Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The development and validation of a universal enjoyment measure: The enjoy scale

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For decades, the concept of enjoyment has been used to measure the psychological benefits of activities and has been shown to determine future behavior toward activities and objects of interest. However, there has been little consensus on the definition and dimensionality of enjoyment. This study introduced a new measure of enjoyment with scale development and validation reported. CFA and EFA findings from 1466 participants across 739 different activities were reported. The instrument developed measured enjoyment across activities, with demonstrated content validity, internal consistency, discriminant and convergent validity. The final 25-item version of the ENJOY scale is composed of 5 factors: pleasure, relatedness, competence, challenge/improvement, and engagement. Discussion of the ENJOY Scale places it within the conceptual framework of Self-Determination Theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data and materials are available upon request from the first author.

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665–694.

  • Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aykol, B., Aksatan, M., & İpek, İ. (2017). Flow within theatrical consumption: The relevance of authenticity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(3), 254–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 624–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera-Nguyen, P. (2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(2), 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2016). Enhancing perceived enjoyment in social games through social and gaming factors. Information Technology & People, 29(1), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, T. J., & Ting, C. C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R. J. (2000). The neuroscience of affective style. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences (pp. 1149–1159). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace. The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, 13–32.

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Vol. 26). Sage publications.

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, C. F., Dunn, E. W., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Cultural variation in the importance of expected enjoyment for decision making. Social Cognition, 28(5), 609–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, X., Chan, S., Brzezinski, J., & Nair, C. (2010). Development of an instrument to measure enjoyment of computer game play. INTL. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(9), 868–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Differences in motivation for sport and exercise and their relations with participation and mental health. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16(3), 124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21(3), 242–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, F. L., Su, R. C., & Yu, S. C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education, 52(1), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, E. A., Wu, D., & Passerini, K. (2010). Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team contributions on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 55(1), 378–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, L. M., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Weber, T. J. (2012). Driven to work and enjoyment of work: Effects on managers’ outcomes. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1655–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data Analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.

  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J. (2011). Uses and gratifications of social games: Blending social networking and game play. First Monday. Retrieved from firstmonday.org.

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isikman, E. (2014). The Effects of Curiosity-Evoking Events on Consumption Enjoyment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).

  • Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective Happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (pp. 3–25). Russell Sage Found.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapsner, J. C. (2009). Enjoyment. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (pp. 337–338). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K. J. (1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(1).

  • Kenny, D. A. (2014). Measuring model fit.

  • Kimiecik, J. C., & Harris, A. T. (1996). What Is Enjoyment? A Conceptual/Definitional Analysis With Implications for Sport and Exercise Psychology. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimmt, C., Blake, C., Hefner, D., Vorderer, P., & Roth, C. (2009, September). Player performance, satisfaction, and video game enjoyment. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing (pp. 1–12). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, pp. 134–154.

  • Lee, M. C., & Tsai, T. R. (2010). What drives people to continue to play online games? An extension of technology model and theory of planned behavior. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(6), 601–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, A., Gregor, S., & Ewing, M. (2008). Developing a scale to measure the enjoyment of web experiences. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(4), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, E. J., Tate, D. F., Ward, D. S., Ribisl, K. M., Bowling, J. M., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2014). Engagement, enjoyment, and energy expenditure during active video game play. Health Psychology, 33(2), 174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to Factor-Analyze Your Data Right: Do’s, Don’ts, and How-To’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 387–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: Implications for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14(4), 288–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabi, R. L., Stitt, C. R., Halford, J., & Finnerty, K. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspective. Media Psychology, 8(4), 421–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239-263). Springer Netherlands.

  • Nalipay, M. J. N., King, R. B., & Cai, Y. (2020). Autonomy is equally important across East and West: Testing the cross-cultural universality of self-determination theory. Journal of Adolescence, 78, 67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The theory of measurement error. Psychometric theory, 209–247.

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, 32(3), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, M. H., Keebler, J. R., & Chaparro, B. S. (2016). The Development and Validation of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS). Human Factors, 58(8), 1217–1247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raedeke, T. D. (2007). The relationship between enjoyment and affective responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, L., Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Lewis, R., Eden, A., & David Bowman, N. (2012). Characterizing mood management as need satisfaction: The effects of intrinsic needs on selective exposure and mood repair. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 437–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, D., Wulf, T., Kneer, J., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2014). The winner takes it all: The effect of in-game success and need satisfaction on mood repair and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, S., & Ryan, R. (2007). The player experience of need satisfaction (PENS) model. Immersyve Inc.

  • Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629–1646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (2009). Self determination theory and well being. Social Psychology, 84(822), 848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., & S., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K.M. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28(4), 335–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlan, T. K, Chow, G. M., & Scanlan, L. A. (2014). Enjoyment. In R. C. Eklund, & G. Tenebaum (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Scanlan, T. K., Chow, G. M., Sousa, C., Scanlan, L. A., & Knifsend, C. A. (2016). The development of the sport commitment questionnaire-2 (English version). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: IV. Predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(1), 25–35.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 2 (pp. 3–43). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (2015). Positive Psychology, Positive Prevention, and Positive Therapy. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press.

  • Shafer, D. M., & Carbonara, C. P. (2015). Examining enjoyment of casual videogames. Games for Health Journal, 4(6), 452–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, J. L. (2004). Flow and Media Enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 328–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. S., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences, 24(1), 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørebø, Ø., & Hæhre, R. (2012). Investigating students’ perceived discipline relevance subsequent to playing educational computer games: A personal interest and self-determination theory approach. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA, May 1980.

  • Stevens, M., Moget, P., De Greee, M. H., Lemmink, K. A., & Rispens, P. (2000). The Groningen Enjoyment Questionnaire: A measure of enjoyment in leisure-time physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90(2), 601–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(3), 3–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Bowman, N. D., Reinecke, L., Lewis, R. J., & Eden, A. (2011). Media enjoyment as need satisfaction: The contribution of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1025–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, G. H., Osgood, B., Avino, K., Bucher, G., Bucher, L., Foraker, T., & Sirkowski, C. (2008). Influence of organizational characteristics and caring attributes of managers on nurses’ job enjoyment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(4), 344–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wankel, L. M. (1993). The importance of enjoyment to adherence and psychological benefits from physical activity. International Journal of Sport Psychology.

  • Warner, R. (1980). Enjoyment. The Philosophical Review, 89(4), 507–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule (expanded form). Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

  • Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2008). Playing online games against computer-vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2274–2291.

  • Wiersma, L. D. (2001). Conceptualization and development of the sources of enjoyment in youth sport questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5(3), 153–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wininger, S. R. (1999). A social cognitive model for exercise enjoyment in females engaging in aerobic dance.

  • Wirth, W., Hofer, M., & Schramm, H. (2012). Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Human Communication Research, 38(4), 406–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaninotto, P., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2016). Sustained enjoyment of life and mortality at older ages: analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. bmj, 355, i6267.

  • Zygmont, C., & Smith, M. R. (2014). Robust factor analysis in the presence of normality violations, missing data, and outliers: Empirical questions and possible solutions. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10(1), 40–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was obtained to support this research. Internal funding was obtained in order to reimburse participants on mTurk.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Farm Insurance Company, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Shayn S. Davidson

  2. Department of Human Factors, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA

    Joseph R. Keebler, Tianxin Zhang, Barbara Chaparro & Christina M. Frederick

  3. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    James Szalma

Authors
  1. Shayn S. Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph R. Keebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tianxin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Chaparro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Szalma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christina M. Frederick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina M. Frederick.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

There are no conflicts of interest or competing interests for any of the study’s authors.

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the IRB at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, #18–052.

Consent to Participate

A consent form was completed by all participants, as required and approved by the IRB project #18–052.

Consent to Publish

All authors provided consent for publication. This work has not been published elsewhere in part or whole.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

The ENJOY Scale

Scoring Guidelines

The ENJOY scale is based on a seven-point Likert scale with a response anchor at every rating point (e.g., 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree). The order of statements can be presented as is or randomized per respondent. For online questionnaires, it is recommended that the statements on the scale be separated into 5–7 statements per page to minimize scrolling. “The activity” can be replaced by a specified activity or left blank for respondents to fill.

The ratings (from 1–7) of all items on the same dimension should be averaged to obtain subscale scores for each respondent. The composite score of enjoyment can be obtained by summing the averages of each subscale together. For the composite score, the minimum value is 5 and the maximum value is 35. Alternatively, an average score of all items can be used as an overall score of enjoyment.

Scoring Guidelines per Dimension/Subscale

Pleasure (5 items)

2. The activity was pleasurable to me

5. The activity made me feel happy

9. The activity was fun

17. I liked doing the activity

25. The activity made me feel good

Relatedness (5 items)

4. I felt connected with others during the activity

8. I liked interacting with others during the activity

16. I cooperated with others during the activity

19. The activity was a shared effort with others

21. I felt close to others when I did the activity

Competence (5 items)

6. I felt very capable during the activity

11. I am good at the activity

22. I felt like I did a good job the last time I did the activity

23. I was proficient in the activity

24. I felt competent at performing the activity

Challenge/Improvement (5 items)

1. The activity allowed me to develop new skills

7. I felt challenged, but not over-challenged, during the activity

10. I improved my skills the last time I did the activity

15. During the activity I could get better at doing it

18. I felt challenged, but not under-challenged, during the activity

Engagement (5 items)

3. I lost track of what was going on outside of the activity

12. I forgot what was going on around me during the activity

13. I lost track of time during the activity

14. When I did the activity, I thought about nothing else

20. I lost track of what was going on around me during the activity

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davidson, S.S., Keebler, J.R., Zhang, T. et al. The development and validation of a universal enjoyment measure: The enjoy scale. Curr Psychol 42, 17733–17745 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02967-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02967-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation