Running head: CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Challenge and flow: The influence of visual stimulation and information
processing on time perception
Matthew K. Pageau
Saint Joseph’s University
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Experimental Psychology with a specialization in cognitive psychology
in the Graduate School of Saint Joseph’s University.
Approved: ____________________
Patrick Garrigan, Ph.D.
Approved: ____________________
Josephine Shih, Ph.D.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Date: July 22, 2015
Abstract
In two experiments, we examined flow and time perception using a Multiple Object Tracking
(MOT) paradigm. In Experiment 1 participants performed the MOT task at one of three
challenge levels (low, medium, high). There were no differences in flow or time perception
between the groups. A median split by level of flow showed that participants who experienced
higher flow also perceived greater subjective time distortion (time “flying”). In Experiment 2
participants were able to adjust MOT challenge. There were no differences in flow or time
perception between 3 experimenter established challenge groups. A tertile split by level of flow
showed significant differences in subjective time distortion among the groups. Higher flow was
associated with greater subjective time distortion. Faster MOT speed was correlated with shorter
estimated elapsed time. In both experiments greater subjective time distortion correlated with
higher enjoyment. We were unable to demonstrate flow varying with skill/challenge match on
the MOT. However, flow did vary with time perception as in previous research. Comparing
Experiments 1 and 2, we found no differences in flow but significant differences in subjective
time distortion, error estimation, and enjoyment. Participants in Experiment 1 felt time pass more
quickly, thought their estimations were less than true time, and enjoyed the task more relative to
those in Experiment 2. We conclude the increase in subjective time distortion in Experiment 2 is
due to increased information processing.
2

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………... 2
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Defining characteristics of flow………………………………………………………….. 6
Skill and challenge……………………………………………………………….. 8
Applications of the flow model.………………………………………………………… 11
Time perception and intrinsic motivation………………………………………………. 13
Time perception and emotion…………………………………………………………... 15
Current Research……………………………………………………………………….. 18
Method………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Experiment 1……………………………………………………………………………. 19
Participants/Apparatus/Stimuli…………………………………………………. 20
Procedure……………………………………………………………………….. 21
Measures/Data Analysis………………………………………………………… 21
Experiment 2……………………………………………………………………………. 22
Participants/Apparatus/Stimuli…………………………………………………. 23
3

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Procedure……………………………………………………………………….. 23
Measures/Data Analysis………………………………………………………… 24
Experiment 1……………………………………………………………………………………. 24
Results…………………………………………………………………………………... 24
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………. 26
Experiment 2……………………………………………………………………………………. 27
Results…………………………………………………………………………………... 27
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………. 29
Posthoc Analysis - Comparison of Experiments 1 and 2……………………………………….. 31
Results…………………………………………………………………………………... 31
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………. 32
References………………………………………………………………………………………. 35
Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
Figure 2…………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………... 40
Measure of time perception…………………………………………………………….. 40
Measure of flow………………………………………………………………………… 41
4

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
In modern society, people are almost constantly reminded of the passage of time. From
clocks in our classrooms and on our phones to calendars hanging on our refrigerators, overt
reminders of elapsed time are pervasive. Besides these external cues to elapsed time, researchers
also believe that humans have the ability to mentally estimate elapsed time (Block, 1990).
Studies have investigated the influence of attention and information processing on time, and
memory storage on distortions in time perception (Ornstein, 1969). The present paper will
consider time perception under attention-informational and memory storage based models.
Ornstein (1969) proposed the storage-size model, which proposed that as a piece of
information takes up more metaphorical space in our memory, it is recalled as being longer than
a piece of information that takes up less space. For example, if a person were able to take in
much more information in time period A, as opposed to time period B, the perception of A will
seem longer than B.
The amount of storage space used to encode information may also depend on the type of
information encoded. That is, if you have a code for condensing information into smaller units,
such as the ability to recode a base two number “101101” as the base ten number “45”, time will
be distorted in a different way than if you did not. If you are able to efficiently encode
information, time will seem to condense because there is less space, and time, used to encode
this information. However, if you cannot efficiently encode information, time may seem to
expand because you are not processing information into smaller bits, and thus more metaphorical
space will be needed to store the information.
5

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
From a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to believe that time passes at a constant,
objective rate. However, the subjective perception of time does not appear to pass in this regular
manner (Curton, Lordahl, 1974). Further, the way perceived time is distorted may be linked to
emotional experience of the duration. For example, consider the quipped adage “Time flies when
you’re having fun,” or the idea that time “drags” when you’re bored. Why does our experience
of time change depending on the quality of our experiences? Or, is it the quality of our
experiences that depends on our perception of elapsed time?
Much research has tried to determine whether the distortion of perceived time is
systematically related to specific characteristics of an experience. In the research we will propose
(below), we seek to understand the relationship between time distortion in a flow experience, and
the emotional reward that is felt as a consequence of flow. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) defines flow
as a completely engaging experience with the task at hand that results in an experience of time
passing quickly and positive affect.
Defining characteristics of flow
In a recent TED talk Csikszentmihalyi asked: “What is it that makes life worth living?
What is the experience which lies between our extreme boredom and agonizing anxiety that
helps us decide it is all worth it?”. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) wrote that the acquisition of flow
was a fundamental form of reinforcement. He believed that there is an optimal experience
where one feels completely immersed in their environment, and that this experience itself is
intrinsically rewarding so that one will seek out the conditions that promote this experience.
This is “flow”.
6

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Intrinsic reward is a key characteristic of flow. An activity has intrinsic reward when
performing the activity is itself rewarding, independent of external rewards (e.g., money, awards,
recognition). Csikszentmihalyi (1975) claims that when someone acquires flow, engaging in the
behavior becomes rewarding in itself; the outcome or production of the behavior does not matter.
He concludes that people may leave the comfort of a leisurely lifestyle in order to search for
challenges that push their skill and help them acquire flow.
Csikszentmihalyi (1993) compiled characteristics he had found to be helpful in eliciting a
state of flow. He posits that flow is more likely to occur when a person is engaged in an activity:
(1) with clear goals; (2) that provides challenges that can be adjusted to users’ skill; (3) provides
clear and immediate feedback; and (4) has interactivity which facilitates focus on the task (e.g.,
limiting distractions, increasing concentration).
Csikszentmihalyi explains that people actively seeks out flow, and being fully engaged in
a task, with the sole purpose of experiencing flow. However, it seems a bit circular to suggest
that someone seeks out an experience of flow, simply for the sake of experiencing flow. It is
perhaps more likely that one would seek out flow due to desirable factors that make up a flow
experience. Besides the feeling of immersion, one of flow’s most notable characteristics is a
sense of time passing by quickly (Keller, Bless, 2008). We suggest that temporal distortion may
be the reinforcing factor that drives people to seek out flow. Temporal distortion may be may be
a reward or punishment, depending on the direction of the distortion. This can be seen in
everyday life where a child is put into time out for punishment, or a criminal sentenced to spend
their time in jail. In these cases, time is likely perceived as passing slowly. Less intuitively,
however, is the possibility that time distortion in the opposite direction - perceived as passing
quickly - may be rewarding.
7

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Skill and challenge. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) emphasized the performer’s skill level and
challenge, and suggested that flow occurs when there is a balance between the challenge that a
task presents and the skill a person has to meet that challenge. More recent research has also
largely focused on this balance between challenge and skill (Jin, 2012; Keller, Bless, 2008).
Using self-report items from Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) with an added set of flow
measurements adopted from Webster, Trevino, and Ryan (1993), Jin (2012) examined how
perceived skill would affect participants’ video game playing and ability to experience flow.
Following exposure to video game play, participants were presented with a paragraph definition
of flow, developed by Novak, et al. (2000). They were then instructed to indicate whether they
directly felt the described state of flow by indicating their level of agreement with two flow
related statements using 7-point Likert scales. Flow was also measured over nine items
pertaining towards specific aspects of flow, such as intrinsic interest, curiosity, control, and
focused attention (Webster et al., 1993). For example, three of these items read “Playing the Wii
was intrinsically interesting,” “I thought of other things,” and “I was entirely absorbed in playing
the Wii game” (Jin, p. 177).
To measure skill, participants filled out self-report surveys indicating how well the
statements described their own perceived skill level. A 7-point Likert scale anchored at (1) very
bad and (7) very good allowed participants to indicate their perceived skill level while
performing the task. Challenge was measured over four statements (e.g., “I find that using the
Wii stretches my capabilities to my limits”) and two questions (e.g., “How much does the Wii
game challenge you, compared to other things you do on the computer?”) (Jin, 2012, p. 179). A
similar 7-point Likert scale was used ranging from (1) not at all, to (7) very much.
8

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Jin (2012) found an interaction between challenge-skill match and the experience of flow.
Specifically, when participants perceived themselves as being highly skilled, they were more
likely to experience flow when the perceived challenge was high. Highly skilled participants also
experienced medium flow during medium challenge, and low flow during low challenge. In
contrast, players who felt they had a medium skill level experienced flow in a curvilinear pattern,
experiencing high flow during medium level challenge, but low flow during high and low
challenge. Participants with a low level of perceived skill did not experience flow regardless of
challenge level. Jin explains that this demonstrates a perceived skill-challenge match that must
be met in order to acquire flow. This pattern of results is in line with the concept of a balance
between task difficulty and participant skill, also known as the balance hypothesis, originally
postulated as part of the flow theory model (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).
Keller and Bless (2008) also examined one aspect of flow they called “regulatory
compatibility.” Regulatory compatibility is the match between personal characteristics (e.g.,
skills, goal orientation, personal needs or standards) and environmental characteristics (e.g., task
demands, incentives). Regulatory compatibility requires not only a match of skill and challenge,
but also other factors such as motivational personality characteristics that may help someone
match their skill with a challenge. Keller and Bless were one of the first to develop a paradigm to
investigate the causal effect of regulatory compatibility on flow. The major difference between
work done by Keller and Bless (2008), and the previously described study by Jin (2012) is that
only looked at perceived skill and challenge after the video game playing was conducted, Keller
and Bless studied an adaptive variable, which automatically matched skill and challenge during
game play. Keller and Bless used a revised form of the game Tetris where the skill-challenge
compatibility was manipulated over three levels (e.g., boredom, adaptive, and overload). In the
9

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
boredom condition, participants’ skill was much greater than the level of challenge they were
exposed to. In the overload condition, participants’ skill was much lower than the challenge of
the task. Importantly, during the adaptive condition there was an automatic increase or decrease
in task difficulty depending on a participants’ performance. This automatically raised challenge
when participants’ skill was adequate for the task, but lowered challenge when participants’ skill
did not meet the task demands.
Keller and Bless (2008) measured the flow state, which they defined as: (a) a deep
involvement in and enjoyment of the task, and (b) a feeling of accelerated passing of time. After
playing the game, participants reported on several items probing task engagement and enjoyment
using a Likert-scale with anchors of (1) not at all true and (7) completely true. Items included: “I
was strongly involved in what was happening in the game,” “I was thrilled,” “I’d love to play the
game again” (p. 208). Participants also reported their subjective estimate of the amount of time
they were playing the game on a horizontal line (10 cm in length) with end points labeled very
short and very long. Finally, researchers directly asked participants to indicate their perceived fit
of skills and task demands on a 7 point Likert scale.
Keller and Bless (2008) found that participants in the adaptive condition reported higher
levels of enjoyment and involvement than participants in the boredom or overload conditions.
This suggests that a balance of skill and challenge facilitates a feeling of involvement in an
activity, perhaps due to the acquisition of flow. Perceived fit of skill and challenge was related to
enjoying and feeling involved in the task. They also found a causal relationship between
regulatory compatibility and the level of intrinsic motivation. That is, regulatory compatibility
led people to enjoy the task more for the experience, rather than any external reward that may
have come from it. Finally, reported time engaged in the task was shorter for participants in the
10

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
adaptive condition than for participants in both the boredom and overload conditions. Considered
with the former, it seems when a participant experienced time passing quickly they also
experienced an intrinsic, rather than extrinsic reward. This result further demonstrates the
relationship between time distortion and intrinsic motivation. Our logic posits a possibility that
time distortion, specifically the experience of time passing quickly, may actually be the intrinsic
reward associated with flow experiences.
The results of Keller & Bless (2008) are in agreement with work by Conti (2001), which
suggests that the subjective experience of time passing at an accelerated rate is an element of
intrinsic motivation. Together, these results indicate that the balance of skill and challenge
facilitates a person’s ability to engage in and enjoy a task. This balance may lead to a state of
“flow,” which is marked by an accelerated experience of the passage of time. This feeling of
time distortion may be an indication that the task was matched to the participant’s skill level,
enjoyable, and was the most efficient use of our time.
Applications of the flow model
Research on flow is perhaps most naturally applied to Organizational Psychology.
Managers in companies believe that implementing policies that promote flow will increase job
satisfaction, worker performance, and efficiency. In some cases, promoting flow requires an
understanding of the relationship between a person’s need for achievement and their attitude
towards engaging in challenging tasks. Csikszentmihalyi theorized that a certain personality type
would be more likely to seek out high skill/high challenge scenarios. In 1993 he looked at certain
personality characteristics (achievement, endurance, inquisitiveness, and aestheticism), and
11

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
found participants scoring high on these characteristics tend to experience high skill and
challenge more than their experimental counterparts.
Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, and Randall (2005) hypothesized that need
for achievement is an important factor that may drive a person to seek out flow. Eisenberger et
al. hypothesized that participants with a high need for achievement who are put into a high
skill /high challenge task will experience positive mood and high task interest, but that
participants with low need for achievement who are put into a similarly high skill / high
challenge task will experience neither positive mood nor high task interest. Further, Eisenberger
et al. hypothesized that high skill and challenge would be associated with organizational
spontaneity among achievement oriented employees.
Eisenberger et al. (2005) collected data on the perceived skill/challenge level of
participant’s most time consuming task of the day. Eisenberger et al. had participants rate, on a
9-point Likert scale, their perceived skill and challenge of the task. Participants were grouped
based on the relationship between skill/challenge. Prior work done by Csikszentmihalyi in 1997
set the criterion for these skill/challenge groups: flow, anxiety, boredom, apathy. In this specific
model: flow is when skill and challenge are both above the group median; anxiety is when skill
is lower than the group median, but challenge is higher; boredom is when skill is higher than the
group median, but challenge is lower; and apathy is when skill and challenge were both below
the group median. Need for achievement was also assessed. A high need for achievement was
indicated by agreeing with statements such as “I enjoy difficult work” or “I like to set
challenging goals for myself at work” (p. 761).
12

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Eisenberger et al. (2005) found that participants who were achievement-oriented are more
likely to experience greater positive mood during high skill/high challenge tasks. This suggests a
person with a high need for achievement gets more pleasure from high skill/challenge scenarios,
and will be more likely to take on challenging tasks with a positive affect in the work place.
Also, high need for achievement may be an important personality trait in flow theory.
Time perception and intrinsic motivation
The research reviewed so far focuses on understanding the concept of flow; i.e.,
discovering what constructs determine whether a person is experiencing flow or not (e.g., degree
of engagement, self-consciousness, time perception). The present study will focus on the time
distortion. Researchers have found that, as people became more engaged in a task (typically a
task that balanced skill and challenge), and lost self-consciousness, they also felt time pass more
quickly (Conti, 2001).
Conti (2001) focused on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and time
estimation. Conti evaluated a participant’s motivational tendency, measured by a Work
Preference Inventory (WPI) that categorized participants as either intrinsically or extrinsically
motivated. Intrinsic motivation (described above) was here divided into two sub-scales,
challenge and enjoyment. Strongly agreeing to statements of liking to accept challenges
contributed to a higher score on the “challenge” sub-scale. Strongly agreeing with statements of
doing things that you find enjoyable (preferring intrinsic reward to extrinsic) would contribute to
a higher score on the “enjoyment” sub-scale. Scoring high on the enjoyment and challenge sub-
scales suggests a person is intrinsically motivated. Extrinsic motivation was also measured over
two sub-scales, compensation and outward. Compensation was measured using items concerning
13

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
being aware of awards which may give you recognition (e.g., GPA). Outward subscale consisted
of items indicated a person being motivated by external rewards that they can receive. Strongly
agreeing with statements like these indicates that a person is extrinsically motivated.
Conti (2001) was especially interested in time awareness. Participants would be signaled
via a beeper eight times a day. When signaled, participants were to indicate what time they
thought it was, and respond to a set of questions in their questionnaire aimed at probing their
awareness of time passing throughout the day. For instance, participants were asked what time
they thought it was, and indicated on a 5 point Likert-scale if time was going (1) very slowly to
(5) very quickly. Following these time awareness questions, affective experience was measured
over several bipolar items (happy-sad, irritable-cheerful) (as in Csikzentmihalyi, 1975).
With regard to Conti’s hypothesized relationship between intrinsic motivation and time-
awareness, he found that participants who are high in intrinsic motivation are less aware of time,
check the time less often, lose track of time more often, and experience time as moving more
quickly than participants who are low in intrinsic motivation. Even with time awareness
controlled, intrinsic motivation was related to participants perceiving time moving more quickly.
Time awareness appears to be related to a tendency to think that the time of day is later than it
really is, to perceive time as moving slowly, and to experiencing negative affect. This study
shows a person who is motivated by intrinsic reward is also more likely to perceive time as
passing more quickly, and pay less attention to time. This suggests that a person who is
intrinsically motivated may be motivated by the feeling of keeping their attention off the passing
of time, and on the challenging task at hand.
14

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Taken with earlier results, it seems that intrinsic motivation may not be what flow is, but
what causes flow. That is, a person who is more intrinsically motivated, or motivated by the
experience itself, will be more likely to acquire flow. However, what remains is that a person
who is intrinsically motivated experiences time passing more quickly than a person who is not
intrinsically motivated. Relating to time as a reward system, it may be that distorting time
perception is the rewarding factor that people who enjoy intrinsic motivations feel when they are
enjoying a challenging task. Further, feeling time distort so that it appears to be passing more
quickly may be a sensation that drives intrinsically motivated people to enjoy, and seek out,
intrinsically rewarding situations.
Time perception and emotion
As discussed above, flow experiences are routinely associated with positive affect (Keller
and Bless, 2008). It is intuitive that flow and positive affect would go together since flow is
experienced when one is engaged with a task, and engagement in a task occurs mostly when one
enjoys the task they are performing. Perhaps less intuitive, however, is the fact that perceived
distortions of elapsed time also tend to go along with the experience of flow (Keller and Bless,
2008).
Rudd, Vohs, and Aaker (2012) conducted three experiments testing the interaction
between the experience of awe, time distortion, and enhanced well-being. Experiment 1 tested
the hypothesis that experiencing awe -- emotion felt when experiencing something that provokes
someone to update their mental schema -- increases the perception of available time. Rudd et al.
showed pictures to elicit either a feeling of awe or happiness. Researchers measured participants’
feelings of whether time seemed constricted, and if it seemed to be slipping away, boundless, or
15

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
expanded. Researchers chose to compare temporal experience of awe to that of happiness
because they are both positively valenced. Further, they looked at time distortion as a
prerequisite for the feeling of awe, and not a consequence, by priming participants into feeling
time was constricted before they were introduced to the happy or awe conditions.
Rudd et al. (2012) found that awe, compared to happiness, led to a feeling that time was
expansive. Participants indicated time felt more plentiful when experiencing awe, compared with
happiness. Also, researchers demonstrated that the expansive time distortion felt during an awe
experience is not due to positive valence, but rather specific to a feeling of awe. Researchers
showed that time distortion was a prerequisite to experiencing awe by controlling for the feeling
of time expansiveness by priming participants to feel time was constricted at the start of the
experiment. This means to feel awe, one must also experience a feeling that time is expansive
(2012).
Taken with results by Rudd, et al. (2012), it seems that time distortion is a prerequisite to
some emotional experiences. Time distortion may also be a prerequisite in flow experience,
specifically to positive affect, just as time distortion is to awe. If this were true, one may contrive
that time perception is an important factor in experiencing emotions such as awe, and happiness.
This idea is in line with the idea that time distortion may be the intrinsic reward for flow
experience. Generally, it may be that attention being distracted from the passing of time allows
one to experience positive emotions. In the domain of flow, it may be that when someone is able
to efficiently process information, they are focusing on the task at hand and becoming engaged
with the task, and thus feel time passing more quickly. Conversely, if someone is not focusing on
processing information, their attention may be allocated to the passing of time, and thus stretch
16

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
their temporal experience. Using the logic of Rudd et al., the feeling of time contracting and
expanding may help differentiate emotional experiences.
Awe and happiness both have positive emotional valence, but they distort time
differently. It may not be the direction of time distortion that dictates emotional experience, but
attentional demand, and attentional direction. In flow research, the relationship between time
passing more quickly and positive affect are demonstrated within attention demanding
environments (e.g., video games, website browsing). Rudd et al. (2012) demonstrated that
feeling awe was preceded by experiencing time as more expansive in a non-attention demanding
environment. This shows that certain emotional experiences (e.g., awe, positive affect) cannot be
attributed to specific directional time distortions. It seems that time distorting as slowly or
quickly does not indicate positive or negative emotion. However, it may not be important to
indicate direction of time distortion, but rather the distortion from the norm and context (e.g.,
attention demanding environment, or not). For example, a pleasant task may be more pleasurable
if it passes more slowly, and less pleasurable if it passes too quickly. Conversely, an unpleasant
task may be more pleasurable if it passes more quickly, and more unpleasurable if it passes more
slowly. Untangling these inner workings is not in the scope of the present research. However,
note that time distortion has been associated with emotional experience even outside the realm of
flow research. This suggests that if we can begin to further understand time distortion in certain
contexts (e.g., working environments, non-working, flow, non-flow), then we may be better able
to understand what the perception represents in respect to our emotional experience. We begin
by looking at time distortion in the domain of flow.
Current Research
17

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
The literature previously discussed has allowed us to conclude three things. First, there is
a lack of experimental studies of the idea of flow. Second, a proper understanding of the role of
time distortion in a flow experience has not been thoroughly investigated outside of the simple
fact that it is a part of the flow experience. Third, there are conflicting results and convoluted
research, analysis, and evidence in the domain of flow. A model of flow from Csikszentmihalyi
in 1997 (Figure 1) puts flow only being acquired during high skill/high challenge, however,
many studies find that flow is experienced generally when skill and challenge are matched,
including Csikszentmihalyi’s flow model from 1990 (Figure 2).
The aim of our present research is to measure if high skill and challenge promote flow
using a simple, well-controlled task. Studies have shown that the two dominant features of flow
are positive affect and time distortion. Since positive affect seems to be part of any desirable
state, not just flow, a positive state is not particularly diagnostic of flow. However, time
distortion is an indicator of when someone is in a state of flow, which is not commonly related to
positive experience in general. Consequently, we will operationalize flow as the presence of time
distortion. Flow is also believed to be self-motivational, and so we will look for evidence that
high skill individuals will choose to increase the challenge of their task in order to make a flow
state more likely.
In a pilot experiment, we will characterize typical between-subject variability in
performance on a multiple object tracking (MOT) task. Using the MOT paradigm will allow for
assessment of flow in a very controlled environment, as compared to previously that used
complex paradigms (e.g., video games, web site browsing). Also, the challenge level of the MOT
task is easily manipulated through the speed of the objects being tracked.
18

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
During the pilot study, participants performed a set of MOT trials varying in complexity
(low to high). Using 3 motivated subjects from our lab, we measured each participants’ skill in
the MOT based on the percent of objects successfully tracked for various speeds. These scores
were used to indicate the range of expected performance on the MOT trials, and allow us to
identify subjects in Experiments 1, and 2, as high or low skill. However, our analysis suggested
no significant between-subjects variability in skill on the MOT. We concluded that the lack of
differences may be because the MOT is a basic visual task, and as such participants have one
skill level.
In Experiment 1, participants will be presented with a set of MOT trials where the
challenge of the trials either matches the skill level of their group (e.g., medium skill, medium
challenge) or does not (e.g., medium skill, low challenge; medium skill, high challenge). We
expect that participants in the matched condition will experience higher levels of flow and time
passing more quickly than those in both the unmatched conditions.
In Experiment 2 participants will complete a set of MOT trials with the ability to adjust
the challenge of the trials to their liking. We anticipate that participants will tend toward a level
that facilitates flow acquisition. We believe that participants that end up in the medium challenge
group will indicate the highest rate of flow and time passing more quickly than participants in the
low and high challenge positions.
Additionally, we will compare the experiments to see if there was, in fact, higher levels
of flow indicated when one had the ability to adjust the MOT challenge. In sum, we hypothesize
that during an attention demanding task, people will tend to behave in a way which matches their
skill with the challenge of the task, avoiding states of boredom and overwhelmingness.
19

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Method
Experiment 1
During Experiment 1 we will investigate the effect of skill level relative to task
challenge (“matched” or “unmatched”) on acquisition of flow. Specifically, we will measure the
effect of performing a matched or unmatched skill/challenge task on the likelihood of obtaining
flow and on perceived distortions of elapsed time. We hypothesize that participants in the
matched skill/challenge group will be more likely to experience flow and time passing quickly
compared to the unmatched group. Much research has shown that flow tends to occur in
situations where skill matches challenge, and when flow occurs time seems to pass more quickly
(Csikszentmihalyi 1997; Keller, Bless, 2008; Jin, 2012).
The “matched” group will consist of participants who were subject to scenarios of
medium challenge on the MOT. Participants in the matched group are expected to experience
more flow, and time passing more quickly. Participants in the “unmatched” group will consist
of participants who were subject to scenarios of low and high challenge on the MOT.
Participants in the “unmatched group” should experience less flow and perceive time passing
more slowly than those in the matched condition.
Participants. Fifty-one undergraduate Saint Joseph’s University students participated in
this study. Participants were recruited through the Curricular Enhancement Program (CEP).
Participants were compensated with CEP credits that contribute towards completion of
introductory undergraduate psychology courses.
Apparatus. The experiment was run on a Mac Pro computer with a 23-inch standard
Apple Cinema flat panel display. Stimuli were presented using MATLAB and the psychophysics
toolbox (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1997).
20

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Stimuli. The Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) paradigm will again be used, but this time
with only one speed on all trials. Based on a preliminary set of 20 trials (see Procedure, below),
subjects will be designated as high or low performers and assigned a speed so that they are in the
matched or unmatched challenge condition.
Procedure. After gaining informed consent, the experimenter will ask participants to
remove all watches, cell phones, and any other devices capable of indicating time. Devices will
be kept in a secure, separate, room. We will then instruct on how to properly perform the MOT
task. Once informed, participants will begin a block of 30 trials (30 seconds each) that will take
approximately 15 minutes. The participant will randomly assigned a challenge level that they
will experience through the entirety of the experiment. All trials will be completed in a single
session, and trials will all be a single speed, creating low, medium, and high challenge groups.
Upon completion of the MOT trials, participants will be prompted to fill out a paper and pencil
survey of time perception and flow.
Measures. We will test whether the manipulation of matching or mismatching skill and
challenge changes time perception and the acquisition of flow. Participants will complete a 10-
item measure of flow and 3 items measuring separate aspects of time perception. We are going to
be measuring time distortion not as a subscale of flow, but as a separate variable and scale.
Time distortion will be measured using three dependent variables. The first question will
ask, “Precisely, how many minutes do you believe you were performing the multiple object
tracking task?” and participants will be expected to provide a single numerical answer (i.e., not a
range). The first question will establish the variable, estimated elapsed time, a numerical estimate
of how long the experiment lasted. The second variable, subjective time distortion, will be
probed by asking participants to indicate their subjective feeling of time. Scores will be indicated
21

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
on a 7-point scale ranging from 1, “flying”, to 7, “dragging”. Our third variable, error estimate,
will be probed by asking participants to imagine their estimated elapsed time was incorrect and
indicate on a 6 point-Likert scale whether they think their estimate was more or less time than
the true time that had passed, (1) much more, (6) much less (all questions adapted from Conti,
2001; Rudd, Vohs, and Aaker, 2012).
A measure of flow will be assessed. Ten questions adapted from Keller, and Bless
(2008), and Jin (2012), will be used to judge whether someone is experiencing flow. Participants
will indicate the extent to which their experience is well described by a statement pertaining to
flow. Scores will range from 1 not at all, to 7, completely. A few examples of statements are “I
was strongly involved with what was happening,” “I thought of other things during the trials,”
and “I was aware of myself playing the game.” Higher scores will indicate an experience more
consistent with flow. All questions and scales are detailed in the Appendix. We will analyze all
flow related questions (each measured on a Likert scale), coded so that low values corresponding
to an experience less consistent with Flow and high values corresponding to an experience more
consistent with flow.
Data Analysis. The main objective of Experiment 1 is to measure the difference between
the matched and unmatched groups on measures of flow and time distortion. We are not going to
use time distortion as a measure of flow, and instead will treat it as a separate variable from flow.
We will use a Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to measure the difference between the
means in scores on flow and time distortion between matched and unmatched groups. We
believe the matched group will have higher flow and time distortion scores, indicating more flow
and the perception of time passing more quickly. Further, the unmatched group will have lower
flow and lower time distortion scores.
22

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Experiment 2
The second experiment will assess the intrinsic reward factor of flow. To do this, we
devised an adjustable Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) paradigm in which the participant can
adjust the challenge (the speed at which the targets and distracters move) between each trial
either up one level, or down one level. We are interested in how participants will adjust the
challenge (i.e., what is their most desirable challenge level), if it matches their skill, and how this
may influence both their ability to obtain a state of flow and their experience time distortion. We
hypothesize that participants who tend towards a medium challenge will experience higher flow
and time passing more quickly. We believe this will occur because, if our theory in Experiment 1
is correct, participants will most likely obtain flow when the task challenge matches their skill
level, as compared to a state where the challenge of the task does not match their skill.
Participants will tend towards the matched skill/difficulty condition that promotes flow because
flow is intrinsically rewarding (Csikszentmihalyi 1997).
Participants. Sixty undergraduate Saint Joseph’s University students participated in this
study. Participants were recruited and compensated in the same way as Experiment 1.
Apparatus. The experiment was run on a Mac Pro computer with a 23-inch standard
Apple Cinema flat panel display. Stimuli were presented using MATLAB and the psychophysics
toolbox (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1997).
Stimuli. The MOT paradigm will be used. The MOT will deviate from the standard setup
in Experiment 1 by giving participants control to adjust the task challenge by one speed interval.
Procedure. Upon gaining informed consent, participants will be instructed on how to
perform the MOT task. Participants will be instructed that they will have to change the speed of
23

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
the MOT after each trial. There will be 10 speeds to choose from. We will explicitly mention we
are not scoring, or judging, their performance. Also, subjects will be informed that the speed of
the dots on any given trial will not affect the length of the experiment. Trials will be initiated on
the middle, fifth, level. There will be 30 trials (30 seconds each), 15 minutes in total. Participants
will be told that the task difficulty (speed of targets and distracters) they choose has no impact on
the length of the experiment. Apart from this, trials will be run the same as Experiment 1. After
completing the MOT task, participants will be instructed to fill out the same two surveys as in
Experiment 1.
Measures. The same survey measurements (e.g., time perception and flow) from
Experiment 2 will be administered. Researchers will compare the modal speed selected by the
participant with whether the person is experiencing flow. Being matched will be defined as being
within one standard deviation of the total mean speed of all the participants. It is expected
matching skill and difficulty will result in a higher state of flow and time passing more quickly.
Data Analysis. The main objective of Experiment 2 is to determine if participants that
match task challenge to their skill level experience higher rates of flow and time passing more
quickly than those who were unable to adjust the MOT precisely to the medium challenge level.
We are also interested if subjects who match task challenge to skill level will be more likely to
experience flow and in how these behaviors (matching or not matching) influence time
distortion. We will use a MANOVA to measure between groups differences between matched
and unmatched groups. We expect the matched group will experience flow and perceive time
passing more quickly than the unmatched group.
Experiment 1
24

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Results
Perception of elapsed time was measured in three ways. The first variable, estimated
elapsed time, is participants’ estimations of how many minutes the experiment lasted. The
second variable, subjective time distortion, corresponds to the rate at which participant’s felt
time seemed to pass during the experiment (from 1=“flying” to 7= “dragging”). The third
variable, error estimate, was probed last. For this variable, participants were asked to imagine
their estimate of elapsed time was wrong, and indicate the degree to which they believe they had
overestimated or underestimated the duration of the experiment. Flow was measured using 10
questions probing enjoyment, attention, concentration, and immersion. The independent variable
in Experiment 1 was the challenge level of the MOT task, operationalized as MOT speed. There
were three speeds, with slower speeds corresponding to lower challenge level.
A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was run with flow, estimated elapsed
time, subjective time distortion, and error estimate as the dependent variables. Challenge on the
MOT paradigm was the independent variable in the MANOVA. There was no main effect of
challenge on flow [(F(2,48) = .837, p = .439], no main effect of challenge on estimated elapsed
time [F(2,48) = .830, p = .442], no main effect of challenge on subjective time distortion
[F(2,48) = .820, p = .446], and no main effect of challenge on error estimate [F(2,48) = .347, p
= .708]. Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed no differences between any levels of challenge on any
dependent variable (flow, interval time perception, likert time perception, interval error
estimation).
25

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
We also examined the relationships between flow and the dependent variables related to
time perception and flow. We found no evidence of a correlation between flow and estimated
elapsed time [r(49) = -.18, p = .207], or between flow and error estimate [r(49) = -.173, p = .
223]. There was a significant correlation between subjective time distortion and the item for
enjoyment on the flow scale [r(49) = -.314, p = .014] (See Figure 3). Faster time perception was
positively correlated with greater enjoyment.
We separated participants into those who reported below median flow and those who
reported at or above median flow. An independent samples t-test revealed marginally significant
differences in subjective time distortion (t(49) = 2.001, p =.051). Higher flow was associated
with time “flying” (See Figure 4).
We also separated participants into two groups based on how they felt time seemed to be
passing (flying or dragging). The “time dragging” group was composed of participants with
subjective time distortion above “4 – neither faster or slower than normal”. The “time flying”
group was composed of participants with subjective time distortion at or below ”3 – A little
quicker”. There was a significant difference in flow level between the time dragging and time
flying groups [t (49) = 2.146, p = .037], with the time flying group experiencing higher levels of
flow (See Figure 5).
Discussion
We found no evidence that challenge on an MOT task affects flow or time perception.
One possible reason for these null results is that the MOT may not be a proper paradigm for
inducing flow. It is also possible that, with a greater range of speeds in the MOT task (greater
range of challenge), differences in flow and time perception would have been observed.
26

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
We were also found no significant correlations between estimated elapsed time and flow,
or between subjective time distortion and flow. We did, however, find a significant correlation
between subjective time distortion and enjoyment. This suggests a relationship between how one
perceives time and how much they enjoyed their experience. Specifically, the relationship seems
to be greater enjoyment is more likely to be experienced when time is perceived as flying.
With our original hypotheses not supported, we turned our attention to the relationship
between time perception and flow, excluding challenge from the analyses. Since challenge did
not affect flow or time perception we collapsed data across challenge groups to increase power.
Using the median split, we divided our subjects into high or low flow groups. Participants in the
high flow group were more likely to experience time as flying, while participants in the low flow
group were more likely to experience time as dragging. This is our first result indicating a
relationship between time perception and flow. The direction of the relationship is consistent
with earlier studies in which high flow is associated with time perceived as flying. Even though
we cannot say the MOT challenge level was related to flow, it does seem that flow differences
during a basic visual task (MOT) are still associated with distortions in time perception. This
result is indirect evidence that flow can be experienced even during performance of a simple
visual task.
We also found marginally significant differences in flow between individuals who
reported their subjective time distortion as “time flying” and individuals who reported their
subjective time distortion as “time dragging”. Participants who experience time passing faster are
more likely to experience higher flow.
27

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
It is interesting that time perception varied with flow scores even though our speed
manipulation had no impact on the likelihood of experiencing flow. The relationship between
challenge and skill is essential in flow theory. Here we demonstrate that even though challenge
level appeared to have no impact on flow, there was still a relationship between flow and time
perception.
Experiment 2
Results
In Experiment 2 participants were able to adjust the speed of the MOT by one increment
on each trial. For analysis, participants were divided into 3 challenge groups (denoted “speed”,
below) depending on the mean speed of the MOT over the final 10 trials. Participants 1 standard
deviation above the mean were assigned to the fast group (n=15). Participants 1 standard
deviation below the mean were assigned to the slow group (n=14). The remaining participants
were assigned to the middle group (n = 31). Slower speeds correspond to lower challenge level.
A MANOVA was conducted to compare subjective time distortion, estimated elapsed
time, error estimate, and flow across the low, middle, and high speed groups. The analysis
revealed no main effect of speed on subjective time distortion [F(2,57) = .389, p = .680], on
estimated elapsed time [F(2,57) = 1.697, p = .192], on error estimate [F(2,57) = .951, p = .291]
or on flow [F(2,57) = .162, p = .851].
In the next analysis, participants were divided into three groups based on their flow score.
Participants 1 standard deviation above the mean were assigned to the high flow group (n = 16).
28

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Participants 1 standard deviation below the mean were assigned to the low flow group (n =15).
The remaining participants were assigned to the middle group (n = 29).
A MANOVA was conducted to compare subjective time distortion, estimated elapsed
time, error estimate, and MOT speed across flow groups. The MANOVA revealed a main effect
of subjective time distortion on flow [F (2, 57) = 1.772, p = .032] (See Figure 6), but no main
effects of estimated elapsed time [F (2, 57) = 2.407, p = .099], error estimate [F (2, 57) = .982, p
= .082], or MOT speed [F (2, 57) = .575, p = .566] on flow. A Tukey post-hoc test revealed
significant differences in subjective time distortion between the low (M = 3.42, SD = 0.49) and
high flow (M = 5.92, SD = 0.58) groups and between the medium (M = 4.27, SD = 0.36) and
high flow groups. There was no significant difference between low and medium flow groups.
As in Experiment 1, participants were divided into two groups based on subjective time
distortion (flying, or dragging). We did not find a difference in flow between the subjective time
distortion groups [(t(58) = .735, p = .466].
Pearson’s correlations revealed a significant relationship between subjective time
distortion and flow [r(58) = -.384, p = .002]. Faster subjective time distortion was correlated with
higher levels of flow. However, estimated elapsed time [r(58) = .122, p = .561], and error
estimate [r(58) = .322, p = .439] did not correlate with flow. The enjoyment item on the flow
scale was significantly correlated with estimated elapsed time [r(58) = -.261, p = .044],
subjective time distortion [r(58) = -.306, p = .017], and error estimate [r(58) = -.317, p = .014].
Those who indicated shorter estimated elapsed time, and faster subjective time distortion, and a
feeling that their estimate was less than true time, also indicated higher levels of enjoyment.
29

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Speed was significantly correlated with estimated elapsed time [r(58) = -.266, p = .040]
(See Figure 7). Participants with faster speeds tended to estimate shorter elapsed time. Speed,
however, was not significantly correlated with subjective time distortion [r(58) = .144, p = .273],
estimated error [r(58) = -.124, p =.34], or flow [r(58) = -.012, p = .927].
Discussion
We investigated how freedom to manipulate speed (challenge) would affect flow and
time perception. We hypothesized that a specific speed level would allow participants to better
acquire flow and as a consequence, affect time perception. We believed that a specific speed
level would facilitate flow acquisition because the MOT was a basic visual attention task that
does not have a large skill range – meaning that there may be a specific speed at which most
participants will have the optimal skill and challenge match for flow to occur.
Our first analysis examined participants’ flow and time perception, and whether one
speed group experienced higher flow and faster time perception than the others. We found no
differences in flow or time perception between low, medium, or high speed groups. We also
analyzed the possible effect speed had on time perception. There was no difference in time
perception (estimated elapsed time, subjective time distortion, or estimated error) between speed
groups. In accord with results from Experiment 1, these results suggest the MOT speed/challenge
does not directly affect flow acquisition or time perception.
We did, however, find a link between speed and estimated elapsed time. Shorter
estimations of elapsed time were correlated with faster speeds. Contrary to our expectations,
estimated elapsed time did not increase with the length of the paths of the dots, rather it increased
with the speed of the dots. If estimates of elapsed time were due to dot path length then faster
speeds would have been associated with longer estimated elapsed time.
30

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Subjective time distortion was not correlated with dot speed, but within our
experimentation has been shown to be associated with flow. Estimated elapsed time was
correlated with dot speed, but has not been shown to correlate, or be associated, with flow. This
suggests that estimated elapsed time and subjective time distortion might be influenced by
different factors. These results indicate that estimated elapsed time is related to sensory
processing of object speed; while subjective time distortion is related to cognitive factors (e.g.,
attention, concentration).
As in Experiment 1, we analyzed the relationship between time perception and flow by
grouping participants according to their relative time perception and flow scores. Flow was
divided into 3 groups (low, medium, high), and we found that the groups significantly differed in
subjective time distortion. Higher levels of flow were related to time seeming to be flying, and
lower flow with time dragging. There were significant differences in subjective time distortion
between the low and high groups, and the medium and high groups. However, there was not a
significant difference in subjective time distortion between the low and medium flow groups.
Also, we divided participants into those who felt time seemed to pass more quickly
(flying) or not (dragging). We found a significant difference in the level of flow between
subjective time distortion groups with participants who experienced time flying indicating higher
flow scores. These results lend further support to the relationship between subjective time
distortion and flow. The results also support the relationship between subjective time distortions
and flow independent of a skill and challenge match, as we found in Experiment 1.
Estimated elapsed time, subjective time distortion, and error estimate all correlated with
the enjoyment item within the flow scale. Time “flying” and the feeling that estimated time was
less than true time correlated with higher levels of enjoyment. This demonstrates that one’s
31

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
feeling about how time was subjectively passing (flying or dragging), and about the error in
one’s estimate (less or more), are associated with enjoyment. Also, shorter estimated elapsed
time was correlated with more enjoyment. This correlation, along with prior research done by
current researchers (Pageau, & Surgan, 2015), suggests that time perception is a rewarding and
punishing factor.
Posthoc Analysis - Comparison of Experiments 1 and 2
Results
The data from Experiment 1 and 2 was compiled together. An additional variable
“Experiment” divided the participant’s into their respective experiment groups. An Independent
t-test revealed differences in subjective time distortion [t (2, 109) = .781, p = .039], error
estimation [t (109) = 3.356, p = .046], and enjoyment [t (109) = 1.702, p = .041] between
Experiment 1 and 2. Those in Experiment 1 felt time pass (M = 3.94 sec, SD = 1.82)
significantly faster than participants in Experiment 2 (M = 4.63 sec, SD = 1.67). Also,
participants in Experiment 1 felt their interval estimates were shorter than the truly elapsed time
(M = 2.39 error estimate, SD = 1.44) more than those in Experiment 2 (M = 4.32 error estimate,
SD = 1.03). Further, participants in Experiment 1 enjoyed the task (M = 4.91 enjoyment, SD =
1.49) more than those in Experiment 2 (M = 3.85 enjoyment, SD = 1.32). There were no
differences seen in estimated elapsed time [t (109)= .614, p = .430], or flow [t (109)= 3. 000, p
= .248] (See Figure 8). Finally, no differences were found in true time of experimentation
between the experiment groups [t (109)= .932, p = .561].
Discussion
32

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
The difference between Experiments 1 and 2 is whether or not participants were able to
change the speed of the MOT. In Experiment 1, participants were assigned to one of three
predetermined MOT speed (challenge) levels for the length of the experiment. Participants in
Experiment 2 were allowed to change the speed of the MOT by 1 increment after each trial. We
hypothesized that participants in Experiment 2 would utilize changing the challenge level to fit
their skill, and be able to more effectively acquire flow.
We found that participants in Experiment 2 were not able to acquire flow any better than
those in Experiment 1. There was also no difference in estimated elapsed time between the
experiment groups. There was, however, a difference in subjective time distortion between
experiments. Participants in Experiment 1 tended to experience time passing more quickly than
participants in Experiment 2. Against prevailing arguments control of the challenge related better
to experiencing time as passing slower rather than more quickly. Also, participants in
Experiment 1 thought that, if they had estimated incorrectly, their estimates would have been less
than the true time, relative to participants in Experiment 2 who thought that, if they had
estimated incorrectly, their estimates would have been more than the true time.
In Experiment 1 participants indicated time seemed to be flying and they thought their
interval estimate, if incorrect, was less time than had truly passed. In Experiment 2 participants
indicated time to be slower and they thought their interval estimate, if incorrect, was more time
than had truly passed. It is likely subjective time distortion impacted how one felt about their
interval estimate. For example, a participant in Experiment 1 may have estimated 15 minutes had
passed (the correct time), but also felt time flying, and so the subjective feeling of time flying
would make them feel they had estimated less time than had truly occurred. There was no
33

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
difference in interval estimates of elapsed time or true time of experimentation between
Experiment 1 and 2.
Even though we did not see a difference in the amount of flow indicated between
participants in Experiment 1 and 2, we did see a relationship between the enjoyment and
experiment. Participants in Experiment 1 tended to enjoy the MOT task more than participants in
Experiment 2. This is contrary to what we expected. Participants enjoyed having a specific, pre-
determined, speed more than being able to adjust the speed level. Not only did participants in
Experiment 1 have higher enjoyment, but they were more likely to experience time “flying”.
When participants were assigned a predetermined challenge scenario they experienced
time as passing more quickly relative to participants who were able to adjust the challenge. The
phenomenon of time passing more slowly is likely due to the additional information processing
required to decide how to adjust the MOT speed. It seems the additional information required for
the decision-making process in Experiment 2 contributed to the feeling of time passing more
slowly, similar to information processing in information theory. This finding suggests a novel
look at how information processing and decision making affects time perception.
34

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
References
Block, R. A. (1989). Experiencing and remembering time: Affordances, context, and cognition. In I.
Levin, D. Zakay (Eds.) , Time and human cognition: A life-span perspective (p. 333-363).
Oxford England: North-Holland. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61046-8
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, p. 433-436.
Conti, R. (2001). Time flies: Investigating the connection between intrinsic motivation and the
experience of time. Journal Of Personality, 69(1), 1-26. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00134
Csikszentmihalyi M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. New, NY: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York, NY US: Basic Books.
35

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium. New York, NY:
Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 56(5), p. 815-822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815
Curton, E. D., & Lordahl, D. S. (1974). Effects of attentional focus and arousal on time estimation.
Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 103(5), p. 861-867. doi:10.1037/h0037352
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone?. Journal Of Organizational
Behavior, 26(7), p. 755-775. doi:10.1002/job.337
Jin, S. (2012). “Toward integrative models of flow”: Effects of performance, skill, challenge,
playfulness, and presence on flow in video games. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 56(2), p. 169-186. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.678516
Keller, J., Bless, H., Blomann, F., & Kleinböhl, D. (2011). Physiological aspects of flow experiences:
Skills-demand-compatibility effects on heart rate variability and salivary cortisol. Journal Of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 849-852. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.02.004
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez (Eds.) ,
Handbook of positive psychology (p. 89-105). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Duhachek, A. (2003). The influence of goal-directed and experiential
activities on online flow experiences. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 13(1-2), p. 3-16.
doi:10.1207/153276603768344744
36

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online
environments: a structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1), 22-42.
Ornstein, R. (1969). On the experience of time. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pageau, M. K., Surgan, S. (2015). Do we have fun when time flies? Psi Chi Journal of Psychological
Research. In press.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The video toolbox for psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial
Vision, 10(4), p. 437 – 442.
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people’s perception of time, alters decision
making, and enhances well-being. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1130-1136.
doi:10.1177/0956797612438731
Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human-computer interactions. Computers In Human Behavior, 9(4), 411-426. doi:
10.1016/0747-5632(93)90032-N
37

CHALLENGE AND FLOW 38
Figure 1

CHALLENGE AND FLOW 39
Figure 1 displays a model of flow developed by Csikszentmihalyi where flow is
only acquired during high skill and high challenge. Redrawn from
Csikszentmihalyi (1997).
Figure 2

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Figure 3
40
Figure 2 displays a model of flow in which flow is aqcuirable in all circumstances
where there is a mtach between skill and challenge, regardless of participants
skill. This type of diagram was used by Keller, Bless (2008). Redrawn from
Csikszentmihalyi (1990).

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Figure 4
41
Figure 3 shows a significant correlation between subjective time distortion
and enjoyment. Lower scores in subjective time distortion indicate time
passing faster or “flying” and higher scores represent time passing slower
or “dragging”. Higher enjoyment scores indicate more enjoyment. Higher
enjoyment correlated with faster subjective time distortion.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Figure 5
42
Figure 4 shows a significant difference between high and low flow groups in
degree of subjective time distortion. Flow groups were median split from a
continuous flow scale. Lower scores in subjective time distortion indicate time
passing faster or “flying” and higher scores represent time passing slower or
“dragging”. Those who indicated higher levels of flow felt time passing faster.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Figure 6
43
Figure 5 shows a significant difference between slow and fast subjective time
distortion ratings and the level of flow. Those who indicated 4 “neither shorter
or longer” or more were considered the slow group, and any participants who
indicated less than 3 “a little shorter” were in the fast group. Those who felt
time passing fast experienced higher levels of flow.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Figure 7
44
Figure 6 shows significant differences in subjective time distortion
between those who experienced high levels of flow and those who
experience low or medium flow. There was not a significant difference
in subjective time distortion between low and medium flow. Lower
scores in subjective time distortion indicate time passing faster or
“flying” and higher scores represent time passing slower or “dragging”.
Those who experienced higher flow felt time passing faster than those
who experienced low or medium flow.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Figure 8
45
Figure 7 shows a significant correlation between speed of the Multiple
Object Tracking (MOT) task and estimated elapsed time. Estimated
elapsed time values are represented as minutes. Speed is the mean of the
final ten trials participants experienced. Lower numbers of speed indicate
slower speed levels. Slower speeds correlated with lower estimated
elapsed time.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
Appendix
Measure of Time Perception
46
Figure 8 shows significant differences between Experiments 1 and 2 in
subjective time distortion, error estimation, and enjoyment. Lower scores in
subjective time distortion indicate time passing faster or “flying”. Lower
error estimation indicated believing their estimated elapsed time was shorter
than true time. Lower enjoyment scores indicate less enjoyment. Those in
Experiment 1 felt time pass more quickly, believed they estimated shorter
intervals than true time, and enjoyed the task more compared to those in
Experiment 2.

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
1. Precisely, how many minutes do you believe you were performing the multiple object tracking
task? (ex: 7 minutes).
_______ minutes
2. Suppose your estimate is wrong. Would you expect that you estimated you were performing
the task for MORE or LESS time than had truly passed?
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6
Much Less Much More
3. Do you feel your subjective experience of time passing was shorter (flying) or longer
(dragging) than normal?
____________. Please write your answer here.
1. Much shorter (flying)
2. Moderately shorter
3. A little shorter
4. Neither shorter nor longer
5. A little longer
6. Moderately longer
7. Much longer (dragging)
Measure of Flow
Using the template below, indicate how much you agree with the following statements:
47

CHALLENGE AND FLOW
(1) Not at all, (2) Very little, (3) Little, (4) Moderately, (5) Much, (6) Very much, (7) Completely
1. ______ I was strongly involved with what was happening.
2. ______ I thought of other things during the trials.
3. ______ I found myself being easily distracted.
4. ______ I was aware of myself playing the game.
5. ______ I enjoyed the task.
6. ______ I felt myself “getting into” the task.
7. ______ I found the task interactive.
8. ______ I concentrated on the task well.
9. ______ I devoted all of my attention to the task.
10. ______ I was giving my best effort to do well on the task.
48