Three specific points of inconsistency are then highlighted: (1) inconsistences in operationalizing flow as a continuous versus discrete construct, (2) inconsistencies in operationalizing flow as inherently enjoyable (i.e., “autotelic”) or not, and (3) inconsistencies in operationalizing flow as dependent on versus distinct from the task characteristics proposed to elicit it (i.e., the conditions/antecedents). Across the 42 reviewed studies, flow was operationalized in 24 distinct ways. Flow operationalizations from papers published within the past 5 years are reviewed. In this conceptual analysis, it is argued that progress within the field has been impeded by a lack of consistency in how flow is operationalized, and that this inconsistency in part reflects an underlying confusion regarding what flow is. Nevertheless, advancement in understanding – beyond what Csikszentmihalyi uncovered during his initial breakthrough in 1975 – has been modest. The “flow” experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) has been the focus of a large body of empirical work spanning more than four decades.