Qty)a Items (Qty) Articles (Qty)b

Autotelic experience 10 28 9
Concentration 4 19 7
Challenge-skill balance 7 13 7
Action-awareness 4 12 5
Transformation of time 2 9 5
Control 3 8 4
Loss of self-consciousness 3 8 4
Clear goals 3 7 4
Feedback 2 7 4
(No correspondence with flow) 9 17 4
Notes: aSome authors make associations between a construct’s dimensions and the original dimensions of
flow. For instance, item “To me, my job is challenging” pertains to dimension Dedication of the UWES scale, Table VI.
while it is conceptually aligned with flow’s original dimension on Challenge-Skill Balance. bIt is meaningless Dimensions of flow
to count the grand total of articles in this column, since some articles included several dimensions of flow, thus measurement in work
the count would be greater than 16 (the total of distinct articles that used scales to measure flow at work) contexts

call such occurrences “related construct/dimensions” in order to distinguish them from the
nine original dimensions of flow.
Table AI provides a detailed view of how flow has been measured in work contexts.
In order to briefly illustrate the variety of approaches, we take flow’s original dimension on
the balance between challenge and skills. In more traditional studies of flow, that dimension
would be measured by items such as “I felt competent enough to meet the high demands of
the situation” and “To me, my job is challenging” ( Jackson and Eklund, 2002; Martin and
Jackson, 2008). In some situations, though, researchers measure what we previously defined
as related constructs/dimensions, thus very similar phrasings like “The activities I do at this
program are challenging” (Greene et al., 2013) are used to address a related construct
(engagement); and even the same phrasing shown before to measure a specific dimension of
flow (“To me, my job is challenging”) in another study (Schaufeli et al., 2002) is used to
measure a dimension (dedication) of a related construct (engagement). In such cases, the
question is, why not to measure flow using the original dimensions? One possible
explanation is that flow can be approached with acceptable accuracy with the help of other
constructs that are more convenient for measurement in certain situations, but at the same
time great terminological confusion emerges in the literature.
Still on items adopted in the measurement of flow at work, even if we take into
account that different verb tenses are used (e.g. “I felt”, “I feel”, which make reference to the
PR time of perceptions), the sentences reveal an attempt to retrieve the mental state of each
individual at a given moment in the past, and, by the end of measurement, the scores from
all individuals are used to build a score for the team as a whole (e.g. Bakker et al., 2011).
However, if we accept that a team’s outcome is different from the sum of individual efforts
(Katzenbach and Smith, 2003), any collective score built solely from individual scores would
not address in full the phenomena that emerge from a relationship of individuals. This issue
was to some extent addressed in collective learning contexts, although focusing on the
difference of individual and collective interests (Ryu and Parsons, 2012). In our sample of
84 articles that include scales to measure flow, the only measures resembling the capture of
a collective state of mind are those in Aubé and Rousseau (2005), with sentences such as
“We are committed to pursuing the team’s goal”, and Aubé et al. (2014), with sentences such
as “We shared with each of the members information useful for the work.” It is thus clear
that social flow at work is an embryonic concept in the literature. That is, if we take the
studies that measure the occurrence of flow in work settings with specific scales, none of the
scales do more than collecting the workers’ individual perceptions about flow. Those studies
either assume that individuals would have their work teams in mind when answering
questions geared towards the self (e.g. “I felt[…]”, “To me[…]”) or that aggregate measures
resulting from individual measures are meaningful to represent group effects. However,
emergent phenomena in complex systems do not correspond to such beliefs ( Johnson, 2001;
Georgiou, 2003). In not exploring the possible occurrence of phenomena that are brought to
reality only when individuals work together and experience a shared state of flow, those
studies ignore the need for specific dimensions of flow in groups. Inductive approaches
(Eisenhardt et al., 2016) to developing the construct of social flow at work thus constitute a
first issue in a research agenda on the topic.
Table VII shows the constructs associated with, or used as proxies for, flow
measurement. In a large number of cases, flow is studied along with other constructs,
while the balance between challenges and skills and enjoyment are particularly popular
as proxies for flow. Associations of constructs are documented in the literature and are
generally accepted (Engeser and Schiepe-Tiska, 2012; Webster et al., 1993), but we
contend that the argument for building associations remains superficial (e.g. Chen et al.,
2009; Rouibah, 2008). This suggests that, coherently with previous discussions here, flow
has a very peculiar meaning in each context (to the extent of possibly forming
context-dependent constructs), or its boundaries are fuzzy and incompletely understood.
On the other hand, although the literature mentions the occurrence of “anti-flow”
phenomena like anxiety, boredom and frustration (Allison and Duncan, 1987), our study
did not reveal any use of scales to measure them.
Table VIII shows the constructs associated with, or used as proxies for, flow
measurement in the context of work. Similarly to what happens in other contexts, flow at
work is frequently studied along with other constructs. However, some constructs
addressed in other contexts, such as playfulness, affection and happiness, are not addressed
in studies on flow at work. This may be simply due to the volume of relevant studies on flow
at work retrieved from the literature as compared to the other contexts together, but it may
also mean that flow at work is a more established concept. In this case, a research agenda
should further develop the social/group aspects of flow at work both conceptually and in
terms of empirically verified convergent and discriminant validity.
Tables IX and X show the samples used in the 84 articles that addressed flow
measurement. In general (Table IX), students prevail as participants (47.6 percent), while
studies in the context of work (Table X) tend to involve employees (75 percent). A total of
78 studies focus on the individual, and only two articles explicitly address flow
measurement in work teams. In those two cases whose explicit focus is teamwork, the scales
address the individual members and scores are aggregated to the team level. Three articles
IDa Construct Articles (Qty)b Related constructc
A 30-year
systematic
8 Challenge and skills 14 2; 7; 9; 11; 12; 13; 16; 19; 20; 21; 24; 30 review of the
2 Enjoyment 12 7; 8; 10; 11; 13; 15; 16; 19; 24
11 Concentration 7 2; 7; 8; 10; 13; 16 literature
7 Telepresence 6 2; 8; 9; 11; 17; 18; 27; 28
16 Intrinsic interest 5 2; 8; 11; 13
13 Engagement 4 2; 8; 11; 16
12 Absorption 4 7; 18; 25
15 Curiosity 3 2; 16
17 Flow propensity 3
10 Perceived control 3 2; 8; 11
14 Playfulness 3
25 Creativity 3 12
26 Feedback 2 13
19 Involvement 2 2; 8
29 Reason for reaching flow 2
20 Affection 1 8; 21
6 Behavioral intention 1 2; 4
27 Commitment 1 28
23 Happiness 1
18 Immersion 1 7; 12
28 Information exchange 1 27
22 Openness to experience 1
31 Peer influence 1
9 Perceived complexity 1 7; 8
30 Perceived significance 1 8
4 Perceived usefulness 1 2; 6
24 Self-determination 1 2; 8
21 Self-esteem 1 8; 20
Table VII.
Notes: aConstruct identifier referenced by column Comment and also in Table VIII. IDs number 1, 3 and 5 are Constructs associated
not shown in the table as they were excluded during the many rounds of validation. bNumber of articles using with flow for
the construct. It is meaningless to count the grand total of articles in this column, since different constructs measurement
may be mentioned in the same article. cAccording to the IDs in column ID purposes

IDa Construct Articles (Qty)b Related constructc

12 Absorption 3 25
25 Creativity 3 12
13 Engagement 2 26
26 Feedback 2 13
8 Challenge and skills 1
27 Commitment 1 28
15 Curiosity 1 2
2 Enjoyment 1 15
28 Information exchange 1 27
Table VIII.
10 Perceived control 1 Constructs associated
29 Reasons for reaching flow 1 with flow at work for
Notes: aConstruct identifier, according to Table VII. bNumber of articles using the construct. cAccording to measurement
the IDs in Table VII purposes

claim to treat flow as a formative construct, 12 as a reflective construct, and 68 do not

comment the construct’s measurement model. As the type of construct has an impact on
how the construct is conceived, measured and analyzed, ignoring the measurement model
complicates the development of cumulative research on flow measurement.
PR Individuals Articles (Qty) Articles (%)

Students (school, undergraduate, graduate) 40 47.6

Employed professionals 13 15.5
Professional athletes 8 9.5
Teenagers 6 7.1
Non-professional practitioners of physical activities 4 4.8
Consumers (TV, Web) 3 3.6
Hybrid sampling (students and professionals, for example) 3 3.6
Table IX. Adults 1 1.2
Samples in flow Families 1 1.2
measurement (Unspecified) 5 6.0
(all cases) Total 84 100

Individuals Sample size Articles (Qty) Articles (%)

Workers of various organizations 1,961 4 25.0

Organizational workers (undisclosed expertise or function) 893 3 18.8
IT professionals 32 1 6.3
Managers 58 1 6.3
Military officers 33 1 6.3
Professional team in a university 1; 60a 1 6.3
Teenagers 435 1 6.3
Telecom managers 587 1 6.3
Undergraduate and graduate student teams 85; 395a 1 6.3
University staff, undergraduate students, and athletes 3,927 1 6.3
Table X. (Unspecified) 1 6.3
Samples in flow Total 16 100
measurement at work Notes: a “;” separates the amount of teams and the amount of individuals

Table XI shows the criteria used for scale validation. There is greater concern with
discriminant validity, with 53.6 percent of articles addressing it somehow. The other
validation procedures are also implemented in about half of the studies – except for
nomological validity, which is mentioned, but not necessarily discussed, in only 16.7 percent
of articles. The big picture is that scale validation procedures are not addressed in a
significant number of articles, notwithstanding scales being replicated and adapted across
studies, as commented before. Given that the measurement of flow is partially dependent on
context, taking for granted the validity of scales poses enormous threats to the validity of
research findings.
Table XII shows that appropriate scale reliability scores vis-à-vis Cronbach’s α
(Cronbach and Meehl, 1955) were reported in the general context and the work context in
articles that explicitly addressed scale reliability. A total of 34 articles discussed reliability
of the particular scale or sub-scale of flow employed, 28 articles did not address reliability,
5 articles assumed reliability from previous studies, and 16 articles discussed composite
reliability not directly related to flow.
Table XIII shows the types of scale used for flow measurement. There is prevalence of
Likert scales with five or seven points (43.2 percent). Open-ended instruments are also
significantly used with Likert and semantic differential scales. The variety of scales
identified in this review does not seem to be problematic for cumulative research; given that
all measurement instruments include self-reported psychometric measures, the nature of the
 Articles Articles
A 30-year
Type of validation Procedure (Qty) (%) systematic
review of the
Translation (content and Validity is due to previous studies 19 22.6
face) literature
Pilot study 7 8.3
Content validity and face validity 7 8.3
Construct validity 1 1.2
Translation or item-spelling adaptation 3 3.6
Pre-test/interview 1 1.2
(Unspecified) 45 53.6
Convergent Validity is due to previous studies 19 22.6
Factorial loads 8 9.5
Correlations 6 7.1
Confirmatory factorial analysis 6 7.1
Internal consistency reliability 1 1.2
Comparison with previously validated scales 1 1.2
(Unspecified) 42 50.0
Discriminant Validity is due to previous studies 16 19.0
Correlations 13 15.5
Confirmatory factorial analysis 7 8.3
Average variance extracted 6 7.1
Rhetoric/discursive 1 1.2
Comparison with previously validated scales 1 1.2
(Unspecified) 39 46.4
Nomological Confirmatory factorial analysis and structural equation 8 9.5
modeling
Nomological validation is not intended 2 2.4
Validity is due to previous studies 2 2.4
Correlations 1 1.2
(Unspecified) 70 83.3
External The sample does not allow for generalization of results 16 19.0
External validity will be verified in future studies 6 7.1
Generalization of results is possible 5 6.0
Generalization of results should be addressed with care 4 4.8
Generalization of results is not intended 3 3.6
Generalization of results is challenged by the particular 1 1.2
theory used
External validation is due to scale stability 1 1.2
Validity is due to previous studies 1 1.2 Table XI.
(Unspecified) 46 54.8 Validation criteria

Context α min. α max. Mean SD

General 0.64 0.978 0.809 0.079 Table XII.

Work 0.65 0.83 0.768 0.052 Reliability scores

measures is thus the same across studies. On the other hand, one could argue that common
method bias is an issue in flow measurement.
Tables XIV and XV show research on flow measurement in 21 countries and 93
universities. Countries and universities were identified from the authors’ affiliation. There is
large concentration of studies on flow measurement by researchers located in certain
countries, such as the USA, Australia and the Netherlands. Particularly in work contexts,
PR Type of scale Articles (Qty)a Articles (%)

1–5 Likert 22 26.2

1–7 Likert 16 19.0
Open-ended questions 9 10.7
7-point semantic differential 8 9.5
Unspecified Likert 4 4.8
5-point semantic differential 3 3.6
9-point semantic differential 2 2.4
10-point semantic differential 2 2.4
100-point semantic differential 2 2.4
Yes/No 1 1.2
4-point semantic differential 1 1.2
0–12 Likert 1 1.2
1–9 Likert 1 1.2
1–10 Likert 1 1.2
(Unspecified) 15 17.9
Table XIII. Notes: aIt is meaningless to count the grand total of articles in this column, since more than one scale type
Verification scales may be mentioned in the same article

Country Articles (Qty) Distinct universities (Qty)

USA 50 36
Australia 15 7
The Netherlands 14 7
Germany 7 6
Italy 7 4
The United Kingdom 6 5
Canada 5 3
South Korea 5 3
Spain 4 3
Taiwan 4 4
Japan 3 2
Switzerland 3 1
France 2 2
New Zealand 2 2
Singapore 2 2
Belgium 1 1
China 1 1
Denmark 1 1
Table XIV. Egypt 1 1
Flow measurement Kuwait 1 1
by country Norway 1 1

there is greater concentration of studies in Dutch universities, followed by universities in the

USA and Germany. Studies on flow measurement at work developed in The Netherlands
focus on the UWES and WOLF scales – both developed by Dutch authors. However, none of
the studies done outside the Netherlands used those scales. When analyzing the US and
German studies, the FSS-2 and FKS scales dominate. Such findings suggest that
research groups and research traditions tend to focus on regionally developed instruments,
thus possibly compromising the variety of knowledge and cumulative research on flow
measurement at work.
 Articles
A 30-year
Country Universities a
(Qty) systematic
review of the
USA Claremont Graduate University (2); Florida State University (3); Kansas State 18
University (2); Northern Illinois University (3); Syracuse University (2); University literature
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (3); University of Michigan-Dearborn (3)
Australia University of Queensland (7); University of Sydney (3); University of Western 12
Sidney (2)
The Eindhoven University of Technology (3); Erasmus University Rotterdam (2); 7
Netherlands Utrecht University (2)
UK London Metropolitan University (2); University of Abertay Dundee (2) 4
Canada Université de Montréal 3
Switzerland University of Zurich 3
Germany Universität Mannheim 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Milano 2
Japan Hosei University 2 Table XV.
Spain University of Barcelona 2 Universities with at
Total 55 least two studies on
Notes: aNumbers in parentheses indicate the quantity of articles per university flow measurement

Implications for theory and practice

This literature review has a number of implications for theory and practice. On the side of
theory, it reveals that the measurement of flow has been conceived as the gathering of
self-perceptions either about the construct itself or about other constructs that seem to
approximate flow in certain situations. The use of other constructs to approximate flow may
be due to those constructs being more accessible to measurement while sharing with flow a
number of characteristics (thus not significantly threatening a study’s explanation power),
or due to the variances found in the very construct of flow depending on the context. This
study also contributes in revealing that research on social flow at work – arguably, an
important issue for organizations – has been addressed superficially, particularly as the
group measure has been developed as the mere aggregation of individual-level measures. In
summary, flow in individuals and groups is conceived as a psychometric phenomenon
measured by means of individual self-reports.
On the side of practice, this study also contributes in important ways. Given that the
occurrence of flow in individuals has been associated with task performance, reviewing
three decades of scholarly publications on how flow has been measured contributes to
organizations in their planning of person-job fit. The measurement of flow can reveal if and
when flow correlates with personal characteristics and organizational events, thus serving
to inform initiatives on personnel development, acculturation and job design. Also, as
“teams […] have become a way of life in many organizations” (Salas et al., 2008, p. 540) and
team motivation has been attracting great interest (Park et al., 2013), the measurement of
flow in work teams emerges as potentially needed action. However, as our review shows
that flow as a social phenomenon, including in teamwork, has been conceived in
arguably superficial terms, that a vast number of empirical studies were developed with
non-professional subjects, and that flow measurement involves significant adaptations to
each situation, organizations are thus advised to be careful in adopting extant instruments
and analytical procedures.

Limitations and future research

The first limitation of this study refers to the databases included in the literature review.
Even if we took measures to include the most relevant sources, there is always the
possibility that important works were ignored. Another limitation is that the coding
PR procedure was highly dependent on the authors’ discretion, as it did not include independent
coding and formal assessment of agreement among coders. But the greatest limitation may
refer to our very perspectives on flow, flow measurement and social flow at work, as they
are highly attached to current models instead of seeing the issues with different lenses. This
limitation is also present in the literature, as even the works developed in different countries
and using competing scales adopt the same assumptions.
Future research may start with questioning if flow should be measured by means of
self-reports, as overwhelmingly verified in this review. Also, future research may want to
answer in more compelling terms why so many different constructs are apparently used to
measure flow – or do they compete with flow as the key construct? Induction-based studies
may be a good starting point in this line of inquiry. One such initiative is the recent study by
De Moura and Bellini (2019). And a third opportunity refers to the manifestation of flow in
work groups, as it is a clearly underresearched, important topic deserving attention both in
terms of definition and measurement approaches. For instance, the experience of the authors
of the present study with information technology teams tells that a number of aspects found in
in-flow individuals are largely present in those teams, such as the commitment to goals and
the corresponding levels of challenge faced by the individuals and the team as a whole, along
with the needed skills, concentration efforts, sense of control, and immediate feedback, all of
which are recognized as resulting from the agile, dynamic nature of the profession and the
rapid pace of change in technology and business processes (De Moura Jr, 2015).
Such phenomena are pre-requisites of flow in individuals (Guo and Poole, 2009), where
autotelic experience occurs at the highest levels possible and causes forgetfulness of the self,
changes in the perception of time, and fusion of action and consciousness. However, what does
happen when individuals working together reach such a state of mind collectively? What are
the phenomena that manifest in the form of the highly intriguing emergent properties of
complex systems? And how to measure such properties?

Conclusions
This study reviewed the literature on flow measurement in the three decades immediately
after the first known study on the topic. Additionally to the interest of studying the
measurement of flow, we wanted to advance knowledge on the particular construct of
social flow at work. The reason is twofold: first, flow is expected to have important
outcomes in the work environment, but we do not know of any other review that has
addressed that context; and second, as researchers in the field, we see that the social
(group) aspects of flow, especially their emergent properties resulting from group
interactions, are largely neglected in the literature both in terms of proper definitions and
measurement approaches. That is, it is arguably simplistic to frame and measure social
flow as an aggregate of individual-level measures.
Besides offering issues to frame and advance research on flow measurement and social
flow at work, this study provided an overview of other related issues, including the scales
that have been used in a variety of contexts and at the level of individuals and groups, the
constructs that are typically measured with flow in those contexts, and scale development
procedures. We concluded that, even if flow and positive psychology are highly popular in
research and in the practice of some organizations, flow measurement has been
characterized by conceptual overlaps (such as when flow and other constructs are not
properly distinguished), simplifications (such as when individual perceptions are
extrapolated to groups, thus ignoring the emergent group effects) and incomplete scale
development procedures (such as when scale validity is taken for granted). As a
consequence, the real impacts of flow at work are still superficially understood. It thus
seems that social flow at work is an embryonic concept and a domain of much promise for
scholarly research and organizational practice.
References A 30-year
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and systematic
beliefs about information technology usage”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 665-694. review of the
Allison, M.T. and Duncan, M.C. (1987), “Women, work, and leisure: the days of our lives”, literature
Leisure Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 143-162.
Armour, P.G. (2006), “The learning edge: getting into the flow of software development”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 19-22.
Aubé, C. and Rousseau, V. (2005), “Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task
interdependence and supportive behaviors”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 189-204.
Aubé, C., Brunelle, E. and Rousseau, V. (2014), “Flow experience and team performance: the role of team
goal commitment and information exchange”, Motivation & Emotion, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 120-130.
Bakker, A.B. (2008), “The work-related flow inventory: construction and initial validation of the
WOLF”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 400-414.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Schreurs, P. (2003), “A multi-group
analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations”, International
Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-38.
Bakker, A.B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B.B. and Ali, D.K. (2011), “Flow and performance: a study
among talented Dutch soccer players”, Psychology of Sport & Exercise, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 442-450.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (2001), “Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system
development”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 195-228.
Bassi, M. and Delle-Fave, A. (2012), “Optimal experience and self-determination at school: joining
perspectives”, Motivation & Emotion, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 425-438.
Ceja, L. and Navarro, J. (2009), “Dynamics of flow: a nonlinear perspective”, Journal of Happiness
Studies, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 665-684.
Chen, X., Siau, K. and Nah, F.F. (2009), “3-D virtual worlds and higher education”, Proceedings of the
15th Americas Conference on Information Systems. AIS, San Francisco, CA, August 6-9.
Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. (1955), “Construct validity in psychological tests”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 281-302.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982), “Towards a psychology of optimal experience”, in Wheeler, L. (Ed.),
Annual Review of Psychology & Social Psychology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 13-36.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper Perennial, New York, NY.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988), Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow
in Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Hunter, J. (2003), “Happiness in everyday life: the uses of experience
sampling”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 185-199.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Larson, R. (1987), “Validity and reliability of the experience sampling
method”, Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, Vol. 175 No. 9, pp. 526-536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Massimini, F. (1985), “On the psychological selection of bio-cultural
information”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 115-138.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R. and Prescott, S. (1977), “The ecology of adolescent activity and
experience”, Journal of Youth & Adolescence, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-294.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. and Whalen, S. (1993), Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success
and Failure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132.
PR Demerouti, E. (2006), “Job characteristics, flow, and performance: the moderating role of
conscientiousness”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 266-280.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Sonnentag, S. and Fullagar, C.J. (2012), “Work-related flow and energy at
work and at home: a study on the role of daily recovery”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 276-295.
De Moura, P.J. Jr (2015), “Se quer que seja bem feito, faça em equipe: Flow e desempenho em equipes de
tecnologia da informação”, doctoral dissertation, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa
(in Portuguese), available at: https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/tede/7942
De Moura, P.J. Jr and Bellini, C.G.P. (2019), “Shared flow in teams: team vibration as emergent property,
metaphor, and surrogate measure”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 25 Nos 7/8, pp. 440-456,
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-12-2018-0072
Den Hartog, D.N., Boon, C., Verburg, R.M. and Croon, M.A. (2013), “HRM, communication, satisfaction, and
perceived performance: a cross-level test”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1637-1665.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J.R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L. and Randall, A.T. (2005), “Flow experiences
at work: for high need achievers alone?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 755-775.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E. and Sonenshein, S. (2016), “Grand challenges and inductive methods:
rigor without rigor mortis”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 1113-1123.
Engeser, S. (2012), Advances in Flow Research, Springer, New York, NY.
Engeser, S. and Rheinberg, F. (2008), “Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance”,
Motivation & Emotion, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 158-172.
Engeser, S. and Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2012), “Historical lines and an overview of current research on flow”,
in Engeser, S. (Ed.), Advances in Flow Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-22.
Engvik, H. (1993), “Big Five” på norsk”, Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 884-896.
Fatemeh, S. (2013), “Different methods for measurement in advanced management sciences”,
International Journal of Economy, Management & Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 780-785.
Georgiou, I. (2003), “The idea of emergent property”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 54
No. 3, pp. 239-247.
Gevers, J.M. and Demerouti, E. (2013), “How supervisors’ reminders relate to subordinates’ absorption
and creativity”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 677-698.
Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I. and Ives, B. (2010), “Situated learning: conceptualization and
measurement”, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 215-240.
Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I. and Ives, B. (2011), “From space to place: predicting users’ intentions to
return to virtual worlds”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 749-772.
Greene, K.M., Lee, B., Constance, N. and Hynes, K. (2013), “Examining youth and program predictors
of engagement in out-of-school time programs”, Journal of Youth & Adolescence, Vol. 42 No. 10,
pp. 1557-1572.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J. and Blanchard, C.M. (2000), “On the assessment of situational intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS)”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 175-213.
Guo, Y.M. and Poole, M.S. (2009), “Antecedents of flow in online shopping: a test of alternative models”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 369-390.
Henderson, J.C. and Lee, S. (1992), “Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective”,
Management Science, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 757-777.
Heyne, K., Pavlas, D. and Salas, E. (2011), “An investigation on the effects of flow state on team process
and outcomes”, Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 475-479.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (2009), “Flow online: lessons learned and future prospects”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Jackson, S.A. (1992), “Athletes in flow: a qualitative investigation of flow states in elite figure skaters”, A 30-year
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 161-180. systematic
Jackson, S.A. and Eklund, R.C. (2002), “Assessing flow in physical activity: the flow state scale-2 and review of the
dispositional flow scale-2”, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
Jackson, S.A. and Marsh, H.W. (1996), “Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal
literature
experience: the flow state scale”, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Jackson, S.A., Martin, A.J. and Eklund, R.C. (2008), “Long and short measures of flow: the construct
validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts”, Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 561-587.
Jiang, J., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C. (2012), “How does human resources management influence
organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 1264-1294.
Johnson, S. (2001), Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software, Scribner,
New York, NY.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (2003), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance
Organization, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Keller, J. and Bless, H. (2008), “Flow and regulatory compatibility: an experimental test of the flow
model of intrinsic motivation”, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 196-209.
Kitchenham, B. (2004), “Procedures for undertaking systematic review”, Joint technical report,
Computer Science Department, Keele University & ICT National Australia.
Kitchenham, B. and Brereton, P. (2013), “A systematic review of systematic review process research in
software engineering”, Information & Software Technology, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 2049-2075.
Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D. and Brereton, P. (2011), “Using mapping studies as the basis for further
research: a participant-observer case study”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 53
No. 6, pp. 638-651.
Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J. and Linkman, S. (2009), “Systematic
literature reviews in software engineering: a systematic literature review”, Information &
Software Technology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 7-15.
Larson, R. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983), “The experience sampling method”, New Directions for
Methodology of Social & Behavioral Science, Vol. 15, pp. 41-56.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K.M. and Schkade, D. (2005), “Pursuing happiness: the architecture of
sustainable change”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 111-131.
Martin, A.J. and Jackson, S.A. (2008), “Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and enhanced
subjective experience: examining ‘short’ and ‘core’ flow in diverse performance domains”,
Motivation & Emotion, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 141-157.
Moneta, G.B. (2012), “On the measurement and conceptualization of flow”, in Engeser, S. (Ed.),
Advances in Flow Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 23-50.
Moon, J. and Kim, Y. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context”, Information &
Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-230.
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L. and Yung, Y.F. (2000), “Measuring the customer experience in online
environments: a structural modeling approach”, Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 22-42.
Park, G., Spitzmuller, M. and DeShon, R.P. (2013), “Advancing our understanding of team motivation:
integrating conceptual approaches and content areas”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 5,
pp. 1339-1379.
Pearce, J.M., Ainley, M. and Howard, S. (2005), “The ebb and flow of online learning”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 745-771.
Peters, L.J. (2008), Getting Results from Software Development Teams, Microsoft Press, Redmond, CA.
Prescott, S., Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Graef, R. (1981), “Environmental effects on cognitive and
affective status: the experiential time sampling approach”, Social Behavior & Personality, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 23-32.
PR Privette, G. and Bundrick, C.M. (1991), “Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: correspondence
of personal descriptions and theoretical constructs”, Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,
Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 169-188.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R. and Engeser, S. (2003), “Die erfassung des flow-erlebens”, in Stiensmeier, J.
and Rheinberg, F. (Hrsg.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selstkonzept (Test und Trends N.F 2),
Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp. 261-279.
Roberts, D., Heldal, I., Otto, O. and Wolff, R. (2006), “Factors influencing flow of object focused
collaboration in collaborative virtual environments”, Virtual Reality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Rouibah, K. (2008), “Social usage of instant messaging by individuals outside the workplace in Kuwait:
a structural equation model”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 34-68.
Rutkowski, A.F., Saunders, C., Vogel, D. and Genuchten, M. (2007), “Is it already 4 a.m. in your time
zone? Focus immersion and temporal dissociation in virtual teams”, Small Group Research,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 98-129.
Ryu, H. and Parsons, D. (2012), “Risky business or sharing the load? Social flow in collaborative mobile
learning”, Computers & Education, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 707-720.
Salas, E., Cooke, N.J. and Rosen, M.A. (2008), “On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries
and developments”, Human Factors, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 540-547.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schippers, M.C. and Hogenes, R. (2011), “Energy management of people in organizations: a review and
research agenda”, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Shernoff, D.J. and Vandell, D.L. (2007), “Engagement in after-school program activities: quality of
experience from the perspective of participants”, Journal of Youth & Adolescence, Vol. 36 No. 7,
pp. 891-903.
Swann, C., Keegan, R.J., Piggott, D.J.S. and Crust, L. (2012), “A systematic review of the experience,
occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport”, Psychology of Sport & Exercise,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 807-819.
Uy, M.A., Foo, M.D. and Aguinis, H. (2010), “Using experience sampling methodology to advance
entrepreneurship theory and research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 31-54.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C. and Vallieres, E.F. (1992), “The
academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 1003-1017.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation,
and emotion into the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J. and Conti, R. (2008), “The implications of two conceptions of
happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation”,
Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-79.
Webster, J., Trevino, L.K. and Ryan, L. (1993), “The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human-computer interactions”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 411-426.
Zapata-Phelan, C.P., Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and Livingston, B. (2009), “Procedural justice,
interactional justice, and task performance: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 93-105.

Further reading
Gevers, J.M.P., Rutte, C.G. and Van Eerde, W. (2006), “Meeting deadline in workgroups: implicit and
explicit mechanisms”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 52-72.
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

Challenge-skill Challenge-skill balance I was challenged, but I believed my skills Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002) Appendix
balance would allow me to meet the challenge
My abilities matched the high challenge Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
of the situation
I felt I was competent enough to meet the Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
high demands of the situation
The challenge and my skills were at an Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
equally high level
What is your skill in the activity? Individual Challenge-skill Eisenberger et al. (2005)
How challenging is the activity? Individual Challenge-skill Eisenberger et al. (2005)
Engagement The activities I do at this program are Individual Engagement Greene et al. (2013)
challenging
Dedication To me, my job is challenging Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Skill What is my skill level for performing this Individual Flow diary Ceja and Navarro (2009)
activity?
Absorption I feel just the right amount of challenge Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Challenge-skill balance I feel I am competent enough to meet the Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
high demands of the situation
I feel I am competent enough to meet the Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
high demands of the situation (Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Action- Action-awareness I am so involved in what I am doing, I Individual Flow questionnaire Csikszentmihalyi (1982)
awareness don’t see myself as separate from what I
am doing
I made the correct movements without Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
thinking about trying to do so
Things just seemed to be happening Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
automatically
I performed automatically, without Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
thinking too much
I did things spontaneously and Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
automatically without having to think

(continued )
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

of work
Flow measurement
Table AI.

scales in the context

 PR

Table AI.
Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

I do things spontaneously and
automatically without having to think
Activity What activity am I carrying out at this
moment?
Performance My thoughts/activities run fluidly and
smoothly
The right thoughts/movements occur
of their own accord
Action-awareness I do things spontaneously and
automatically without having to think
Central experience It feels like “everything clicks”
Central experience I am “tuned in” to what I am doing
Central experience I am “in the groove”
Clear goals Clear goals I knew clearly what to do
I had a strong sense of what I wanted
to do
I knew what I wanted to achieve
My goals were clearly defined
I have a strong sense of what I want to do
I have a strong sense of what I want to do
Control How clear were you on what you were
doing?
Performance I know what I have to do each step of
the way
Interpersonal conflict Were there important differences
between your virtual team members
concerning the goals and objectives
of the project?
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
(Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Individual Flow diary Ceja and Navarro (2009)
Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
(Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Individual Control scale Csikszentmihalyi and
Csikszentmihalyi (1988)
Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Individual Adapted from Barki and Rutkowski et al. (2007)
Hartwick (2001)

(continued )
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

Were there important differences Individual Adapted from Barki and Rutkowski et al. (2007)
between your virtual team members Hartwick (2001)
concerning the content of your
e-book chapter?
Task awareness The textual and visual clues in the Individual Developed in the Goel et al. (2011)
environment helped me to do the task specific study
Information in the environment, such as Individual Developed in the Goel et al. (2011)
diagrams and labels, made it easy to specific study
figure out what to do
There were clues in the environment that Individual Developed in the Goel et al. (2011)
made completing the task easy specific study
The information given in the Developed in the Goel et al. (2011)
environment helped me understand, or specific study
explain to others, the task better
Feedback Feedback It was really clear to me how my Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
performance was going
I was aware of how well I was performing Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
I had a good idea while I was performing Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
about how well I was doing
I could tell by the way I was performing Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
how well I was doing
Does your work provide you with direct Individual Feedback Schaufeli et al.
feedback on how well you are doing
your work?
I have a good idea while I am performing Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
about how well I am doing
I have a good idea while I am performing Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
about how well I am doing (Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Control Were you succeeding at what you Individual Control scale Csikszentmihalyi and
were doing? Csikszentmihalyi (1988)
Subjective performance Your virtual team sometimes was told Individual Adapted from Henderson Rutkowski et al. (2007)
that it did not produce enough work and Lee (1992)

(continued )
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

Table AI.
 PR

Table AI.
Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

Your virtual team sometimes was told Individual Adapted from Henderson Rutkowski et al. (2007)
that the quality of the work produced and Lee (1992)
was not satisfactory
Environmental resources I receive information about how well Individual Adapted from Bakker et al. (2011)
(performance feedback) I am performing during matches and Bakker et al. (2003)
training sessions
Concentration Concentration My concentration is like breathing. I Individual Flow questionnaire Csikszentmihalyi (1982)
never think of it. I am really oblivious to
my surroundings after I really get going.
I think that the phone could ring, and the
doorbell could ring, or the house burn
down or something like that. When I
start, I really do shut out the whole
world. Once I stop, I can let it back
in again
My attention was focused entirely on Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
what I was doing
It was no effort to keep my mind on what Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
was happening
I had total concentration Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
I was completely focused on the task Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
at hand
I am completely focused on the task Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
at hand
I am completely focused on the task Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
at hand (Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Absorption When I am working, I forget everything Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
else around me
I am immersed in my work Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Today at work, I forgot everything else Individual WOLF (adapted) Demerouti et al. (2012)
around me

(continued )
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

I am totally absorbed in what I am doing Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)

I am completely lost in thought
When I am working, I think about
nothing else
I get carried away by my work
When I am working, I forget everything
else around me
I am totally immersed in my work
When I am working, I think about
nothing else
I get carried away by my work
When I am working, I forget everything Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008)
else around me
I am totally immersed in my work
Central experience I am “totally involved”
I am “switched on”
I am “totally focused” on what I am doing
Performance I have no difficulty concentrating
Focus immersion When you were using the Blackboard
system to communicate with your
teammates you were able to block out
most other distractions
While using the Blackboard system,
you were immersed in the task you
were performing
While using the Blackboard system, you
were absorbed in what you were doing
Focused immersion ( from As I interacted with my group members
cognitive absorption) and did the task, I was absorbed in it all
Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Gevers and Demerouti
(2013), Peters (2008)
Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Gevers and Demerouti
(2013), Peters (2008)
Gevers and Demerouti
(2013), Peters (2008)
Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Gevers and Demerouti
(2013), Peters (2008)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal Goel et al. (2010)
and Karahanna (2000)

(continued )
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

Table AI.
 PR

Table AI.
Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

As I interacted with my group members Individual Adapted from Agarwal Goel et al. (2010)
and did the task, I was immersed in it all and Karahanna (2000)
Control Control I had a sense of control over what Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
I was doing
I felt like I could control what I was doing Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
I felt in total control of my body Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
I had a feeling of total control Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Did you feel in control of the situation? Individual Control scale Csikszentmihalyi and
Csikszentmihalyi (1988)
I have a feeling of total control Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
I have a feeling of total control Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
(Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Interpersonal conflict Were there important differences Individual Adapted from Barki and Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
between your virtual team members Hartwick (2001)
concerning how the project should be
managed?
Performance I feel that I have everything under control Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Central experience I feel “in control” Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Loss of self- Loss of self-consciousness My mind isn’t wandering. I am not Individual Flow questionnaire Csikszentmihalyi (1982)
consciousness thinking of something else. I am totally
involved in what I am doing. My body
feels good. I don’t seem to hear anything.
The world seems to be cut off from
me. I am less aware of myself and
my problems
I was not concerned with what others Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
may have been thinking on me
I was not concerned with how others may Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
have been evaluating me
I was not concerned with how I was Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
presenting myself

(continued )
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

I was not worried about what others may
have been thinking on me
I am not worried about what others may
be thinking of me
I am not worried about what others may
be thinking of me
Performance My mind is completely clear
Central experience It feels like “nothing else matters”
Forgot surroundings Were there moments when you forgot the
Surrounding?
Were there moments when you forgot the
surrounding and the interface
technologies and used these intuitively?
Were there moments when you forgot the
surrounding and that your partner was
not located in the same place?
Presence and co-presence Did you feel present in the simulated
environment as in “a real place you
visited”, in a way that you forgot the
physical experimental environment
around you?
Did you feel that together with your
partner you experienced the environment
as “a real place you visited”?
Transformation Transformation of time Time seemed to alter (either slows down
of time or speeds up)
The way time passed seemed to be
different from normal
I feel like time went by quickly
I lost my normal awareness of time
The way time passes seems to be
different from normal
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
(Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Individual Developed in the specific Roberts et al. (2006)
study
Individual Developed in the specific Roberts et al. (2006)
study
Individual Developed in the specific Roberts et al. (2006)
study
Individual Developed in the specific Roberts et al. (2006)
study
Individual Developed in the specific Roberts et al. (2006)
study
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)

(continued )
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

Table AI.

Table AI.
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item
The way time passes seems to be
different from normal
Absorption Time flies when I’m working
I get carried away when I’m working
How quick does time passes while I’m
doing this activity?
I do not notice time passing
Temporal dissociation Sometimes you lost track of time when
you used the blackboard system to
communicate with your team-members
Time flew when you were using
Blackboard system to communicate with
your team-members
Most times when you got on to the
Blackboard system you ended up
spending more time than you had
planned
You often spent more time on the
Blackboard system than you intended
Temporal disassociation Time appeared to go by quickly when I
( from cognitive absorption) was interacting with my group members
Sometimes I lost track of time when I was
interacting with my group members
Time went by real fast when I was
interacting with my group members
Autotelic Autotelic experience I really enjoyed the experience
experience
I loved the feeling of the performance and Individual FSS-2
want to capture it again
The experience left me feeling great
Level of
analysis Scale
Individual Short (9-item) flow scale
(Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Individual UWES
Individual UWES
Individual Flow diary
Individual FKS
Individual Adapted from Agarwal
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal and
Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual Adapted from Agarwal
and Karahanna (2000)
Individual FSS-2
Individual FSS-2
PR
Source
Aubé et al. (2014)
Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Ceja and Navarro (2009)
Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
Rutkowksi et al. (2007)
Goel et al. (2010, 2011)
Goel et al. (2010, 2011)
Goel et al. (2010, 2011)
Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Jackson and Eklund (2002)
Jackson and Eklund (2002)
(continued )
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

I found the experience extremely Individual FSS-2 Jackson and Eklund (2002)
rewarding
The experience is extremely rewarding Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
The experience is extremely rewarding Individual Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé et al. (2014)
(Martin and Jackson, 2008)
Enjoyment I use (instant messaging) IM in my spare Individual Enjoyment Adapted from Venkatesh
time when I feel bored (2000)
I use (instant messaging) IM for pleasure Individual Enjoyment Adapted from Venkatesh
(2000)
I use (instant messaging) IM for play Individual Enjoyment Adapted from
Venkatesh (2000)
How much do I enjoy doing this activity? Individual Flow diary Ceja and Navarro (2009)
Today I did my work with a lot of Individual WOLF (adapted) Demerouti et al. (2012)
enjoyment
To what extent did you enjoy Individual Developed in the specific Roberts et al. (2006)
collaboration today? study
Curiosity Using the system excites my curiosity Individual Curiosity Webster et al. (1993),
Agarwal and
Karahanna (2000)
Interacting with the system makes me Individual Curiosity Webster et al. (1993),
curious Agarwal and Karahanna
(2000)
Using the web arouses my imagination Individual Curiosity Webster et al. (1993),
Agarwal and Karahanna
(2000)
Engagement I enjoy the time I spend at this program Individual Engagement Greene et al. (2013)
Dedication I am enthusiastic about my job Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
My job inspires me Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Absorption I feel happy when I am working intensely Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Interest How interesting is this activity? Individual Flow diary Ceja and Navarro (2009)
Work enjoyment My work gives me a good feeling Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)

(continued )
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

Table AI.
 PR

Table AI.
Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

I do my work with a lot of enjoyment Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)

I feel happy during my work Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
I feel cheerful when I am working Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
My work gives me a good feeling Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
I do my work with a lot of enjoyment Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
I feel happy during my work Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
I feel cheerful when I am working Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
Intrinsic work motivation I would still do this work, even if I Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
received less pay
I work because I enjoy it Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
When I am working on something, Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
I am doing it for myself
I get my motivation from the work Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
itself, and not from the reward for it
I would still do this work, even if I Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
received less pay
I work because I enjoy it Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
When I am working on something, Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
I am doing it for myself
I get my motivation from the work itself, Individual WOLF (Bakker, 2008) Peters (2008)
and not from the reward for it
Today, I got my motivation from the Individual WOLF (adapted) Demerouti et al. (2012)
work itself, and not from the reward for it
Central experience It feels like I am “in the flow” of things Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
I am “in the zone” Individual Core flow scale Martin and Jackson (2008)
Intrinsic motivation Because I feel pleasant doing this task Individual Adapted from Vallerand Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
et al. (1992)
For the intense pleasure I feel while I am Individual Adapted from Vallerand Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
doing the task et al. (1992)
For the pleasure I feel while improving Individual Adapted from Vallerand Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
some of my weak points et al. (1992)

(continued )
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

For the pleasure of doing new things Individual Adapted from Vallerand Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
et al. (1992)
Because I think that my job tasks are Individual Adapted from Guay et al. Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
interesting (2000)
Because I think that my job tasks are Individual Adapted from Guay et al. Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
pleasant (2000)
Because I think that my job tasks are fun Individual Adapted from Guay et al. Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
(2000)
Because I feel good when I do my Individual Adapted from Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
job tasks Guay et al. (2000)
Because I feel a lot of personal Individual Adapted from Vallerand Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
satisfaction while mastering certain et al. (1992)
difficult skills
For the pleasure of developing new skills Individual Adapted from Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009)
Vallerand et al. (1992)
Heightened enjoyment I had fun interacting with my group Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Goel et al. (2010)
( from cognitive absorption) members as we did the task Karahanna (2000)
I enjoyed interacting with my group Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Goel et al. (2010)
members as we did the task Karahanna (2000)
I felt a sense of enjoyment from doing the Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Goel et al. (2010)
task Karahanna (2000)
Curiosity ( from cognitive As I did the task, there were times when Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Goel et al. (2010)
absorption) my curiosity was aroused Karahanna (2000)
Doing the task made me curious about Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Goel et al. (2010)
the subject at times Karahanna (2000)
As I did the task, there were times when Individual Adapted from Agarwal and Goel et al. (2010)
my imagination was aroused Karahanna (2000)
Not matched Vigor At my work, I feel bursting with energy Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
with flow
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)

(continued )
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

Table AI.
 PR

Table AI.
Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

I can continue working for very long Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
periods at a time
When I get up in the morning, I feel like Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
going to work
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
At my work I always persevere, even Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
when things do not go well
Dedication I am proud on the work that I do Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
I find the work that I do full of meaning Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
and purpose
Absorption It is difficult to detach myself from my Individual UWES Schaufeli et al. (2002)
job
Demands Something important to me is at stake Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
here
Skills I must not make any mistakes here Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Fit of demands and skills I am worried about failing Individual FKS Rheinberg et al. (2003)
Intrinsic work motivation I find that I also want to work in my free Individual WOLF Bakker (2008)
time
Team goal commitment We were committed to pursuing the Team/ Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé and Rousseau (2005)
team’s goal Group (adapted)
We think it was important to reach the Team/ Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé and Rousseau (2005)
team’s goal Group (adapted)
We really cared about achieving the Team/ Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé and Rousseau (2005)
team’s goal Group (adapted)
Information exchange We shared with each of the members Team/ Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé and Rousseau (2005)
information useful for the work Group (adapted)

(continued )
 Level of
Flow dimension Related dimensiona Item analysis Scale Source

We made sure we correctly understood Team/ Short (9-item) flow scale Aubé and Rousseau (2005)
our co-workers’ point of view Group (adapted)
Subjective performance Your virtual team applied enough Individual Adapted from Henderson Rutkowski et al. (2007)
knowledge and skills to the work to get and Lee (1992)
the task done well
Members of your virtual team exhibited a Individual Adapted from Henderson Rutkowski et al. (2007)
great deal of skill in working on your and Lee (1992)
virtual group tasks
Notes: aSome authors make associations between a construct’s dimensions and the original dimensions of flow. For instance, item “To me, my job is challenging”
pertains to dimension “dedication” of the UWES scale, while it also refers to flow’s original dimension “challenge-skill balance”
systematic

literature
A 30-year

review of the

Table AI.
PR About the authors
Dr Pedro Jácome de Moura Jr holds a PhD and an MSc Degrees in Management at Universidade
Federal da Paraíba (UFPB), Brazil. He was a systems analyst, project manager and team manager in
ERP development and implementation projects in the Brazilian software industry, servicing customer
companies in industries such as health care and education (since 1991). He is Professor of Information
Systems at UFPB and he was also Assistant Professor of Enterprise Applications and Business
Intelligence (2011–2013) at UNIPE. At UFPB, he is also a faculty member of the Graduate School of
Learning Organizations (MPGOA) and the institutional representative with the Ministry of Education
and Culture. He was chief information officer (CIO) at UFPB (2013–2016). De Moura Jr is a researcher at
the Information Technology & Society Research Team (GTIS) and is leader of the Institutional Data
Observatory Team (ODIn), both at the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq). He is the author of papers published in Team Performance Management (TPM), Computer in
Human Behavior (CHB), Journal of Global IT Management ( JGITM), Journal of Information Systems
and Technology Management ( JISTEM), Cadernos EBAPE and papers presented in international
conferences such as Conf-IRM and AmCIS, and in Brazilian conferences such as EnANPAD, EnADI
and SBQS. Dr Pedro Jácome de Moura Jr is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
pjacome@sti.ufpb.br
Dr Carlo Gabriel Porto Bellini is Associate Professor of MIS at the Department of Management,
Federal University of Paraiba, Brazil. In 2016–2017, he was visiting professor at the Department of
Information Systems & Supply Chain Management, Bryan School of Business & Economics,
University of North Carolina Greensboro, USA. He received several paper awards in conferences and
journals, and he is the author in articles that appeared in Team Performance Management,
Communications of the ACM, Information Technology & People, Computers in Human Behavior,
International Journal of Human Capital & IT Professionals, Journal of Internet Banking & Commerce,
International Journal of Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering, and CyberPsychology &
Behavior. He has extensive industry experience in database administration, e-commerce application
development and ERP implementation. He is also a frequent author, track chair and associate editor in
conferences such as AMCIS, ECIS, ICIS, Conf-IRM and GITMA, and a former recipient of the
Productive Researcher Award granted by the Brazilian Research Council. He is the current Editor-in-
chief of Brazilian Administration Review and senior editor of IT & People.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com