Distal and proximal motivational processes related to flow experience: Investigating the role of implicit motives, affective and cognitive preferences, and perceived abilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the prominent questions in flow research is the investigation of conditions that need to be met so that people will get involved in an activity for the sheer sake of doing it. The present study examined the relationship between distal (i.e., implicit motives) and proximal (i.e., affective preferences, cognitive preferences, perceived abilities) motivational processes and flow experience based on assumptions of the compensatory model of motivation and volition. In order to arouse the implicit agentic motive, 63 participants worked on an online platform in an open innovation environment. Results showed that affective preferences mediated the effect of the implicit agentic motive on flow experience. Moreover, a hierarchical regression analysis with simple slope tests yielded that, at the proximal level, the congruence of affective preferences, cognitive preferences, and perceived abilities was associated with flow experience. The present research adds some new and essential ingredients to Csikszentmihalyis’ traditional conception of flow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it