Measuring immediate experiences: Flow state methods and tourist satisfaction

As tourism and related fields of study embrace experience paradigms from positive psychology and experience economy, our social science specialism remains predominantly unprepared for measuring immediate experiences. One set of immediate experience measures of potential relevance to tourism researchers is flow state methodology. Flow is an extraordinary, fulfilling psychological state characterised by: challenge-skill balance in an activity, action-awareness merging, clear goals, unambiguous feedback to a person’s actions, full concentration, a sense of control, loss of self-consciousness, time transformation and autotelism (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Relationships between this optimal state and tourist satisfaction have been established more than a decade ago (Ryan, 1995).

However, flow methods have not been adopted by tourism researchers seeking to evaluate tourist satisfaction at sites (Filep, 2007). Yet it is recognised
that some of the conventional methods such as SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, HOLSAT or IPA are much more reflective methods and therefore cannot measure satisfaction derived from immediate or almost immediate conscious tourist experiences. These measures also cannot normally account for affective components of the tourist experience (Barsky and Nash, 2002). Tourism researchers may therefore benefit from using cognitive-affective flow state
methods for evaluating tourist satisfaction at various cultural and natural sites.

In social sciences, flow has commonly been measured through Experience Sampling Method (ESM), Flow Interviews and ESM related measures of Dispositional Flow State Scale (DFS) and Flow State Scale (FSS). ESM usually requires a signalling device that directs participants at random times to complete a questionnaire. The questions are typically linked to the respondent’s momentary situation and psychological state. ESM has therefore been
used to study cognitive as well as affective dimensions of experience and, hence, the flow state. The FSS and DFS respectively, assess flow experiences within a particular event and the dispositional tendency to experience flow in an activity. In the in-depth interview approach, respondents are typically asked to describe an experience which stands out as being better than average in the activity in which they normally participate (Jackson, 1996).The
interviewees are then given three quotes to orient their attention to flow and more specific questions about the dimensions of flow can then be asked. In case of on-site experiences, questions addressing key satisfaction themes such as mindfulness, gaze, existential authenticity and psychological risk and stress can then be combined with the flow questions. Occasionally, these methods can be complemented with observational data on walking speed, pause times and posture.

These measures can provide a powerful assessment of tourist satisfaction derived from immediate experiences at sites. However, the usefulness of ESM, FSS, DFS and the Flow Interviews, may also extend to other aspects of tourist satisfaction. Some eccentric examples of these other aspects are drug related tourist experiences and sex tourist experiences.

Despite their usefulness, the flow methods are not without limitations. However, their value in measuring extraordinary experiences of travellers is significant and is worthy of attention by tourism researchers who are interested in a more holistic view of tourist satisfaction.