Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

The Development and Validation of the Autotelic

Personality Questionnaire

Dwight C. K. Tse, Vienne Wing-yan Lau, Rachael Perlman & Michael

McLaughlin

To cite this article: Dwight C. K. Tse, Vienne Wing-yan Lau, Rachael Perlman & Michael
McLaughlin (2018): The Development and Validation of the Autotelic Personality Questionnaire,
Journal of Personality Assessment, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1491855

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1491855

View supplementary material

Published online: 05 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 51

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1491855

The Development and Validation of the Autotelic Personality Questionnaire

Dwight C. K. Tse1, Vienne Wing-yan Lau1, Rachael Perlman1, and Michael McLaughlin2
1
Division on Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University; 2Claremont School of Theology

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Autotelic personality is a constellation of dispositional attributes that facilitate engagement and Received 23 October 2017
enjoyment in daily activities. However, there is no existing measurement directly capturing the Revised 24 May 2018
attributes of autotelic personality that are identified in the literature. In the three studies reported
here (total N ¼ 900), we developed an Autotelic Personality Questionnaire (APQ) and evaluated its
reliability and validity. Results from the studies provide support for adequate internal consistency,
longitudinal invariance, and test–retest reliability (Study 1 and Study 2). Furthermore, APQ scores
were significantly correlated with measures of conscientiousness, openness to experience, extra-
version, neuroticism, and internal locus of control. In addition, APQ scores predicted flow prone-
ness and satisfaction with life (Study 2). These results provide support for construct and criterion
validity. Finally, people high in autotelic personality experienced more flow state than those low
in autotelic personality during a word unscrambling task (Study 3), indicating good criterion valid-
ity of the APQ scores. Limitations, future research, and implications are discussed.

Flow is a type of experience characterized by complete con-
centration, heightened sense of control, loss of self-con-
sciousness, merging of action and awareness, and distortion
of time perception (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997). Not only
is flow a rewarding experience; prolonged engagement in
flow activities also enhances well-being, personal growth,
and performance in a wide variety of domains (e.g., aca-
demic performance, sports performance; Landh€auszer &
Keller, 2012; Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, &
Shernoff, 2003). Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi
(1988) posited that individuals who can enter flow easily
possess the ability to concentrate effortlessly, coupled with a
heightened ability to transform boring or threatening situa-
tions into opportunities to engage with life. They coined the
term autotelic personality to refer to the collection of attrib-
utes that facilitate individuals’ experience of flow. A highly
autotelic individual can, therefore, experience flow often in
everyday activities (Ullen et al., 2012). The two most com-
monly recognized models of autotelic personality are the
metaskills model (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and
the receptive–active model (Baumann, 2012;
Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993).
Conceptualization of autotelic personality
The metaskills model postulates that individuals who possess
several specific attributes can enter and sustain flow state
more easily. These attributes, or metaskills, include “[a] gen-
eral curiosity and interest in life, [b] persistence, and [c] low
self-centeredness, which result in [d] the ability to be
motivated by intrinsic rewards” (Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 93). Note that low self-centered-
ness refers to a lack of occupation with thoughts of one’s
image, which is not equivalent to low selfishness (M.
Csikszentmihalyi, personal communication, November
13, 2016).
The receptive–active model proposes that highly auto-
telic individuals are able to identify and seek out new chal-
lenges (receptively noticing challenges), as well as engage
and persist in the face of challenges (actively mastering
challenges; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). With these qualities, highly auto-
telic individuals are able to endure challenge–skill imbalan-
ces better than their counterparts. That is, although most
people feel bored when challenge is low and skill is high,
highly autotelic people can transform and enjoy boredom
by being sensitive to opportunities for challenge. Similarly,
whereas most people feel anxious when challenge is high
and skill is low, highly autotelic people can transform and
enjoy overwhelming challenges by building skills diligently
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). In short, the receptive–ac-
tive model acknowledges that autotelic individuals are
more likely to transform and enjoy both highly boring and
highly challenging situations.
In addition to the two models, Csikszentmihalyi (1997)
stressed that attentional control—the ability for an individ-
ual to focus both narrowly on the task at hand and widely
on the surroundings to seek out new challenges—is an
important component of autotelic personality. Highly auto-
telic individuals are able to concentrate effortlessly, yet they

CONTACT Dwight C. K. Tse cheuk-kit-dwight.tse@cgu.edu Division of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont,
CA 91711.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
2 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN
can also discover new challenges in their surroundings when
necessary (Baumann, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Integrating the flow and autotelic personality literature,
we understand autotelic personality as a multifaceted con-
struct with seven attributes: (a) curiosity and interest in life,
(b) persistence, (c) low self-centeredness, (d) intrinsic motiv-
ation, (e) enjoyment and transformation of boredom, (f)
enjoyment and transformation of challenges, and (g) atten-
tional control. These distinct attributes should contribute to
autotelic personality significantly and uniquely. However,
because research on autotelic personality has only begun to
grow, we acknowledge the possibility of excluding attributes
that are potentially related to autotelic personality.
Existing measurements of autotelic personality
Researchers have previously attempted to measure autotelic
personality using a variety of methods. Baumann and
Scheffer (2010) developed the first projective measure of
achievement flow motive as an operationalization of auto-
telic personality. In this measure, respondents are presented
with ambiguous pictures and asked to come up with related
stories. Autotelic personality is indicated by the extent to
which the protagonist in respondents’ stories has positive
affect and is self-determined. Albeit a noteworthy attempt,
the findings concerning the relationship between the pro-
jective test and its expected experiential and behavioral out-
comes (e.g., frequency or proneness of flow, job
engagement) are mixed (Baumann & Scheffer, 2010; Young,
2011). These conflicting results bring into question the val-
idity of this type of measure.
Other researchers have suggested that measuring the fre-
quency of flow experience in daily life can serve as a proxy
for identifying autotelic individuals (Asakawa, 2004; Ullen
et al., 2012). Two ways of measuring frequency of daily flow
experience are the experience sampling method (ESM; e.g.,
Asakawa, 2004) and self-report scales of flow proneness
such as the Swedish Flow Proneness Questionnaire (SFPQ;
Ullen et al., 2012) and the Dispositional Flow Scale–2
(DFS–2; Jackson & Eklund, 2002). With the ESM, autotelic
individuals are identified by their spending a large amount
of time in high-skill, high-challenge conditions with a high
level of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Asakawa, 2004; see also
Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, for a review). For the
self-report scales, the SFPQ operationalizes autotelic person-
ality as the frequency of flow experience in three different
domains: work, leisure, and maintenance (e.g., chores; Ullen
et al., 2012). The DFS–2 serves a dispositional measure of
flow propensity by examining respondents’ feelings toward
different dimensions of flow experience when engaging in a
given activity (Jackson & Eklund, 2002) or in any activity in
life (Ross & Keiser, 2014). Previous studies have shown
good reliability and validity of these self-report scales, such
as predicting the percentage of time spent in flow in an
ESM study (Johnson, Keiser, Skarin, & Ross, 2014).
However, the findings of these measures might be vulnerable
to being confounded by situational factors. Given that both
contextual and dispositional factors contribute to the
frequency of flow experiences in daily life (Asakawa, 2004;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Moneta, 2004), more flow experi-
ence might simply be an indication that a person lives in an
environment that provides clear goals and proximal feed-
back, rather than an indication of his or her autotelic per-
sonality per se (see discussion in Baumann, 2012). To
address this concern, we aim at providing a different
approach to capture autotelic personality—by measuring the
attributes in light of the flow literature.
The current studies and hypotheses
We conducted three studies to develop and test the validity
of a self-report scale on autotelic personality. In Study 1, we
evaluated and revised the initial item pool. In Study 2, we
examined the longitudinal invariance, test–retest reliability,
convergent validity, discriminant validity, and predictive val-
idity of the revised APQ. In Study 3, we further examined
the criterion validity of the APQ with an experiment.
Longitudinal invariance and test–retest reliability
Autotelic personality is a constellation of dispositional
attributes (Johnson et al., 2014) and thus remains stable
across situations and over time (Hooker & McAdams, 2003;
McCrae & Costa, 1987). We hypothesized that when the
APQ was administered to the same participants over a 3-
week period, its factor structure (i.e., configuration and
loadings) would not vary between Time 1 and Time 2 (lon-
gitudinal invariance; Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, partic-
ipants’ APQ scores at Time 1 and Time 2 would be
positively correlated with one another (test–retest reliability;
Hypothesis 2).
Convergent and discriminant validity
The Big Five personality traits
The relationship between flow proneness and the Five-
Factor Model of personality has been well documented (e.g.,
Ross & Keiser, 2014; Ullen et al., 2012). Because autotelic
personality theoretically precedes flow proneness, one can
examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the
APQ by investigating whether autotelic personality relates to
the Big Five personality factors in a similar manner as
flow proneness.
We begin with an examination of conscientiousness and
neuroticism. First, consistent with the depiction of highly
conscientious individuals as self-disciplined and achieve-
ment-oriented (McCrae & John, 1992), highly autotelic indi-
viduals demonstrate the persistence and self-control required
to keep attention focused on the task at hand
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). In contrast, highly neurotic indi-
viduals might be less autotelic because they are more self-
conscious, less persistent in the face of challenges, and
unable to cope with daily demands (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Empirical studies on flow proneness have consistently
reported its positive correlation with conscientiousness and
its negative correlation with neuroticism (e.g., Ross &

Keiser, 2014; Ullen et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesized
that autotelic personality would be positively associated with
conscientiousness (Hypothesis 3a) but negatively associated
with neuroticism (Hypothesis 3b).
Facets of extraversion, such as high assertiveness, active-
ness, and cheerfulness, are associated with taking active con-
trol of activities and having a general interest in life
(McCrae & Costa, 1987; Ross & Keiser, 2014). In a similar
vein, facets of openness to experience, such as broad interest
and curiosity, are associated with interest in life and enjoy-
ment of challenges (McCrae & John, 1992). Whereas many
previous studies have reported a positive association between
flow proneness and extraversion (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014;
Mesurado & de Minzi, 2013), only one out of five empirical
studies has reported a significant positive relationship
between flow proneness and openness to experience (Bassi
et al., 2014). One potential reason for this lack of empirical
support is that the measurement of flow proneness focuses
on flow experiences in daily life but not the traits supporting
it. In particular, curiosity and interest in life are not
included in any of the flow proneness measures. Given that
some APQ factors (e.g., enjoyment and transformation of
challenges, curiosity, and interest in life) were theoretically
associated with openness to experience and extraversion, we
hypothesized that autotelic personality would be positively
associated with extraversion (Hypothesis 3c) and openness
to experience (Hypothesis 3d).
Finally, facets of agreeableness, such as sympathy and
altruism, are mainly socially focused (McCrae & Costa,
1987). Given that autotelic personality does not concern the
social environment, many studies have not found a signifi-
cant relationship between the two (e.g., Bassi et al., 2014;
Ullen et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesized that agree-
ableness would be independent from (i.e., weakly related to)
autotelic personality (jqj < .30; Cohen, 1988; Hypothesis 3e).
Locus of control and implicit theories of intelligence
Individuals with an internal locus of control (LOC) believe
outcomes depend on personal efforts, as opposed to depend-
ing on forces outside of personal control (Levenson, 1973).
Keller and Blomann (2008) theorized that internal LOC
would be related to autotelic personality because internal
LOC implies that individuals are sensitive to factors within
their control and thus are sensitive to high-challenge, high-
skill situations. Given that highly autotelic individuals also
possess these characteristics (Asakawa, 2004), we hypothe-
sized that internal LOC would be positively correlated with
autotelic personality (Hypothesis 4).
Individuals with incremental theory of intelligence
(growth mindset) similarly attribute intelligence to factors
over which they have control (e.g., effort). However, auto-
telic personality encompasses all life domains, not just intel-
ligence, and belief in the malleability of intelligence per se
should not influence one’s approach to other challenges
encountered in daily life, such as challenges in athletic activ-
ities (Dweck & Master, 2009). Therefore, we hypothesized
that autotelic personality would be weakly associated with
growth mindset (Hypothesis 5).
AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 3
Incremental and criterion validity
Flow proneness
Highly autotelic individuals are more likely to experience
flow in daily life (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002),
implying that flow proneness—the tendency to experience
flow frequently in life—is an outcome of autotelic personal-
ity (Baumann, 2012). To demonstrate incremental validity,
autotelic personality should positively predict flow proneness
beyond the Big Five personality traits that have been
employed in past studies (e.g., Ullen et al., 2012;
Hypothesis 6).
Satisfaction with life
Studies on flow and subjective well-being demonstrate that
dimensions of flow, such as clear goals and challenge–skill
balance, are related to satisfaction with life (e.g., Collins,
Sarkisian, & Winner, 2009). Given that highly autotelic indi-
viduals should be more prone to experiencing flow, they
should in turn be more satisfied with life. Therefore, we
hypothesized that autotelic personality would have a positive
indirect effect on satisfaction with life through flow prone-
ness (Hypothesis 7).
Flow state
Highly autotelic individuals should experience more intense
flow state in general (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). We hypothe-
sized that autotelic personality would be positively associated
with the intensity of flow state regardless of the difficulty of
the task (Hypothesis 8a). Furthermore, although high-chal-
lenge, low-skill activities generally induce anxiety that results
in a low intensity of flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975),
highly autotelic individuals are able to negate the negative
impact of excess challenges on flow state by transforming
the challenges into opportunities to learn (Asakawa, 2004;
Tse, Fung, Nakamura, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2018). In other
words, the impact of task difficulty on flow state would be
less pronounced among highly autotelic individuals
(Hypothesis 8b).
Study 1
Item generation and content validity
To generate items that are representative of the breadth of
autotelic personality, we reviewed the existing literature on
flow theory and identified the common individual attributes
(e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1997). We then con-
sulted two subject matter experts (SMEs) on the 13 main
themes gathered (M. Csikszentmihalyi, personal communica-
tion, September 20, 2016; J. Nakamura, personal communi-
cation, September 25, 2016) to ensure all dimensions of
autotelic personality were covered. Out of the 13 themes we
identified, seven were identified as essential attributes of
autotelic personality by at least one of the SMEs (four were
identified as essential by both SMEs). The SMEs also com-
mented that some of the remaining themes could be incor-
porated into the seven essential attributes; for example,
4 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN
“autonomous, self-chosen goals” was combined into
“intrinsic motivation.” We thus decided to eliminate the
remaining six, striking a balance between complete coverage
of the construct and parsimony (see Table 1 for the list of
extracts and the identified attributes).
Based on the seven essential attributes of autotelic per-
sonality, we generated more than 100 question items,
informed by the literature and existing scales that measure
similar constructs (e.g., Curiosity and Exploration Inventory;
Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004). We revised the items by
following guidelines for item generation, such as the avoid-
ance of double-barreled questions connotation (Dillman,
2007). The items were further reviewed and modified based
on comments from the two SMEs and from 15 graduate stu-
dents who had expertise in related areas. The initial item
pool consisted of 45 items representing the seven attributes
of autotelic personality. All items were to be rated on a 7-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Participants and procedure
We used convenience sampling to recruit 261 participants
on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online crowd-
sourcing platform. Compared to the college populations
often used for psychology research, MTurk workers are con-
sidered more representative of the U.S. population (Paolacci,
Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). According to the U.S. Census
Bureau (2017), 50.8% of the U.S. population are female,
roughly 60% of the population are between the ages of 20
and 60, and 76.9% are White. Our sample generally resem-
bles the U.S. population in terms of race and gender. The
mean age of the sample was 34.51 (SD ¼ 9.58), 52.48% self-
identified as men, and 75.90% self-identified as White.
Participants filled out the questionnaire with the initial item
pool and demographic questions including birth year, gen-
der, race or ethnicity, and education level.
Results
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using
principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation to iden-
tify latent factors for the 45 items in the initial APQ item
pool. Factor extraction was guided by (a) eigenvalues greater
than 1 (Kaiser, 1960), (b) analysis of the scree plot (Cattell,
1966), and (c) theory. We deleted items with high cross-
loading on two or more factors (i.e., .40 on more than one
factor) or low factor loading coefficients (i.e., .32 or lower;
Yong & Pearce, 2013).
For the first round of EFA, a seven-factor structure con-
verged, with two cross-loading items and one item with a
low factor loading coefficient. These items were “I see chal-
lenges as learning opportunities,” “I am good at handling
demanding situations,” and “There is little I can do when
stuck in a boring situation,” respectively. These items were
removed, leaving 42 items for the rest of the analyses.
Following this, we reduced the number of items in the APQ
by removing the item with the lowest factor loading and
conducted the EFA again. The decision about whether to
remove certain items was determined by the result of the
EFA as well as the research team’s judgment concerning the-
ory and validity. This procedure was repeated until each fac-
tor contained only four items. Because of the large number
of attributes in autotelic personality, we decided that having
four items per subscale would balance construct validity and
parsimony. The end result was a seven-factor solution with
four items for each subscale. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin meas-
ure of sampling adequacy (KMO) for the 28-item scale was
.91 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant,
v2(378) ¼ 4776.87, p < .001. The factor solution explained
65.66% of the variance. Table 2 shows the factor loadings of
the items.
The scores of the 28-item APQ had good reliability
(a ¼ .92; Howell, 2012). The Cronbach’s alphas were satisfac-
tory for each subscale: curiosity (a ¼ .86), persistence
(a ¼ .93), low self-centeredness (a ¼ .93), intrinsic motivation
(a ¼ .70), enjoyment of challenge (a ¼ .87), enjoyment of
boredom (a ¼ .82), and attention control (a ¼ .90).
Discussion
Consistent with the metaskills model and the receptive–ac-
tive model, (a) curiosity and interest in life, (b) persistence,
(c) low self-centeredness, (d) intrinsic motivation, (e) enjoy-
ment and transformation of boredom, (f) enjoyment and
transformation of challenges, and (g) attentional control
contributed significantly and uniquely to autotelic
personality.
The Cronbach’s alpha of the intrinsic motivation subscale
(a ¼ .70) was lower than the other subscales. Scales measur-
ing general intrinsic motivation are often comprised of a
large number of items that measure intrinsic motivation in
different domains, such as work and leisure (e.g., General
Causality Orientation Scale [GCOS–12; Deci & Ryan, 1985]).
We followed this approach and attempted to measure intrin-
sic motivation in different domains with only four items.
Although having fewer items on a multidomain construct
might hamper the internal consistency of the scale, we
strove to maintain adequate psychometric properties while
keeping the scale relatively short (Sudman, Bradburn, &
Schwarz, 1996).
Study 2
Method
Participants and procedure
We recruited a convenience sample of new participants on
MTurk who had not participated in Study 1. At Time 1, 400
participants filled out a questionnaire with the revised APQ,
the Big Five personality factors, flow proneness, internal
LOC, growth mindset, and social desirability. Three weeks
later (Time 2), 214 (54%) of the participants from Time 1
filled out the APQ again, along with the Satisfaction with
Life Scale. The mean age of the sample was 35.54
(SD ¼ 10.67), 51.25% self-identified as men, and 77.80% as
Table 1. Identified attributes and extract quotes of autotelic personality in the literature
Identified attributes
Curiosity and interest in life
Persistence
Low self-consciousness
Intrinsic motivation
Enjoyment and transformation
of challenges
Enjoyment and transformation
of boredom
Attention control
Autonomous/self-chosen goals
Sense of importance in what
they do
Strongly directed purpose that is not
self-seeking
Willingness to develop skills
when needed
Recognizing challenges that
require skills
Seeking challenges that
require skills
Example extracts from the literature Decision in reference to subject matter experts’ (SME) comments
“[Autotelic individuals] are intellectually curious” (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1997, p.76) Included as an essential attribute
“[Autotelic individuals] must find time in order to develop interest and curiosity to enjoy life for its own
sake.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 127)
“They [autotelic individuals] express an unusually strong desire to excel (achievement), [and] are willing Included as an essential attribute
to preserve in order to attain their goals (endurance).” (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1997, p.76)
“A less drastic obstacle to experiencing flow is excessive self-consciousness.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 84) Included as an essential attribute
“[N]arcissistic preoccupation with oneself prevents people from recognizing opportunities and using skills, thereby
breeding a lifestyle characterized by boredom and anxiety.” (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 371)
“[A]utotelic people … . enjoy what he[/she/they] are doing regardless of whether he[/she/they] will get external Included as an essential attribute
rewards for it.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 22) “[A]utotelic denotes an individual who generally does things
for their own sake, rather than in order to achieve some later external goal.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 117)
“The ‘autotelic self’ is one that easily translates potential threats into enjoyable challenges.”
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 209) “Some people appear to have autotelic personalities that make it easier for
them to enjoy everyday life, and to transform routine and even threatening situations into challenging
opportunities for action.” (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 364)
“[Autotelic] individuals who habitually react to a boring situation by seeking stimulation” (Csikszentmihalyi, Included as an essential attribute
Rathunde, & Whalen, 1997, p. 157) “Why is the same homework boring to some and enjoyable to others?
… They must be looked for in the personality of the students, in their ability to recognize challenges at
a level commensurate with their skill, where others only see tiresome obstacles.” (Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 32)
“Perhaps one characteristics that differentiates a person with an autotelic personality is this ability to Included as an essential attribute
concentrate more efficiently, with less effort.” (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 371) “It is this
flexibility of attention, which contrasts so sharply with the helpless overinclusion of the schizophrenic, that
may provide the neurological basis for the autotelic personality." (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 88)
“[A] self that has self-contained goals, and it reflects the idea that such an individual has relatively few Dropped because none of the SMEs indicated
goals that do not originate from within the self.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 209) it as essential. Combined with “intrinsic motivation”
“[Autotelic individuals] feel that most anything they do is important and valuable in its own right” Dropped because none of the SMEs indicated it as essential
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 117)
“A less drastic obstacle to experiencing flow is excessive self-consciousness.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 84) Dropped because none of the SMEs indicated it as essential
“The outcome of having an autotelic self—of learning to set goals, to develop skills, to be sensitive to Combined with “Enjoyment and transformation of challenges”
feedback, to know how to concentrate and get involved” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 213)
“Why is the same homework boring to some and enjoyable to others? … They must be looked for Dropped because none of the SMEs indicated it as
in the personality of the [autotelic] students, in their ability to recognize challenges at a level essential. Combined with “Enjoyment and
commensurate with their skill, where others only see tiresome obstacles.” (Csikszentmihalyi & transformation of boredom”
Csikszentmihalyi, p. 32)
“[T]heir [autotelic individuals’] deep sense of interest aids them in recognizing new challenges, Dropped because none of the SMEs indicated
with new opportunities pitched just far enough ahead of current skills to mobilize but not it as essential. Combined with “Enjoyment and
overwhelm psychic resources.” (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1997, p. 80) transformation of boredom”
AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE
5
6 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN

Table 2. Factor loadings of 28 APQ items in the final EFA model in Study 1. developed by Dweck, Chiu, and Hong (1995). The
Factor Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .96. On a 6-point Likert
Item PE SC AC EB EC IM CU scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree),
PE_1 .91 respondents expressed the degree to which they agreed or
PE_2 .83 disagreed with the statements. A higher score indicated that
PE_3 .81
PE_4 .80 the respondent had a stronger growth mindset.
SC_1 [R] .92 Flow proneness. We used the English-language version
SC_2 [R] .88 of the SFPQ (Ullen et al., 2012) to measure flow proneness.
SC_3 [R] .83
SC_4 [R] .83 The SFPQ consisted of 21 items representing different
AC_1 [R] .85 domains of life: work (a ¼ .78), leisure (a ¼ .71), and main-
AC_2 [R] .84
AC_3 [R] .82
tenance (a ¼ .73). Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale to
AC_4 .52 indicate their frequency of flow experiences mentioned in
EB_1 .83 the statements, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every day, or
EB_2 .79
EB_3 .70 almost every day). A high score indicated that the respond-
EB_4 .59 ent was prone to experiencing flow.
EC_1 .80
EC_2 .61
EC_3 .47 Satisfaction with life. The Satisfaction with Life Scale
EC_4 .32 (SWLS, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was used
IM_1 .80
IM_2 .61
to measure participants’ global life satisfaction at Time 2
IM_3 .47 (a ¼ .95). Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert
IM_4 .32 scale to indicate their agreement with each statement, rang-
CU_1 .84
CU_2 .73 ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A high
CU_3 .71 score indicated that the respondent was highly satisfied with
CU_4 .57 her life in general.
Proportion of variance explained (%) 32.95 10.30 6.79 6.11 3.81 3.04 2.68
Social desirability. To account for potential systematic
Note. PE ¼ persistence; SC ¼ low self-centeredness; AC ¼ attentional control;
EB ¼ enjoyment and transformation of boredom; EC ¼ enjoyment and trans- bias due to participants’ desire to be perceived more favor-
formation of challenges; IM ¼ intrinsic motivation; CU ¼ curiosity. Items with ably (Fisher, 1993), we measured social desirability with the
[R] are reversed items. Items with  are removed from the APQ in Study 2
and onward due to cross-loading issues. Factor loadings < .32
11-item short form of the Marlowe–Crowne Social
are suppressed. Desirability Scale (SDS; Ballard, 1992; Crowne & Marlowe,
1960). Respondents indicated whether each statement was
White. This sample generally resembles the U.S. population’s true or false about themselves. Respondents with more state-
demographics (see the “Participants and Procedure” section ments reported as true were considered to be more con-
for Study 1). cerned with social approval compared with those who
obtained a lower score.
Measures
Autotelic Personality Questionnaire. We used the 28-item Results
APQ generated in Study 1.
Time 2 participants and nonparticipants
Big Five personality factors. The Big Five personality
Among all demographic and psychological constructs, age
factors were measured with the Big Five Inventory (BFI;
and conscientiousness differed between Time 2 participants
John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). This inventory contained
eight items for extraversion (a ¼ .89), nine for agreeableness and nonparticipants. Time 2 participants (M ¼ 37.33,
(a ¼ .85), nine for conscientiousness (a ¼ .88), eight for SD ¼ 11.47), were significantly older than nonparticipants
neuroticism (a ¼ .91), and 10 for openness to experience (M ¼ 33.48, SD ¼ 9.26), t(396) ¼ 3.71, p < .001, Cohen’s
(a ¼ .86). Respondents reported the extent to which they d ¼ 0.37. In addition, Time 2 participants’ scores for con-
agreed with the statements that described themselves with a scientiousness (M ¼ 4.11, SD ¼ 0.73) were significantly
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 higher than nonparticipants’ scores (M ¼ 3.86, SD ¼ 0.72),
(agree strongly). t(399) ¼ 3.49, p ¼ .001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.35. This could be
Internal locus of control. Internal LOC was measured because conscientious individuals were more goal-oriented
using the internality subscale of the Internality, Powerful and organized, and thus more likely to follow through with
Others, and Chance scale developed by Levenson (1973). the second half of the study.
The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .83. Respondents Despite these differences, we found that Time 2 partic-
reported the extent to which they agreed with each state- ipants’ APQ scores at Time 1 (M ¼ 5.01, SD ¼ 0.80) were
ment using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly not significantly different than those of nonparticipants
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A higher score indicated a (M ¼ 5.00, SD ¼ 0.75), t(399) ¼ 0.13, p ¼ .901, Cohen’s
stronger internal LOC. d ¼ 0.01. Therefore, we concluded that the differences
Incremental theory of intelligence. Incremental theory between participant groups in age and conscientiousness
of intelligence (growth mindset) was measured by the scale would not affect subsequent analyses.
 AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 7

Confirmatory factor analysis and longitudinal invariance

In this study, we determined good model fit with v2/df ratio
<2, comparative fit index (CFI) > .95, root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) < .05, and standardized
root mean residual (SRMR) < .05; and acceptable model fit
with v2/df ratio <5, CFI > .90, RMSEA < .08, and
SRMR < .08 (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu &
Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016). For nested model fit compari-
son, we evaluated improvement of model fit by examining
whether there was a significant Dv2 test result; for non-
nested model comparison, given that Dv2 test was not
appropriate, we evaluated improvement of model fit by
comparing the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) of the
two nonnested models (Kline, 2016). We conducted the con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) and longitudinal invariance
tests with the R package “lavaan” (Rosseel, 2012) using max-
imum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and
a scaled test statistics (MLR; Yuan & Bentler, 2000).
Before testing Hypothesis 1 (longitudinal invariance), we
conducted a CFA to examine the factor structure of the 28-
item APQ at Time 1. The model showed an unsatisfactory
fit with the data, v2(343) ¼ 1124.9, p < .001, v2/df ¼ 3.28,
CFI ¼ .88, SRMR ¼ .10, RMSEA ¼ .07, 90% CI of RMSEA
[.07, .08], AIC ¼34,973. The modification indexes suggested
that two question items—“I can turn demanding situations
into enjoyable situations” and “I can focus for a long
time”—cross-loaded on other factors and thus hampered the
model fit. After deleting these two items, the model fit of
the reduced 26-item APQ improved and became acceptable
(see Figure 1), v2(292) ¼ 844.1, p < .001, v2/df ¼ 2.89,
CFI ¼ .91, SRMR ¼ .08, RMSEA ¼ .07, 90% CI of RMSEA
[.06, .07], AIC ¼32,541, DAIC ¼2,432. We conducted all
subsequent analyses using this 26-item APQ.
To test Hypothesis 1, we evaluated the longitudinal invari-
ance of the APQ following Chen, Sousa, and West’s (2005)
invariance test procedure of second-order factor models. This
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis model of autotelic personality model and
procedure includes the comparisons of seven models that test the seven first-order factors (N ¼ 401). Single-headed arrows from the first-order
the invariances of the factor structure, first- and second-order latent variable to the manifest variables (squares) represent the loadings of
factor loadings and intercepts, as well as disturbances of latent each question item onto the latent variable. Single-headed arrows from the
second-order latent variable to the first-order latent variables represent the
factors and residuals of observed items (for technical details, loadings of each first-order latent variable onto the second-order latent variable.
see Chen et al., 2005). Table 3 shows the model fit indexes and The residuals of manifest variables and the variance of latent variables are omit-
the model comparison results. The fit of the final model ted. All loadings are standardized and are significant at the p < .001 level.
AP ¼ autotelic personality; CU ¼ curiosity; PE ¼ persistence; SC ¼ low self-cen-
(Model 7) was acceptable and was not significantly different teredness; IM ¼ intrinsic motivation; EC ¼ enjoyment and transformation of chal-
from that of Model 6; for fit indexes of Model 7, lenges; EB ¼ enjoyment and transformation of boredom;
v2(1,326) ¼ 2206.7, p < .001, v2/df ¼ 1.66, CFI ¼ .911, AC ¼ attentional control.
SRMR ¼ .095, RMSEA ¼ .051, 90% CI of RMSEA [.046, .056];
for model comparison (Models 6 vs. 7), Dv2(26) ¼ 26.83, at Time 1 was positively associated with that at Time 2,
p ¼ .418, DCFI ¼ .000, DSRMR ¼ .000, DRMSEA ¼ .001. The ICC ¼ .87, p < .001. The scores of the subscales at Time 1
findings suggest that APQ at Time 1 and Time 2 shared simi- were also positively associated with their corresponding
lar factor structures, first- and second-order factor loadings,
scores at Time 2: for curiosity, ICC ¼ .71, p < .001; for per-
first- and second-order intercepts, disturbance of first-order
sistence, ICC ¼ .80, p < .001; for low self-centeredness,
latent variables, and residuals of observed items. Consistent
ICC ¼ .81, p < .001; for intrinsic motivation, ICC ¼ .67,
with Hypothesis 1, the scores of the reduced 26-item APQ
p < .001; for enjoyment and transformation of challenges,
have good longitudinal invariance.
ICC ¼ .85, p < .001; for enjoyment and transformation of
boredom, ICC ¼ .70, p < .001; and for attention control,
Test–retest reliability ICC ¼ .78, p < .001. These findings suggest that the scores of
To test Hypothesis 2, we conducted a two-way mixed intra- the 26-item APQ and its subscales have satisfactory test–ret-
class correlation (ICCconsistency[3,k]) analysis. The APQ score est reliability, providing support for Hypothesis 2.
8 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN

Table 3. Longitudinal invariance models with model fit indices (N ¼ 214). Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, Zero-order
Correlations, and Partial Correlations for all Psychological Constructs Measured
Model v2 df CFI RMSEA SRMR Dv2 Ddf DCFI DRMSEA DSRMR
in Study 2 Time 1 (N ¼ 400).
Model 1a 2089.3 1212 .912 .053 .093 –– –– –– –– ––
Variable M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Model 2b 2112.5 1231 .912 .053 .093 23.24 19 .000 .000 .000
Model 3c 2114.7 1237 .912 .052 .093 1.70 6 .000 .001 .000 1. APQ_26 5.00 0.78 .88 –– .38 .36 .65 -.53 .51 .13 .46 .58 .41 .54
Model 4d 2135.2 1263 .912 .052 .094 28.84 26 .000 .000 .001 2. BFI_E 2.95 0.97 .89 .41 –– .17 .23 -.44 .27 .00 .31 .21 .22 .29
Model 5e 2147.9 1270 .911 .052 .094 13.53 7 .001 .000 .000 3. BFI_A 3.83 0.76 .85 .41 .24 –– .44 -.40 .26 .18 .23 .21 .20 .33
Model 6f 2156.8 1277 .911 .052 .095 7.23 7 .000 .000 .001 4. BFI_C 3.99 0.73 .88 .67 .28 .49 –– -.43 .30 .19 .33 .46 .36 .40
Model 7g 2206.7 1326 .911 .051 .095 26.83 26 .000 .001 .000 5. BFI_N 2.61 1.02 .91 -.57 -.50 -.47 -.48 –– -.21 -.08 -.37 -.33 -.23 -.39
6. BFI_O 3.72 0.70 .86 .52 .28 .28 .31 -.23 –– .11 .20 .38 .22 .32
Note. Dv2, Ddf, DCFI, and DRMSEA were obtained by comparing the target
7. Mindset 4.01 1.53 .96 .13 .01 .19 .20 -.10 .11 –– .03 .04 .03 .02
models with their previous models (e.g. Model 2 to Model 1). Models were
8. LOC 33.05 8.41 .83 .48 .33 .26 .35 -.39 .21 .03 –– .44 .44 .45
estimated with maximum likelihood function with robust (Huber-White)
9. SFPQ_L 4.96 0.87 .71 .60 .25 .27 .49 -.38 .39 .05 .45 –– .47 .54
standard errors; robust CFI and RMSEA are reported. None of the compari-
10. SFPQ_M 4.61 0.99 .73 .42 .23 .23 .37 -.25 .22 .03 .45 .48 –– .50
sons showed significant differences in model fit (all ps  .05).
a 11. SFPQ_W 5.09 0.99 .78 .55 .31 .37 .43 -.43 .33 .03 .46 .55 .50 ––
model holding factor structure constant (configural invariance).
b 12. SDS 6.50 1.82 .86 -.25 -.25 -.32 -.26 .35 -.11 -.07 -.15 -.22 -.11 -.19
model holding factor structure and first-order factor loadings constant.
c Note. Zero-order correlation coefficients are presented below the diagonal,
model holding factor structure and first- and second-order factor load-
ings constant. and partial correlation coefficients controlling for SDS are presented above
d
model holding factor structure, factor loadings, and intercepts of observed the diagonal. Correlation coefficients that are statistically significant (p < .05)
variables constant. are bolded. APQ_26 ¼ Revised 26-item APQ; BFI_E ¼ Big-Five Inventory –
e
model holding factor structure, factor loadings, and intercepts of observed Extraversion; BFI_A ¼ Big-Five Inventory – Agreeableness; BFI_C ¼ Big-Five
variables and first-order factors constant. Inventory – Conscientiousness; BFI_N ¼ Big-Five Inventory – Neuroticism;
f
model holding factor structure, factor loadings, intercepts, and disturbances BFI_O ¼ Big-Five Inventory – Openness to Experience; Mindset ¼ Incremental
of first-order factors constant. theory of intelligence (growth mindset); LOC ¼ Internal locus of control;
g
model holding factor structure, factor loadings, intercepts, disturbances of SFPQ_L ¼ Swedish Flow Proneness Scale – Leisure; SFPQ_M ¼ Swedish Flow
first-order factors, and residuals of observed variables constant. Proneness Scale – Maintenance; SFPQ_W ¼ Swedish Flow Proneness Scale –
Work; SDS ¼ Social Desirability Scale.

Convergent and discriminant validity

We then tested the convergent and discriminant validity of
the APQ (Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5). Table 4 shows the correl-
ation matrix of the 26-item APQ, neuroticism, openness to
experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness,
internal LOC, growth mindset, and flow proneness.
To test the convergent validity of the APQ, we conducted
a bivariate correlational analysis of autotelic personality at
Time 1 with neuroticism, r(398) ¼ .57; conscientiousness,
r(398) ¼ .67; extraversion, r(398) ¼ .41; openness to experi-
ence, r(398) ¼ .52; and internal LOC, r(398) ¼ .48, all
ps < .001. Given that these correlations were statistically sig-
nificant and were all at least medium in size (jrj > .30;
Cohen, 1988), the findings support Hypotheses 3a, 3 b, 3c,
3d, and 4. This demonstrates support for conver-
gent validity.
To test the discriminant validity of the APQ, we corre-
lated autotelic personality at Time 1 with agreeableness and
growth mindset. Contrary to Hypothesis 3e, autotelic per-
sonality was positively correlated with agreeableness with a
medium effect size, r(398) ¼ .41, p < .001. We therefore
decided to follow Ullen and colleagues’ (2012) procedure
and conducted a post-hoc stepwise regression analysis using
all Big Five personality traits to predict autotelic personality.
Indeed, whereas extraversion, openness to experience, con-
scientiousness, and neuroticism predicted autotelic personal-
ity significantly (jbj ¼ .07–.44, all ps < .05), agreeableness
was the only predictor that did not uniquely explain vari-
ance in autotelic personality, b ¼ .03, SE ¼ .04, b ¼ .03,
p ¼ .468. The result of the post-hoc analysis suggests that
the common variance shared among the five personality
traits might have inflated the zero-order correlation between
agreeableness and autotelic personality.
Furthermore, consistent with Hypothesis 5, autotelic per-
sonality was positively correlated with growth mindset with
a small effect size, r(398) ¼ .13, p ¼ .008. Despite statistical
significance, a small effect size (jrj < .30) can be considered
as an evidence of discriminant validity given the large sam-
ple size (Cohen, 1988; Howell, 2012). In short, the findings
partially support the discriminant validity of the APQ.
We also repeated the correlation analyses while statistic-
ally controlling for social desirability. Table 4 shows the par-
tial correlation of APQ at Time 1 with tested variables. All
the partial correlation results were consistent with the zero-
order correlations.
Incremental and criterion validity
To test the incremental validity of the APQ, we conducted
hierarchical regression analyses using autotelic personality
and the Big Five personality factors to predict average flow
proneness across domains (Hypothesis 6). Whereas Model 1
had all Big Five personality factors as predictors, Model 2
included autotelic personality as an additional predictor. By
comparing Model 2 against Model 1, we found that autotelic
personality explained an addition of 7.1% more variance of
flow proneness beyond what was already explained by all
Big Five personality factors in Model 1, DR2 ¼ .071, DF(1,
393) ¼ 48.44, p < .001. Consistent with Hypothesis 6, con-
trolling for the Big Five personality factors, autotelic person-
ality significantly predicted flow proneness, b ¼ .43, p < .001
(jbjs  .20 for the Big Five personality factors; see Table 5).
The findings provide support for the incremental validity of
the APQ scores.
To test the criterion validity of the APQ, we constructed
a mediation model with the 26-item APQ at Time 1 predict-
ing satisfaction with life at Time 2, mediated by flow prone-
ness at Time 1 (Hypothesis 7) and tested the indirect effect
with a path analysis. The model fit was satisfactory,
v2(4) ¼ 8.26, p ¼ .083, v2/df ¼ 2.07, CFI ¼ .99, SRMR ¼ .02,
RMSEA ¼ .07, 90% CI of RMSEA [.00, .16]. Consistent with
Hypothesis 7, the indirect effect of the APQ on satisfaction
with life through flow proneness was significant, b ¼ .74,
 AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 9

SE ¼ .20, b ¼ .34, p < .001, providing support for criterion Hypothesis 3e, however, we found a significant positive rela-
validity. The APQ was positively associated with flow prone- tionship with a medium effect size between autotelic person-
ness and in turn predicted satisfaction with life (see Figure 2 ality and agreeableness, but the relationship might be due to
for a more detailed report of the model results). the common variance shared with the other four personality
traits, as suggested by the post-hoc regression analysis. After
controlling for this factor, the unique contribution of agree-
Discussion ableness on autotelic personality became negligible.
We eliminated two items from the APQ based on the initial Finally, our findings showed support for the incremental
CFA results. The factor structure of the 26-item APQ did and criterion validity of the APQ scores. Autotelic personal-
not vary when administered to the same participants 3 ity not only positively predicted flow proneness above and
weeks apart, demonstrating support for its longitudinal beyond the Big Five Personality Factors (Hypothesis 6), but
invariance (Hypothesis 1). In addition, the strong positive also predicted satisfaction with life through the mediation of
correlation between participants’ responses to the APQ in flow proneness (Hypothesis 7). In conclusion, despite only
Time 1 and Time 2 demonstrated support for its test–retest partial support for the discriminant validity of the APQ, the
reliability (Hypothesis 2). findings suggest that the APQ scores demonstrate adequate
The results from the APQ scores provide support for longitudinal variance and test–retest reliability, as well as
convergent validity. Consistent with Hypotheses 3a–d and 4, convergent, incremental, and criterion validity. Study 3 fur-
autotelic personality was negatively related to neuroticism ther investigated the criterion validity of the APQ in
and positively related to conscientiousness, extraversion, an experiment.
openness to experience, and internal locus of control.
Discriminant validity, on the other hand, was only partially Study 3
supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, autotelic personal-
ity was weakly associated with growth mindset. Contrary to Method
Participants and procedure
Table 5. Predictors of flow proneness.
We recruited 239 new MTurk participants who had not par-
Model 1 Model 2
ticipated in Study 1 or 2. The mean age of the sample was
Variable B SE b B SE b 37.15 (SD ¼ 11.88), with 52.30% of the participants self-iden-
Constant 2.46 .354 1.43 .366 tified as men and 82.40% as White. This sample generally
Big Five Personality
Extraversion 0.08 .040 .094 0.05 .038 .060 resembles the U.S. population’s demographics (see the
Agreeableness 0.03 .052 .028 0.04 .049 .040 “Participants and Procedure” section for Study 1).
Conscientiousness 0.39 .055 .358 0.18 .060 .166 Participants first filled out a screener survey. The survey
Openness to experience 0.21 .050 .180 0.06 .052 .048
Neuroticism 0.14 .042 -.147 0.03 .042 -.033 asked respondents to report their English proficiency on a
Autotelic personality 0.45 .064 .434 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all proficient) to 5
R2 .355 .426 (extremely proficient). Only the participants who scored 4 or
F 43.32 48.52
DR2 –– .071 above on the scale were invited to join Study 3. To encour-
DF –– 48.44 age honest self-reporting, we masked the inclusion–exclusion
Note. N ¼ 400. criterion by adding two filler demographic items (i.e., age
 p < .05.
and ethnicity).

Figure 2. Mediation model for autotelic personality (Time 1), flow proneness (Time 1) in maintenance, work, and leisure domains, and satisfaction with life (Time
2). Standardized path coefficients, standardized factor loadings, residual variances, and disturbances are presented. Whereas the number between autotelic person-
ality and satisfaction with life represent the standardized total effect, the number in parentheses represent the standardized direct effect. Numbers at the end of an
arrow pointing to each endogenous variable represent error/disturbance variance associated with each of them. All coefficients except for the direct effect (b ¼ .03,
p ¼ .782) are statistically significant at p < .001.
10 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN
Each eligible participant was then randomly assigned to
complete either (a) five three-letter anagram tasks (easy con-
dition), (b) five five-letter anagram tasks (medium condi-
tion), or (c) five seven-letter anagram tasks (hard
condition). The anagram tasks in all conditions had the
same procedure: Participants were presented with scrambled
letters of a word (e.g., BEAHC), and then attempted to put
the letters in the correct order (e.g., BEACH). The anagram
words have been used and validated with solution time in
previous studies (Kaplan & Carvellas, 1968; Mayzner &
Tresselt, 1958). After completing the five tasks, participants
filled out a short questionnaire asking about the feelings
that came up during the anagram tasks.
Measures
Autotelic Personality Questionnaire. We used the 26-item
APQ revised in Study 2.
Flow state. Flow state when solving the anagrams was
measured by the Flow State Scale–2 (FSS–2; Jackson &
Eklund, 2002). The scale included 36 items that represented
the nine dimensions of flow experience. Participants
responded with the degree to which they disagreed or agreed
with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). A high score indi-
cated that the respondent was in an intense flow state while
completing the anagram tasks. The Cronbach’s alpha
was .90.
Challenge and skill levels. Perceived challenge and skill
of the anagram task were measured by two items: “How
challenged/skilled did you feel when you were solving the
anagrams?” These items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Challenge–skill
difference was computed by subtracting perceived skill score
from perceived challenge score. A positive value of challen-
ge–skill difference score indicated that the person perceived
the challenges of the game to be higher than the skills
she had.
Results
Manipulation check
To examine whether the anagram difficulty was perceived as
intended (i.e., easy, medium, and hard), we analyzed partic-
ipants’ perceptions of challenge and skill level in each condi-
tion. Results from the one-way analysis of variance showed
significant differences in challenge–skill balance among the
conditions, F(2, 221) ¼ 38.00, p < .001, g2 ¼ .26. Subsequent t
tests revealed that the perceived challenge–skill difference in
the hard condition (M ¼ 1.38, SD ¼ 2.46) was significantly
greater than zero, t(79) ¼ 4.99, p < .001, Cohen’s d ¼ 1.12;
challenge–skill difference in the medium condition
(M ¼ 0.52, SD ¼ 2.33) was not significantly different from
zero, t(64) ¼ 1.81, p ¼ .075, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.45; and challen-
ge–skill difference in the easy condition (M ¼ 1.77,
SD ¼ 2.22) was significantly smaller than zero, t(78) ¼ 7.08,
p < .001, Cohen’s d ¼ 1.60. In short, participants indeed per-
ceived the hard, medium, and easy anagrams as
overwhelming, challenge–skill balanced, and underwhelming,
respectively.
Criterion validity
We evaluated the criterion validity of the revised APQ based
on how well it predicted the intensity of flow states during
anagram game play (Hypotheses 8a and 8b). We conducted
a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with anagram dif-
ficulty (easy, medium, or hard), autotelic personality, and
their interaction term as predictors of flow state.
First, we predicted flow state with anagram difficulty. The
main effect of anagram difficulty was significant, R2 ¼ .084,
F(2, 236) ¼ 10.83, p < .001. We then entered the APQ into
the model and found that the APQ predicted flow state
above and beyond anagram difficulty, b ¼ 0.26, SE ¼ 0.04,
b ¼ .41, p < .001, 95% CI of b [0.19, 0.33]. Furthermore,
autotelic personality accounted for 17% of the additional
variance of flow state, DR2 ¼ .17, DF(1, 235) ¼ 51.64,
p < .001. Consistent with Hypothesis 8a, when solving the
same set of anagrams, highly autotelic people experienced
more flow state than people scoring low in autotelic
personality.
Finally, we entered the interaction term between anagram
difficulty and autotelic personality into the model as a pre-
dictor. The interaction effect on flow state was significant,
DR2 ¼ .02, DF(2, 233) ¼ 3.07, p ¼ .048. Figure 3 shows the
interaction effect between anagram difficulty and autotelic
personality on flow state. Specifically, the effect of autotelic
personality on flow state was small in the easy condition,
b ¼ 0.15, SE ¼ 0.06, p ¼ .019, b ¼ .23, 95% CI of b [0.02,
0.27]; but moderate in the medium condition, b ¼ 0.36,
SE ¼ 0.07, p < .001, b ¼ .56, 95% CI [0.23, 0.49]; and the
hard condition, b ¼ 0.30, SE ¼ 0.06, p < .001, b ¼ .46, 95% CI
[0.18, 0.42]. The results support Hypothesis 8b, indicating
that people scoring low in autotelic personality had an even
lower intensity of flow state in the medium and
hard conditions.
Discussion
The results support Hypotheses 8a and 8b. First, highly
autotelic people indeed experienced more intense flow state
across all three conditions compared to those who were low
in autotelic personality. Second, the effect of autotelic per-
sonality on flow state was stronger in the medium and the
hard conditions than in the easy condition. This means that
compared to people low in autotelic personality, the flow
state of those high in autotelic personality was less affected
by high challenge, as postulated in previous literature (e.g.,
Tse et al., 2018).
Two of the results are surprising. First, participants
reported the most intense flow state in the easy condition
rather than in the medium condition. Similar to our results,
a study on soccer players also found no significant differ-
ence in flow state among the soccer players between the
easy condition (indicated by winning a game) and the chal-
lenge–skill balanced condition (indicated by drawing a

Figure 3. Flow state as a function of autotelic personality (APQ) in easy, medium, and hard conditions.
game; Bakker, Oerlemans, Demerouti, Slot, & Ali, 2011).
The authors explained that the soccer players might confuse
happiness after winning a game with the implicit enjoyment
of playing the sport. In our study, it was also possible that
participants confused enjoyment of the process of complet-
ing the anagrams with the enjoyment after completing the
anagrams. Further investigation is necessary to understand
the prevalence of this confusion.
The second surprising result was that the effect size of
the interaction between autotelic personality and task diffi-
culty was small (DR2 ¼ .02). This might be explained by the
fact that autotelic individuals are supposed to enjoy both
easy (i.e., boring) and difficult tasks more than their coun-
terparts, and thus the difference in the challenge level of the
anagram tasks did not have a great impact on their flow
states, as evidenced by the comparatively strong main effect
that autotelic personality had on flow state (DR2 ¼ .17).
General discussion
These studies developed and assessed the reliability and val-
idity of a self-report scale measuring autotelic personality.
We were motivated to develop the APQ because existing
operationalizations of autotelic personality either yield
inconsistent experiential and behavioral outcomes (Young,
2011) or measure the outcomes instead of the essential fea-
tures of autotelic personality (Baumann, 2012). Based on the
metaskills model and the receptive–active model, we devel-
oped a 26-item APQ that covered seven core attributes of
autotelic personality.
The APQ scores showed adequate longitudinal invariance
and test–retest reliability. Consistent with the existing
AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 11
literature (e.g., Keller & Blomann, 2008; Ullen et al., 2012),
highly autotelic individuals, as identified by the APQ, are
more conscientious, extraverted, and open to experience;
have a higher internal LOC; and are less likely to be neur-
otic. The findings provide support for the conver-
gent validity.
The evidence regarding the discriminant validity of the
APQ, however, is less clear in our study. Contrary to our
hypothesis, the APQ was positively associated with agree-
ableness, but this positive relationship between agreeableness
and the APQ was not significant after accounting for the
other four personality factors. This finding is consistent with
Ullen and colleagues’ (2012) work, in which they found
agreeableness did not significantly predict flow proneness
when the other four personality traits were in the model.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge the shortcoming of stepwise
regression, particularly when the predictors are collinear
(Howell, 2012). Therefore, we consider this finding as only
weak evidence of discriminant validity. It is also noteworthy
that the correlation between the APQ and growth mindset
was small despite its statistical significance (r ¼ .13), espe-
cially when compared to the correlation between the APQ
and internal LOC (r ¼ .48). This suggests that, whereas
highly autotelic people have a strong general sense of agency
over life events, they might not necessarily hold a specific
belief about the malleability of intelligence.
Previous studies have used the Big Five personality traits
to predict flow proneness (Ross & Keiser, 2014; Ullen et al.,
2012). In our study, the APQ significantly predicts flow
proneness above and beyond the five personality traits, sug-
gesting that the scale has good incremental validity. In add-
ition, as suggested by the literature on flow experience and
12 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN
subjective well-being (e.g., Bassi et al., 2014), APQ scores
positively predict satisfaction with life through the mediation
of flow proneness. This also suggests good criterion validity.
These findings advance the literature in two ways. First,
aside from the general traits, our results suggest a promising
research direction for flow researchers to further investigate
the attributes in the APQ that predict flow proneness and
flow state. Second, to the best of our knowledge, our study
is the first to examine the relationship between individual
attributes (autotelic personality) and satisfaction with life
through flow proneness. The findings suggest that, at least
for people with certain attributes such as curiosity and per-
sistence, being able to frequently engage in and enjoy daily
activities is a viable pathway for higher subjective
well-being.
Finally, we found that highly autotelic individuals, as
identified by the APQ, were more likely to enter the flow
state and consistently reported more intense flow state
across all three conditions of the anagram tasks than those
who were less autotelic, providing support for criterion val-
idity. It is also consistent with Tse and colleagues’ (2018)
findings; individuals who are more prone to experiencing
flow are more likely to be able to enjoy difficult challenges.
Limitations and future research
We encountered some limitations at the item generation
stage. First, there have been very few empirical studies on
either the receptive–active model or the metaskills model.
Second, not all seven attributes included in the APQ were
rated essential by both SMEs. These limitations suggest that
although flow experience has been studied extensively
(Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), the advancement of
our knowledge on autotelic personality awaits. Given that
the literature on autotelic personality is still at its early stage
of development, it is likely that other important components
of autotelic personality are yet to be discovered or that some
of the identified attributes of autotelic personality are
deemed nonessential by others. For example, although
intrinsic motivation is generally considered an important
component of autotelic personality, some studies have
shown that flow experience can also be induced in extrinsic-
ally motivating contexts (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p.
133). Therefore, it is important to note that the APQ should
not be considered a static interpretation of autotelic person-
ality; rather, it is our hope that the APQ will ignite further
investigation on this inherently complex construct. We rec-
ognize that as our understanding of autotelic personality
progresses, measurements better capturing this construct’s
essential attributes might emerge alongside it.
The use of an MTurk sample contributes to some limita-
tions to these studies. Although the MTurk worker popula-
tion is a reasonably diverse sample for this word, it does not
cover certain demographic groups adequately (e.g., adoles-
cents; Mesurado & de Minzi, 2013). For example, although
we might conclude that the APQ has been validated with
the age group of those between 20 and 60, we do not have
sufficient evidence to show that this scale will provide
reliable results with other age groups. Future validation of
the APQ is necessary to evaluate its validity with more
diverse samples, such as older adults and adolescents. In
addition, we had no control over the environments of the
participants while they participated in our study on MTurk.
The lack of control might have, for example, affected the
experiment in Study 3, in which participants’ level of atten-
tion would have influenced their performance in solving the
anagrams. These factors could have altered their flow states,
confounding the results (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997). A
replication of Study 3 in a highly controlled laboratory set-
ting would be sufficient for eliminating this poten-
tial limitation.
Another limitation stemmed from the cross-sectional
design of our study. We examined the relationship between
the APQ and flow proneness to evaluate the criterion valid-
ity in Study 2. However, because flow proneness is mani-
fested in one’s daily life, a one-time survey might not
accurately capture this construct due to potential recall bias
(Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007; Sudman et al.,
1996). For future research, we hope to incorporate the ESM
to capture the frequency of flow experience over a long
period of time (e.g., a week). Furthermore, ESM data will
allow us to examine participants’ flow proneness while they
are engaging in a wider range of activities over the course of
a week, yielding more ecologically valid results (Hektner
et al., 2007). In short, the ESM will allow us to evaluate the
criterion validity of the APQ scores with enhanced precision
and ecological validity.
Theoretical and practical implications
The APQ is a theory-driven and cost-effective self-report
measure of autotelic personality that can be administered
relatively easily compared to some existing measurements,
providing a more efficient way for researchers to study auto-
telic personality and thus catalyzing research in this field.
With the APQ, researchers could also begin to answer ques-
tions about the development of autotelic personality. For
example, what type of environment shapes the attributes of
autotelic personality and to what extent are these attributes
malleable (Rathunde, 1997)? An informative follow-up study
could examine the stability and change of autotelic personal-
ity throughout one’s life span, thus better informing us
about the dynamic of life span flow development.
In conclusion, we developed and validated the 26-item
APQ as an alternative to measuring autotelic personality
through the existing projective test or the proxy (flow
proneness) scales. Although these three studies using the
APQ suggest that more evidence is required in support of
the discriminant validity, cohesive evidence of its reliability,
structural validity, convergent validity, and criterion validity
suggest that the APQ is a promising questionnaire for study-
ing dispositions that facilitate engagement and enjoyment in
daily activities. Therefore, we believe this new measure has
the potential to be a good instrument for measuring auto-
telic personality—the essential set of attributes that facilitate
the experience of flow in daily life.

Acknowledgments
All data have been made publicly available via the Open Science
Framework and can be accessed at osf.io/cs4xj. A portion of this article
was presented at the Western Psychological Association Convention,
April 2017, Sacramento, CA. The authors acknowledge the invaluable
comments on an earlier version of this article made by Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, Jeanne Nakamura, Jason T. Siegel, Kathryn Doiron,
and Mark Rinella.
References
Asakawa, K. (2004). Flow experience and autotelic personality in
Japanese college students: How do they experience challenges in
daily life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 123–154.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Monzani, D., Greco, A., & Delle Fave, A. (2014).
Personality and optimal experience in adolescence: Implications for
well-being and development. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15,
829–843.
Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B. B., & Ali, D. K.
(2011). Flow and performance: A study among talented Dutch soc-
cer players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 442–450.
Ballard, R. (1992). Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirabil-
ity scale. Psychological Reports, 71(3_suppl), 1155–1160.
Baumann, N. (2012). Autotelic personality. In S. Engeser (Ed.),
Advances in flow research (pp. 165–186). New York, NY: Springer.
Baumann, N., & Scheffer, D. (2010). Seeing and mastering difficulty:
The role of affective change in achievement flow. Cognition and
Emotion, 24, 1304–1328.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner:
Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models.
Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471–492.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Collins, A. L., Sarkisian, N., & Winner, E. (2009). Flow and happiness
in later life: An investigation into the role of daily and weekly flow
experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 703–719.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
24, 349–354.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety:
Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engage-
ment with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal
Experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations
scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in
Personality, 19, 109–134.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1),
71–75.
AUTOTELIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 13
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design
method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and
their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspec-
tives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Dweck, C., & Master, A. (2009). Self-theories and motivation: Student’s
beliefs about intelligence. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation in the school (pp. 123–140). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect
questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007).
Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hooker, K., & McAdams, D. P. (2003). Personality reconsidered: A
new agenda for aging research. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, P296–P304.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation
modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal
of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–56.
Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alter-
natives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activ-
ity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 133–150.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five
Inventory–Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California,
Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Johnson, J. A., Keiser, H. N., Skarin, E. M., & Ross, S. R. (2014). The
Dispositional Flow Scale–2 as a measure of autotelic personality: An
examination of criterion-related validity. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 96, 465–470.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.
Kaplan, I. T., & Carvellas, T. (1968). Effect of word length on anagram
solution time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7(1),
201–206.
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and explor-
ation: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth
opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291–305.
Keller, J., & Blomann, F. (2008). Locus of control and the flow experi-
ence: An experimental analysis. European Journal of Personality, 22,
589–607.
Kline, P. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
(4th ed.). New York, NY: The Gilford Press.
Landh€auszer, A., & Keller, J. (2012). Flow and its affective, cognitive,
and performance-related consequences. In S. Engeser (Ed.),
Advances in flow research (pp. 65–85). New York, NY: Springer.
Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric
patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 397–404.
Mayzner, M. S., & Tresselt, M. E. (1958). Anagram solution times: A
function of letter order and word frequency. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 56, 376–379.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor
model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
Mesurado, B., & de Minzi, M. C. R. (2013). Child’s personality and
perception of parental relationship as correlates of optimal experi-
ence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 199–214.
Moneta, G. B. (2004). The flow model of intrinsic motivation in
Chinese: Cultural and personal moderators. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 5, 181–217.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In
C. R. Synder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology
(pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14 TSE, LAU, PERLMAN, MCLAUGHLIN
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on
Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
Rathunde, K. (1997). Parent-adolescent interaction and optimal experi-
ence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 669–689.
Ross, S. R., & Keiser, H. N. (2014). Autotelic personality through a
five-factor lens: Individual differences in flow-propensity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 59, 3–8.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation model-
ing. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S.
(2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the per-
spective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about
answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tse, D. C. K., Fung, H. H., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, C. (2018).
Teamwork and flow proneness mitigate the negative effect of excess
challenge on flow state. Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 284–289.
United States Census Bureau. (2017). Annual estimates of the resident
population by single year of age and sex for the United States:
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016. Retrieved from https://factfinder.cen-
sus.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid¼PEP_
2016_PEPSYASEXN&prodType¼table
Ullen, F., de Manzano, O., € Almeida, R., Magnusson, P. K. E.,
Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J., … Madison, G. (2012). Proneness
for psychological flow in everyday life: Associations with personal-
ity and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,
167–172.
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis:
Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative
Methods for Psychology, 9, 79–94.
Young, S. F. (2011). A person-situation model of employee engagement.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Florida Institute of Technology.
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods
for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing
data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165–200.