1
Jonathan Lutz
jlutz@abo.fi
(17.05.2008)
FLOW AND SENSE OF COHERENCE: TWO ASPECTS OF THE SAME
DYNAMIC?
Summary
Antonovsky’s Sense of coherence (SOC) and Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow appeared
approximately twenty years ago and have received widespread recognition as resourceoriented approaches within the fields of health and psychology, respectively. Both focus on
the dynamics of engagement with life, flow on one’s level of engagement in the present and
SOC on one’s global orientation—one’s self-perceived capacity for engagement over time.
While the two constructs are very similar, even collinear, no attempt seems to have been made
to integrate them. This article proposes that flow and sense of coherence are not only
complementary but actually two aspects of the same dynamic: flow is sense of coherence
made visible in the present, while sense of coherence is a product of flow over time. It is
suggested that this hypothesis could be tested using existing or new empirical methods. If
evidence is found to support the hypothesis, this could lead to a more useful, integrated model
of the dynamics of engagement.
A central driving force in my work as a music teacher has been the idea that music education
is about empowerment, about enabling: helping people get in touch with and make use of
their musical resources. The search for words to analyze and describe why and how people
engage—or don’t engage—with music making and, more specifically, playing musical
instruments led me to aesthetic agency, self-construction and a host of perspectives within a
broad range of psychological, sociological and existential discourses. It will come as little
surprise to those working within health promotion that I soon found myself reading books
about the philosophy of health and looking into quality-of-life concepts.
At this point in time, two dynamics fascinate me: Antonovsky’s “sense of coherence” (SOC)
and Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” (optimal experience). The argument I wish to make is that
these two are not only complementary but should perhaps be seen as different dimensions of
the same phenomenon, dimensions that need each other and could be integrated into one
model. While some may see this connection between flow and SOC as natural, intuitive, even
obvious, I could find no published attempt to integrate the two constructs.
A focus on focus
According to this view, both flow and SOC are largely about focus—an active bringing to
bear of one’s resources on the challenges at hand. Indeed, both theoretical constructs use
similar terminology, seeing life in terms of challenges and resources, where flow/SOC can
develop when our resources more or less match the demands, when we are able to focus on
these demands without being distracted by feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, etc.
Csikszentmihalyi refers to “goal-setting” behavior, while Antonovsky sums up the
motivational or emotional component in what he calls “meaningfulness”. In
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997, p.30) words:
Flow tends to occur when a person’s skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is
just about manageable. Optimal experiences usually involve a fine balance between one’s ability
to act, and the available opportunities for action.
2
For his part, Antonovsky (1987, p. 19) speaks of comprehensibility, manageability, and
meaningfulness, respectively as the three components of sense of coherence:
Sense of coherence is a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive,
enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that (1) the stimuli from one’s internal and
external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable, and explicable; (2) the
resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3) these
demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement.
A sense of confidence
Antonovsky’s definition emphasizes the role of perception, both in including meaningfulness
in addition to the challenges/skills dynamic of comprehensibility and manageability, and by
making it clear that SOC has to do with a “feeling of confidence.” An individual’s perception
of challenges and resources may in fact seem to outsiders to bear little relation to “objective
reality, as for instance in claustrophobia and xenophobia or, on the other end of the spectrum,
delusions of invincibility. Csikszentmihalyi makes a similar argument (1990, p.209):
The difference between someone who enjoys life and someone who is overwhelmed by it is a
product of a combination of such external factors and the way a person has come to interpret
them—that is, whether he sees challenges as threats or as opportunities for action.
Thus, to measure SOC or flow is to measure a subjective state in an individual (or group),
recognizing the enormous variety in interpretation of and response to what might seem to be
similar circumstances.
Still, even as measures of subjective states, self-reporting is notoriously unreliable, not only
because respondents may for a variety of reasons choose to give inaccurate answers, but due
to the basic psychological insight that we are seldom if ever fully aware of our feelings and
motivations. This should be cause for concern since the primary tools for assessing SOC
continue to rely on self-reporting in the form of questionnaires (and, in some cases,
interviews), sometimes with a rather low percentage response. One way to deal with this issue
might be to look for observable SOC-indicators that would allow researchers to measure, not
what the “objective” challenges or resources are, but a subjective perceived SOC through
body language analysis or even neurological scans (all the rage these days, yet potentially
very useful), for example. This has already been done in flow research, even in the area of
music education where Custodero developed a set of observable flow indicators (Custodero,
1997). These approaches can complement the self-reporting, often in rather sophisticated
schemes of immediate responses at random intervals, which remains an important tool.
A critical look at flow
Since the publication of Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience in 1990,
Csikszentmihalyi’s vision of the universal availability of flow has attracted attention. Flow
has become a much-used, even dominant concept within the psychology of engagement,
whether it be engagement in the learning process, finding the “zone” in the world of sports,
understanding the creative process, or analyzing the dynamics of the workplace.
Misunderstandings about what is meant by flow are still common, as when flow is seen as
passive drifting or conformity to group norms. Even within health promotion circles, flow’s
potential may often be underestimated, perhaps because in presenting flow Csikszentmihalyi
himself made little reference to “health,” couching his discussion in terms of enjoyment and
boredom. And, unlike many other health promotion constructs including sense of coherence
3
which look at psychological processes over time, flow focuses on the immediacy of now, the
intensity of the present tense in which all life is ultimately lived.
This focus on the here and now is also one flow’s limitations: it is a snapshot, a momentary
glimpse lacking perspective. To be fair, Csikszentmihalyi (1990, p.209) does attempt to
present flow in relation to what he calls the autotelic self:
The “autotelic self” is one that easily translates potential threats into enjoyable challenges, and
therefore maintains its inner harmony. A person who is never bored, seldom anxious, involved
with what goes on, and in flow most of the time may be said to have an autotelic self.
However, he makes little effort to elaborate on the ways in which flow in the now produces or
is a product of the autotelic self, let alone attempt to develop ways to assess “autotelicity” in
the way Antonovsky tried to assess SOC. The focus is clearly on the now of flow.
Flow theory as Csikszentmihalyi presents it does not seem to bear close scrutiny as well as
sense of coherence. Generally careful in his choice of words, Antonovsky would likely have
found fault with the idea expressed above of maintaining “inner harmony,” as if well-being or
health could be equated with homeostasis. Csikszentmihalyi also presents flow in dualistic
either/or fashion; at any given moment, you either have flow or you do not. While peak
experiences are often described as very distinct, even transcendent states, it is probably more
useful to think of flow/non-flow as a continuum, perhaps of a non-linear, exponential
character at least as the flow end is approached.
A more serious issue may be the unfortunate effects on both flow and SOC constructs of the
cultural context in which they arose, namely the framing of what seem to be extremely
valuable ideas in the language of conquest and western-style progress. Others have raised
these issues, pointing out that the language of “empowerment” is often closely tied to images
of aggressive competition rather than cooperation, to an overemphasis on the individual at the
expense of the community. Riger (1993, p.279) notes “a preference for traditionally masculine
concepts of mastery, power, and control over traditionally feminine concerns of communion
and cooperation” and finds it ironic that this holds true even for the field of community
psychology (p.285):
Psychology takes as its highest value the emphasis on autonomy and separation over
relationality. The mature adult in psychological research is characterized by mastery, control,
and separation, rather than interdependence or relatedness. Community psychology's emphasis
on empowerment follows the pattern of placing primacy on agency, mastery, and control over
connectedness.
For me personally, Csikszentmihalyi’s use of challenge imagery seems misleading. His
insistence that we have, in fact, “essentially only one choice: to increase the challenges”
(1990, p.75), to continually raise the stakes if we wish to maintain flow—this insistence
brings to mind images of a human rat race, an arms race, or capitalism on a bad day, a
videogame version of life. While I believe I see what he is getting at, the psychological and
perhaps neurobiological point is unduly burdened by the imagery of insatiable conquest.
I have had exciting opportunities to perform and conduct music in a number of countries.
Still, when I think of musical moments in my life when I have experienced flow, what come
to mind are times when I have sung lullabies or just played bedtime guitar for my children,
often the same songs in pretty much the same way each evening. While these moments may
be seen as “goal-directed” (putting the kids to sleep) and requiring “focus” and some skills on
4
my part, to frame them in terms of requiring “increasingly complex skills” each night seems
off the mark. Flow may also result from what is sometimes referred to as “mindfulness,” an
awareness, tuning in, being present that is perhaps better described as a “letting go” of goaldirected, future-oriented behavior that can make it difficult for us to experience the present—a
prerequisite for and first step toward dialogue, participation, community, and sense of
coherence. Of course, even letting go, the emptying oneself to which Buddhists refer, is
indeed a “challenge.” But the cultural trappings of this much-used word leave much to be
desired and are all too apparent in the first six dictionary definitions listed (Webster’s, 1989,
p.244):
Challenge. 1) a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc. 2) something
that by its nature or character serves as a call to battle, contest, etc. 3) a call to fight, as a battle, a
duel, etc. 4) a demand to explain, justify, etc. 5) the demand of a sentry for identification or a
countersign. 6) a formal objection to the qualifications of a particular juror, to his serving, or to
the legality of an entire jury.
A critical look at the sense of coherence construct
Aaron Antonovsky presented the theory of salutogenesis in 1979, but the three dimensions of
sense of coherence and general resistance resources (GRRs) first appeared in Unraveling the
Mystery of Health in 1987, three years before Flow. Only now, after Antonovsky’s death in
1994, is salutogenesis gaining widespread recognition as a major contribution within what is
sometimes referred to as “resource-oriented” approaches to health. Concepts which may be
listed in that category include flow, coping, self-efficacy, hardiness, learned optimism,
cultural and social capital, locus of control, quality of life, empowerment, and action
competence, to name just a few. In their introduction to a special millennium issue of
American Psychologist on positive psychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi looked
forward to a future in which this resource-oriented focus will mature and produce a “science
of human strength” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p.7).
The potential of salutogenesis not only within health promotion but also within education and
any research dealing with how humans engage with life should not be underestimated. While
many may see sense of coherence, particularly the SOC-scale with 13 or 29 questions, as a
useful tool for measuring or even predicting health, educators may find that sense of
coherence can shed light on the learning process itself: sense of coherence, with its
dimensions of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness, is a way to analyze
engagement with life, and learning is a primary example of engagement. All published links
between salutogenesis or sense of coherence and education have thus far framed the
discussion in terms of health promotion in or outside of the school system (Jensen & Clift,
2005; Nilsson & Lindström, 1998) or in reference to the special needs of the learning
disabled (Al-Yagon & Margalit, 2006). Lindström has been visionary in this respect, seeing
health not only as a learning process (and not just a school subject) but, in his work with
Nilsson, comparing the learning process with the salutogenic model of sense of coherence
(Nilsson & Lindström, 1998):
May the school system, through its core activities (education and dissemination of knowledge),
have a salutogenic function? Theories of learning and health promotion have some common
theoretical starting points. The learning process is based on perceived comprehension, creation
of meaning and making knowledge instrumental. The basis for the salutogenic theory consists of
comprehension, manageability and meaning. These common perspectives serve as an entry point
for the health promoting school.
5
I would venture one step further and propose that the sense of coherence model of
comprehensibility (C), manageability (MA) and meaningfulness (ME) offers philosophers of
education a clear, substantive model of the learning process even when removed from the
health-promotion context. One can of course argue that every aspect of education, or indeed
of life, is health-related. However, the SOC model can give us a very good picture in “purely
educational terms” of where we are succeeding or failing.
Does the student feel she understands the arithmetic problem to be solved (C)?
Does she feel confident in trying to solve it (MA)?
Does attempting to solve it seem to her a worthwhile way to spend her time
(ME)?
Each of these rather unproblematic questions could be expanded in holistic manner, as for
example:
Does she feel that her relationship with the teacher, other pupils, and her parents
is basically stable, their expectations comprehensible (C)?
One problematic aspect of the SOC construct is that it uses the same language of challenge
and conquest criticized above in the critique of flow. Antonovsky’s definition sounds at times
like something from a Wall Street prospectus: “these demands are challenges, worthy of
investment” (Antonovsky, 1987, p.19). And, while Antonovsky makes clear that entropy and
death/disorder will get us in the end, his comprehensibility and manageability imagery is
Cartesian and cognitive when he writes of our need to see the world as “structure, predictable,
and explicable” (ibid). As with Csikszentmihalyi, I think I understand what Antonovsky is
getting at and am willing to concede that comprehensibility and manageability can be
understood to include an embracing of the mystery of life, but the language points in the
direction of the proofs of monotheistic science and easily leads to oversimplification and
distortion of what otherwise seems to be a useful model.
A more serious drawback is that the SOC model makes little or no attempt to shed light on
what Antonovsky sees as interactive processes involving resources (GRRs), life experiences,
and SOC. SOC is seen both as a product of the matching or mismatching of challenges and
resources in everyday life, and as a potential GRR itself, depending on the strength of one’s
SOC. But what does the process look like?
Mittelmark (2008) asks this same question and suggests that concepts developed in the “selftuning model of self care” (Vinje & Mittelmark, 2006) could make the salutogenic model
clearer and more dynamic. In this model “self-tuning” (introspection and reflection) becomes
the process in which life experiences are integrated into our sense of coherence, while
“adaptive coping” is the process by which we use this sense of coherence as a GRR to
function, to move toward well-being and health. Thus, “self-tuning” and “adaptive coping”
would shed light on what turns experience into SOC and SOC into health, which in turn could
provide answers to the vital question of how we move on from merely measuring to actually
enhancing SOC.
Helpful as these additions may be, this revised model still gives us no means to observe
salutogenesis and sense of coherence in the present tense. This failure leaves us with a music
theory without sound, a dry bones version of life. And, as pointed out earlier, the current
reliance on self-reporting makes for further difficulties.
Integrating flow into a unified sense of coherence model
6
Salutogenesis, with its GRRs and sense of coherence, has much to offer not only in the field
of health but, as noted above, in education. Though it may be criticized as unduly Western
and masculine, this seems more a question of formulation and interpretation than of
deficiencies in structure or content. Almedom compares resource-oriented concepts including
resilience and hardiness, finds that salutogenesis is “arguably the most influential of these”
(2005, p.255), and suggests that it could be seen as an inclusive approach within which other
resource-oriented concepts can find a home (2005, p.253):
The theory of salutogenesis, operationalized by the sense of coherence
construct, is inclusive of the related concepts of resilience and hardiness. Moreover,
it is grounded in robust primary research of cross-cultural relevance.
The suggestion made in this article is that
1) integrating the concept of flow into the sense of coherence construct would result in a
model of engagement capable of dealing with both the present moment and long term
perspective, and
2) the degree or level of flow is the result of the interaction of GRRs (including one’s SOC)
and challenges at a given time, while one’s sense of coherence is directly related to past
experiences of flow. In other words, flow and sense of coherence are two aspects of the same
dynamic: flow is sense of coherence made visible in the present, while sense of coherence is a
product of flow over time.
Though both flow and sense of coherence focus on the same thing, using one’s resources to
engage with life, I make no claim that the processes through which flow supports SOC and
SOC supports flow are simple ones. They no doubt involve subtle neurological integrative
processes largely at the unconscious level. Being in flow is usually described as being focused
to the point where “self-consciousness disappears” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.31), where
self-awareness gives way to a body-mind oneness. And, while researchers using the SOCscale ask respondents to consciously reflect on their understanding and feelings, an
individual’s sense of coherence seems to be a rather stable measure active largely on a
subconscious level and beyond conscious control.
Suggestions for future research
It may not seem intuitive to everyone that flow is the vertical axis and time the horizontal axis
when producing a graph of sense of coherence, but since both flow and SOC are studied
empirically it would seem possible to test this hypothesis by studying them together and
looking for correlations. This could be done using current methods from both areas, even in
music education: children’s SOC could be assessed using Margalit’s (Al-Yagon & Margarlit,
2006) CSOC scale and flow aspects using Custodero’s (1997) flow-indicator tool. Of course,
SOC researchers such as Lindström, Mittelmark, Sakari Salminen and Monica Eriksson have
noted that there is a need to move beyond the SOC-scale and develop qualitative approaches.
It was also suggested above that SOC assessment should perhaps be more observational and
less self-reported, that it might be possible to assess SOC “at work.” However, if SOC is
indeed flow-over-time there would be little or no difference between flow and SOC-in-thenow indicators. In any case, new assessment strategies could shed more light on whether the
flow-SOC relationship is as close as has been suggested here. (My own doctoral research
involves a qualitative look at both flow and SOC in connection with engaging with a musical
instrument.) In addition to pursuing this question on an individual level, it would be
interesting to explore links between “collective flow” and “collective SOC”, both of which
7
have been of interest in their respective fields where collective flow is sometimes referred to
as “participatory consciousness” (Earley, 2002) or “groove” (Keil & Feldt, 1994) and
collective SOC has been looked at in families (Sagy, 1998).
Antonovsky died only four years after Flow was published and may not have been familiar
with the concept, nor does a look in the 13-page index of Finding Flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
1997) turn up any reference to Antonovsky or even “health.” Quite a few published articles
mention both flow and SOC in lists of related concepts, or include both Csikszentmihalyi and
Antonovsky in bibliographies. However, a search for flow + sense of coherence (google,
17.05.08) produced no matches at all, though a wider search turned up a doctoral dissertation
(Persson, 2001), a brief article (Manami, 2006) and two Swedish bachelor’s theses, none of
which tried to integrate the two constructs. One of the theses (Gabriel, 2007) measured flow
and SOC in the workplace and concluded—to the researcher’s chagrin—that a main drawback
in using flow and SOC scales was that the two turned out to be collinear, their subcomponents
correlating with each other. Thus, that study unintentionally supports the argument made in
this article. Is it time to explore flow-SOC, seriously and intentionally, as a single dynamic?
References:
Al-Yagon, M. & Margalit, M. (2006). Loneliness, sense of coherence and perception of
teachers as a secure base among children with reading difficulties. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 21:1, 21-37.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the Mystery of Health: How People Manage Stress and
Stay Well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday
Life. New York: Basic.
Custodero, L. A. (1997). An observational study of flow experience in young children’s music
learning. Pd.D. diss. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Perceptions of challenge: A longitudinal investigation of children's music learning. Arts and
Learning, 19, 23-53.
Earley, J. (2002). The social evolution of consciousness. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
42, 107-132.
Gabriel, U. (2007). Kan faktorerna KASAM, flow samt prestationsbehov predicera
arbetstillfredsställelse? Bachelor’s thesis (C-uppsats) in psychology, Institutionen för
Samhälls- och Beteendevetenskap, Mälardalens högskola.
Jensen, B.B. & Clift, S., eds. (2005). The Health Promoting School: International advances in
theory, evaluation and practice. Copenhagen: Danish University of Education Press.
Keil, C. & Feld, S. (1994). Music Grooves: essays and dialogues. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
8
Manami, O. (2006). Healthy spirituality and genuineness—From research on spirituality with
authenticity and flow. Journal of International Society of Life Information Science, 24:1, 165169.
Mittelmark, M.B. (2008). Building healthy public policy—the salutogenic way. Presentation
at The International Seminar on Salutogenesis, Helsinki, Finland, May 12, 2008.
Nilsson, L. & Lindström, B. (1998). Learning as a health promoting process: The salutogenic
interpretation of the Swedish curricula in state education. The electronic journal of the
International Union for Health Promotion and Education. Available online at:
http://www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/14/index.htm.
Persson, D. (2001). Aspects of meaning in everyday occupations and its relationships to
health-related factors. Doctoral dissertation, Division of Occupational Therapy, Lunds
universitet, Sweden.
Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment? American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21:3, 279-292.
Sagy, S. (1998). Effects of personal, family, and community characteristics on emotional
reactions in a stress situation. Youth & Society, 29:3, 311-330.
Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An Introduction.
American Psychologist, 55:1, 5-14.
Vinje, H.F. & Mittelmark, M.B. (2006). Deflecting the path to burn-out among community
health nurses: how the effective practice of self-tuning renews job engagement. The
International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 8:4, 36-47.
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989). New York: Portland
House.