Content uploaded by Mike Prentice
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mike Prentice on Mar 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
The Experiential Incompatibility
of Mindfulness and Flow Absorption
Kennon M. Sheldon
1
, Mike Prentice
1
, and Marc Halusic
1
Abstract
Mindfulness and flow are both beneficial states of mind, but are they difficult to experience simultaneously? After all, flow
involves losing self-awareness within an activity, and mindfulness involves maintaining self-awareness throughout or even despite
an activity. In three studies, we examine this potential antagonism, finding negative associations between mindfulness and flow
as assessed in a variety of ways and contexts. These associations emerged within Global trait data and diary data concerning
daily goal behavior (Study 1), experience-sampling data concerning behavior at the time of signaling (Study 2), and experimental
data concerning the experience of playing the flow-conducive computer game, Tetris, after undergoing a mindfulness induction
(Study 3). However, these associations only apply to the ‘‘absorption’’ aspect of flow, not the ‘‘sense of control’’ aspect.
Keywords
agency, health, self-regulation, personality, motivation and performance
Positive psychology is, in part, a quest to understand optimal
experience (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Two forms
of optimal experiencing have received the majority of
attention within the literature, that is, mindfulness and flow.
Mindfulness involves ‘‘non-elaborative, non-judgmental,
present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling,
or sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowl-
edged and accepted as is’’ (Bishop et al., 2003, p. 31). Mind-
fulness is typically construed as a mental practice that requires
self-discipline and a commitment to trying to maintain reflective
awareness of each passing moment. In contrast, flow involves
intense task concentration, a loss of self-awareness, an altered
sense of time, and merging of activity and awareness (Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1990; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Flow is an
absorbing mental state that arises spontaneously when one is
engrossed within optimally challenging activity.
How are mindfulness and flow related to each other, and can
a person experience both states at the same time? At first
glance, mindfulness and flow seem very similar: Both are
rewarding mental states in which people are fully engaged in
the present. Furthermore, both are considered to be indicators
of mental health and optimal functioning (e.g., Landha¨ußer &
Keller, 2012; Rogatko, 2009; Weinstein, Brown, & Ryan,
2009). But, at a second look, the two states seem quite differ-
ent. Mindfulness involves cultivating an observer of conscious-
ness, trying to maintain reflective awareness of each moment.
In contrast, flow involves losing the inner observer within an
altered state of consciousness in which the moment blurs into
a continuous stream of activity. In terms of William James’
(1890) famous metaphor of the ‘‘stream of consciousness,’’
mindfulness seems to entail standing on the bank of the stream
without falling in; in contrast, flow entails jumping into the
stream and tackling a challenging task or problem. In this
sense, the two states might even be viewed as antagonistic, with
mindfulness tending to bring one back to the bank of the
stream, precluding flow.
Of course, mindfulness practice is not intended to prevent
flow. Rather, it appears the main intention of mindfulness
practice is to curtail mind wandering (Giambra, 1995; Singer,
1966; Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; Wegner, 1997). Mind
wandering involves an unmonitored mental process that has
run away from an intention to monitor thoughts and behavior
(Schooler et al., 2014). The familiar experience of realizing
that one has been reading while one’s mind is elsewhere, such
that no information has been taken in, is a good example of
mind wandering (Schooler et al., 2014). Mindfulness medita-
tion involves trying to notice when one’s mind has wandered,
so one can bring one’s attention back to the present (Kabat-
Zinn, 1982). Supporting the idea that mindfulness and mind
wandering are antithetical, Mrazek, Smallwood, and Schooler
(2012) showed that an 8-min mindfulness induction reduced
subsequent mind wandering.
1
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kennon M. Sheldon, University of Missouri, McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO
65211, USA.
Email: sheldonk@missouri.edu
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
2015, Vol. 6(3) 276-283
ªThe Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550614555028
spps.sagepub.com
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
What light do these findings shed on the relationship
between mindfulness and flow? Mind wandering is like flow
in that for both states there is absorption in a stream of men-
tal content that proceeds without reflective awareness.
Assuming mindfulness works in opposition to mind wander-
ing, this suggests that states of mindfulness may work
against states of absorption. However, mind wandering is
unlike flow in that no controlled activity takes place during
mind wandering, whereas such activity does take place dur-
ing flow. Again assuming that mindfulness is in opposition
to mind wandering, this suggests that states of mindfulness
work in favor of controlled activity, such as may occur dur-
ing flow states. These two suggestions will be considered
further subsequently.
Another way that mindfulness and flow may differ is in the
underlying brain states involved. Dietrich (2004) provided
evidence for a ‘‘transient hypofrontality’’ explanation of flow,
which states that flow occurs when activation in the frontal
and medial temporal lobes is temporarily suppressed, allow-
ing well-learned processes to proceed without interference
from deliberative thought (see also Peifer, 2012). In contrast,
research indicates that mindfulness training increases frontal
lobe functioning (Travis & Arenander, 2004), in particular
increasing left versus right frontal aasymmetry (Davidson
et al., 2003; Moynihan et al., 2013). The fact that flow is asso-
ciated with reduced frontal activity and mindfulness with
enhanced frontal activity further supports their potential
disjunction.
Accordingly, our basic hypothesis was that mindfulness
would be negatively associated with flow, because mindful-
ness practice involves striving for sustained self-awareness,
which likely works against losing oneself within activity, a
key to flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008; Leary
et al., 2006). Our hypothesis is similar to Mrazek et al.’s
(2012) that mindfulness is negatively associated with mind
wandering, but we believe our hypothesis is less self-
evident, with more potential to be disproven. Some existing
research supports our hypothesis. Brown and Ryan (2003)
developed the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale
(MAAS) and showed that trait mindfulness was significantly
negatively correlated with trait absorption. As noted previ-
ously, absorption is an important component of flow states,
one that is plausibly limited by mindfulness.
However, other research seems to contradict our hypoth-
esis. For example, Thienot et al. (2014) showed that mindful-
ness in sport was positively associated with flow, and
Aherne, Moran, and Lonsdale (2011) showed that mindful-
ness training can enhance flow, primarily the aspects of hav-
ing clear goals and a sense of control. Kaufman, Glass, and
Arnkoff (2009) also showed that a mindfulness intervention
could enhance flow in sport (Jackson & Eklund, 2002). We
suggest that these seemingly contradictory results may be due
to a lack of specificity concerning which aspects of mindful-
ness and which aspects of flow are being considered and
measured. We discuss the conceptual and measurement
issues subsequently.
Conceptualizing and Measuring Mindfulness
Mindfulness has been conceptualized and measured in a variety
of different ways. Still, common to all existing measures is
some assessment of reflective self-awareness, which is the state
of mind that may work against flow states. For example, the
Toronto Mindfulness Scale (Davis, Lau, & Cairns, 2009)
includes a ‘‘Decentering’’ subscale, concerning not personally
identifying with thoughts or feelings (Lau et al., 2006). The
Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (Cardaciotto, Herbert, Forman,
Moitra, & Farrow, 2008) contains a ‘‘present moment aware-
ness’’ scale. The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006)
also contains a reflective awareness subscale, titled ‘‘Acting
with Awareness.’’ Finally, the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003)
focuses only on reflective awareness. In the current research,
we focused on measures of reflective awareness, the common
core of mindfulness measures to date.
Conceptualizing and Measuring Flow
We wished to identify flow measures that might help address
the two suggestions made previously—that mindfulness may
work against the sense of flow absorption but may work in
favor of the sense of flow control. The Flow Short Scale (FSS;
Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Engerser, 2003) was the most obvi-
ous candidate, because the FSS distinguishes between two
relevant flow facets, that is, absorption, which refers to being
task engaged with minimal self-consciousness and a distorted
sense of time, and automaticity, which refers to being in con-
trol and that intentional activity is occurring effortlessly. In
this research, we refer to the automaticity facet of flow as
‘‘felt control,’’ because the items refer primarily to a sense
of being comfortably in control of a process (e.g., I have
everything under control, I have no difficulty concentrating).
As discussed earlier, mindfulness should be negatively asso-
ciated with feelings of absorption and of being lost in activity
(Brown & Ryan, 2003) but may be positively associated with
the feelings of control (Aherne, Moran, & Lonsdale, 2011).
Summary and Hypotheses
In sum, in this research, we focused on the association
between mindfulness, conceptualized as reflective awareness,
and flow, conceptualized as having both an absorption aspect
and a felt control aspect. Study 1 examined the association
between mindfulness and flow attwolevels,thatis,traitand
daily retrospective. Study 2 examined the association of
mindfulness and flow at a momentary level, using an experi-
ence sampling methodology. Study 3 used an experimental
methodology to examine the influence of a mindfulness
induction upon flow states during game play. In each study,
we hypothesized that mindfulness would be negatively asso-
ciated with flow, or at least, with the absorption aspect of
flow. We also speculated that mindfulness might be positively
related to the felt control aspect of flow.
Sheldon et al. 277
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Study 1
Method
Procedure and Participants
During an in-class assessment, we first administered trait mea-
sures of mindfulness and flow. Later in that assessment, we
asked participants to identify two personal goals to pursue that
semester. After 6 to 12 weeks, participants completed six daily
diary reports rating their experiences of mindfulness and flow
while working on their goals that day. Thus, our overall study
design allowed us to test for the hypothesized negative associ-
ation between mindfulness and flow in two different ways, at
two different timescales.
Initial participants were 272 students, comprising 109 men
and 163 women, within a social psychology class that was taught
at the University of Missouri. Participants were 94%Caucasian.
They participated in exchange for extra course credit.
Measures
Trait-level assessment of mindfulness and flow (Time 1). Partici-
pants completed the FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006) regarding ‘‘your
general thinking style.’’ Of interest in this context was
the 8-item ‘‘Act with awareness’’ facet. Participants also com-
pleted the 10-item Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, and Engerser (2003)
FSS regarding ‘‘your experience when you are working on
something interesting.’’ In addition to computing an overall
flow score, we used Rheinberg et al.’s (2003) categorization
scheme to break the FSS down into a 6-item ‘‘Felt Control’’
subscale and a 4-item ‘‘Absorption’’ subscale. Absorption and
Felt Control correlated at .52 (p< .001), indicating that they
are appropriately cast as two related aspects of flow.
Goal selection (Time 1). Participants were also asked to select
two ‘‘semester goals’’ from a list of four goals that were
offered, that is, two academic and two interpersonal. This goal
selection task was part of a different study, but it provided
grist for the second part of Study 1. Preliminary analyses
showed that none of the results reported in this article varied
according to the goals the participants selected, and thus the
issue of goal content will be ignored henceforth.
Daily diary assessment of mindfulness and flow in goal pursuit (Time
2a–f). In the second half of the semester, participants were
invited to participate in a daily diary study that involved
completing a short questionnaire at the end of each of 6 days.
Participants were asked, for each goal they selected, how they
felt working on the goal that day. The 4-item absorption facet
of the FSS was administered twice (once for each goal).
Because it was less central to the investigation, the FSS con-
trol subscale was not administered in this context; instead we
used the 9-item Short Flow Scale (SFS; Martin & Jackson,
2008), which is typically combined into a single aggregate
score that taps many characteristics of flow (Jackson &
Eklund, 2002). In addition, the 5-item State Mindful Aware-
ness and Attention Scale (S-MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003)
was administered for each goal, with a stem of ‘‘While work-
ing on this goal ...’’ and items such as ‘‘I was preoccupied
with the future or the past, not the present,’’ and ‘‘I found it
difficult to stay focused on what was happening.’’ Responses
were averaged across the two goals to yield daily scores,
and the six daily scores were averaged for each participant
to yield measures of their typical state of mind when working
on goals.
Results
Table 1 contains descriptive statistics for all Study 1 variables
as well as the analogous variables for Studies 2 and 3.
Trait Level
First, we examined the correlations between the trait ‘‘Act
with Awareness’’ subscale and (1) the overall flow score,
(2) the Absorption subscale score, and (3) the Felt Control
subscale score. We used all 272 initial participants for these
analyses. The correlations were .16 (p¼.007), .12 (p¼
.051), and .30 (p< .001). Thus, trait mindfulness was posi-
tively associated with trait flow, mainly because mindfulness
was positively associated with the control facet of the flow
scale. As hypothesized, however, trait mindfulness was nega-
tively associated with the absorption facet of the FSS, demon-
strating a splitting effect of mindfulness with respect to these
two facets of flow.
Diary Level
Next, we examined the analogous three associations for the
averaged daily diary reports, using the 162 participants who
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables Across the Three
Studies.
MSD a
Study 1
Cross-sectional component
1. Act with awareness 3.26 .57 .86
2. FSS control 3.17 .67 .79
3. FSS absorption 3.39 .62 .60
Diary component
1. State MAAS 2.49 .59 .63
2. FSS absorption 2.90 .58 .64
3. Jackson Short Flow 3.15 .60 .62
Study 2
1. Grand-mean state MAAS 3.60 .80 .70
2. Grand-mean FSS absorption 2.70 .79 .60
3. Grand-mean Jackson Short Flow 2.80 .67 .78
Study 3
FSS control 3.57 .68 .79
FSS absorption 3.38 .69 .63
Note. FSS ¼Flow Short Scale; MAAS ¼Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale;
M¼mean; SD ¼standard deviation.
278 Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(3)
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
completed this part of the study. The negative correlation
between Mindfulness and the FSS Absorption subscale was
r¼.37 (p< .001), again as hypothesized. The negative asso-
ciation between Mindfulness and the Jackson Short Flow
(JSF) Scale was much weaker at r¼.14, p¼.068 (FSS
absorption and the JSF Scale correlated .76, p< .001). We
conducted an exploratory principal components analysis of
the JSF, uncovering a ‘‘felt control’’ component (I felt compe-
tent to meet the demands of the goal, I had a good idea how
well I was doing, I had a feeling of total control, and I was
unworried what others might think of me) and an ‘‘absorp-
tion’’ component (I felt completely focused on the task at
hand, the way time passed seemed to be different from nor-
mal, and the experience was extremely rewarding). The two
remaining items cross-loaded on these components and were
excluded. Echoing the results mentioned previously, mindful-
ness was negatively associated with absorption (r¼.22,
p¼.006) but unrelated to felt control (r¼.03, ns).
Brief Discussion
Study 1 found initial support for our primary hypothesis. Mea-
sures of reflective awareness were negatively associated with
measures of flow absorption, and positively associated with
or unrelated to measures of flow control. Thus, although the
absorption and felt control facets of flow were strongly corre-
lated with each other, the two facets appear to be differentially
related to mindfulness.
Study 2
In Study 2, we sought to assess participants’ experience of
mindfulness and flow at precise moments in time. Again we
expected to find a negative association between mindfulness
and flow absorption and perhaps a positive association between
mindfulness and flow control. That is, if participants were
highly absorbed in an activity at the moment of signaling, they
should report less reflective awareness at that moment. We also
expected to find a negative association between mindfulness
averaged across the observations (an estimate of trait mindful-
ness) and participants’ momentary levels of experiential
absorption. This provided a separate, independent test of our
main study hypothesis.
Methods
Procedure and Participants
Study 2 employed an experience sampling design. Partici-
pants were 44 introductory psychology students (6 male,
38 female, and 87%Caucasian) who selected the study from
among a range of options. We signaled participants with text
messages to their smartphones containing links to Internet-
hosted surveys. Twenty-one assessment times were randomly
generated, three per day, all between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m.
(e.g., 10:30 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 6:50 p.m. for the first day,
and so on). Text messages were sent to all participants at the
same time points. Participants were instructed to fill out each
survey within 1 hr of receiving the message, concerning their
experience the moment before they received the message.
Participants were excluded if they responded 10 times or less;
the average number of responses was 17.46 (SD ¼2.94; min-
imum ¼11, maximum ¼21).
Measures
Mindfulness. Mindfulness was measured at each of the 21
sampled times using the 5-item S-MAAS (Brown & Ryan,
2003).
Flow. As in the diary portion of Study 1, flow was measured at
each of the 21 sampled times using the entire SFS (Martin &
Jackson, 2008) and the absorption component of the FSS
(Rheinberg et al., 2003).
Results
A series of multilevel models were conducted using the Mixed
Model procedure in SPSS with participants at Level 2 and
Experience Sampling Methodology time points at Level 1.
Because our main questions concerned flow absorption, we
first fitted a null model predicting that variable. The intraclass
correlation for that model (ICC ¼0.60) suggested that suffi-
cient within-person variance existed to justify using multile-
vel modeling. Raw Level-1 predictor variables contain
variance associated with both within-person effects (the
extent to which that variable is higher or lower for a given per-
son at a given time point) and between-person effects (the
extent to which that variable is higher on average for one indi-
vidual than another). Following Hofman and Gavin (1998),
we modeled within-person effects by person-mean centering
all Level-1 predictors, which subtract the within-person mean
ofavariablefromeachrawtimepointscore.Thus,scores
above zero indicate a higher than average score for a given
individual. To model between-person effects, we created a
Level-2 predictor using grand-mean centering. Thus, scores
above zero indicate that a person’s average score on a given
variable is higher than the overall group mean of that variable.
These two versions of the predictor variable are orthogonal.
Models predicting the absorption component of the FSS,
and the entire SFS, are presented in Table 2, along with confi-
dence intervals. Results indicate that State-MAAS is negatively
related to flow absorption and to flow as measured by the SFS,
at both within- and between-person levels of analysis.
Brief Discussion
Study 2 replicated and extended the finding that reflective
awareness is negatively associated with flow, both in terms
of the absorption component of flow and as measured by the
SFS. First, mindfulness averaged across time points (a trait-
like indicator) was negatively associated with momentary state
flow absorption (a between-person effect). The more mindful a
Sheldon et al. 279
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
participant was on average, the less likely they were to be
absorbed or in flow at particular moments. Second, state mind-
fulness at a particular point in time was negatively associated
with state flow absorption at that point in time (a within-
person effect). This indicates that the more reflectively aware
participants felt at the moment they were signaled, the less
absorption they reported feeling in that moment.
Study 3
None of the studies so far have explored processes occurring as
participants engage in a specific activity known to arouse flow
states. Instead, all the studies so far have referred retrospec-
tively to general thinking styles or goal pursuits (Study 1), or
they have referred to the participant’s state of mind at the time
of being signaled for assessment (Study 2). To further test these
associations in an experimental fashion, in Study 3 we ran-
domly assigned participants to engage in a mindfulness exer-
cise (vs. control exercise vs. no exercise), just prior to
playing a computer game known for its high levels of challenge
and interest—Tetris. Participants were interrupted at three
points during the game so that their momentary state of mind
could be assessed. We hypothesized that those who did the
mindful awareness induction would report less flow absorption
as they played the game and perhaps more flow control.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 101 introductory psychology students, com-
prising 39 men and 62 women, who took part to help fulfill a
course requirement. After being greeted at the lab, they were
seated at a computer terminal with headphones. After complet-
ing preliminary questionnaires, 50 participants proceeded
directly to the computer game and the other 51 first did an
audio induction. Induction participants (24 for mindful aware-
nessand27formusclerelaxation)wereaskedtoget
comfortable and follow the instructions in the audio recording
they would hear. Afterward, the computer game Tetris was
introduced; some participants had played it and some had not
(participant’s level of experience with the game was explored
as a covariate, but it did not affect results). The game involves
using arrow keys to rotate falling blocks of different shapes so
that they fit into slots at the bottom of the screen. The goal is to
form rows with no gaps, and gapless rows are eliminated from
the stack. Failure to eliminate rows leads to increasing stack
height, and the player loses once the stack reaches the top of
the screen.
After 1.5 min of playing the game, the game was paused and
all participants were directed to a short questionnaire. Afterward,
they went back to the game, with a second pause occurring after
another 1.5 min, and a third pause occurring after a final 1.5 min.
Of course, repeated interruptions are likely to interfere with flow
states; however, we deemed this worth the risk in order to be able
to investigate the intercorrelations of flow-related experiences in
real time. It is also noteworthy that participants resumed the
paused games exactly where they left-off.
Materials and Measures
The mindfulness induction was based on the Vipassana style of
practice adapted from an exercise in Seagal, Williams, and
Teasdale (2002). It was 9 min and 23 s long, which was
recorded by a soothing male voice. The relaxation audio was
downloaded from the University of New Hampshire health ser-
vices and was edited to be of the same length (9 min and 23 s).
It was also narrated by a soothing male speaker, accompanied
by quiet flute music (which we did not attempt to remove,
deeming it a legitimate part of the speaker’s goal of inducing
relaxation). The main other difference between the two record-
ings was the first induction’s focus on catching the mind run-
ning away and then returning attention to the breath.
The full FSS (Rheinberg et al., 2003) was employed in
Study 3, allowing us to assess both felt control and absorption
as in the first part of Study 1. Because no noteworthy patterns
of change occurred across the three administrations of the
scale, we averaged across the three administrations to derive
the most stable estimates of the two flow constructs.
Results
Table 3 contains the mean absorption and felt control scores
split by group. We conducted a 3 (group: no induction,
Table 2. Study 2: Multilevel Models Predicting Flow Absorption and Entire Short Flow Scale (SFS).
DV Predictor Unstandardized Coefficient SE LCI UCI
Flow Short Scale (absorption) S-MAAS
PMC
.11** .04 .19 .03
S-MAAS
GMC
.53** .10 .73 .32
Short Flow Scale S-MAAS
PMC
.09** .03 .16 .03
S-MAAS
GMC
.38** .11 .60 .17
Note.DV¼dependent variable; GMC ¼grand-mean centered (between-person results); LCI ¼lower confidence interval SE ¼standard error; MAAS ¼Mindful
Attention Awareness Scale; PMC ¼person-mean centered (within-subject results); UCI ¼upper confidence interval.
Table 3. Mean Differences in Flow By Induction Groups in Study 3.
No Induction Mindfulness Relaxation
Absorption 3.60 (.73)
a
3.20 (.61)
b
3.36 (.69)
ab
Control 3.66 (.76)
a
3.68 (.56)
a
3.60 (.60)
a
Note. Means not sharing subscripts differ at p< .05.
280 Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(3)
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
mindfulness induction, or relaxation induction) 2(flow
measure: absorption vs. control) multiple analysis of variance
with repeated measures on the second factor, and observed
the predicted two-way interaction, F(2, 98) ¼3.30, p¼.041,
b¼.156, confidential interval [CI]: [.011, .302], such that
absorption and felt control were differentially affected by
group membership; control was unaffected, and absorption was
significantly affected (see Table 3). The critical two-way inter-
action was also significant when the mindfulness induction
participants were contrasted with the no induction participants,
F(1, 72) ¼5.63, p¼.020, b¼.148, CI: [.023, .272], but not
when the mindfulness induction participants were contrasted
with the relaxation participants, F(1,49) ¼2.44, p¼.125,
b¼.156, CI: [.025, .199]. In a third planned contrast, the
two-way interaction was significant, F(1, 99) ¼5.39, p¼
.022, b¼.127, CI: [.018, .235], when the mindfulness induc-
tion group was contrasted with the other two groups pooled.
Brief Discussion
Study 3 extended our consideration of the potentially antago-
nistic relationship of mindfulnessandflow,toanexperimen-
tal study in which some participants were randomly assigned
to engage in a mindfulness induction before playing a poten-
tially flow-inducing game. The mindfulness induction did not
affect participants’ feelings of control within the game, but it
did reduce these participants’ sense of being absorbed within
the game. This effect was most pronounced in relation to the
no-induction control group; the muscle relaxation control
group had a mean flow absorption score midway between the
two extreme groups. This suggests that muscle relaxation may
have some but not all of the absorption-quelling characteris-
tics of full-blown mindfulness inductions. It may also be that
any technique that turns awareness toward mental or bodily
states may preclude full engagement in external activities.
Future research is needed to further contrast the effects of
mindfulness against mere muscle relaxation inductions.
General Discussion
Intuitively, mindfulness and flow seem to go together. Both
involve using the mind in an efficient, high-quality way, and
both are seen as signals of good mental hygiene and health.
Thus, many researchers have assumed that boosting people’s
ability to be mindful should also boost their ability to experi-
ence flow (Aherne et al., 2011; Kaufman, Glass, & Arnkoff,
2009; Thienot et al., 2014). We found evidence for the opposite
conclusion: that boosting a person’s ability to remain mindful
during an activity might actually undermine their ability to get
absorbed in that activity. In Study 1, this conclusion was sup-
ported concerning both global traits and retrospection on daily
goal processes; and in Study 2, it was supported concerning
momentary experience. Study 3 also found support at the
momentary level, using an experiment with random assignment
and a task known to be flow inducing, the game Tetris.
It is important to note, however, that this negative relation-
ship was found only for the absorption facet of flow, that is, the
feeling of being carried away by activity, with an altered sense
of time and a loss of self-awareness. This was expected since it
seems logical that one cannot both stand on the banks of a
stream and be washed down that stream at the same time. A dif-
ferent pattern was found for the felt control facet of flow, which
was nonassociated or positively associated with mindfulness.
Thus, although flow absorption and flow control facet were
highly positively correlated with each other, supporting the
general practice of combining them into a single flow score,
we found that the two facets break apart with respect to mind-
fulness. These findings provide a more nuanced perspective
both upon the flow construct itself and upon the question of
how flow relates to mindfulness.
Future research can further test whether mindfulness is
really antagonistic to absorption. Maybe not, for example,
engaging regularly in mindfulness practice might ultimately
increase flow ability, by helping to ‘‘sweep out the mental
cobwebs’’ that prevent people from entering flow states,
and/or by teaching people to concentrate in single-minded
ways that contribute to flow states. As discussed earlier, some
research has already found support for the idea that mindful-
ness training boosts flow (Aherne et al., 2011; Kaufman et al.,
2009), although none of that past research used the distinction
between flow absorption and flow control that was used in the
present research.
It is also possible that mindfulness and flow can come and
go in potentially rapid succession, such that although they
rarely occur simultaneously, they can both take place quite
often within a particular period of time. As one example of how
this might happen, hierarchical control theory (Carver & Sche-
ier, 1981, 1998, 2009) proposes that higher levels of control
within the action system, associated with greater self-
awareness, set the agenda for lower levels of control, which,
once activated, can run off without conscious awareness. From
a self-regulatory perspective, an optimal sequence might entail
first mindfully surveying the situation and one’s reactions to it
in order to decide what to do, then going into a flow state in ser-
vice of one’s selected actions, then going into a mindful state in
order to observe the results of those actions, then going into
another flow state in order to best accomplish the next actions,
and so on. Indeed, Leary, Adams, and Tate (2006) termed such
a process ‘‘hypo-egoic self-regulation,’’ in which the person
relinquishes control of the stream of consciousness to subcon-
scious processes, to avoid the negative effects of ego-
involvement and overcontrol. Leary et al. (2006) identified
flow as one such hypo-egoic process.
Further research is also needed to examine the relation-
ships of other aspects of the mindfulness construct with
other aspects of the flow construct. Additional mindfulness
subscales include curiosity, acceptance, observing, des-
cribing, nonjudging, and nonreactivity (Baer et al., 2006;
Cardaciotto et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2009). Additional flow
subscales include challenge–skill balance, action–awareness
merging, clear goals, concentration on the task at hand, time
Sheldon et al. 281
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
transformation, and autotelic experience (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990; Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Martin & Jackson,
2008). Although we believe reflective awareness (examined
herein) is the core of the mindfulness construct, more can
be learned by examining these other aspects of mindfulness.
We believe that absorption and felt control represent the core
features of the flow construct, but again, more can be learned
by examining these other aspects of flow.
Limitations of this research include the college student
samples from a single region in the United States; the failure
to examine long-term or highly skilled mindfulness practi-
tioners, or to examine the effects of extended mindfulness
training going beyond the 10-min induction of Study 3; and
the failure to examine mediator or moderator processes
involved in the basic effects demonstrated herein. However,
we have shown that such research will be well worth doing.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Aherne, C., Moran, A. P., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). The effect of
mindfulness training on athletes’ flow: An initial investigation.
Sport Psychologist,25, 177–189.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets
of mindfulness. Assessment,13, 27–45.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D.,
Carmody, J., ...Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed
operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,
11, 230–241.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,84, 822.
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow,
V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and
acceptance the Philadelphia mindfulness scale. Assessment,15,
204–223.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation:
A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Carver,C.S.,&Scheier,M.F.(2001).On the self-regulation of
behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2009). Self-regulation and control in
personality functioning. In P. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 427–440).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal
experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal expe-
rience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M.,
Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F., ...Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alterra-
tions in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness
meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine,65, 564–570.
Davis, K. M., Lau, M. A., & Cairns, D. R. (2009). Development and
preliminary validation of a trait version of the Toronto Mindfulness
Scale. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy,23, 185–197.
Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the
experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition: An Interna-
tional Journal,13,746–761.
Giambra, L. M. (1995). A laboratory method for investigating influ-
ences on switching attention to task-unrelated imagery and
thought. Consciousness and Cognition,4, 1–21.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hier-
archical linear models: Implications for research in organizations.
Journal of Management,24, 623–641.
Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical
activity: The flow state scale-2 and dispositional flow scale-2.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,24, 133–150.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York,
NY: Holt.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine
for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness med-
itation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. Gen-
eral Hospital Psychiatry,4, 33–47.
Kaufman, K. A., Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (2009). Evaluation of
Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE): A new
approach to promote flow in athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology,3, 334–356.
Landha¨ußer, A., & Keller, J. (2012). Flow and its affective, cog-
nitive, and performance-related consequences. In S. Engeser
(Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 65–85). New York,
NY: Springer.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D.,
Carlson, L., ...Devins, G. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale:
Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology,12,
1445–1467.
Leary, M. R., Adams, C. E., & Tate, E. B. (2006). Hypo-egoic self-
regulation: Exercising self-control by diminishing the influence
of the self. Journal of Personality,74, 1803–1831.
Martin, A. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing
task absorption and enhanced subjective experience: Examining
‘short’ and ‘core’ flow in diverse performance domains. Motiva-
tion and Emotion,32, 141–157.
Moynihan, J. A., Chapman, B. P., Klorman, R., Krasner, M. S.,
Duberstein, P. R., Brown, K. W., & Talbot, N. L. (2013).
Mindfulness-based stress reduction for older adults: Effects on
executive function, frontal alpha asymmetry and immune func-
tion. Neuropsychobiology,68,34–43.
Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness
and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing con-
structs. Emotion,12, 442.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and
research. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook
282 Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(3)
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 89–105). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Peifer, C. (2012). Psychophysiological correlates of flow-experience.
In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 139–164).
New York, NY: Springer Science þBusiness Media.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung
des Flow-Erlebens [The assessment of flow experience]. In J.
Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von
Selbstkonzept, Lernmotivation und Selbstregulation [Diagnosis
of motivation and self-concept] (pp. 261–279). Go¨ttingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Rogatko, T. P. (2009). The influence of flow on positive affect in
college students. Journal of Happiness Studies,10, 133–148.
Schooler, J.W., Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Baird, B., Mooneyham,
B. W., Zedelius, C., & Broadway, J. M. (2014). The middle way:
Finding the balance between mindfulness and mind-wandering.
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation,60,1–33.
Segal,Z.V.,Williams,J.M.G.,&Teasdale,J.D.(2002).
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new
approach to preventing relapse. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-
ogy: An introduction.American Psychological Association,55,
5–14.
Singer, J. L. (1966). Daydreaming: An introduction to the experimen-
tal study of inner experience. New York, NY: Random House.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psycho-
logical Bulletin,132, 946.
Thienot, E., Jackson, B., Dimmock, J., Grove, J. R., Bernier, M., &
Fournier, J. F. (2014). Development and preliminary validation
of the mindfulness inventory for sport. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise,15, 72–80.
Travis, F., & Arenander, A. (2004). EEG asymmetry and mindfulness
meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine,66, 147–148.
Wegner, D. M. (1997). When the antidote is the poison: Ironic mental
control processes. Psychological Science,8, 148–150.
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method
examination of the effects of mindfulness on stress attribution,
coping, and emotional well-being. Journal of Research in Person-
ality,43, 374–385.
Author Biographies
Kennon M. Sheldon is a professor of psychology at the University of
Missouri. His interest areas include optimal functioning and positive
psychology.
Mike Prentice is a PhD student at the University of Missouri. He is
interested in self-regulation and positive functioning.
Marc Halusic is a PhD student at the University of Missouri. He is
interested in self-complexity and positive functioning.
Sheldon et al. 283
at University of Missouri-Columbia on April 27, 2016spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from