Vicariously Experiencing Flow: Is Watching Social Flow Better Than Watching Solitary Flow? Charles J. Walker St. Bonaventure University, New York, USA Canadian Positive Psychology Association, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, June 17, 2016 Abstract The joy, flow, anxiety, boredom and apathy expressed by athletes and their audiences was rated by 24 trained observers during three types of amateur and professional sports: individual, co-active & interactive. The most flow and joy was expressed in social, interactive sports like soccer or hockey. Emotional synchrony between athlete and audience was also most evident with social interactive sports. While joy is an emotional experience of individuals, it occurs most intensely when flow is achieved through interdependent, collaborative effort, and audiences also experience the highest levels of joy when observing social flow. Results Sports Studied Individual solitary Sports Figure skating Professional golf Free style skiing Gymnastics Bowling Co-Active social Sports Road cycling stage racing Track & field Running marathons Horse racing Swimming races Interactive social Sports Ice hockey Soccer American football Basketball Rugby Introduction The majority of the early research on flow focused on creative individuals performing alone (i.e., solitary flow), however later researchers noted that some of the most powerful flow experiences seem to occur during social interactions or what is now called social flow experience (Froh, Menges, & Walker, 1993; Walker & Lavis, 2004; Walker, 2010). Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi (1999) and Macros & Csikszentmihalyi (2000) found flow experiences to be common in team sports and social expressions of creativity such as jazz. However, the research on social forms of flow is limited. Recent research has identified two forms of social flow: social flow occurring in a) co-acting individuals and b) members of cohesive, collaborative groups (Walker & Wallerstein 2005; Sawyer, 2007). Past research on social flow suggests that audiences may collaborate with performers to achieve actual or vicarious flow experiences (Walker, 2010). Hypotheses: Emotional synchrony between performers and audiences will be more evident in social than solitary task situations. As well, it is predicted that the joy associated with flow experiences will be expressed more by audiences witnessing social than solitary performances. The present study tested these hypotheses within the setting of popular amateur and professional sports. Discussion The results of the present study suggest that the audiences of interactive social sports are lively participants who play an essential role for the teams they observe. Walker & Wallerstein (2005) found that when no audience was present, amateur athletes served as each other’s “audience” through the expression of task-relevant, emotionally rich feedback. The present study found that actual audiences perform the same function. An important purpose of this feedback is to help athletes attain flow and avoid or escape anxiety, boredom and apathy. Joy appears to erupt when flow is attained or recovered. The most joyful people observed in the present study were in the audiences of social interactive sports like soccer, football or ice hockey. The results of this study suggest that with social interactive sports, the real “game” is the achievement of flow in the pursuit of joy. And in this game, athletes and audiences are literally on the same team. Each is dependent on the other for the achievement and recovery of flow experiences. While there is some evidence for this effect with solitary sports or co-active social sports, it is persuasively evident with interactive social sports. There is need for much more research on all forms of social flow. It occurs not only on playing fields but also in concert halls, jazz clubs, corporate board rooms, classrooms and even battlefields (Macros & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Sawyer, 2007). The ultimate purpose of social flow needs to be explored as well. If solitary flow serves to build meaning and purpose for individuals, as Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi (2003) propose, what does social flow do for groups, organizations, communities and other human collectives? Although social sports appear to invite more vicarious flow experiences, additional samples of sports and other human performances are needed to replicate this interesting phenomenon. Method Using test videos, 24 students were trained to identify and discriminate the three different sports, and rate four emotions, and two flow conditions. Each student observer was familiarized with the four-channel model of flow and trained to identify and assess flow, anxiety, boredom and apathy consistent with the operational definitions provided in previous research. The majority of observations were taken with televised sports witnessed on TV networks or the internet. At the beginning, middle and end of an athletic event, observers rated the emotions expressed by athletes and audiences on 5-point scales that varied from 1 = emotion not evident to 5 = emotion strongly evident. Challenge levels and skills manifested by athletes were also rated on a 5-point scale that varied from 1 = very low, to 5 = very high. The dependent variable was the sum of three observations made by each observer, thus scores could vary from 1 to 15.