Content uploaded by Charles Walker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles Walker on Mar 04, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 10
Social Flow
Charles J. Walker
Abstract. If you have played on an exceptional soccer or basketball team or were
part of a highly engaging and productive business meeting, you may have
experienced social flow. If you have been spellbound by the graceful synchrony of
ice dancers, or awestruck by the flawless performance of a symphony, you may
have witnessed social flow. If you have had these or similar experiences, you may
agree that social flow is not the same as solitary flow. Solitary flow is an
individual psychological phenomenon; social flow is a social psychological
phenomenon (Magyarodi & Olah, 2015; Sawyer, 2003 & 2006). Both forms of
flow explain intrinsic motivation and absorption; however, solitary flow is
autotelic, where as social flow is syntelic (Walker, 2010). Social flow is a shared,
contagious form of flow associated with highly interdependent and collaborative
group processes. It is both a cause and an effect of synchronized performance
within a human group. People who experience social flow enjoy it and want to
repeat it (Walker. 2010). In this chapter I will further clarify the differences
between social and solitary flow, describe the preconditions and group processes
that cause and sustain social flow, and the consequences and outcomes that
document it has been achieved. Some practical applications of social flow will be
discussed, and some provocative implications of social flow will be suggested for
the enhancement of human performance in sports, arts, business and leisure
activities.
____________________
C. J. Walker (*)
Department of Psychology, St. Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure NY, USA
e-mail: cwalker@sbu.edu
C. Peifer & S. Engeser (eds.), Advances in Flow Research, 2nd Edition
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2020
2 Social Flow
Solitary and Social Flow Compared
Especially when considering the early conceptualizations of flow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), there would appear to be no difference between solitary
and social flow. Both require a challenge dispatched by relevant skills. However,
the challenges and their requisite skills can be, and often are, quite different in
social as compared to solitary situations. Solitary flow occurs when an individual
experiences flow without the presence of others. Examples include a book writer
cloistered in a remote cottage protected from distractions, an artist painting alone
in her loft studio, or a solo kayaker enjoying a morning paddle on a secluded lake.
Each finds it easier to be completely absorbed by their tasks without the
interruptions or assistance of others (Bond & Titus, 1983). On the other hand,
social flow occurs because of the presence of others (see Table 1). Many tasks
and challenges are inherently social. With these situations, it is difficult to
eliminate the presence of others, or because of the size or complexity of the task, it
is impossible for a single individual to effectively dispatch it (Sawyer, 2003).
Social situations stage at least two forms of social flow: Co-active and interactive.
Co-active flow happens when individuals experience flow simply in the presence
of each other. There is no communication or interaction required. It is a kind of
socially facilitated flow, but individually and independently experienced.
However, the mere presence of others may enhance or interfere with co-active
human performance (Bond & Titus, 1983; Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak & Rittle,
1968). Examples are cross-country ski racers in a loppet, cyclists in a peloton, or
students passively listening to a highly engaging lecture. Interactive social flow,
in contrast, involves deliberate cooperation, coordination and communication
among members of a group or team. The tasks and challenges of the team cause
group members to be agents of each other’s flow experiences. The coordination of
interactants is usually synchronized sequentially, reciprocally or combinations of
each. With sequential synchronization, one group member must complete his task
successfully before another can do his part of the work. Examples are a triple play
in baseball or serial flag twirls in a drill team. With reciprocal synchronization,
group members have mutual concurrent, bi-causal agency of each other’s flow
experiences. Examples are improvisation in a jazz group, seamless transitional
offense by a basketball team, or story sharing and laughing with close friends.
Reciprocal interactive social flow is the quintessential form of social flow.
Solitary flow is the quintessential form of individual flow. Co-active flow is a
hybrid located on a continuum of flow somewhere midway between solitary and
social. For purposes of clarity, in this chapter, social flow will be defined
exclusively as interactive social flow. When terms like group flow or team flow
are used, it should be assumed that each is a variation of interactive social flow.
Social Flow 3
Table 1
Preconditions, Processes and Outcomes Associated with Social Flow Experiences
Theorized preconditions and contexts for social flow
The unit of performance is a functional group or team.
The collective competency of the group is sufficient to dispatch challenges.
Group members are uniformly highly competent.
Each group member knows the competencies of every other member.
Challenges are consensually perceived as important & meaningful.
Tasks are divisible but prescribe collective action.
Tasks require interdependence, coordination & cooperation.
Tasks are conjunctive and invite complementary engagement.
Theorized transactions and group processes for social flow
Group members focus on each other as well as the task to receive feedback.
Task feedback is clear & immediate for individuals and the group.
High absorption & engagement with the task.
High attention to the task activities of other group members.
Group members become increasingly more group-centered than self-centered.
Emotional communication expressed during task work.
Emotional contagion within the group and to audiences outside the group.
Joy, anxiety, boredom and apathy shared throughout task work in the pursuit
of flow.
Theorized outcomes and effects of social flow for individuals
An intense sense of connection with others is felt.
Social identity and personal identity merge.
Individuals feel invincible and powerful.
The emotions of happiness, joy and elation are experienced.
When in the group, individuals manifest symptoms of positive mental health.
Despair and dread are felt when an individual is ostracized.
Grief is felt when the group must disband.
Theorized outcomes and effects of social flow for groups
The group performs excellently.
The experience builds meaning and a collective sense of purpose.
Group cohesiveness increases.
Identification with the group increases.
The group desires to the repeat the experience.
Rituals, formal or informal, are established to normalize social flow.
Theorized Social Conditions that Enable Social Flow
4 Social Flow
Some of the enabling conditions for solitary flow (cf. Wagner & Keller,
Chapter 3) are also operative for social flow, specifically a) tasks and emergent
challenges are perceived to be important, b) performance feedback is clear and
immediate, and c) competencies are relevant to handle challenges. However,
because the primary unit of performance is a group, not an individual, several
additional conditions must be in place for social flow to occur (Magyarodi & Olah,
2015; Walker, 2010 & 2017). I will now describe and elaborate on each of these
essential conditions.
The unit of performance is a functional human group. Here, a group
is defined as two or more individuals, ideally a collection of people with a
common history and fate (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Steiner, 1972). However,
because social flow is a complex phenomenon that requires task and interpersonal
feedback, the group should be small enough to allow immediate face-to-face, not
asynchronous, communication (Snow, 2010). While social flow might be possible
in large human groups such as corporations, educational systems or city
governments, the human capital and other resource costs (e.g., improved employee
selection & development, changes in reward & pay systems, or organization
redesign & development) necessary for consistently achieving flow in large groups
are likely to exceed its benefits (Smith, Koppes- Bryan, Vodanovich, 2012). The
exception can be seen with flash mobs or spontaneous crowd reactions. If the life
of a group is short-lived and the task is less challenging and skill requirement is
low too, then short duration large scale social flow is certainly possible.
Nonetheless, it is more difficult for social flow to reliably occur in enduring,
interconnected groups within large human organizations. As will be explained
later in this chapter, team or group flow is more likely to happen, at acceptable
levels of cost, in cohesive, efficacious small groups (Littlepage, 1991).
The competency of the group members matches its challenges. For
social flow to consistently occur, every group member, and the group as a whole,
must be sufficiently competent (Hackman & Morris, 1975; Salanova, Rodríguez-
Sánchez, Schaufeli, & Cifre, 2014). The task knowledge and skill of group
members, and the acquired acumen of the group (Lemon & Sahota, 2004), must be
more than enough to cope with the topography of challenges confronted when the
group pursues its most worthwhile goals (Hill, 1982). Included in the list of skills
necessary at the level of individuals are social and emotional skills and, at the
group level, shared norms and expectations about excellent performance,
interpersonal & inter-group communication, leadership, and task feedback
management (Karau & Williams, 1993; Katzenbach & Smith, 2015). Social and
emotional skills are required because group members must, at least for task work,
know each other sufficiently. They need not love or even like each other;
however, they must know enough about each other’s idiosyncrasies to work
effectively together (cf. Stoll & Ufer, Chapter 13). This requirement is especially
needed in unstructured, unpredictable, or changing task environments; for
example, in dynamic competitive team sports like soccer or hockey, or research
Social Flow 5
and development teams in rapidly changing markets like those in digital
technology or medicine.
The group tasks prescribe valid interdependency. Tasks occasion and
moderate social flow experiences. The properties of group tasks, more than the
characteristics of group members, enable social flow (Campion, Medsker, &
Higgs, 1993; Steiner, 1972; Van Schaik, Martin, Vallance, 2012). Tasks must be
divisible, not unitary, and conjunctive, not disjunctive. Tasks must stage
reciprocal, not additive processing (Steiner, 1972; Walker, 2010). Tasks should be
designed to give each member of the group unique work, but with complementary
interdependencies (Borderie, & Michinov, 2017). However, ideally group
members should also understand and anticipate the work and roles of other
members of the group. With this type of valid interdependency, cooperation and
coordination should be unavoidable and feel natural and automatic. Well-designed
group tasks may replace some leadership functions in a group (Hackman,
Wageman, Rudd, & Ray, 2000). When this happens, the group becomes
autonomous and appears to lead itself. When these task conditions are met, not
only are group flow and performance increased, but also social loafing and other
symptoms of group dysfunction are substantially decreased (Karau, & Williams,
1993). A couple examples may be useful to illustrate the importance of well-
designed group tasks. The tasks of a social sport like basketball can readily
produce social flow. On offense, a basketball team is comprised of the uniquely
different positions of a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward,
and center. When a team executes an offensive strategy (e.g., a flex offense),
players are in continuous motion interdependently pursuing the goal of helping at
least one teammate acquire an open good shot at the basket. Well-coached,
mature teams execute their offensive strategies with beauty and grace. Equally
obvious beauty and grace can be witnessed listening to a good jazz quartet. Again,
the musicians have unique but interdependent roles playing a trumpet, piano,
double bass, or drums. Quartets that have played together for many years can
effortlessly improvise around sheet music because of their familiarity with each
other (Gloor, Oster & Fischbach, 2013; Hart & Blasi, 2015; cf. Harmat, de
Manzano & Ullén, Chapter 14). Intimate conversations among trusted good
friends often have similar social flow characteristics. In these heart-to-heart
conversations, an upward spiral of engagement unfolds motivated by reciprocal
honest sharing that yields mutual insights, humor, and feelings of increased
closeness. In several experience-sampling studies, highly engaging conversations
were the most often reported examples of flow by participants (Csikszentmihalyi
& Larsen, 1987; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Theorized Transactions and Group Processes of Social Flow
A shift from a self-centered to a group-centered perspective.
Although it is uncommon in an individualistic culture (Earley, 1993), group
members strongly identify with their group or team when social flow is achieved.
6 Social Flow
Social flow is unlikely to be seen with groups of loosely coupled, self-conscious
individuals. However, because under the right conditions, the shared joy and fun
of experiencing social flow is so fulfilling, it is likely to be natural for individuals
to be assimilated into the group ( Snow, 2010). Therefore, it is predicted that
groups that regularly experience social flow are better able to retain members than
those that find flow to be more elusive. Note that some of the most successful
musical groups or business teams have had little change in membership over
decades of working together. With groups that regularly experience social flow it
is likely that individual identity and group identity are indistinguishable. Is it
possible to imagine the Rolling Stones without Mick Jaggar or Mick Jaggar
without the Rolling Stones (Andersen, 2012)?
An abiding attention to the behavior of other group members.
Achieving flow in a group or team is quite difficult, often more difficult than
achieving flow as an individual. Social flow is more complex and tenuous than
solitary flow (Armstrong, 2008). With social flow, group members must manage
themselves and coordinate their performance with that of groupmates. So, in
addition to being receptive to task feedback, they must also continuously be
attentive to feedback from other performers, especially those to which their work
is directly linked. The overall performance of a group will decline if there are
lapses in attention. For example, a counter attack by a soccer team would be far
less successful if one of the strikers was suddenly distracted by a vulgar insult
from an opponent. Examples can also be seen with the performance of musicians
(Bakker, 2005; Sawyer, 2006). A string quartet that normally experiences intense
social flow playing Beethoven’s Opus 132 would be less likely to achieve it if the
cellist was intermittently distracted by a sickness.
Contagious sharing of emotional reactions during group work.
Unlike solitary flow, with social flow, members of groups or teams pursuing social
flow may express their emotions during, as well as after, task work ( Christakis &
Fowler, 2013; Sawyer, 2003 & 2006; Walker, 2010). This is done to steer the
team toward flow and keep it in the zone. Of course, joy is expressed when flow
has been achieved or recovered; however, negative emotional expressions may
also be useful for teams to seek and sustain flow. For example, when a team
attempts an overwhelming challenge, anxiety or fear is shared; when challenges
are underwhelming, boredom or apathy is shared. Interestingly, with social sports
like ice hockey, soccer or basketball, this contagion of emotion is not limited to
athletes; their audiences vicariously feel and share emotions too. Audiences
receive the emotional communications from their athletes and, in turn, express
them back to help keep their teams in the flow zone (Walker, 2008 & 2017). With
visiting teams, as might be expected, audiences use distraction to keep competitors
out of the flow zone (Totterdell, 2000).
Social Flow 7
Theorized Outcomes and Effects of Social Flow for Individuals
An intense sense of connection with others is felt. Cohesiveness is a
signature characteristic of a highly performing group or team. While individual
members of a group may have unique roles and functions, everyone comprising a
successful team feels a sense of connection and with teammates, Cartwright
(1968). Strong feelings of connection and unity with others are very likely to be
consequence of social flow for individuals.
Social identity and personal identity merge. Because people join
groups that they have something in common with, and because groups recruit and
sustain the membership of individuals who fit their mission and purpose, with
time, it is inevitable that social identity and personal identity overlap, Ashforth &
Mael (1989). Social flow experiences probably strengthen and accelerate this
process. The definition of the self will likely transform when individuals have
reliable, satisfying social flow experiences while being a member of a group or
team.
Individuals feel invincible and powerful. Groups or teams that
regularly experience social flow perform at a high level. They accomplish goals
and do things far beyond the capability of a single individual member. However,
without corrective feedback, they can develop unrealistic senses of invincibility
and power, Paradis and Martin (2012). In decision making they can overestimate
their efficacy and suppress useful contrasting viewpoints within a group, Turner
and Pratkanis (1998). Individuals who experience social flow, compared to those
who do not, are more likely to feel the power of a group, and for good or bad
purposes, they may report feeling invincible.
The emotions of happiness, joy and elation are experienced. A group
in social flow has a hyper sense of control. For individuals and groups, being in
control is associated with the experience of positive emotions such as joy and
elation (Saphire-Bernstein & Taylor, 2013). Moreover, the sharing of positive
emotions gives feedback to members of a group on their successful pursuit of
goals, thus reinforcing their perceptions of control and making challenging goals
seem “fun” to achieve. For these reasons, individuals within social flow groups
are liable to feel and express positive emotions such as happiness, joy and elation
(Walker, 2010).
Symptoms of positive mental health are manifested. During the peak
moments of social flow, members of groups or teams feel fulfilled, vibrant and
happy. They are likely to manifest some of the symptoms of flourishing, namely
a) expressing and experiencing positive emotions, b) being engaged and absorbed,
c) enjoying relationships with others who matter to them, d) realizing purpose and
meaning, and e) accomplishing important essential goals (Saphire-Bernstein &
Taylor, 2013; Seligman, 2011). While some members of groups in social flow
8 Social Flow
may not be mentally healthy when they are not in their groups, when they are in
their groups, they temporarily manifest the signs of psychological well-being.
Despair and dread are felt when an individual is ostracized.
Certainly, one of the worst fates for human beings is to be expelled, shunned, or
ostracized (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris, & Stephenson, 2015;
Wesselmann, Nairne & Williams, 2012). People feel depressed and stunned when
they are rejected from groups; however, because of the importance of social flow
groups and the intensity of experiences they have in them, people are much more
likely to feel despair and dread if they must be expelled or even anticipate being
expelled.
Grief is felt when the group must disband. In general, groups are less
mortal than their members. With the exception of dyads, most groups have longer
lifespans than the people who comprise them (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Steiner,
1972). However, because of mistakes made or uncontrollable bad fate, some
groups die early (Shepherd, Patzelt, Williams, & Warnecke, 2014). If a group
meets the primary needs of individuals, its termination can cause distress and
grief. Because of how rare high performing social flow groups are, by nature, they
are, more transient and mortal. When they end or must dissolve, it is very likely
that most of their members will experience grief because something important and
special in their lives has been lost forever.
Theorized Outcomes and Effects of Social Flow for Groups
Groups or teams perform excellently. The seeking of social flow
inadvertently sets high standards of achievement for a group or team. Moreover,
the characteristics of group tasks associated with social flow (i.e., divisible,
conjunctive reciprocally processed tasks), can be very challenging and therefore
solicit the best efforts from members of a group (Littlepage, 1991). Indeed, self-
reports of flow are positively correlated with higher levels of performance for both
individuals and teams (Bakker, Oerlemans, Demerouti, Slot, & Ali, 2011).
Increases in the development and maturity of groups or teams. As
discussed earlier, groups that regularly achieve social flow will have members
who a) strongly identify with their group, b) trust other members, and c) show
increases in cohesiveness (Van den Hout, Davis & Weggeman, 2018). However,
these desirable positive outcomes also have been associated with negative
outcomes such as groupthink (Janis, 1991) or resistance to change (Goldstein,
2001). It is interesting to note that these negative outcomes are likely to be
counteracted by the tendency of individuals within groups who, according to flow
theory, are likely to seek higher levels of challenge and boost their skills to meet
Social Flow 9
new challenges to avoid the inevitable state of boredom (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,
1990 & 1997)
The propensity to repeat, stabilize and normalize social flow. Like
solitary flow, successful group work that yields social flow will be perceived and
remembered as purposeful and meaningful (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003, Nakamura, &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Groups will want to repeat the experience, and
consequently, will establish norms and rituals to make repetition more likely. The
communities or organizations within which exceptional groups or teams reside
will likely provide financial and other resources to help them develop and sustain
their achievement of social flow. For example, towns with excellent soccer teams
will provide the land and monies to build new stadiums, or cities with
accomplished orchestras will construct and maintain performance halls or centers
(Borland & Macdonald, 2003; Strom, 2003). As was described earlier,
organizations and communities will take these supportive steps not only out of
respect for the performers who directly experience social flow, but also their
audiences who vicariously enjoy it. There are many reasons why stadiums or
performance halls are built and maintained; the enjoyment of witnessing social
flow is likely to be one of the reasons.
Some Practical Implications of Social Flow
For athletes in social sports. When national and international
committees convene to discuss changes and improvements in their sports, they
might consider changes that are likely to increase social flow. For example, in
competitive social sports like ice hockey, basketball, volleyball, American
football, rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, new rules might be written that more strongly
reinforce interdependent play and, at the same time, limit solitary play. Some
sports like in ice hockey already have such rules. For example, the offside rule in
hockey does not allow a single attacker to be ahead of the puck beyond the blue
line. The offside rule in soccer is similar. Without such rules, soccer and hockey
would lapse into a boring display of dyadic breakaways that would marginalize the
rest of the team and decrease the opportunity for individuals or a team to
experience flow (Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012). Modifications of scoring
systems could also have positive effects on social flow. For example, assists
might be more carefully operationalized and counted for assists to be a legitimate
contributor to scoring and the outcome of a game. Specifically, when a game
ended in a tie, the team with the most assists would be granted the win. Doing this
would give the win to the team with the most team play, not the team with a
dominant athlete. For example, in basketball, when considering the following
pattern of scoring, which team is the superior team: Team A in which five players
scored 20 points each, or Team B in which one player scored 64 points when her
teammates scored only 9 points each? Both teams scored 100 points; however,
Team A was more likely to have achieved its total score through social flow, while
10 Social Flow
Team B probably experienced less social flow and perhaps even social loafing
because of the dominance of a single performer.
How games are managed and the venues in which they are played should
also be reconsidered if social flow is to be increased, or at least not inhibited.
Stoppage of play for any reason is a distraction and has the effect of getting
athletes out of rhythm and their fans less engaged. American-style football,
compared to soccer, allows less social flow in its athletes and probably less
vicarious flow in its fans (Bakker, Oerlemans, Demerouti, Slot, & Ali, 2011).
Play is stopped for huddles, penalties, commercial breaks, video reviews, and
timeouts. Such disruptions of flow are very likely to make the game less
enjoyable to play and watch. Interestingly, over the last decade viewership and
ratings by fans of American football has been declining despite increases in
profitability (Rovell, 2018).
Large numbers of people watch social sports, many more than solitary
sports (Statista, 2018). Unfortunately, businesses use this opportunity to
insensitively promote their goods and services. Visual or auditory advertisements
in sports venues are not only likely to disrupt the vicarious flow felt by audiences,
but also such ads make it more difficult for audiences to send performance
facilitating feedback back to their athletes. Feedback from fans should be
spontaneous, timely and authentic. Prompts from jumbotrons and 360 degree
LED advertisement rings may cause disingenuous audience reactions and actually
discourage and decrease an audience’s engagement with its team. Without a valid
connection between audiences and athletes, the home field or home court
advantage could be weakened (Totterdell, 2000).
Coaches and coaching staff should consider using social flow theory to
train and prepare their athletes for competitive games (Jackson, &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Jimmy Johnson famously claimed to use
Csikszentmihalyi’s 1990 book to inspire a win for the Dallas Cowboys in the 1993
Superbowl. However, social flow, as compared to solitary flow, has alternative
complementary implications for coaching. For example, because athletes in social
sports can benefit from learning about the idiosyncratic skills and habit of
teammates, they should train most of the time in social situations with teammates,
not alone. Having a professional agent and overuse of personal trainers could
undermine social flow because stardom, not better team play, is pursued
(Wachsmuth, Jowett, & Harwood, 2017). Practice sessions with simulated
opponents and replications of home or away audiences should be a significant part
of coaching. While most coaches realize these things, they may not concern
themselves enough with the behavior of audiences, particularly home audiences.
They should consider coaching their audiences as well as their athletes. For
example, audiences in hockey, soccer and basketball react strongly and
supportively to successful “showboating” by individual athletes even when it is
risky to express these skills and is inconsistent with what has been trained during
practice sessions. Coaches could meet with fans prior to games to discuss these
issues and urge them not to reinforce showboating. Feedback from audiences
Social Flow 11
should consistently reinforce and extend coaching, not interfere with it. Another
less obvious implication concerns athlete replacement or substitution. With teams
that achieve social flow regularly, any changes in their membership may disrupt
social flow. For example, if just one athlete in a team of five is injured, and the
coach replaces her with a similarly skilled individual, the entire team, not just the
new athlete, must compensate, relearn and make other adjustments. Coaches may
even have to change their “system” to assimilate a new player. This point about
changes in group membership, of course, also applies with player substitutions
during a competition. Each substitution imposes adjustments that must be made if
the team desires to experience social flow with any consistency during
competitions.
For musicians and other performers in the arts. Audiences of social
sports generally do not expect athletes to always work beautifully and gracefully
together; however, with performers like musicians and dancers, they do. These
audiences hope to be emotionally moved and experience awe while listening to
musicians or watching dancers. Musicians, dancers and other performers in the
arts may have higher flow expectations and standards than do performers in most
other areas of human expression (cf. Harmat et al. Chapter 14). On the other hand,
because of the characteristics of their work, social flow is relatively easier to
achieve by dancers or musicians. The music itself creates favorable conditions for
bands, quartets, or orchestras to experience social flow (Sawyer, 2003). Likewise,
the dance choreography for troupes usually prescribes synchronized movement
that facilitates social flow. There are at least two interesting implications that
follow from these observations. First, because organizational psychologists have
found that the properties and design of work attracts certain kinds of workers (Tett
& Burnet, 2003), it is likely that performers in the social arts may be more
predisposed to seek social flow than performers in other areas of human creative
expression. If solitary flow is sought by people with autotelic personalities, social
flow may be sought by people with syntelic personalities (Walker, 2008 & 2017).
These individuals should tend to seek situations wherein social flow can be easily
experienced, and they should be comfortable being assimilated into group,
preferring not to be stars or celebrities. Indeed, it has been observed that back-up
singers have these characteristics (Hartman, 2012). A second implication is that
the desire to repeat a social flow experience by musical or dance groups may
ultimately create boredom and smother the creativity of their members. Audiences
may contribute to this surprising negative consequence. For example, a rock &
roll band may at first enjoy playing a suddenly popular hit song and do so quite
excellently basking in the thunderous reactions of adoring fans. However, after
playing the hit song repeatedly over a 6-month tour, the group will likely to
become bored with the song, long before its fans. Vicarious social flow, in this
instance, may become a force that traps a group and constrains the band’s creative
development. It may become an addiction, albeit a mildly damaging form of
addiction, caused by adoring fans (Click, Lee & Holladay, 2013).
12 Social Flow
For team builders and organizational consultants. Contingency
models are useful to understand leadership, group performance and organizational
behavior. Researchers and practitioners alike have discovered that there is no
single reliable recipe for improving leadership, increasing group performance, or
helping organizations function better (Locke, 2009). This wisdom should be
heeded by consultants who promise to increase the experience of social flow
within organizations. Social flow is much more likely to have stronger situational
than dispositional causes (Bem & Allen, 1974; Mischel, 2004). Therefore,
training interventions that focus on individuals without regard to the specific
characteristics of their work or the organizational culture in which they labor, will
have limited success (Swann, Piggott, Schweickle, & Vella, 2018; Van den Hout,
Davis & Weggeman, 2018). Setting the achievement of social flow as a goal for
workers without changing how their work is designed or their roles and
interpersonal relationships will likely create more frustration than success. Even
with supportive conditions, social flow is a delicate, fragile phenomenon
(Armstrong, 2008). It can be easily overpowered by complex organizational
systems. As was suggested earlier in this chapter, establishing the required
conditions, such as immediate, continuous task and social feedback, favors small
groups, not large organizations; as well, the work itself must prescribe
conjunctive, reciprocal, complementary interdependencies for the experience of
social flow to be reliably induced. A useful metaphor is a jazz group or string
quartet, not a huge ungainly marching band. It should be relatively easy to get a
small team to function gracefully, but in most cases, not worth the effort and cost
to establish and maintain the conditions required for an entire large organization to
manifest social flow with acceptable consistency and efficiency.
Hypotheses & Speculations Needing More Research &
Development
Assessing flow. The presence of flow in a group or team has usually been
assessed through the self-reports of individuals on rating scales such as the Flow
State Scale (Jackson & Marsh, 1996), the Flow State Questionnaire (Magyaródi,
Nagy, Soltész, Mózes & Oláh, 2013), or the Work-related Flow Scale (Bakker,
2001). Some researchers have developed and used their own Likert-style scales or
checklists reflecting the fundamental preconditions and components of flow
(Magyarodi & Olah, 2015; Walker, 2010). A few researchers have modified
previously used scales to assess flow at the group level by converting personal
pronouns, e.g., “I was absorbed.” to collective pronouns, e.g., “We were
absorbed.” (Salanova, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Schaufeli, & Cifre, 2014; Zumeta,
Basabe, Wlodarzyk, Bobowik, Paez, 2016). Objective coding of verbal and
nonverbal emotional expressions associated with joy, anxiety, boredom and apathy
also has been done, albeit rarely (Borderie & Michinov, 2017; Walker, 2010), and
objective measurements of neurochemical signatures of positive and negative
emotions (e.g., Oxytocin and ACTH) have been used in research on flow in social
Social Flow 13
contexts (Keeler, Roth, Neuser, Spirsbergen, Waters & Vianney, 2015; cf. Peifer
& Tan, Chapter 8).
Table 2
Examples of Items for a Scale to Assess the Conditions, Processes, and Effects of
Social Flow*
1. My contribution to the group’s work was unique, no one else did
exactly what I did. (divisible conjunctive task)
2. The task of the group was challenging. (challenge)
3. What my group strived to achieve was valuable and important to me.
(goal importance)
4. What my group strived to achieve was important and valuable to other
members of the group. (goal consensus)
5. The group I worked in had the right resources to perform excellently.
(collective competence)
6. I contributed knowledge, skill, and effort to the group’s work.
(collective competence)
7. I was aware of the unique knowledge, skill, and effort that each
member of my group contributed. (member competence awareness)
8. The group’s task was engaging and interesting. (absorption)
9. Time seemed to pass so quickly for us. (absorption)
10. It was easy and natural to give 100% of myself to my group.
(assimilation of the self)
11. The performance of myself as an individual directly affected how well
the group performed. (reciprocal conjunctive process)
12. We performed as a team, not a bunch of individuals trying to be stars.
(altruistic cooperative processes)
13. Other members of my group not only knew what I was doing, they
could easily see what I was doing and evaluate my work. (mutual
feedback)
14. Our group knew how well it was performing throughout our work.
(continuous feedback)
15. I exerted a lot of effort to help the group achieve its goals. (altruistic
cooperative processes)
16. All the members of my group worked equally hard. (cooperative
process)
17. The task of the group required us work side-by-side most of the time;
we did not work alone. (reciprocal process).
18. We openly expressed our emotions during our group work. (emotional
communication)
19. Joy was shared by all when we were succeeding, anxiety was shared
when we were not (emotional contagion).
20. My group performed excellently. (performance excellence)
21. As our work progressed, the group became more cohesive.
14 Social Flow
(cohesiveness)
22. I was proud to be a member of the group. (group identification)
23. When we were done we knew we accomplished something important.
(sense of purpose)
24. It was not easy to stop working, we wanted to keep working and do it
again. (repetition of the experience)
25. Especially when we are in the zone, I feel a strong connection with
others in this group. (psychological effect)
26. I identify strongly with this group. (psychological effect)
27. When I am in this group and we are performing well, I feel invincible.
(psychological effect)
28. I feel fulfilled and happy when I am in this group. (psychological
effect)
29. I would feel awful if this group expelled me. (psychological effect)
30. I would feel sad if this group ended or it had to break-up.
(psychological effect)
*Please indicate your level of agreement using a five-point agree-disagree rating
scale, where 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= uncertain, 4= agree, and 5=
strongly agree (the higher the number, the more you agree).
Assessing the causes and effects of social flow. An individual, not a
group has been assumed to be the unit of interest with most of the available
assessment tools and dependent measures on flow (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde,
1993; Guo & Poole, 2009; Moneta, 2012; Rheinberg, Vollmeyer & Engeser,
2003). Very few investigators have used dependent measures to assess the
presence of flow at the group-level, not individual-level (Swann, Piggott,
Schweickle, & Vella, 2018). However, a couple researchers have developed
dependent measures on flow at the group level, such as the Collective Efficacy
Scale (Martínez, Guillén, & Feltz, 2011), or social network analysis (Gaggioli,
Milani, Mazzoni, & Riva, 2011). Nonetheless, there is still a need for tools to
investigate causal or correlational relationships between the group structure and
process variables that define interactive relationships within groups and self-
reported or coded observations of flow states. To quantify variables concerning
group tasks, structures and processes, assessment tools or scales are needed to
measure the perception that a) all of the preconditions and factors predicted to
support interactive social relations were operative, b) the group processes
variables predicted to facilitate interactive social flow were experienced, and c) the
consequences and outcomes of social flow situations were felt and perceived. A
proposal for items that could be included in a scale or coding system to assess the
preconditions, group processes and outcomes of social flow can be seen in Table 2
.
Social Flow 15
Assessing social flow as a disposition. Earlier in this chapter, the notion
of a syntelic personality was presented. Individuals with syntelic dispositions, it
was suggested, should tend to seek situations wherein social flow can be easily
experienced, and they should be quite comfortable being assimilated into a group.
The possible existence of a syntelic disposition complementing an autotelic
disposition raises some intriguing questions. Are some individuals more inclined
than others to pursue social flow or enjoy it vicariously? Holding all other
variables constant, will groups comprised of members with syntelic personalities
fare better than those with autotelic personalities or a mix of personalities? How
do people with syntelic personalities lead? Do they function well when their team
is led by someone with an autotelic personality? Will someone who has both
dispositions manifest higher levels of psychological well-being? There is a need
for the development of a syntelic personality scale to complement the autotelic
scale. As well, the autotelic scale itself may need to be revised (Baumann, 2012;
Tse, Wing-yan Lau, Perlman, & McLaughlin, 2018). Candidate items to comprise
a syntelic personality scale might include items from a social flow scale (see Table
2) as well as items from scales on followership (Sy, 2010), need to belong (Leary,
Kelly, Cottrell & Schreindorfer, 2013) and self-monitoring (Snyder & Gangestad,
1986).
Rewarding social flow in organizations. Where teams are the primary
unit of performance in sports, the arts, and businesses, the excessive celebration of
the accomplishments of stars or heroes may be a symptom of a dysfunctional
organizational culture or a failure of management to support teams that
consistently achieve high levels of social flow (Van den Hout, Davis &
Weggeman, 2018). While at any one moment certain individuals might perform
excellently and be rewarded for it, if social flow is taken seriously, excellence
should be manifested by each team member, and the most meaningful rewards
should be given to entire teams, not single individuals. So, if the achievement of
social flow is valued, it should be reinforced by the middle and upper managers of
organizations.
Creating and managing social flow in large organizations. Social flow
seems to be more of a small, than large group phenomenon (cf. Wagner & Keller,
Chapter 3). Research suggests that it may be more easily achieved in small than
large human groups (Armstrong, 2008; Heyne, Pavlas, & Salas, 2011). However,
the conditions that have been demonstrated to facilitate flow within a small group
could be used as a model to create the large group conditions that should support
inter-group forms of flow within organizations (Walker, 2010, 2017).
Specifically, to achieve large group social flow, the mission of an organization
would have to prescribe conjunctive, reciprocal, complementary inter-group
relations and be maintained by unambiguous, continuous inter-group task and
social feedback. An important compelling superordinate goal would be needed to
stage cooperation and suppress conflict among participating groups. Examples of
entire large organizations manifesting social flow are rare. However, there are
some notable instances. When Grumman Corporation won the contract to build
16 Social Flow
the Apollo Lunar Module, unprecedented levels of efficient coordination and
collaboration were suddenly widespread (Francillon, 1989). Sports and education
offer a few more examples. Some of the most consistently successful sports teams
have been associated with excellent collaborative management, particularly when
the head coach, assistant coaches and coordinators form a cohesive highly
functioning administrative team (Jones & Kingston, 2015). Institutions in higher
education are comprised of discipline-specific schools, divisions, and departments.
Creating and managing a truly integrated interdisciplinary general education
curriculum that meaningfully involves distinct and autonomous units can be a
challenge. However, when deans of divisions work closely together and are
supported by a university provost or president, social flow can characterize their
delivery of general education, albeit intermittently, at organizational levels above
academic departments (Stalmeijer et al., 2007). Nonetheless, there is a strong
need for systematic research on the organizational designs and structures that
promote social flow not only within groups, but also between units and divisions.
Some good & bad effects of social flow. Social flow is usually in the
service of sanctioned prosocial goals; however, it can inadvertently serve
deleterious goals. For example, within human groups, informal communication
networks and grapevines can serve good purposes, e.g., disseminating useful news
and information, or bad purposes, e.g., spreading unfounded disaster rumors or
slander gossip (Friggeri, Adamic, Eckles, & Cheng, 2014; Rosnow, 1987).
Making a bad situation worse, these human networks are now accelerated and
enlarged by technology. Tweetstorms and viral posts on Facebook are likely to
involve uncontrolled forms interactive or coactive social relationships.
Deindividuation, a potentially adverse consequence of group identity, in this
instance, may cause disinhibition and thus increase the swamping or flooding of
innocent people with vicious comments on social media (Bandua, Underwood &
Fromson, 1972; Pfeffer, Zorbach, Carley, 2014). Exactly how digital media can
increase or decrease deindividuation and emotional contagion in social networks
and the role social flow experience may play, is an important area for future
research.
Many other good and bad effects of social flow may be seen with
spontaneous, self-organizing crowds. The Women’s March in Washington D.C. in
2017 may provide a positive example of this simple kind of social flow
experience. Only a couple thousand marchers were expected, but within a few
hours the streets filled with over one million participants. The march was
scheduled to begin at noon, but because of the enormity of the crowd, little
movement was possible. Instead, the frustrated marchers spontaneously began
rattling their protest signs and cheering. Loud waves of rattling and cheering
spread outward thousands of yards from the Capital Building along all the streets
and avenues that converged on this symbol of democracy. The effect on the
marchers was positive, and in accord with predictions about social flow, was
repeated several times until the crowd could finally move. However, such
emotional contagion accompanying a social flow experience may have menacing
Social Flow 17
expressions too (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1993). The violent behaviors of
nationalistic extremists at rallies, lynchings by racial bigots and massacres by
soldiers are but a few of many possible examples of the bad effects of social flow
(cf. Zimanyi & Schüler, Chapter 7).
Intraspecies and interspecies social flow. Are Homo Sapiens the only
animals capable of expressing and experiencing social flow? Are the elegant and
graceful murmurations of Starlings, the fluid kinetic silvery shapes formed by
schools of Sardines, the balletic stampeding herds of Impalas or the harmonious
choirs of wolf packs examples of social flow in the animal kingdom? The answer
is “possibly”. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the evolutionary pressures
that supported the appearance of social flow tendencies in Homo Sapiens may
have also been operative in other social species. The Starlings in their
murmurations may be intrinsically motivated too; they may flock together simply
for its own sake. However, these captivating displays are more likely the result of
evolved strategies to defend social species, Homo Sapiens included, from attacks
by predators (Ball, 2009). Does our fascination with these displays say more
about us than the creatures we behold? Like an audience that experiences flow
vicariously at sporting or musical events, so too might be an audience that
witnesses flow patterns in birds, fish, and other animals. The inclination to
experience social flow vicariously may reveal a perceptual bias we have about
human or nonhuman performance. For example, it has been suggested that a
group itself can be in flow even when none of its members are in flow (Sawyer,
2003 & 2006). A more parsimonious explanation may be that we are predisposed
to project our dispositions about flow on to groups. In this instance, group-level
flow may be more so a predisposition of social scientists, than a phenomenon
distinct and separate from them.
The inclination of human beings to work and play with some, but not all
animals is also interesting. The pursuit of social flow experiences by our species
may not be limited to the recruitment of other humans. Among domesticated
animals, why have we selected only a few animals to work and play with us? The
existence of interspecies social flow may partially answer this question. We may
be particularly attracted to animals that we can share social flow experiences with.
Consider these three examples: 1) a rider and a horse can become a graceful
equestrian team, not unlike that of human teams such as ballroom dancers, 2)
humans and dolphins can spontaneously become absorbed in seemingly unlimited
creative play with each other (Kuczaj & Eskelinen, 2014), and 3) dogs and their
owners can spur each other on becoming completely engaged in endless games of
fetch with sticks, balls or Frisbees. Do these examples provide evidence of an
interspecies form of social flow? The answer awaits further research on this
intriguing possibility.
Social flow therapy. Is there a place for social flow in the practice of
clinical psychology? Can the positive effects of social flow help people with social
anxiety disorders, those who are shy or lonely, or perhaps those trapped in primary
social groups such as dysfunctional families (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009; Stein &
18 Social Flow
Stein, 2008)? It could be therapeutic for individuals with abnormally low
affiliative needs or those who are anxious in social situations to experience the joy
of social flow (cf. Freire, Gissubel, Tavares, & Teixeira, Chapter 12).
Counterconditioning and systematic desensitization have been proven to be
effective with phobic individuals. Depending on the interests of clients, therapists
could prescribe participation in group-based activities, such as drum circles,
choirs, bands, theater companies, sports teams, discussion groups, or book clubs.
However, this advice is not risk free. To avoid an unpleasant social experience,
only groups that manifest the supportive conditions and group processes for social
flow should be prescribed. Vicarious social flow is an alternative intervention that
could give more control to therapists and clients. Specifically, again, mindful of
the sensitivities and interests of the client, a series of short videos or movies could
be shown that depict people expressing positive emotions during social flow.
Supplemental instruction and explanation on the causes and characteristics of
social flow should accompany all these interventions. Any information that gives
a client a greater sense of control should be beneficial. Most clients would profit
from learning about social flow because it would help them discriminate between
social situations that are more likely to be positive than negative. While these
suggestions for interventions seem plausible, clinical research would have to be
done to demonstrate their validity and reliability.
Summary and Conclusion
Social flow is a relatively new area of research on optimal experience.
Conceptual and operational definitions of it have been in development for only a
dozen years. Empirical research on social flow is quite limited. However, we
know more about it today than we did when Mihaly Csikszentmihayli gave
examples of various athletes experiencing flow during competitions and musicians
performing together in his first book on flow (Csikszentmihayli, 1975). In this
book he also provided examples of artists and writers experiencing flow privately
and alone during their creative solitary work. Since then it has become
increasingly useful to distinguish two types of flow: solitary and social. While
research and theory on solitary forms of flow has progressed at an even pace, the
same cannot be said about social forms of flow. Research and theory on flow in
teams, groups, organizations and other social situations has progressed somewhat
too, but much more episodically. A lack of agreement on the theoretical and
operational definitions of social flow has made research on it less fruitful (Swann,
Piggott, Schweickle, & Vella, 2018). The current chapter attempted to provide
clearer and more useful definitions of social flow. By taking a social
psychological view, it described the differences and similarities of two forms of
social flow: co-active and interactive. The case was made that the research
literature in social psychology more strongly supports the notion that social flow is
interactive, not co-active. Interactive social flow is a form of flow about which it
can be asserted that all individual members of a group, can be a state of flow
Social Flow 19
(Sawyer, 2003 & 2006). Moreover, a social psychological perspective, it was
argued, can more usefully direct the attention of basic and applied researchers to
accessible situational variables that can be controlled or manipulated to increase or
decrease social flow. The current chapter merely introduced the reader to some
possibilities for utilizing a situational perspective in future basic and applied
research on social flow in sports, the arts, businesses and organizations. It also
described other potential applications and invited research on the possible
influence of social flow on destructive collective behavior, audience and fan
motivation, engagement with other social animals, and the design of new
therapeutic clinical interventions. The horizon is broad and deep for future
research on social flow. However, the provocative implications and interesting
speculations offered in this chapter are no more than exactly that without
systematic empirical research. Much more qualitative, correlational and
experimental investigation is needed if we are to continue making progress on
describing and explaining the intriguing phenomenon of social flow.
Study Questions
1. Before you read this chapter, how did you define social flow? After you
read this chapter, did your definition change? Social flow is a relatively
new concept in research on flow. In science, the most interesting and
useful concepts are heuristic and parsimonious. Is the author’s definition
of social flow heuristic, yet parsimonious? How might his definition of
social flow be changed to achieve a better balance between being
heuristic and parsimonious? Explain why your definition of social flow
will serve as a better guide for future research than the definition
proposed by the author.
2. By drawing from classic and recent research in social psychology, the
author makes the case that social flow is a social psychological
phenomenon (i.e., more syntelic than autotelic). He appeals to classic
research and theory on group processes, leadership, social facilitation and
social contagion, and more recent research and theory from Positive
Psychology on flow and meaning. However, does his inclusion of these
literatures illuminate or cloud our understanding of what social flow is
and why it happens? In fact, is the cause of social flow more situational
than dispositional? Would some of the original concepts on flow based
on individual differences and dispositions add clarity or confusion to our
evolving understanding of social flow?
3. Why is social flow so delicate and ephemeral? Why is it difficult to
create the conditions that cause it to emerge, and why does it require
substantial attention and effort to sustain it? However, are all
20 Social Flow
manifestations of social flow delicate and ephemeral? Like the concept
of low flow or micro flow, are there varieties of social flow that are easy
to create and maintain (e.g., spontaneous self-organizing crowds)? Is
social flow much more accessible and easier to achieve in sports teams,
musical groups and groups within business organizations than the author
claims?
4. In Table 1 the author lists the preconditions, components, group
processes and outcomes of social flow. This table has an input, through-
put, out-put structure derived from systems theory. However, a lot of
variables in social psychology are bicausal or in nonlinear relationships.
If this true, can some of the variables he lists be relocated or listed more
than once? If you had to edit and reconstruct this table, what would your
new list of preconditions, components, group processes and outcomes be?
5. Although throughout the chapter the author takes a strong social
psychological position on social flow, he does offer the possibility that
“syntelic personalities” may exist. He proposes that such individuals may
seek and prefer membership in human groups, especially those in which
social flow can be experienced. He suggests that older scales are biased
to assess “autotelic” personalities and need to be revised to also assess
“syntelic” personalities. If there is merit in this idea, what would a
revised flow scale look like? What scores would it produce? How might
these scores be used in basic and applied research on flow?
6. Social flow appears to be more associated with the performance of groups
in music or sports than business or government. If this is indeed so, why
is it easier to achieve social flow in a jazz jam session or pick-up
basketball game than a business meeting or political event? Are the
situational variables inherently different and thus social flow can more
readily emerge in some situations than others, or are there no meaningful
situational differences from one human group circumstance to another,
and instead, it is our culturally prescribed expectations that cause us to
seek social flow in some but not all areas of human performance?
7. Are Homo Sapiens the only animals on earth that experience social flow?
Mindful of the potential excesses of anthropomorphism, what other social
animals are candidates for the expression of social flow? Are the
conditions and indicators of social flow the same in all social species? If
the conditions and indicators are not the same, why is this so? Why did
social flow evolve in some animals but not others? Do animals that can
experience social flow have a survival advantage over those that cannot?
Can theories about the role that positive emotions play in evolution
Social Flow 21
partially explain the unique appearance of social flow in some social
species (e.g., the Broaden & Build theory of Fredrickson, 2001 & 2013)?
8. Solitary flow is a challenge to measure and assess (Moneta, 2012: cf
Moneta, Chapter 2) however, social flow presents additional challenges.
The author proposes to measure social flow by constructing a self-report
scale representing the preconditions, components, group processes and
outcomes of social flow. However, is the development of a new
assessment and measure system necessary? Are the advancements in the
assessment of solitary flow relevant and sufficient for the assessment of
social flow? If the established measures to assess solitary flow
significantly correlate with those of social flow, is there a need for the
development of new measurement procedures that go beyond those that
assess solitary flow? If two measurement systems are necessary for
future basic and applied research, how might they be similar and
different? Would there be any benefits using social flow measures in
solitary flow research, or conversely, solitary flow measures in social
flow research?
References
Andersen, C. (2012). Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Armstrong, A. C. (2008). The fragility of group flow: The experiences of two small groups
in a middle school mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
27(2), 101–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2008.08.001
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Bakker, A. B. (2001). Vragenlijst voor het meten van werkgerelateerde flow: De WOLF
[Questionnaire for the assessment of work-related flow: The WOLF]. Utrecht
University, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Social and Organizational
Psychology
Bakker, A. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26-44
Bakker, A.B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B.B. & Ali, D.K. (2011). Flow and
performance: A study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 12, 442-450. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.003
Ball, P. (2009). Flow: Nature’s Patterns, a Tapestry in Three Parts. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. (1972). Disinhibition of aggression through
diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in
Personality, 9, 253-269.
Baumann, N. (2012). Autotelic Personality. In Engeser, S. (Ed). Advances in Flow
Research (pp. 165-186). New York: Springer Publishing.
22 Social Flow
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The
search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6),
506-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037130
Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 265–292.
Borderie, J., & Michinov, N. (2017). Identifying Social Forms of Flow in Multiuser Video
Games. In R. Kowert & T. Quandt (Eds.), New Perspectives on the Social Aspects
of Digital Gaming: Multiplayer 2. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Borland, J., & Macdonald, R. (2003). Demand for Sport. Oxford Review of Economic
Policy (19) 478–502.
Cacioppo, J. T.,& Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Loneliness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle
(Eds.). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. (pp.227-240). New
York: Guilford Press.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.
Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–847. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander
(Eds.). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.), pp 91-109. New York:
Harper & Row.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd
ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Christakis, N.A. & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social
networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine (32) 556-577.
Click, M. A., Lee, H. & Holladay, H. W. (2013). Making Monsters: Lady Gaga, Fan
Identification, and Social Media. Popular Music and Society, 36(3), 360-
379, DOI: 10.1080/03007766.2013.798546
Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of
dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245-250.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday
life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Csikszentmihalyi. I. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of experience sampling
method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526-536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of flow in everyday life:
Toward a theory of emergent motivation. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Current theory and
Social Flow 23
research in motivation, Vol. 40. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992:
Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 57-97). Lincoln, NE, US: University
of Nebraska Press.Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further
explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 319-348.
Engeser, S., Ed. (2012). Advances in Flow Research. New York: Springer Publishing.
Engeser, S. & Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2012. Historical Lines and an Overview of Current
Research on Flow. In Engeser, S., Ed. (2012). Advances in Flow Research. New
York: Springer Publishing.
Engeser, S. & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill
balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158-172.
Francillon, R. (1989). Grumman Aircraft since 1929. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-
226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive Emotions Broaden and Build. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1-53.
Friggeri, A., Adamic, L. A., Eckles, D., & Cheng, J. (2014). Rumor Cascades. Proceedings
of the Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Gaggioli, A., Milani, L., Mazzoni, E., & Riva, G. (2011). Networked Flow: A Framework
for Understanding the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration in Educational and
Training Settings. The Open Education Journal, 4, 41–49.
Gloor, P. A., Oster, D., & Fischbach, K. (2013). JazzFlow—analyzing “group flow” among
jazz musicians through “honest signals”. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, 27(1), 37-43.
doi:10.1007/s13218-012-0230-3
Goldstein, A. P. (2001). Reducing resistance: Methods for enhancing openness to change.
Champaign Illinois: Research Press.
Guo Y.M. & Poole M.S. (2009). Antecedents of flow in online shopping: a test of
alternative models. Information Systems Journal, 19, 369–390.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group Tasks, Group Integration Process and
Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, pp 1-55.
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, 109–129. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hart, E., & Blasi, Z. D. (2015). Combined flow in musical jam sessions: A pilot
qualitative study. Psychology of Music, 43, 275-290.
Hartman, K. (2012). The Wrecking Crew: The Inside Story of Rock and Roll’s Best Kept
Secret. New York: St. Martin Press.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge
England: Cambridge University Press.
Heyne, K., Pavlas, D., & Salas, E. (2011). An Investigation on the Effects of Flow State on
Team Process and Outcomes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 475–479.
24 Social Flow
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than
one? Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517-539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.91.3.517
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness
and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
Jackson, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sport: The keys to optimal
experiences and performances. Urbana, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, S., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal
experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18,
17-35.
Janis, I. (1991). Groupthink. In E. Griffin (Ed.) A First Look at Communication Theory (pp.
235 - 246). New York: McGraw Hill.
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.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2015). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-
Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Keeler, J.R., Roth, E.A., Neuser, B.L., Spirsbergen, J.M., Waters, D.J.M. & Vianney, J.M.
(2015). The neurochemistry and social flow of singing: bonding and oxytocin.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9:518. doi: 10.3389/fhhum.2015.00518
Jones, R. L. & Kingston, K., Eds. (2015). An Introduction to Sports Coaching:
Connecting Theory to Practice. London: Routledge Press
Kuczaj, I. I., & Eskelinen, H. C. (2014). The “Creative Dolphin” Revisited: What Do
Dolphins Do When Asked to Vary their Behavior? Animal Behavior and Cognition,
1(1), 66-76.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A. & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013) Construct Validity
of the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the Nomological Network. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 95, 610-624, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
Lemon, M., & Sahota, P. S. (2004). Organizational culture as a repository for increased
innovative capacity. Technovation, 24, 484-498.
Littlepage, G. E. (1991). Effects of Group Size and Task Characteristics on Group
Performance: A Test of Steiner's Model. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17, 449-456.
Locke, E. A. (2009). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. London: Wiley
Magyaródi T., Nagy H., Soltész P., Mózes T., Oláh A. (2013). Psychometric properties of a
newly established flow state questionnaire. The Journal of Happiness & Well-
Being, 1(2), 85–96.
Magyarodi, T., Olah, A. (2015). A Cross-Sectional Survey Study About the Most Common
Solitary and Social Flow Activities to Extend the Concept of Optimal Experience.
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 11(4), 632-650. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v11i4.866
Martínez, J. R., Guillén, F., & Feltz, D. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Spanish
version of the collective efficacy questionnaire for sports. Psicothema, 23(3), 503-
509. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3915.pdf
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 1–22
Social Flow 25
Moneta, G. B. (2012). On the Measurement and Conceptualization of Flow. In Engeser, S.
(Ed). Advances in Flow Research (pp. 23-50). New York: Springer Publishing.
Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The Construction of Meaning Through Vital
Engagement. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive
Psychology and the Life Well-Lived (pp 83-104). Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
Paradis, K. F. & Martin, L. J. (2012). Team Building in Sport: Linking Theory and
Research to Practical Application. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3:3, 159-
170.
Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T. Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative
word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20, 117-128, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2013.797778
Rheinberg, F. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and flow-experience. In H. Heckhausen & J.
Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 323–348). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). The assessment of flow experience. In
J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und
Selbstkonzept (pp. 261–279). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Rosnow, R.L. & Fine, G.A. (1987). Gossip, Gossipers, Gossiping. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 161-168.
Rovell, D. (2018). Ratings of NFL down 9.7 percent in 2017 season.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21960086/nfl-television-ratings-97-percent-
2017-regular-season
Saphire-Bernstein, S & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Close Relationships and Happiness. In
Boniwell, I., David, S. A., & Ayers, A. C. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook on Happiness.
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Salanova, M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Cifre, E. (2014). Flowing
Together: A Longitudinal Study of Collective Efficacy and Collective Flow Among
Workgroups. The Journal of Psychology, 148(4), 435–455.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: musical performance and collaboration.
Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165.
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Genius: The Creative power of Collaboration. Cambridge, MA:
Basic Books.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourishing. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A. & Warnecke, D. (2014). How does project
termination impact project team members? Rapid termination, creeping death, and
learning from failure. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 513-546
Smith, M.B., Koppes Bryan, L. & Vodanovich, S.J. (2012). The counter-intuitive effects of
flow on positive leadership and employee attitudes: Incorporating positive
psychology into the management of organizations. The Psychologist-Manager
Journal, 15, 174-198.
Snow, K. Y. (2010). Work relationships that flow: Examining the interpersonal flow
experience, knowledge sharing, and organizational commitment (Doctoral
26 Social Flow
Dissertation). Claremont Graduate University. Retrieved from
http://gradworks.umi.com/34/36/3436590.html
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of
assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
125-139.
Stalmeijer, R. E., Gijselaers, H., Wolfhagen, I., Harendza, S., & Scherpbier, A., (2007).
How interdisciplinary teams can create multi-disciplinary education: the interplay
between team processes and educational quality. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Statista (2018). https://www.statista.com/topics/2113/sports-on-tv/
Stein, M. B., & Stein, D. J. (2008). Social anxiety disorder. The Lancet, vol. 371, 1115-
1125.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Strom, E. (2003). Cultural policy as development policy: Evidence from the United States.
International Journal of Cultural Policy (9), 247-263.
Swann, C., Piggott, D., Schweickle, M., & Vella, S. A. (2018). A Review of Scientific
Progress in Flow in Sport and Exercise: Normal Science, a Crisis Point, and a
Progressive Shift. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30, 249-271.
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and
consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 113, 73-84
Tett, R. P., & Burnet, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
Tse, D. C. K., Wing-yan Lau, V., Perlman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (2018). The Development
and Validation of the Autotelic Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1491855
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective
performance in professional sports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848-859.
Turner, M. E. & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-Five Years of Groupthink Theory and
Research: Lessons from the Evaluation of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 73, 105-115.
Van den Hout, J. J., Davis, O. C. & Weggeman, M. (2018). The Conceptualization of
Team Flow. The Journal of Psychology, 152, 388-423.
Van Schaik, P., Martin, S., Vallance, M. (2012). Measuring flow experience in an
immersive virtual environment for collaborative learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 28, 350-365. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00455.x
Walker, C. J. (2008). The Role of Audiences in Autotelic and Syntelic Flow Experiences of
Athletes. Poster presented at the 4th European Positive Psychology Conference held
at Opatija, Croatia.
Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing Flow: Is Doing It Together Better Than Doing It
Alone? Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 1-9.
Walker, C. J. (2016). Vicariously Experiencing Flow: Is Watching Social Flow Better
Than Watching Solitary Flow? Poster presented at the Canadian Positive
Psychology Conference, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON.
Walker, C. J. (2017). Conditions for Creating and Sustaining Social Forms of Flow.
Presentation at the International Positive Psychology World Congress, Montreal,
Canada.
Social Flow 27
Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S. & Harwood, C. (2017). Conflict among athletes and their
coaches: what is the theory and research so far? International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 10, 84-107, DOI: 10.1080/1750984X.2016.1184698
Wesselmann, E. D., Nairne, J. S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). An evolutionary social
psychological approach to studying the effects of ostracism. Journal of Social,
Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 309-328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099249
Zumeta, L., Basabe., N., Wlodarzyk, A., Bobowik, M., Paez, D. (2016). Shared flow and
positive collective gatherings. Anales de Psicologia, 32, 717-727. doi:
10.6018/analesps.32.3.261651
