This article was downloaded by: [University of Regina]On: 17 November 2014, At: 17:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated tofurthering research and promoting good practicePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better thandoing it alone?Charles J. Walker aa Department of Psychology , St. Bonaventure University , NY, USAPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Charles J. Walker (2010) Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone?,The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 5:1, 3-11, DOI:10.1080/17439760903271116

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271116

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Positive PsychologyVol. 5, No. 1, January 2010, 3–11

Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone?

Charles J. Walker*

Department of Psychology, St. Bonaventure University, NY, USA

(Received 10 August 2008; final version received 7 July 2009)

A survey study and two experiments were done to test the hypothesis that social flow is more enjoyable thansolitary flow. In the survey study it was found that recalled social flow experiences were rated more enjoyablethan solitary flow experiences. In the first experiment when challenge and skill were the same across social andsolitary conditions, social flow was reported to be more enjoyable than solitary flow. In the second experimentwhen the level of social interdependence was manipulated it was found that participants in highly interdependentteams reported more joy in flow than individuals performing less interdependently. In both experiments, peopleplaying simple paddleball games reported and expressed more joy performing with others than alone. Takentogether, the three investigations support the conclusion that doing it together is better than doing it alone.Solitary flow, while quite enjoyable, is not as enjoyable as social flow.

Keywords: social flow

Introduction

In a series of studies on the creativity of artists,musicians, athletes, and other people, Csikszentmihalyideveloped a theory about optimal experience, or whatis now called flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1997;Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Flow isan intrinsically rewarding highly absorbing state inwhich people lose a sense of time and the awareness ofself. Flow states are more likely when individuals freelychoose activities, goals are clear, performance feedbackis immediate and concrete, and challenges are highbut the performer has the competencies to gracefullydispatch the challenges. When this balance betweenchallenge and skill is not attained, non-flow emotionssuch as anxiety, boredom, or apathy are experienced.While flow experiences are usually pleasant, positiveemotions like joy may not be expressed or even feltduring a flow experience. However, joy and elationare often expressed at the end of a flow experience orwhen a recent flow experience is recalled. Joy andelation are signature emotions of flow experience(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson,1987).

Early research on flow characterized it as anindividual, not a group, phenomenon. The majorityof early researchers focused on creative individualsperforming alone, however later researchers noted thatsome of the most enjoyable flow experiences occur

during social interactions. For example, in a study on

the intrinsic rewards of college teaching, the most

satisfying experiences reported by award winning

instructors were social, not solitary, forms of flow.

The individual act of instructors preparing for a

challenging lecture was certainly associated with flow,

however the most joyful flow experiences recalled were

vigorous engaging classroom discussions. The majority

of these exceptional teachers vividly described highly

absorbing classroom conversations that lingered

beyond class time spilling into the hallway oblivious

to the world around them. The dominate source of

intrinsic reward for these instructors was social,

not solitary flow (Froh, Menges, & Walker, 1993).

Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) and Mockros

and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) also found joyful flow

experiences to be common in team sports and social

expressions of creativity such as music or dance

(Csikszentmihalyi & Rich, 1997). However, basic

research on the conditions and forms of social flow is

limited (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Sawyer,

2007).Social flow should be similar to solitary flow

because the basic conditions for flow for individuals

must be met first, namely, emergent challenges from

the environment must be matched with the skills of

individuals who are freely doing meaningful tasks.

However, more than a social context may distinguish

*Email: cwalker@sbu.edu

ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17439760903271116

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

social flow from solitary flow. Flow in a social contextmay be a qualitatively different phenomenon thanflow experienced in isolation. Classic research in socialpsychology has amply demonstrated that peopleact, think, and feel qualitatively differently within agroup than by themselves (Allport, 1954; Asch, 1956;Latane & Darley, 1968; Lewin, 1952; Milgram, 1965;Zimbardo, 1969). Social contexts introduce additionalvariables that may inhibit, facilitate, or transformflow experiences. Social contexts can be enormouslycomplex. They range from ‘mere presence’ situationswhere individuals perform in the midst of passiveothers (Zajonc, 1965), to co-active situations wherepeople perform side-by-side but do not interact,to highly interdependent interactive situations wherepeople must cooperate and coordinate their perfor-mances within established groups (Hackman, 1987;Karau & Williams, 1993). In highly interdependentsituations, people may serve as agents of flow foreach other. This form of social flow is mutual andreciprocal, a form that is likely to be qualitativelydifferent than solitary flow. In mere presence and someco-active social situations, a form of solitary flow isprobable because the unit of performance is theindividual, however when the unit of performance isa group, especially a team that must do tasks requiringinterdependence and cooperation, social flow shouldbe more likely. Social flow should be easily seen inhighly cohesive teams in which there is agreement ongoals, procedures, roles, and patterns of interpersonalrelations and the competency of team members isuniformly high (Hackman, Wageman, Ruddy, & Ray,2000). However, a team may also need a significantteam-level challenge for its members to experiencesocial flow (Sawyer, 2007). Challenges at this level arelikely to possess conjunctive tasks properties, that is,challenges that require group members to act harmo-niously together (Steiner, 1978). Therefore, for exam-ple, social flow experiences should be more oftenreported by athletes in sports like soccer where inter-dependence is high, than sports like cricket where thegame itself prescribes less interdependence amongplayers. Likewise, in music, jazz musicians improvisingin a jam session should report more social flow thanthe less interdependent members of a marching bandperforming their halftime routine.

Flow and its signature emotions of joy and ela-tion were reported more in social than solitarysituations in past research using experience sampling(Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Forexample, participants in several studies reported‘a highly engaging conversation’ as their most joyfulflow experience of the day (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson,1987). Why might social flow be reported as morejoyful than solitary flow? Social flow may be moreintense simply because social tasks require more skilland are inherently more challenging. Groups attempt

tasks that are impossible for individuals to do alone.Moreover, with group work there is the necessaryadditional challenge of coordinating one’s perfor-mance with that of others (Steiner, 1978). Joy andelation may also be felt more and expressed morewithin groups because of emotional contagion(Totterdell, 2000). Some of the challenges confrontedby individuals in solitary situations may be just asimportant and daunting as those in social situationsand upon dispatching such challenges, the emotions ofelation and joy may be strongly felt too. Nevertheless,solitary performers may report less intense emotionsbecause their emotions are not shared and conse-quently not amplified by social contagion (Hatfield,Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993). Therefore, for thesereasons, social flow is likely to be reported as morejoyful than solitary flow. However, currently thereis no unequivocal evidence, nor a single theory thatsupports the prediction that social flow is more joyfulthan solitary flow. We currently do not know if doingit together is better than doing it alone.

The overall purpose of the present investigation isto explore the conditions and qualities of social flowand test the hypothesis that social flow is more joyfulthan solitary flow. Three interrelated studies weredone: one survey investigation and two laboratoryexperiments. The first study searched for examples ofsocial flow and contrasted them with solitary flow.In the second and third studies, experimental proce-dures were used to operationally define social andsolitary flow and investigate conditions that mightcause social flow to be more joyful than solitary flow.

Study 1: A survey to identify forms and examples

of social flow

The purposes of the first study were to identifyexamples of the two forms of social flow (i.e., co-activeand interactive) and test if social flow is rated to bemore enjoyable than solitary flow. This study alsoprovided an opportunity to contrast the two possibleforms of social flow, co-active as opposed to inter-active. It was predicted that flow would be rated asmore enjoyable in interactive than co-active socialsituations.

Participants and procedures

Ninety-five college students volunteered. Their averageage was 20.2 years and 49 of them were women. First,these participants were acquainted with the concept offlow then asked to provide examples. To familiarizethem with flow, a diagram of the 4-channel model wasshown and the psychological states that flow isassociated with (e.g., its effects on self-awareness,time perception, and emotional experience) were

4 C.J. Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

described but no specific examples were given. On aresponse sheet, each participant was asked to writetwo descriptions of flow experiences they recentlyhad: (1) alone, and (2) with others. The order of theinstructions, alone and with others, at the top of thesheet was counterbalanced. At the bottom of the sheetthey were instructed to rate each experience on a single7-point Likert-style joy scale, where 1¼ little joy,4¼ some joy, and 7¼ great joy. This scale was similarto the scale used to assess enjoyment in previousexperience sampling research (Csikszentmihalyi &Larson, 1987). When all the participants were finishedthey were debriefed, thanked, and released.

Eleven additional students were recruited andtrained to reliably identify and discriminate examplesof flow occurring alone, co-actively or interactively.Alone flow was operationally defined as solitary flow;the task was unitary and no other person was nearby(e.g., running alone). Co-active flow was any situationthat involved doing a unitary task concurrently withone or more other people (e.g., running in a pack ofpeople). Interactive flow was said to occur when aconjunctive divisible task (see Steiner, 1978) absolutelyrequired cooperation from one or more other people;a task best done by a group and impossible to do alone(e.g., playing a game of pick-up basketball). The judgeswere trained using test samples of flow descriptionsuntil 10 of 11 sorted the descriptions identically(0.91 inter-judge reliability). These judges then sortedthe 190 descriptions of flow experiences into alone,co-active, and interactive categories. About 39.5% ofthe flow examples were clearly experienced alone,16.3% co-actively with others, and 44.2% interactivelywith others. It was noted that some of the examplesof co-active flow permitted concurrent conversation(e.g., team golf) whereas conversation was nearlyimpossible with other examples (e.g., team swimming).After training another set of judges to agree (5 of 6)on this discrimination, the co-active examples werefurther sorted into low and high conversation-potentialcategories.

Results and discussion

As defined by participants, social forms of flow wererated to be more enjoyable than solitary forms of flow.Participants gave significantly lower joy ratings to flowalone (M¼ 5.67) than flow with others (M¼ 6.40),t(94)¼ 7.29, p5 0.001. Participants actually gavefewer examples of solitary flow than was expected(N¼ 75), with more examples of interactive flow(N¼ 84) than co-active flow (N¼ 31), �2(2)¼ 37.99,p5 0.001. Consequently, unequal-N, one-tailed t-testswere done to contrast the means of the three types offlow sorted by the judges. Both forms of social flow,co-active (M¼ 6.16) and interactive (M¼ 6.36), were

rated more enjoyable than solitary flow (M¼ 5.64);t(104)¼ 2.55, p5 0.005, and t(157)¼ 5.48, p5 0.001,respectively (see Table 1). Although interactive socialflow was rated more enjoyable than co-active socialflow, this difference was not statistically significant,t(113)¼ 1.21, p4 0.05. However, when the data onco-active tasks were resorted into low versus highpotential for social conversation categories, a statisti-cally significant difference in joy rating was found: lowconversation co-active (M¼ 5.4) was less joyful thanhigh conversation co-active (M¼ 6.9), t(28)¼ 6.85,p5 0.001.

Both forms of social flow were reported to be morejoyful than solitary flow. However, the predicteddifference between co-active and interactive forms ofsocial flow was not observed. In general, the co-activetasks examined in Study 1 required less social interde-pendence than the interactive tasks. The list ofexamples of co-active tasks provided by participantswas quite heterogeneous (see Table 1). It includedactivities such as golf where competitors can converseif they wish as well as swimming where competitorscannot talk or do so at the risk of swallowing water.Co-active tasks like golf or running are best done

Table 1. Examples of reports of solitary and social flowexperiences.

Individual solitary flow. Doing work on my computer late at night.. Singing by myself in the car.. Composing choral music.. Painting with watercolors.. Gardening on a Sunday morning.. Cycling alone over rolling hills.. Running alone along the river as the sun rises.. Cooking by myself, home alone.. Writing a poem in the solitude of my family’s cabin.. Reading a great book and relaxing in a hot bath.

Co-active social flow. Running a marathon in a pack with others.. Skiing down a mountain in a group.. Playing golf with friends.. Hiking up a mountain with an outdoor club.. Listening to music with friends.. Watching TV with buddies.. Doing errands with friends.. Just sitting at the mall with friends watching people.. Cleaning while listening to NPR with my roommates.. Competing at a swimming meet.

Interactive social flow. Playing soccer on a great team.. Joining a jam session at my neighborhood jazz club.. Eating, drinking and talking with friends.. Exchanging funny stories and laughing with friends.. Having sex anytime with my lover.. Playing a game of pickup basketball.. Acting in a play on a night when everyone is on.. Having a heart-to-heart with a close friend.. Singing in a choir.. Ballroom dancing.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

by individuals acting independently, however, someco-active tasks also allow people to concurrentlyengage in conversation. Conversation is a highlyinteractive and interdependent social activity andcertainly not a co-active task. Co-active tasks thatallow social conversation add a dimension of socialinterdependence that the task itself cannot stage, andconsequently reap the joy associated with purelyinteractive tasks. More joy was reported in co-activesituations that allowed conversation than those thatdid not. All of the examples of interactive taskssupplied by participants allowed or prescribed someform of social interdependence. Social interdependenceappears to strongly affect flow experiences. Thispossibility will be explored in Study 3. First however,the potential confounding variables associated withunrestricted self-report will be examined in Study 2.The tasks and situations recalled by participants in thesocial flow conditions were quite different than thoserecalled in the alone condition. If the task challengesand skill requirements are the same, will social flowstill be rated as more enjoyable than solitary flow?This question was addressed in Study 2.

Study 2: An experiment on solitary and social flow

Although the results of Study 1 suggest that social flowis more enjoyable than solitary flow, the surveymethodology used in Study 1 may have introducedvariables that muddied the results. For example, theimportance and level of the challenges associated withsocial flow may have been higher than those associatedwith solitary flow and, because of their emotionalcontents, poignant social experiences may have beeneasier to retrieve from memory than solitary experi-ences (Sharot & Yonelinas, 2008). Participants inStudy 2 will be asked do a task requiring similarlevels of skills and challenges but done alone or withothers. It is predicted that when skill and challenge areequal across conditions, social flow will still be ratedmore enjoyable than solitary flow.

Method and procedures

Thirty student volunteers, 14 males and 16 femaleswith an average age of 19.8 years, were asked to playa tympanic paddleball game alone and in a dyad witha partner. Assignment of participants to conditionswas counterbalanced in a within-subjects design.Participants in the alone condition bounced a ball offa wall, and in the dyad condition they volleyed itbetween themselves. Pilot tests were done to equate thelevel of challenge of these two conditions, specificallythe size of the wall area was decreased and distance toit increased to make the alone condition as challengingas the dyad condition. In both conditions participants

were asked to volley the ball in the air as long as theycould without dropping it. The number of dropsand the duration of volleys were recorded. After10 minutes of playing each form of the paddleballgame, participants rated their level of enjoyment on a7-point Likert-style joy scale, where 1¼ little joy,4¼ some joy, and 7¼ great joy, and to assess if flowhad been experienced, participants were asked tocheck-off the state of being they felt most often: flow,anxiety, boredom, or apathy. Four synonyms wereprovided with each state of being, a procedure derivedfrom past research on flow (Csikszentmihalyi &Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Synonyms for each statewere as follows: flow (cheerful, excited, focused, andalive); anxiety (irritated, out-of-control, confused, andincompetent); boredom (unsatisfied, overqualified,relaxed, and unchallenged); and apathy (weak, sad,passive, and trapped). Finally, as a manipulation check,participants were also asked to rate the challenge ofthe task and skills required to do it on two 7-pointscales where 1¼ low challenge for me, 4¼ averagechallenge for me, 7¼ high challenge for me, andwhere 1¼ low skills were required of me, 4¼ averageskills were required of me, 7¼high skills were requiredof me.

Results and discussion

More participants reported the emotions associatedwith flow experiences when they played the tympanicpaddleball game with a partner (n¼ 26) than alone(n¼ 20), �2(3, N¼ 60)¼ 23.4, p5 0.001, and they ratedthe experience as more enjoyable playing with apartner (M¼ 4.97) than alone (M¼ 4.27), t(29)¼ 4.19,p5 0.001, although when playing with a partner, theyhad more drops t(29)¼ 8.00, p5 0.001, and shortervolleys, t(29)¼ 4.28, p5 0.001. Despite the differencesin errors and volley durations, no significant differencein reported level of challenge, t(29)¼ 0.267, p4 0.05, orskill, t(29)¼ 0.288, p4 0.05, was found. Nonetheless,the intensity of flow may have been higher in the dyadicas compared with the alone conditions of play. An indexof the intensity of flow can be derived by multiplyingskill ratings times challenge ratings (Engeser &Rheinberg, 2008). By this definition, playing a tympanicpaddleball game a mere 10 minutes did inducedmoderate levels of flow, however there was no signif-icant difference in flow intensity scores in the twoconditions: alone (M¼ 16.63) and with a partner(M¼ 18.13), t(29)¼ 0.959, p4 0.05. The intensity offlow, by this definition, was statistically equal, yetparticipants still reported more joy playing in a dyadthan playing alone. Nonetheless, this analysis of inten-sity cannot address the question of what, overall, wasmost associated with joy: was it the social situationsof play, task challenge, or skill required? A stepwise

6 C.J. Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

multiple regression analysis revealed that the strongest

significant contributor to joy reported was playing in

a dyad or alone, with skill required accounting for a

lesser, but still significant, amount of the variance.In this experiment, challenge was not a strong predictor

of the joy reported (see Table 3).The results of Study 2 support the general conclu-

sion that performing by oneself is joyful, but not asjoyful as performing with another person. When

challenge and skill requirements were controlled, the

positive emotions of flow were still more likely to

be reported with social than solitary forms of play.While volleying a ball between two players is certainly

more social than volleying alone against a wall,

there are many other theoretically more interestingways to operationally define social situations. The unit

of performance in the second study was primarily an

individual, not a team. It may be inherently more

challenging to perform in a team because, in additionto task skills, social skills for coordinating perfor-

mances are required, and in addition to dealing with

challenges emerging from the task itself, there is thechallenge of working with others. For these reasons

only, more intense flow should be more likely in teams

than in other social situations. However, the way

individuals within teams coordinate their performancesmay also affect flow experiences. If emotional com-

munication is used to coordinate performances, these

emotions may be amplified by emotional contagion

(Hatfield et al., 1993). Joy may be shared within teamswhen flow is achieved or recovered and the non-flow

emotions of anxiety, apathy, and boredom shared

when flow in not attained or lost. Likewise, withsolitary performance, privately held positive feelings

may signal the achievement of flow and negative

feelings the lack of flow or its loss. During task work a

solitary performer may not have much opportunity tocelebrate emotionally when flow is achieved, however,

especially with some tasks, teams may not only have

more opportunity, it may be necessary for them toexpress joy and elation if they wish to achieve flow

and avoid non-flow. The purpose of the third study

is to manipulate forms of team play and observe

their effects on the emotional experiences associatedwith flow.

Study 3: Effects of interdependent team play on the

experience of flow

The third study will experimentally test the effect of

social interdependence on the experience of flow. It ispredicted that individuals within teams performing

a highly interdependent task will report a state of

flow that is more enjoyable than those doing a task

requiring less interdependence.

Method and procedures

Forty-eight students, 28 females and 20 males with anaverage age of 20.3 years, volunteered to participatein the study. These participants were asked to playa cooperative version of pickleball. Pickleball is adown-sized form of tennis that is much easier fornovices to learn. It is played on a badminton courtusing wooden paddles and a soft plastic ball. Eachparticipant was randomly assigned to a condition(high or low interdependence) and a court location andtime. At each court participants were provided with aball and a racquetball racket to play with. A pilot testshowed that racquetball rackets allowed the ball tobounce more and was easier for novices to control.

Rules of play were formulated for the high andlow interdependent conditions. The participants wereshown the rules for their condition then asked to playfor a few minutes in order for rules to be clarified ifnecessary. In the low interdependent condition, singleplayers faced-off and volleyed cooperatively across thenet. The high interdependent condition consisted oftwo-member teams that had to first pass the ball toeach other at least once before volleying to the otherteam. All players were asked to cooperatively completeas many consecutive volleys as they could without anerror. Game referees used a stopwatch to ensurethat all participants played the game for 8 minutes.In Study 2 players rated their own joy, but nocorroborating objective measures of their emotionalstates were recorded. If team play does amplify joy itshould be evident in the overt behavior of players.Unbeknownst to the participants, the joy they mani-fested was rated by five trained observers watchingfrom the sidelines using a Joy-Sadness Display Scalederived from research on emotional expression(Ekman, 1999), see Table 2. The observers were trainedusing video tapes of basketball teams until 4 of 5 gaveratings agreeing within one point on the rating scale.Although these observers could see differences in theexperimental manipulations, they were unaware of thehypothesis being tested. At the end of play, as was

Table 2. Joy-sadness display coding scale.

Verbal & non-verbal behaviors Score

Emotional cut-off signs, self-soothing behaviors,quiet, appears depressed

1

Frowns, whining tone & other negativeparalanguage, deflects glances

2

Moves somewhat slowly, shrugs shoulders,appears a little frustrated

3

Neutral, neither obviously sad or joyful 4Smiles, laughs, moves with some energy 5Shouts, cheers, is quite energetic 6Jumps up & down, hands above head, yelpswith joy, is very excited

7

The Journal of Positive Psychology 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

done in Study 2, all participants used 7-point scalesto rate their level of skill, challenge, and joy, andcheck-off their most often felt state of being whileplaying: flow, anxiety, boredom, or apathy.

Results and discussion

Participants gave significantly higher joy ratings inthe high interdependent (M¼ 5.7) than the low interde-pendent condition (M¼ 4.45), t(46)¼ 2.89, p5 0.002.Observers also rated the joy displayed by participantsin the high interdependent condition (M¼ 5.7) higherthan the joy displayed in the low interdependent con-dition (M¼ 5.08), t(46)¼ 1.82, p5 0.03. Differences inthe reported states of being between the two conditionswere not significant, �2(3, N¼ 48)¼ 0.6, p4 0.05. Bothhigh (n¼ 21) and low (n¼ 19) interdependent playersreported they were more often in flow than other statesof being, �2(3, N¼ 48)¼ 21.33, p4 0.01. No partici-pants reported feeling anxious or apathetic. There wasno significant difference in the skills reported to playin the high interdependent (M¼ 5.2) than low interde-pendent (M¼ 4.7) conditions, t(46)¼ 2.10, p4 0.05.Although the number of volleys per player was equalin the two conditions (high interdependent¼ 13.67,low interdependent¼ 12.18), t(46)¼ 1.01, p4 0.05,participants reported that it was more challengingto play in the high interdependent (M¼ 3.29) thanlow interdependent (M¼ 2.29) conditions, t(46)¼ 2.70,p5 0.01. Even though only 5 of 24 participantsreported being bored in the low interdependentcondition, using the index described in Study 2, theflow experience was less intense in the low (M¼ 10.71)than high (M¼ 16.33) interdependent versions of play,t(46)¼ 2.74, p5 0.01. This difference may partiallyexplain why high interdependent play was reported tobe more enjoyable than low interdependent play. Pilotstudies suggested that the level of challenge and flowintensity in the two conditions was similar. If flowintensity was in fact the same, would high interdepen-dent players still report higher levels of joy thanlow interdependent players? To answer this question,11 participants from the two conditions with identical

flow intensity scores were selected (M¼ 14.5), thentheir joy ratings were contrasted. With flow intensityheld constant, high interdependent players still ratedtheir joy (M¼ 5.55) higher than low (M¼ 4.53) inter-dependent players t(20)¼ 1.77, p5 0.05. To examineoverall what was most associated with the joy reported,a stepwise multiple regression was also done. Perceivedchallenge enter the equation first with form of socialinterdependence entering second but accounting for alesser amount of variance. The level of skill requireddid not significantly account for the joy reported byparticipants across the two conditions of social inter-dependence (see Table 4).

The finding that challenge was rated higher in thehigh interdependent condition and, overall, wasstrongly associated with joy, is interesting. Accordingto theories on group performance, doing highly inter-dependent work within a team is inherently morechallenging (Karau & Williams, 1993; Hackman,1987). However, it also might be the case that thehigh interdependent players merely perceived the taskto be more challenging because of the influence of ateammate’s emotive behavior on their judgments (Bem,1972). Alternatively, high interdependent players mayhave actually raised the level of challenge in theplayful, albeit risky, way they passed the ball to eachother (e.g., behind their back or under their leg).Groups are known to take more risks than individuals(Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Broaden-and-buildtheory (Fredrickson, 2001) predicts that joy andcreative play are bi-causally related. Perhaps theincreased joy felt broadened the response repertoireof the high independent players which, in turn, raisedthe actual level of challenge. Future research is neededto disentangle these intriguing causes of joy felt duringteam play.

Overall, the results of Study 3 support the hypoth-esis that performing in a team enhances the joy feltduring flow experiences. These results are consistentwith those of past research that observed high levelsof joy and flow in highly interdependent team sportslike soccer, basketball, or hockey (Jackson &Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Mockros & Csikszentmihalyi,2000). In the present study, high interdependent

Table 3. Results of a stepwise regression analysis: bestpredictors of joy reported by participants in Study 2.

Variables B SE B �

Model 1a

Dyadic vs. solitary play 0.700 0.251 0.344Model 2b

Dyadic vs. solitary play 0.732 0.242 0.359Skill required 0.238 0.101 0.280

aR¼ 0.344, F(1,59)¼ 7.77, p5 0.008bR¼ 0.443, F(2,59)¼ 6.96, p5 0.002

Table 4. Results of a stepwise regression analysis: bestpredictors of joy reported by participants in Study 3.

Variables B SE B �

Model 1a

Challenge perceived 0.601 0.149 0.511Model 2b

Challenge perceived 0.498 0.157 0.424Social interdependence 0.752 0.425 0.236

aR¼ 0.511, F(1,47)¼ 16.24, p5 0.001bR¼ 0.556, F(2,47)¼ 10.06, p5 0.001

8 C.J. Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

players displayed their joy at higher levels than low

interdependent players. Only one low interdependent

player received a 7 on the Joy Display Scale, in

contrast, eight high interdependent players received a

7. This difference was significant, �2(1, N¼ 48)¼ 5.44,

p5 0.02. To achieve a 7, players had to do such things

as jump up and down, yelp for joy, and throw their

hands in the air (see Table 2). These displays of positive

emotion were obviously contagious and seemed to

occur when flow was achieved or recovered. Without

an audience present, these team players served as each

other’s audience, a surrogate audience that gave

performance feedback and emotional support.

Totterdell (2000) observed emotional synchrony and

contagion among cricket players especially when they

were on the field engaged in play. This effect was most

clearly evident within highly cohesive teams composedof the most committed athletes. Emotional contagion(Hatfield et al., 1993) appears to be a dynamic of socialflow and may explain why more joy is expressed bypeople who must work face-to-face interdependentlyand cooperatively.

Conclusions and implications

Taken together, the results of the three studies in thispresent investigation support the claim that doing ittogether is better than doing it alone. Solitary flow,while quite enjoyable, is not as enjoyable as social flow.The present research also revealed some of the qualitiesof social flow and shed light on some of the conditionsthat produce it (see Table 5). Social interdependence

Table 5. Predicted conditions and indicators of solitary and social flow.

Solitary flowConditions. The unit of performance is an individual. The individual is sufficiently competent to dispatch challenges. Emergent challenges are important & meaningful. Challenging tasks are unitary and require an individual performer. Tasks only allow solitary performance. The performer focuses on the task to receive feedback. Task feedback is clear & immediate. Task feedback is primarily cognitive and secondarily affective

Indicators. High absorption & engagement with the task. Sense of time lost. Less awareness of self. Joy, elation and enthusiasm felt upon the completion of a task.. Builds meaning and a sense of purpose. A desire to the repeat the experience

Social flow

Conditions. The unit of performance is a group or team. The collective competency of the group is sufficient to dispatch challenges. Group members are uniformly highly competent. Group members have task-relevant knowledge & skills about each other. Emergent challenges are important & meaningful to the entire group. Tasks prescribe interdependence, coordination & cooperation. Tasks are conjunctive and require complementary participation. Group members focus on each other as well as the task to receive feedback. Task feedback is clear & immediate. Task feedback is primarily cognitive and secondarily affective. Social process feedback is primarily affective and secondarily cognitive

Indicators. Shared intense absorption & engagement with the task. High attention to group members or teammates. Loss of sense of time. Less awareness of self. Surrender of self to the group. Emotional communication during group work. Emotional contagion within the group and observers external the group. Joy, elation and enthusiasm felt and shared throughout group performance. The experience builds meaning and a collective sense of purpose. The group desires to the repeat the experience. Rituals may be established to institutionalize social flow

The Journal of Positive Psychology 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

and emotional contagion can enhance the joy andelation felt during and after flow experiences.However, while the present research assessed orcontrolled the two variables known to produce flow(challenge and skill), the intensity of flow was notdirectly gauged. Differences in the joy reported mayhave been caused by differences in flow intensity,not simply the manipulations of social conditions. Theclaim that social flow is more joyful than solitary flowmay be strengthened or weakened when the intensity offlow is directly assessed. Recent research on theneurophysiology of flow states may provide someuseful indicators of the intensity of particularly solitaryflow (Martin & Kerr, 2009). However, measuring theintensity of social flow will be much more challenging.Is the intensity of social flow merely the sum of theflow experiences of the members of a group or is therean emergent collective phenomenon that can surpris-ingly exceed the sum? If so, what is the neurologicalbasis of such a syntelic outcome? Current research onthe mirror neural system and empathy may providesome insights to explore answers to this question(Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007). The mirror neuralsystem is uniquely activated by social stimuli. The levelof arousal and consistency of arousal across membersof a group in their mirror neural systems may be auseful indicator of the intensity of social forms of flow.Beyond providing indicators of the intensity of socialflow, the mirror neural system also predicts andexplains the interesting phenomenon of vicariousflow, a form of flow that is experienced both byperformers beholding each other as well as members ofan audience beholding the performers. We knowvery little about the social situations and individualdifference variables that cause vicarious forms of flow.

At a more macro level of analysis there is a need foradversarial research to challenge the claim that socialforms of flow are more enjoyable than solitary formsof flow. There is a substantial literature on groupperformance that suggests that groups frequently donot achieve the level of accomplishment forecasted bythe competencies of individual members (Karau &Williams, 1993). At least within Western culture,groups appear to thwart more flow than they promote.More research on group flow may reveal when groupsrealize their potentials and when they do not (Sawyer,2007). And there is certainly a need for more researchon the vast varieties of social flow. It occurs not onlyon playing fields but also in concert halls, jazz clubs,board rooms, classrooms, churches, and even battle-fields (Mockros & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Sawyer,2007). The ultimate purpose of social flow also needsto be explored. If solitary flow provides intrinsicmotivation and, beyond that, serves to build meaningand purpose for individuals, as Nakamura andCsikszentmihalyi (2003) propose, what does socialflow do for groups, organizations, communities, and

other human collectives? Is social flow simply anotherform of intrinsic motivation, or is it the manifestationof an evolutionarily acquired tendency for humanbeings and other social animals to have fun whileworking together (Sober & Wilson, 1998; Van Vugt &Schaller, 2008)? Much research remains to be done atall levels to further describe and explain the interestingand intriguing phenomenon of social flow.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank students from his laboratorycourse in experimental social psychology who helped planand execute the present investigations, and he must expressgratitude to the two reviewers who conscientiously guidedhim through revisions of this research article.

References

Allport, G.W. (1954). The historical background of modern

social psychology. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social

psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–56). Reading MA: Addison-

Wesley.Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity:

A minority of one against a unanimous majority.

Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70.Bem, D.J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (6th ed.).

New York: Academic.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and

reliability of experience sampling method. Journal of

Nervous and Mental Diseases, 175, 526–536.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal

experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the

psychology of discovery and invention. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (Eds.). (1988).

Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in

consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rich, G. (1997). Musical improvisa-

tion: A systems approach. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity

in performance (pp. 43–66). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish, &

T. Power (Eds.), The handbook of cognition and emotion

(pp. 45–60). Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and

moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and

Emotion, 32, 158–172.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions

in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory.

American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.

Froh, R.C., Menges, R.J., & Walker, C.J. (1993).

Revitalizing faculty work through intrinsic rewards.

In R. Diamond (Ed.), New directions in higher education

(Vol. 81, pp. 87–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

10 C.J. Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hackman, J.R. (1987). The design of work teams.In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hackman, J.R., Wageman, R., Ruddy, T.M., & Ray, C.R.(2000). Team effectiveness in theory and practice.In C. Cooper, & E.A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and

organizational psychology: Theory and practice(pp. 109–129). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1993).

Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Jackson, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sport:

The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Urbana,IL: Human Kinetics.

Karau, S.J., & Williams, K.D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytical review and theoretical integration. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.Lamm, C., Batson, C.D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neuralsubstrate of human empathy: Effects of perspective-taking

and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,19, 42–58.

Latane, B., & Darley, J.M. (1968). Group inhibition of

bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221.

Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change.

In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Harley (Eds.),Readings in social psychology (pp. 459–473). New York:Holt.

Martin, D., & Kerr, B. (2009). The physiological character-

istics of flow states: Using EEG and HRV to examinethe flow consciousness state. Poster presented at thefirst World Congress on Positive Psychology,

Philadelphia, PA.Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience anddisobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–75.

Mockros, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). The socialconstruction of creative lives. In A. Montuori, &

R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 175–218).Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as apolarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 12, 125–135.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept

of flow. In C.R. Snyder, & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook ofpositive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The con-

struction of meaning through vital engagement.In C.L.M. Keyes, & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positivepsychology and the life well-lived (pp. 83–104). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.Sharot, T., & Yonelinas, A. (2008). Differential time-dependent effects of emotion on recollective experienceand memory for contextual information. Cognition, 106(1),

538–547.Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power ofcollaboration. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.

Sober, E., & Wilson, D.S. (1998). Unto others: The evolutionand psychology of unselfish behavior. Boston: HarvardUniversity Press.

Steiner, E. (1978). Group processes. New York: AcademicPress.

Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs:

Mood linkage and subjective performance in professionalsports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848–859.

Van Vugt, M., & Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionaryapproaches to group dynamics: An introduction. Group

Dynamics, Research and Practice, 12(1), 1–6.Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149,269–274.

Zimbardo, P.G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation,reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse andchaos. In W.J. Arnold, & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska

symposium on motivation (pp. 237–307). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 17:

38 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014