CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Flow Experience in Various FieldsRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking

Validation of the Flow Theory in an On-Site Whitewater Kayaking Setting

Jones, Christopher D., Hollenhorst, Steven J., Perna, Frank, Selin, Steve·2000·Journal of Leisure Research
DOI 10.1080/00222216.2000.11949916
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The validation of the flow theory in an on-site whitewater setting is examined. A-priori hypotheses emphasized 3 concerns: (1) the relationship between a four channel model of flow and specific levels of flow indicators, (2) differences in the explanatory power of the four channel model and an original model of flow, and (3) the relationship between river difficulty and the frequencies of four channels (flow, anxiety, apathy, and boredom). On-site experiences of 52 whitewater kayakers were assessed with a series of single page questionnaires administered in the Cheat River Canyon in West Virginia. Sampling techniques involved a modification of the Experience Sampling Method using eight measurement intervals of varying levels of river difficulty. Data were analyzed at the level of experience (n = 409). A-priori hypothesis testing, based on the results of statistical analyses (ANOVA, linear regression, and Chi-square test of association), supported the validation of the flow theory. This validation was demonstrated by the significant relationship between a four channel model and subjective experiences, the positivity of experience during a state of flow, the explanatory power of the four channel model, and differences in channel frequencies across river stages. Patterns of results which were contrary to expectation indicate similarities in subjective experiences between flow and anxiety channels, suggesting that whitewater kayakers may have positive experiences even when their abilities are exceeded by the difficulty of the river.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00222216.2000.11949916

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jones, C. D., Hollenhorst, S. J., Perna, F., & Selin, S.
Affiliations
  • Utah Valley University (US)
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • West Virginia University
ORCID
Perna, Frank
Venue
Journal of Leisure Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-06
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
247-261
ISSN
  • 0022-2216 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-6417
DOI
10.1080/00222216.2000.11949916
OpenAlex
W107257636
Cited by
80
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Leisure Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Flow Experience in Various Fields
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Adventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Keywords
flow theory, whitewater kayaking, flow experience, anxiety, apathy, boredom, ecological momentary assessment, subjective experience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review