Yetişkinlerde Motivasyon Düzenleme ve Akış Yaşantısı Arasındaki İlişkide Ototelik Kişiliğin Aracı Rolü

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 53, 305 - 327, 01.09.2021

Tuğba Turgut , Durmuş Ümmet

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.836244

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı yetişkin bireylerin motivasyon düzenleme becerileri ve akış yaşantısı arasındaki ilişkide ototelik kişilik özelliklerinin aracı rolünün incelenmesidir. Araştırma ilişkisel tarama modelinde yapılandırılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 535 yetişkin birey oluşturmaktadır. Örneklem grubunu oluşturan bireylerin 368’i (%68,8) kadın, 167’si (%31,2) erkektir ve yaş ortalaması 34,89’dur. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak Akış Yaşantısı Ölçeği, Ototelik Kişilik Envanteri ve Motivasyon Düzenleme Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın amaçlarını test etmek üzere verilerin analizinde Pearson Momentler Çarpımı Korelasyonu, Koşullu Süreç Analizi ve Bootstrapping analizi kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda akış yaşantısı, ototelik kişilik ve motivasyon düzenleme arasında pozitif yönlü anlamlı ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Kurulan modele göre yetişkin bireylerde motivasyon düzenleme becerileri ve akış yaşantısı arasındaki ilişkide ototelik kişilik özelliklerinin tam aracı rolünün olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuç akış yaşantısı üzerinde motivasyon düzenlemenin var olan anlamlı etkisinin ototelik kişilik özelliklerinin modele dahil edilmesiyle ortadan kalktığını, başka bir ifadeyle akış yaşantısı üzerinde ototelik kişilik özelliklerinin etkisinin motivasyon düzenlemeden daha fazla olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akış yaşantısı, Ototelik kişilik, Motivasyon düzenleme, aracı model

The Mediating Role of Autotelic Personality in the Relationship Between Motivation Regulation and Flow Experiences in Adults

Öz

This research aims to examine the role of autotelic personality traits in the relationship between motivational regulating skills and the flow experience of adult individuals. The research is structured in a correlational model. The sample of the study consists of 535 adult individuals selected with the convenience sampling method. Of the individuals in the sample group, 368 (68.8%) are female, 167 (31.2%) are male, and the average age is 34.89. The Flow Experience Scale, Autotelic Personality Inventory, and Motivation Regulation Scale were used as data collection tools in the research. Pearson Product Moment Correlation, Conditional Process Analysis, and Bootstrapping analysis were used to analyze the data to test the research aims. As a result of the analysis, positive and significant relationships between flow experience, autotelic personality, and motivational regulation were determined. According to the established model, it has been concluded that autotelic personality traits have a full mediator role in the relationship between motivation regulation skills and flow experience in adult individuals. This result shows that the significant effect of motivation regulation on flow experience disappears with the inclusion of autotelic personality traits in the model; in other words, the effect of autotelic personality traits on flow experience is greater than motivation regulation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Flow experience, autotelic personality, motivation regulation, intermediary model

Kaynakça

• Adlai-Gail, W. S. (1994). Exploring the autotelic personality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Chicago, Chicago.
• Aherne, C., Moran, A. P., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). The effect of mindfulness training on athletes’ flow: An initial investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 25(2), 177-189.
• 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(2), 123-154.
• Asakawa, K. (2010). Flow experience, culture, and well-being: How do autotelic Japanese college students feel, behave, and think in their daily lives?. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 205-223.
• Baron, R. M. ve Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Baumann, N. (2012). Autotelic personality. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in Flow Research, (pp. 165-186). New York: Springer.
• Baumann, N., & Scheffer, D. (2011). Seeking flow in the achievement domain: The achievement flow motive behind flow experience. Motivation and Emotion, 35(3), 267-284.
• Biason, J. (2018). Flow families: Do maternal and paternal parenting styles foster autotelic personality? (Unpublished Bachelor of Psychological Science thesis). Australian College of Applied Psychology, Sydney.
• Busch, H., Hofer, J., Chasiotis, A., & Campos, D. (2013). The achievement flow motive as an element of the autotelic personality: Predicting educational attainment in three cultures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 239-254.
• Civelek, M. E. (2018). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi metodolojisi. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
• Compton W. C. & Hoffman, E. (2012). Positive psychology the science of happiness and flourishing. Belmont: Wadsworth.
• Creswell, J. W. (2017). Eğitim araştırmaları nicel ve nitel araştırmanın planlanması, yürütülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi. (H. Ekşi, Çev. Ed.). İstanbul: EDAM Yayınları.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow the psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: HarperCollins.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Flow the classic work on how to achieve happiness. Claremont, California: Rider.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. New York: Springer.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., Latter, P., & Duranso, C. W. (2017). Running flow. United States of America: Human Kinetics.
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer.
• Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.
• Erduran-Tekin, Ö. ve Kaplaner, K. (2020). Pozitif psikolojide biliş odaklı kavramlar. (Editör: D. Ümmet, içinde Tüm Kavram ve Yaklaşımlarıyla Pozitif Psikoloji). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Fritz, B. S., & Avsec, A. (2007). The experience of flow and subjective well-being of music students. Horizons of Psychology, 16(2), 5-17.
• Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Flow at work: An experience sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 595-615.
• Hager, P. L. (2015). Flow and the fiva-factor model (FFM) of personality characteristics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Kansas City.
• Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Hirao, K. (2014). Comparison of feelings of inferiority among university students with autotelic, average, and nonautotelic personalities. North American Journal of Medical Sciences, 6(9), 440-444.
• Hirao, K., & Kobayashi, R. (2013). Health-related quality of life and sense of coherence among the unemployed with autotelic, average, and non-autotelic personalities: a cross-sectional survey in Hiroshima, Japan. PLoS One, 8(9),1-4.
• Hoy, W. K. ve Miskel, C. G. (2015). Eğitim yönetimi (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Hung, C. Y., Sun, J. C. Y., & Yu, P. T. (2015). The benefits of a challenge: student motivation and flow experience in tablet-PC-game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 172-190.
• Ishimura, I., & Kodama, M. (2009). Flow experiences in everyday activities of Japanese college students: Autotelic people and time management 1. Japanese Psychological Research, 51(1), 47-54.
• Jackson, S. A., Ford, S. K., Kimiecik, J. C., & Marsh, H. W. (1998). Psychological correlates of flow in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 358-378.
• Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning and motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 350-374.
• Karageorghis, C. I., Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Latent variable modelling of the relationship between flow and exercise-induced feelings: An intuitive appraisal perspective. European Physical Education Review, 6, 230– 248.
• Kim, Y. E., Brady, A. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2018). Development and validation of the brief regulation of motivation scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 259-265.
• Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 355-368.
• Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (2000). Testing relationships from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation using flow as a motivational consequence. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2), 171-181.
• LeFevre, J. (1988). Flow and the quality of experience during work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience psyhological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 307-318). United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
• Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S. & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(1), 3-16.
• Lockwood, C. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1998, March). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of SAS Users Group International (pp. 997-1002).
• Lopez, S. J., Pedrotti, J. T. & Snyder, C. R. (2015). Positive psychology the scientific and practical explorations of human strengths. USA: SAGE Publications.
• Lunenburg, F. C. ve Ornstein, A. C. (2013). Eğitim yönetimi (G. Arastaman, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Magyaródi, T., Nagy, H., Soltész, P., Mózes, T., & Oláh, A. (2013). Psychometric properties of a newly established flow state questionnaire. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 1(2), 85-96. Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. (2004). Play, flow, and the online search experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 324-332.
• Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation education and psychology integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. California: SAGE Publications.
• Mikicin, M. (2013). Autotelic personality as a predictor of engagement in sports. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 5(1), 84-92.
• Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2008). Motivation and flow: Toward an understanding of the dynamics of the relation in architecture students. The Journal of Psychology, 142(5), 533-556.
• Moneta, G. B. (2012). Opportunity for creativity in the job as a moderator of the relation between trait intrinsic motivation and flow in work. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 491-503.
• Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89-105). USA: Oxford University Press.
• Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407.
• Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
• Rettie, R. (2001). An exploration of flow during Internet use. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11(2), 103-113.
• Rheinberg, F. & Engeser, S. (2018). Intrinsic motivation and flow. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 579-622). USA: Springer.
• Rogatko, T. P. (2009). The influence of flow on positive affect in college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(2), 133.
• 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.
• Sarıçam, H. ve Erdemir, N. (2019). Üniversite öğrencilerinin motivasyon düzenleme düzeylerinin belirlenmesi: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. H. Ekşi, M. Yüksel ve A. N. Canel (Eds), IX. Uluslararası Yükseköğretimde Psikolojik Danışmanlık ve Rehberlik Araştırmaları Kongresi Bildiri Tam Metin Kitabı içinde (ss. 233-241). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Seifert, T., & Hedderson, C. (2010). Intrinsic motivation and flow in skateboarding: An ethnographic study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(3), 277-292.
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press.
• Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology an introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Telążka, B. (2015). A Qualitative Study on Subjective Attitudes and Objective Achievement of Autotelic and Non-autotelic Students of English as a Foreign Language. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & M. Szyszka (Eds.), The Ecosystem of the Foreign Language Learner (pp. 59-70). Switzerland: Springer.
• Tse, D. C., Fung, H. H., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2016). Teamwork and flow proneness mitigate the negative effect of excess challenge on flow state. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(3), 284-289.
• Tse, D. C., Lau, V. W. Y., Perlman, R., & McLaughlin, M. (2018). The development and validation of the Autotelic Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(1), 88-101.
• Tse, D. C., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2020). Living well by “flowing’well: The indirect effect of autotelic personality on well-being through flow experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-12.
• Uz-Baş, A. (2019). Akış Yaşantısı Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. I. Uluslararası Bilim, Eğitim, Sanat ve Teknoloji (UBEST) Sempozyumu Tam Metin Kitabı içinde (s.1374-1379). İzmir, Türkiye.
• Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189-205.
• Yarar, O. F. (2015). Autotelic personality: Links with flow propensity, personal strengths, and psychopathology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.