Flow revisited: process conceptualization and a novel application to service contexts

Abstract

Purpose Flow is an important yet under-utilized concept to examine extraordinary experiences in service encounters. An extensive review of extant literature revealed several conceptual concerns that have contributed to a blurred understanding of flow. The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptualization of flow that is complete yet parsimonious. Design/methodology/approach The paper includes a survey (Study 1, N=202) that covers gaming and online services and a field study (Study 2, N=448) covering a festival context. Structural equation modeling and regression-based mediation analysis are used to analyze the data. Findings Flow can meaningfully be conceptualized as the process from engrossment to enjoyment. Engrossment comprises loss of self-consciousness, transformation of time, concentration on the task at hand, and action-awareness merging. In service encounters with high achievement content (e.g. gaming or sports), challenge-skill balance, clear goals, unambiguous and immediate feedback, and sense of control serve as antecedents of engrossment. Yet flow also appears in service contexts without achievement content (i.e. where consumers have less control over the outcomes of their performance, such as when listening to music). Across service contexts, the enjoyment and engrossment (directly or indirectly) impact service loyalty. Practical implications In terms of improving loyalty or training outcomes service providers should have a clear interest in providing the utmost potential for creating flow experiences during the service encounter. Hedonic offers that allow engrossing in the activity seem particularly effective in this regard. Originality/value This paper offers a clear theoretical and empirical distinction of formerly treated facets of flow. It further contributes to extant literature by providing a revised conceptualization that regards flow as the process from engrossment to enjoyment. The revised conceptualization is void of unnecessary dimensions and can be applied and compared across various research contexts, including hedonic, nonachievement services. Moreover, the paper indicates that research streams on flow and immersion might be linked more closely.

Flow in computer‐mediated environments: A systematic literature review

“…Some flow antecedents in CMEs relate to the connection between the person and the task. The review of identified articles shows that, among person‐task antecedents, the balance between task challenges (task‐related factor) and the individual's skills (person‐related factor) in performing the task, is the most studied factor leading to flow (e.g., Drengner et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2016; Wang & Hsu, 2014). Individuals' perceived control, which is the extent to which individuals can control their actions (person‐related factor) in completing a task (task‐related factor) (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000), is the second most studied factor leading to flow in this category.…”

“…As the literature on flow advances, researchers provide more clarity on flow and propose a process model of flow. These researchers believe that flow is not an immediate state rather a process that starts from three pre‐conditions: challenge‐skill balance, feedback and clear goals, ending with enjoyment (Drengner et al., 2018; Pearce et al., 2005). The assessment of literature shows that when studying flow, some studies use all nine conditions (e.g., Chen et al., 2000; Siemens et al., 2015), while others consider fewer conditions consisting of two (e.g., Chen et al., 2018), four (e.g., Jeon et al., 2018), five (e.g., Drengner et al., 2018) and six conditions (e.g., Guo & Poole, 2009), drawn from Csikszentmihalyi's flow model.…”

“…These researchers believe that flow is not an immediate state rather a process that starts from three pre‐conditions: challenge‐skill balance, feedback and clear goals, ending with enjoyment (Drengner et al., 2018; Pearce et al., 2005). The assessment of literature shows that when studying flow, some studies use all nine conditions (e.g., Chen et al., 2000; Siemens et al., 2015), while others consider fewer conditions consisting of two (e.g., Chen et al., 2018), four (e.g., Jeon et al., 2018), five (e.g., Drengner et al., 2018) and six conditions (e.g., Guo & Poole, 2009), drawn from Csikszentmihalyi's flow model. The differing views about key components of flow emanate from the context in which flow is examined and the overlapping concepts that explain the structure of flow (Hooker et al., 2019; Kaur et al., 2016).…”

“…The current study advances the work on flow by Finneran and Zhang (2005) and Hoffman and Novak (2009), by updating the current state of flow literature in CMEs. Further, this study responds to the call by Drengner et al (2018), synthesizes flow literature in CMEs, and presents the inconsistencies in conceptualizing and operationalizing flow, identifying its antecedents, consequences and boundary conditions. This study has four objectives: (1) to present general and methodologic information about flow publications in CMEs, (2) to explore the structure of research in published articles in CMEs, (3) to synthesize flow research and develop a conceptual framework that summarizes the interrelationships among antecedents, consequences, mediators and boundary conditions of flow in CMEs and (4) to identify gaps in the current literature and suggest future research directions.…”

Achieving Immersion in the Tourism Experience: The Role of Autonomy, Temporal Dissociation, and Reactance

“…Flow considers a broad set of psychological states as it includes affective and cognitive dimensions. In particular, enjoyment is widely seen as a core dimension of flow experiences (Drengner, Steffen, and Furchheim 2018). The focus of immersion is, however, centered on a person’s concentration on the task at hand (i.e., a cognitive dimension).…”