An Empirical Comparison of the Four Channel Flow Model and Adventure Experience Paradigm

Physically Active Leisure and Tourism Connection: Leisure Involvement and Choice of Tourism Activities Among Paddlers

“…To date, researchers have not examined the physically active leisure-tourism connection (LTC) in a paddling context. However, several researchers have examined the underlying relationship between leisure and tourism paddling indirectly with such foci as the development of specialization among whitewater kayakers (Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992) and canoeists (Wellman, Roggenbuck, & Smith, 1982), level of specialization and place attachment of whitewater recreationists (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000), flow and adventure experiences of paddlers (Jones, Hollenhorst, & Perna, 2003), serious leisure and adventure tours of paddlers (Kane & Zink, 2004), and specialization and favorable site attributes among paddlers (Lee, Graefe, & Li, 2007). Despite differences in the purpose of these studies, an underlying premise behind them is that highly involved paddlers tend to keep paddling by visiting different locations, and some of them are likely to improve their paddling skills through trips to different settings.…”

The characteristics and motivational decisions of outdoor adventure tourists: a review and analysis

“…The experience of flow, rather than its motivational purpose, is more frequently the focus of investigation, although studies have demonstrated its importance in realising fulfilling adventure experiences and in acting as a motivational force encouraging continued participation (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 1975;Delle Fave, Bassi & Massimini, 2003;Jones et al, 2003;Seifert & Hedderson, 2009;Wu & Liang, 2011). It is recognised that 'flow offers a compelling reason why the entire experience of adventure is so greatly appreciated by participants' (Pomfret, 2012, p.147).…”

“…It is argued, for example, that flow should not be used in isolation to examine the intrinsic motives of adventure activity participants (Jackson & March, 1996). Further, although a positive challenge-skill balance is thought to be essential to flow, it has not always been possible to use this as a tool to predict flow experiences accurately (Jones, Hollenhorst & Perna, 2003). Last, the four-channel flow model (Massimini & Carli, 1986), an elaboration of the original flow concept, has been considered unreliable in explaining optimal experiences (Jones et al, 2003).…”

“…Further, although a positive challenge-skill balance is thought to be essential to flow, it has not always been possible to use this as a tool to predict flow experiences accurately (Jones, Hollenhorst & Perna, 2003). Last, the four-channel flow model (Massimini & Carli, 1986), an elaboration of the original flow concept, has been considered unreliable in explaining optimal experiences (Jones et al, 2003). Despite its flaws, however, the flow construct has been used to measure the nature and intensity of optimal experiences in many settings, including natural environments.…”

Work and leisure in higher education

“…The task needs to be challenging enough to enable us to forget our mundane concerns, yet not so challenging as to exceed our skills and induce fear of failure. The leisure applications include the enjoyment of people engaged in dance or rock climbing, but Csikszentmihalyi argues that many other occupations, including paid ones, can also deliver periods of flow (Bryce and Haworth 2002;Jones, Hollenhorst, and Perna 2003). Educational work clearly qualifies as well, as long as it is neither too boring nor likely to provoke too much anxiety.…”