Fig 1.
Deterministically chaotic Lorenz trajectory (rescaled x × y projection) that served as the target path in the pursuit-tracking task.
Table 1.
Model fit indices for six CFA specifications.
Fig 2.
Final multilevel confirmatory factor model of the Polish Psychological Flow Scale (PFS; N = 140).
Blue arrows represent between-person (Level 2) factor loadings, whereas red arrows represent within-person (Level 1) factor loadings.
Fig 3.
Stability of overall flow across twenty consecutive trials (N = 140).
Each green violin represents the distribution of average flow scores in a single trial (wider sections indicate a higher density of observations at that score). The white box inside each violin represents the interquartile range (25th–75th percentile), the black horizontal line within the box marks the median, and the red dot indicates the mean average flow score for that trial. The vertical black lines (“whiskers”) extend to the most extreme values within 1.5 × IQR.
Fig 4.
Facet-level stability: trial-by-trial distributions of Absorption, Effortless Control and Intrinsic Reward (N = 140).
Each coloured violin represents the distribution of average facet scores in a single trial (wider sections indicate a higher density of observations at that score). The box within each violin shows the interquartile range (25th–75th percentile), the horizontal line marks the median, and the whiskers extend to the most extreme values within 1.5 × IQR.
Fig 5.
Hierarchical Exploratory Graph Analysis (hierEGA) of aggregated Psychological Flow Scale item scores (N = 140).
The thickness of the solid lines (edges) reflects the strength of the association between nodes, whereas the dashed grey lines indicate connections between nodes at the higher flow level and nodes at the lower facets level.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics and convergent-validity correlations (Pearson’s r) between Polish PFS facets and Flow Short Scale scores obtained after the final trial.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics and trait–state convergent-validity correlations (Pearson’s r) between aggregated Polish PFS facets (20-trial means) and the General Flow Proneness Scale.
Fig 6.
Trial-by-trial correlations between trait flow proneness and momentary flow components (N = 140).
Solid lines represents fluctuations in Pearson’s r coefficients across 20 trials. The shaded ribbons around each line represent 95% confidence intervals for these estimates.