Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Virtual Reality
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-025-01109-0
services and tourism destinations (Loureiro et al. 2020).
These immersive technologies provide added value to the
tourism sector and modify visitors’ experiences (Bec et al.
2019; Jung et al. 2016; Rainoldi et al. 2018; tom Dieck and
Jung, 2018; Tussyadiah 2014). They allow tourists to play
a more dynamic and autonomous role (Flavián et al. 2019).
VR and AR create powerful 3D interactive visual
experiences (Yung and Khoo-Lattimore 2017), generat-
ing emotions among users, stimulating visitors’ senses
and immersing them in the visit (Nayyar et al. 2018). VR
can be dened as a computer-generated three-dimensional
environment that constructs a virtual world where users
can navigate and interact (Guttentag 2010). On the other
hand, AR enriches real environments using computer-gen-
erated voices, images, and other virtual data (Gaberli 2019)
through devices that provide a lower degree of immersion
compared to VR (Yung and Khoo-Lattimore 2017).
These immersive technologies have been mostly devel-
oped in the eld of heritage and cultural tourism, where
1 Introduction
Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) applica-
tions have been widely implemented in the tourism sector
(Fan et al. 2022; Kim et al. 2020) transforming products,
Irene Pinto
irene.pinto@studenti.unicz.it; irene.pinto@estudiants.urv.cat
Assumpció Huertas
sunsi.huertas@urv.cat
1 Department of Law, Economics and Sociology, Magna
Graecia University of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, Germaneto,
88100 Catanzaro, Italy
2 Department of Tourism and Geography, Rovira i Virgili
University, Tarragona, C. Joanot Martorell, 15,
43480 Vila-Seca, Tarragona, Spain
3 Department of Communication Studies, Universitat Rovira i
Virgili, Av. Catalunya, 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain
Abstract
VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) applications are increasingly being implemented in the heritage and
cultural tourism sector, generating immersive and engaging visitor experiences. Taking into account the gaps in the lit-
erature concerning the topic, the objective of this study is to compare the emotional impacts of VR and AR applications
on the visitor experience in two heritage sites in the peripheral town of Ulldecona (Catalonia, Spain). Through a qualita-
tive real-world study, combining participants’ self-reports and participant observation, the analysis will be conducted by
examining visitors’ reactions across ve dimensions of emotions identied in the literature (Soon et al. in Psychol Mark
40(11):2387–2412, 2023) and adapted to this context: the cognitive, aective, physiological, motivational and expres-
sive dimensions. Both positive and negative eects are explored to provide a comprehensive understanding of the visitor
experience. Results reveal that what visitors express does not always match their sensorial and physical behaviour during
the experience. Additionally, VR and AR applications elicit dierent reactions among visitors due to their varying degree
of immersivity. This research provides valuable insights to the literature on VR, AR and heritage tourism, emphasising
the need for a mixed-method approach to further explore advanced technologies’ impacts on visitors at heritage sites.
Keywords Virtual reality · Augmented reality · Heritage tourism · Visitor emotional experience · Comparative study ·
Participant observation
Received: 1 May 2024 / Accepted: 21 January 2025 / Published online: 6 February 2025
© The Author(s) 2025
A comparative study of VR and AR heritage applications on visitor
emotional experiences: a case study from a peripheral Spanish
destination
IrenePinto1,2 · AssumpcióHuertas3
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
tourists’ experiences are particularly relevant (Bec et al.
2019; Han et al. 2018). Heritage tourism oers experiences
that involve visiting places or reliving activities from the
past, and these immersive technologies not only allow heri-
tage to be preserved and managed, but also integrate history
into heritage (Zhu et al. 2023). They engage with history
at the heritage site, recreate the places or events as they
were originally, and oer additional enriching information
that renders places more attractive, entertaining and educa-
tional (Yung and Khoo-Lattimore 2017). All this increases
the level of visitor immersion in the application experience,
generates emotions and greater engagement, and enriches
the tourist experience (Bec et al. 2019; Mura et al. 2017;
Soon et al. 2023).
Most studies on VR and AR applications in heritage
tourism highlight the advantages oered by these technolo-
gies such as the added value they bring to heritage sites and
museums with more innovative, interactive and exciting
information (tom Dieck et al. 2016; Yung and Khoo-Latti-
more 2017).
Numerous academic studies examine the role of VR and
AR as marketing tools in tourism and the users’ acceptance
and use of these technologies (Chung et al. 2015; Huang et
al. 2013; Huanget al. 2016; Li and Chen 2019). However,
there are still few empirical and theory-based studies on the
tourist experiences, and even less on tourist emotional expe-
riences (Jung and tom Dieck 2017; Jung et al. 2016; Tava-
koli and Mura 2015; Wei et al. 2019). In addition, emotional
experiences are generally studied from the focus of enjoy-
ment, but further analyses encompassing all dimensions of
emotions generated by VR and AR experiences are needed
(Soon et al. 2023).
Studies on heritage virtual applications often focus on
either VR or AR or treat the two technologies together
(Bogicevic et al. 2021, 2019; Flavián et al. 2021). However,
there are hardly studies that compare the experiences gener-
ated by the two technologies (Verhulst et al. 2021). In addi-
tion, there are practically no real-world studies, carried out
with real visitors to heritage sites, without prior involvement
or planning by researchers (Verhulst et al. 2021). Moreover,
the vast majority of studies are quantitative and based on
self-reports from participants collected through question-
naires and analysed using quantitative methods (Disztinger
et al. 2017; Jung et al. 2016; Tussyadiah et al. 2018; Wei et
al 2019), while the physiological emotions generated by the
applications have been largely understudied (Gaberli 2019).
Taking all these shortcomings into account, the objective
of this study is to compare the impacts of VR and AR heri-
tage applications on visitors’ emotional experience across
ve dimensions identied (cognitive, aective, physiologi-
cal, motivational and expressive) (Scherer and Moors 2019;
Soon et al. 2023). Additionally, the study aims to explore
the potential inuence of the cognitive, aective, physi-
ological and expressive aspects on the visitors’ motivation.
Finally, it seeks to verify whether what visitors report and
value through interviews (here considered as the expres-
sive dimension) align with their actual reactions, captured
through participant observation (PO). These objectives will
be accomplished through a qualitative real-world study.
The study starts with a literature review chapter about the
emotional impact of the two technologies on visitors, and
detected gaps identied in literature. The following chap-
ter, the methodology, provides an overview of the territorial
context, the two technologies of the case study chosen for
the analysis, and it develops six hypotheses to corroborate
through the combination of two qualitative methods (par-
ticipant observation and in-depth interviews). The sample
used for the study is also detailed in this section. In the
results’ chapter, the ndings will be split according to the
ve dimensions of emotions considered, after results’ trian-
gulation. The concluding chapter will include the main con-
tribution of the study and a discussion for future research
about the topic.
2 Literature review
2.1 Detected gaps in the AR and VR visitor
experience literature
VR and AR are dierent technologies. While VR provides
visitors with a real illusionary experience in the virtual
world, AR creates the illusion of virtual elements in the real
environment (Fan et al. 2022). However, despite the dier-
ences in experiences generated, Yu et al. (2023), there are
few comparative studies comparing the experiences and
emotions they elicit (Verhulst et al. 2021). In fact, many
studies analyse the experience generated by these technolo-
gies together (Truno et al. 2022), often under inclusive
concepts such as Mixed Reality (MR) (Fenu and Pittarello
2018; Flavián et al. 2019; Truno et al. 2022), Augmented
Virtuality (Gaberli 2019), or Virtual Exhibition (VE) (Per-
volarakis et al. 2023) technologies, dened as a variety
of technological solutions with dierent interactions and
immersive styles. Bretos et al. (2023) wrote a comprehen-
sive literature review on AR and VR.
Aslan et al. (2019) compared the experience generated
by dierent AR devices, while Loizides et al. (2014) by dif-
ferent types of VR devices. Voit et al. (2019) found that AR
generates less immersion than VR. On the other hand, Ver-
hulst et al. (2021) later compared the two technologies at
the same tourist attraction (i.e., a gallery in Verona). They
analysed enjoyment, presence, cognitive, emotional and
behavioural engagement through a survey (self-report).
1 3
36 Page 2 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
Additionally, they analysed the negative emotions gener-
ated by these applications, such as nausea or feelings of
discomfort. They found enjoyment to be present in both
technologies, although more pronounced in VR due to its
higher level of immersivity (Voit et al. 2019). Furthermore,
Verhulst et al. (2021) found a low number of reported nega-
tive eects across both VR and AR, demonstrating that both
technologies generate an overall positive visitor experience.
However, given the distinct features of VR and AR (Flavián
et al. 2019), there is a need for further studies to delve into
the dierent experiences and emotions generated by each
technology (Bretos et al. 2023).
Moreover, most studies on the impact of VR and AR on
visitor experiences and emotions are quantitative, while
there are very few qualitative, mixed methods or experi-
ments (Jung et al. 2017). Studies are usually based on visi-
tors’ self-reporting through surveys (Disztinger et al. 2017;
Jung et al. 2016; Tussyadiah et al. 2018; Wei et al. 2019).
Very few have applied in-depth interviews (tom Dieck et
al. 2019) or focus groups (Han et al. 2018). However, it has
been shown that a self-report methodology does not fully
capture the sensorial and physiological emotions of users
(Larsen and Fredrickson 1999). Consequently, studies are
beginning to emerge that take the physiological aspects into
account by applying neuroscience and psychology tech-
niques (Beck and Egger 2018; Kim and Fesenmaier 2015; Li
et al. 2012; Marchiori et al. 2017). Along these lines, some
studies analysed skin conductance responses (Kim and Fes-
enmaier 2015) and others heart rate variability (Beck and
Egger 2018; Marchiori et al. 2017; Li et al. 2012). Addition-
ally, studies on visitor experiences have recently begun to
take into account the physiological impacts along with the
cognitive and aective ones (Gaberli 2019; Kim et al. 2020;
Li and Chen 2019); however, they are still in a very incipi-
ent stage and do not take into account all the dimensions of
emotions.
Therefore, this qualitative study aims to analyse emo-
tions in all their dimensions by comparing the self-reports
resulting from in-depth interviews with participant observa-
tion (PO). Specically, the self-report method corresponds
here to the expressive dimension and is functional to investi-
gate the cognitive, aective, physiological and motivational
dimensions. However, part of the cognitive dimension, the
aective and the physiological dimensions will be also cor-
roborated through PO to verify whether visitors’ verbal
reports align with their observed behaviours. Additionally,
this study seeks to explore the potential inuence of the cog-
nitive, aective, physiological and expressive dimensions
on the motivational dimension.
Thus, there is a lack of comparative studies between
the experiences generated by AR and VR (Yu et al. 2023),
as well as a scarcity of real-world studies (Verhulst et al.
2021). Moreover, there is a lack of qualitative studies that
also analyse the possible negative eects generated by these
technologies across all dimensions of emotions (Suh and
Prophet 2018; Verhulst et al. 2021). In fact, several litera-
ture reviews emphasise the need of investigating potential
negative eects in future research (Loureiro et al. 2020; Fan
et al. 2022; Bretos et al. 2023). For all of the above, this
qualitative and real-world study, conducted with visitors
at attractions on the day of the eldwork, aims to analyse
the dierent emotional impacts between VR and AR, con-
sidering also what inuences the motivation of visitors. It
encompasses both positive and negative emotional eects
and compares qualitative self-reports with PO results.
2.2 Impact of AR and VR technologies on visitor
emotional experience
Previous studies have shown that AR and VR applications
at heritage sites generate positive visitor experiences, mak-
ing destinations more attractive (Gaberli 2019). Although
the visitor experience generated by VR and AR is still little
researched (Jung and tom Dieck 2017; Jung et al. 2016;
Tavakoli and Mura 2015; Wei et al. 2019), and the research
that does exist sometimes even oers contradictory results
(Fan et al. 2022), nowadays it is expanding, especially in
the eld of cultural tourism (Han et al. 2018). Some stud-
ies have focused on the impact of these technologies on the
visitor experience (Falk et al. 2012; Ismagilova et al. 2015);
others on the advantages and functionalities that these tech-
nologies provide to users (Li et al. 2022). Loureiro et al.
(2020) compiled the existing literature on these immer-
sive technologies in tourism in the last 20 years, although
research dealing with the experiential impact is still limited.
Regarding their eects on experiences, some studies ana-
lysed the perceived advantage (Jung et al. 2016; Lee and
Kim 2021; Yu et al. 2023), others, the perceived enjoyment,
the satisfaction (Chung et al. 2018; González-Rodríguez et
al. 2020). Zhu et al. (2023) analysed the perceived authentic-
ity generated by the two technologies, demonstrating their
impact on the visitor experience and their positive inu-
ence on tourists’ satisfaction and visit intention. Similarly,
Bogicevic et al. (2019) and Flavián et al. (2021) showed that
VR can generate a visitor experience even before arriving
at the hotel, generating positive mental imaginary and an
enhanced brand experience (Bogicevic et al. 2019), creat-
ing more positive emotional reactions and higher levels of
psychological and behavioural engagement (Flavián et al.
2021). Yu et al. (2023) have also analysed the possible limi-
tations of these technologies in the experience of senior visi-
tors. Yersüren and Ózel (2023) showed that VR experience
quality inuences perceptions and visit intentions.
1 3
Page 3 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
accelerating, especially following the Covid-19 pandemic,
signicantly transforming visitor experiences (Gaberli
2022). Over recent decades, the role of museums has
evolved substantially (McCall and Gray 2014), shifting
from merely preserving cultural artifacts to becoming edu-
cational and entertaining institutions (Swartout et al. 2010).
This shift has enabled museums to attract new audiences
and inspire younger visitors to engage with cultural heritage
(Göbel and Geelhaar 2008; Swartout et al. 2010). Addition-
ally, several studies have examined the use of VR and AR in
these sectors, highlighting their impact on visitors' emotions
(Han et al. 2018; Döpker et al. 2013).
Therefore, despite the expansion of the literature, many
gaps remain in the study of the visitor emotional experience
generated by these immersive technologies in heritage sites
(Verhulst et al. 2021).
3 Method, sample and hypotheses
Given the limited number of qualitative studies on VR and
AR visitor experiences (Verhulst et al. 2021), qualitative
methods were selected. Moreover, due to the complex and
fragmentary nature of these technologies, and due to the low
number of participants in the study, a qualitative approach
seemed more appropriate than a quantitative one (Walle
1997) for exploring and attributing meaning, in-depth
understanding and description (Geertz 1973), to avoid gen-
eralising while implying a high level of reexivity.
3.1 Territorial context of Ulldecona and two
innovative tourist experiences
The two tourist experiences take place in Ulldecona, a small
town in the province of Tarragona, in southern Catalonia.
Its population is 6241 and is currently decreasing (Idescat
2023). Ulldecona is a peripheral area, distant from regional
centres and characterised by limited transportation networks.
However, to counteract its marginal status, the municipal-
ity has utilised advanced technologies, specically VR and
AR, to oer an alternative means of communicating cultural
heritage. This has contributed to making the heritage more
appealing and accessible to a broader audience, thereby
increasing local community awareness and appreciation of
the area as well as its tourist attractiveness.
Ulldecona was selected as a virtuous example of
advanced technologies’ adoption for the valorisation of
peripheral heritage sites, contributing to increasing the tour-
ist appeal and reputation of the area. Despite its small size,
it stands out as a remarkable case for its use of both VR and
AR in two of its main heritage sites.
Visitor experiences generate emotions that can be con-
sidered as a mental state of readiness that arises from cogni-
tive appraisals of events and incorporates components like
physiological processes, motor expressions, subjective feel-
ings, and action tendencies (Bagozzi et al. 1999). Only in
the last decade have studies begun to investigate the emo-
tions generated by visitor experiences of these immersive
technologies (Del Chiappa et al. 2014; Errichiello et al.
2019; Li et al. 2015; Moyle et al. 2017; Prayag et al. 2013).
Some studies have focused on the information, learning and
emotions generated by these technologies (Falk et al. 2012;
Han et al. 2018; Ismagilova et al. 2015). Taking various
socio-demographic clusters into account, Errichiello et al.
(2019) analysed the emotional responses of VR users and
found signicant dierences between them. Some studies
have highlighted the importance of observation and active
experimentation in inuencing emotions, but few consider
their impact on the overall experience (Flavián et al. 2019;
Minocha et al. 2017).
It is also observed that the majority of studies analyse
emotions in virtual technologies as cognitive or aective
responses to technology use during the trip, but do not take
other dimensions into account like, for instance, the physi-
ological or expressive ones. Moreover, previous research on
emotions caused by information technology lacks ground-
ing in emotion theories and primarily focus on concrete
emotions exhibited by users, particularly enjoyment (Hor-
nung and Smolnik 2022). Kourouthanassis et al. (2015), for
example, analysed the emotional impact of adopting an AR
travel guide, nding that pleasure and arousal feelings inu-
ence visit intentions. Hu et al. (2021) explored the impact of
AR applications of theme parks on visitor’s emotional expe-
rience. They took into account ve dimensions of AR per-
formance, but they identied only two possible emotional
responses (nostalgia and arousal). Stangl et al. (2020) ana-
lysed the emotional perception of AR applications across
dierent types of experiences. In concrete, they analysed the
link between usability and emotional perceptions, consider-
ing only entertainment, playfulness and enjoyment.
Soon et al. (2023), however, have recently developed
a conceptual model to analyse the role of emotions in AR
experiences, grounded in the theory of Scherer and Moors
(2019), and based on the mutual inuence between ve
dierent dimensions of emotions: the cognitive, aective,
physiological, motivational and expressive dimensions. In
particular, Soon et al. (2023) seek to demonstrate how the
motivational component is highly inuenced by some of the
other dimensions considered. Nevertheless, this model has
not been applied to the tourism sector yet.
Other authors have specically focused on the use of
AR on the heritage and museum sectors. The adoption of
VR and AR technologies in these sectors has been rapidly
1 3
36 Page 4 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
The study analyses two heritage sites in Ulldecona that
have integrated VR and AR to enhance tourist experiences
and raise cultural awareness among local inhabitants.
The rst site is the mediaeval castle, a key component of
Ulldecona’s heritage. Dating back to the twelfth century, it
currently comprises two towers, a sixteenth-century church,
the remains of some demolished buildings and a perimeter
wall. Recent restoration works have brought to light archi-
tectural remains from dierent eras (Fig. 1).
Building on these discoveries and recent developments
of 3D scanning, the municipality conceived the idea of a
non-standard museum inside the empty castle, namely a vir-
tual reality (VR) tour. The objective was to oer an immer-
sive experience using 3D glasses, consisting of a virtual
exploration of all the dierent historical epochs through ve
dierent perspectives (Fig. 2).
The second site is the cave paintings of the Abrics de la
Ermita, depicting the rst signs of human settlement in the
area. Designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since
1998, it comprises a series of thirteen shelters containing
the most important collection of Levantine-style paintings
in Catalonia (Fig. 3).
Since 2013, a preventive conservation programme
employing 3D scanning techniques has facilitated an AR
initiative for visitors. This initiative, accessible through a
downloadable app, the ocial website and now via a tablet
held by the guides during the visit, provides detailed infor-
mation to enhance the visitor experience.
Although the VR and AR applications analysed were
applied to dierent heritage elements, they were selected
as representative examples of each technology. As previ-
ously outlined, we chose to compare these two technolo-
gies as they use dierent types of devices and have dierent
degrees of immersivity, generating potential distinct emo-
tional impacts on visitors. Specically, while AR consti-
tutes a virtual extension of real environments, being only
partially immersive, VR generates a 3D virtual world where
Fig.3 Abrics de la Ermita, Levan-
tine style paintings.
Source: Photo by Irene Pinto
Fig.2 VR experience at the medieval castle of Ulldecona.
Source: Photo by Irene Pinto
Fig.1 Medieval castle of Ulldecona.
Source: Photo by Irene Pinto
1 3
Page 5 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
dimensions of emotions. We aim to extend these ndings
by investigating correspondence, in our two case stud-
ies, between the motivational dimension and all other
dimensions considered. Therefore, our hypotheses are the
following:
(H1): The cognitive dimension inuences the motivational
dimension.
(H2): The aective dimension inuences the motivational
dimension.
(H3): The physiological dimension inuences the motiva-
tional dimension.
(H4): The expressive dimension inuences the motivational
dimension.
We used a mixed-method approach, combining a non-self-
report method, namely PO during the visit, and a self-report,
consisting of in-depth interviews. The eldwork, entailing
two full days in the town, helped us become more familiar
with the main project stakeholders, the geographic context
and the local community. On the rst day, the researcher
interviewed the person in charge of Ulldecona’s heritage.
This interview helped establish context regarding the use
of VR and AR in the town’s heritage. Subsequently, on the
second day, the researcher conducted PO during the two
dierent visits and held in-depth interviews with the visi-
tors present on that day, immediately after their visit. Dur-
ing interviews (expressive dimension), visitors were asked
about their understanding of the technology and the knowl-
edge gained from it (cognitive dimension: e.g. Has the expe-
rience increased your knowledge about the castle's history?
and the destination history? Did you understand how the
glasses work?), their deeper emotions (aective dimen-
sion: e.g. Has VR generated excitement, fun, curiosity for
you? And fear, anxiety, distrust…?), their physical reac-
tions (physiological dimension: e.g. Has VR given you an
adrenaline rush and satisfaction? And dizziness, vertigo?),
and their overall evaluation of the experience (motivational
dimension: e.g. Do you think the technological experience
is worth the visit? Would you recommend it to others? Do
you think it adds value to the heritage site? And to the des-
tination?). PO helped corroborate these ndings, providing
additional insights into the cognitive dimension (speci-
cally, visitors’ ability to comprehend the technology), as
well as the physiological and aective dimensions.
Subsequently, the data collected from both interviews
and PO were triangulated to determine if what was reported
by the users coincided with what was observed, and if what
was observed was reported by tourists and in what way.
Such a mixed-method approach led to the formulation of
our fth hypothesis:
users can move and interact with virtual objects, providing
a fully immersive experience. In these specic cases, the
VR experience utilises 3D glasses that transport users to a
totally virtual world inside the castle, whilst the AR experi-
ence enables an improved visualisation of the cave paint-
ings through a table positioned in front of the painted wall.
The collection of data from the two experiences allowed us
to compare the results and observe similarities and dier-
ences between the multifaceted emotional impacts gener-
ated by the two technologies on visitors (Fig. 4).
3.2 Hypotheses development and methodological
approach
This study aims to examine VR and AR experiences and
compare their positive and negative emotional impacts on
visitors, readapting the ve dimensions’ model proposed by
Soon et al. (2023) to our context. More specically, we inter-
pret the cognitive dimension as the level of understanding
of the technology as well as the awareness and knowledge
it raises. The aective dimension encompasses the deeper
feelings provoked by the experience, while the physiologi-
cal dimension seeks to identify the body’s physical reac-
tions. The motivational dimension explores the perceived
added value provided by the technology to the physical
visit, the desire to repeat the experience, and the willingness
to recommend it to others. In summary, the motivational
dimension corresponds to the visitors’ overall evaluation.
The expressive dimension corresponds to the interviews
and is thus considered as a method, providing insights into
the cognitive, aective, physiological and motivational
dimensions.
Our hypotheses are built upon previous studies on emo-
tions (Del Chiappa et al. 2014; Prayag et al. 2013; Soon et
al. 2023) where attempts were made to relate the dierent
Fig.4 AR experience at the Abrics de la Ermita.
Source: Photo by Irene Pinto
1 3
36 Page 6 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
misleading interpretations. It is important to note that the
subjects selected were visitors present on those specic days
during the visits, completely unknown to the researcher and
without any prior knowledge of the study. The lack of pre-
vious preparation, in line with the features of a real-world
study, oers the advantage of obtaining more objective
answers or results, as no one had been contacted beforehand
to participate in the study. However, this approach also has
limitations, as it only captures the responses of the actual
visitors on that day, and the number of visitors was low,
partly due to the peripheral location of Ulldecona. Never-
theless, being this a qualitative and real-world study, the
number of visitors is only relatively signicant, as it does
not aim to be representative of a specic population or
typology of visitors. Instead, it delves deeper into the dif-
ferent reactions of random visitors to the two technologi-
cal experiences. Yet, the two participants’ groups were quite
heterogeneous in terms of age, gender, origin, profession/
socio-economic background. Moreover, despite the small
sample, the study proposes an analytical model that can be
applied to other heritage contexts.
The following table, elaborated by the authors, shows
the proles of the visitors observed and then interviewed
for each experience. Specically, it shows their gender, age
range (< 45 or > 45), and the profession. These characteris-
tics are not intended to generalise the results but rather to
better characterise each interviewee’s prole based on key
socio-demographic features. Age range was specically
considered, as we expected notable dierences in reactions
across generations (specically between younger visitors
and middle-aged/senior ones), and we aimed to highlight
this distinction (Table 2).
3.2.2 Participant observation during the visit
PO allows developing a holistic understanding of the
phenomena analysed and also to capture users’ physical
and sensorial reactions to the experience that may not be
reported by them (Musante and DeWalt 2010), dening the
physiological dimension of emotions. PO was carried out
for the whole duration of the visits (approximately 2 h for
each heritage site) to allow for a comprehensive analysis
of participants' experiences. Visitors were encouraged to
express themselves freely and naturally during the visit to
ensure that they did not feel uncomfortable due to the pres-
ence of a person observing and recording them (Fig. 5).
Throughout the PO work, the researcher focused on
studying, observing and discovering the interaction and per-
ceptions of the visitors towards the object of study. Speci-
cally, in both visits, attention was given to:
– Their facial expressions,
(H5): There is a discrepancy between the cognitive, physi-
ological and aective dimensions experienced by VR/
AR users (as captured through PO) and what they are
able to verbally express through interviews.
The table below, created by the authors, outlines which
method we used to analyse each dimension. As previously
indicated, for our research purposes, we considered the
expressive dimension as a method, corresponding to the
interviews (Table 1).
Following this, existing literature on the varying degree
of immersivity of VR and AR applications (Voit et al. 2019;
Verhulst et al. 2021) prompted us to further investigate the
consequent dierent impacts of the two technologies on
visitors’ emotional sphere. From this exploration, we devel-
oped our sixth hypothesis, which we addressed through a
comparative analysis of the ndings of the two experiences.
(H6): VR, compared to AR, due to its higher degree of im-
mersivity, produces a higher positive emotional impact
on visitors across all dimensions considered.
3.2.1 Analysis with physical tools
Before participating in the collective visit of the day, the
researcher openly informed the visitors of her role, explain-
ing that the study purpose was to fully understand the cog-
nitive, emotional and sensorial/physical impacts that these
experiences would arouse in them. All participants (seven
for AR and seven for VR) accepted to take part in the study.
They were informed that the visit would be partially vid-
eorecorded but were encouraged to behave naturally and
express themselves freely. In order to maintain spontaneity
in the visitors’ behaviours, the researcher, supported by the
guide, participated in the visit as a standard visitor, inter-
acting with participants and recording videos with a smart-
phone. Participants were also asked to stay on the site after
the visit to take part in an interview. Initially, some socio-
demographic details were asked of them (age, place of ori-
gin, profession), to which they all consented.
To ensure the validity and transferability of this real-
world study, observer inuence was assessed through the
adoption of rigorous protocols to reduce the risk of bias or
Table1 Methods used for each dimension (authors’ elaboration)
Dimension PO Interviews /
Expressive
dimension
Cognitive (device understanding) x x
Cognitive (knowledge raising) x
Physiological x x
Aective x x
Motivational x
1 3
Page 7 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
– The diculty encountered by participants in wearing
the VR glasses,
– Their balance while wearing them and walking.
The visitors' reactions were videorecorded with the smart-
phone in order to complement the researcher's on-site
observation with subsequent post-observations analyses.
The behaviours exhibited by tourists encompassed the cog-
nitive dimension (considered as the ease of understanding
the functioning of the devices), the physiological and the
aective dimensions. The actions observed among visi-
tors served to validate whether their reported experiences
aligned with their actual experiences during the visits.
3.2.3 In-depth interviews post-visit
In-depth interviews (considered here as the expressive
dimension) allow extending the ndings of the observation,
maximising understanding and meaning while capturing the
subjective knowledge, sensations and emotions reported by
the participants. This method also allowed us to explore the
cognitive and the motivational dimensions, making it suit-
able for our research purpose due to its exibility and ability
to generate rich information (Olabuénaga and Ispizua 1989).
The interview with the person responsible for Ulldeco-
na’s heritage served as a major source of information and
for creating a storyline of the development of the two proj-
ects over time. The interviews with visitors aimed to explore
the cognitive, emotional and sensorial impact that the two
technological attractions had on them, as well as their over-
all evaluation. Before the observation, all visitors present
were asked if they would mind participating in an interview
after the visit. The purpose of using in-depth interviews is
in fact to emphasise the quality of insight gained rather than
focusing on numerical data, delving deeply into subjective
reactions rather than drawing statistical conclusions.
During the interviews, participants were asked about
their:
– Sociodemographic data and profession;
– Cognitive aspects: in-depth questions were posed to
investigate the ease of comprehending the functioning
of the technologies and whether they increased visitors’
knowledge about Ulldecona’s history;
– Aective and physiological aspects: participants were
asked to describe their emotional and physical/sensorial
reactions to the two experiences;
– Motivational aspects: participants provided an over-
all evaluation of the experience, including whether the
technological experiences constituted an added value to
the physical visit, whether they would repeat such an
experience and/or recommend it to others.
– Comments made by participants,
– Their conscious and unconscious physical movements.
Additionally, in the VR experience, the researcher focused
on capturing:
Table2 Participants’ prole (authors’ elaboration)
Interviewees Gender Age
range
Origin Profession
AR 1 Woman < 45 Italy (living
in Tarragona)
Student
2 Man < 45 UK (living in
Tarragona)
Student
3 Man > 45 Almeria
(living near
Tortosa)
Retired
4 Woman > 45 Tarragona University
Professor
5 Man > 45 Valls (living
in Tarragona)
Computer
scientist
6 Woman < 45 Tarragona
(living in
Barcelona)
Student
7 Man < 45 Tarragona Economist
VR 1 Woman > 45 Vinaròs Admin-
istrative
personnel
2 Woman > 45 Ulldecona Graphic
designer
3 Woman > 45 Ulldecona Housekeeper
4 Man > 45 Ulldecona Factory
worker
5 Man > 45 Ulldecona Ambulance
driver
(retired)
6 Man > 45 Vinaròs Welder
7 Woman < 45 Italy (living
in Tarragona)
Student
Fig.5 Physiological reactions of visitors (e.g., leaning against a wall
or sitting) while wearing VR glasses.
Source: Photo by Irene Pinto
1 3
36 Page 8 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
explanation and support. PO conrmed this result for
young visitors. However, observation also revealed that
most middle-aged participants, despite the practical
support of the guide throughout the experience, encoun-
tered diculty in understanding the device, as shown by
their struggle to correctly wear and utilise the glasses.
– In AR, most participants reported nding the device
easy to understand, thanks to the guide’s explanation. In
this case, participants’ assertions were conrmed by PO.
Therefore, in VR, the cognitive dimension (intended as ease
of understanding the device’s functioning) was very posi-
tive for young visitors and negative for middle-aged visi-
tors. Dierently, in AR, was very positive for both visitor
groups.
4.2 Cognitive dimension (knowledge enhancement)
– In the VR experience, participants reported that the
technology enhanced their knowledge of the castle and
the history of Ulldecona.
– Both VR and AR visitors reported that the technologies
eectively facilitated visualisations of the heritage sites,
providing them with a realistic depiction of the sites. In
the case of the castle, VR enabled visitors to explore it
from various physical and historical perspectives, while
for rupestrian art, AR showed visitors the enhanced de-
tails in the drawings.
Given all this, it appears that the cognitive dimension, when
referred to the ability of technologies to transfer and enrich
knowledge about the heritage site to visitors, is very posi-
tive for VR users. This is attributed to VR’s capability to
oer visitors deeper insights into history through enhanced
visualisation from various physical perspective and histori-
cal epochs. On the other hand, for AR users, this dimension
is "only" positive. In fact, despite oering plausibility and
improved visualisation of the drawings, AR did not signi-
cantly contribute to convey additional knowledge to visitors.
4.3 Aective dimension
– In the VR visit, during interviews, participants mainly
reported feelings of amusement, wonder, adrenaline
and a sensation of being transported to the past. These
positive feelings were validated through PO. Addition-
ally, PO revealed a negative feeling of fear and distrust
among middle-aged visitors, although these negative
feelings were only minimally reported by visitors dur-
ing the interviews.
It is important to note that all questions covered both posi-
tive and negative aspects. The interviews were recorded and
later transcribed. Following this, we applied the ve dimen-
sions of emotions, identied through the theoretical frame-
work, to the results obtained from both interviews and PO.
This enabled us to build a table illustrating both positive and
negative emotions for each dimension and for each techno-
logical experience (VR and AR), while also distinguishing
between emotional reactions of young visitors and those of
middle-aged or senior ones.
The outcomes of the interviews primarily included the
cognitive dimension (in terms of knowledge acquired) and
the motivational dimension. Additionally, they revealed
visitors’ awareness or lack of awareness of their reactions,
further explored through PO, related to the cognitive dimen-
sion (intended as ease of understanding the technology), to
the physiological and aective dimensions.
The motivational dimension allowed us to verify H1, H2,
H3 and H4. The ndings emerged through the interviews
(expressive dimension) were then corroborated through PO,
where the real comments and actions of the visitors dur-
ing the visit were observed and later analysed. This process
helped to verify H5. The combination of PO with in-depth
interviews sets this study apart from other previous ones,
the majority of which are based solely on self-report meth-
ods (questionnaires or interviews).
Moreover, this mixed-method approach was applied to
two dierent technological experiences at the same periph-
eral destination, enabling a comparative analysis between
the two cases. This outlined the dierent perceptions and
degrees of involvement associated with VR and AR, thus
helping to corroborate H6.
4 Results
The mixed-method approach used, consisting of PO and
in-depth interviews, allowed us to identify the ve dimen-
sions of emotions applied to our cases and to verify the six
hypotheses. The table below, created by the authors, pres-
ents the ndings for the cognitive, aective, physiological
and motivational dimension for both virtual experiences,
following the triangulation of results. Explanations for the
results obtained for each dimension will be provided subse-
quently, along with a paragraph dedicated to the triangula-
tion of results (Table 3).
4.1 Cognitive dimension (device understanding)
– In VR, most participants reported nding the device
easy to understand and use thanks to the guide’s accurate
1 3
Page 9 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
4.4 Physiological dimension
– In both experiences, participants expressed wonder, a
feeling that was also validated through PO. We indeed
observed rapidly changing facial expressions showing
continuous wonder in participants of all ages, in both
VR and AR.
– In VR, during interviews, middle-aged participants ei-
ther did not report or only minimally mentioned any
negative physical reactions. However, PO observed
various physical responses such as sitting down, leaning
against the wall for balance, and multiple hand move-
ments, identifying sensations of vertigo, dizziness, and
physical instability, that were only minimally reported
by participants. Young visitors did not express any par-
ticular physiological reaction during interviews, nor
were any observed through PO.
– AR visitors did not report signicant physical reactions
through interviews, a nding conrmed by PO.
– In the AR visit, interviews brought to light a high level
of wonder and amusement among middle-aged and se-
nior visitors, and a lower level of the same emotions
among young visitors. In this case, PO validated all
these ndings.
Therefore, concerning VR, the aective dimension is
very positive for young visitors, for whom the experience
provoked all positive emotions, and "only" positive for
middle-aged participants, who, in addition to the positive
emotions, also experienced some negative feelings. As for
AR, the aective dimension is very positive for middle-
aged and senior visitors, who encountered the technology
with heightened wonder and amusement, while it is "only"
positive for young visitors, who expressed slightly less sur-
prise and amusement with the technological experience. We
considered that this dierence was probably due to young
visitors’ greater familiarity with such technologies.
Table3 Dimensions identied for VR and AR visitors after results’ triangulation (authors’ elaboration)
1 3
36 Page 10 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
minimised their negative feelings, not fully recognising the
extent of their experience as noted through PO.
In AR, all visitors’ reports, both the very positive and the
less positive ones, were conrmed by PO. Through obser-
vation, the researcher did not highlight any peculiar reac-
tion that had not been previously reported by visitors during
interviews.
4.7 Hypotheses validation
Considering the ndings from all dimensions and the trian-
gulation of results, the validation of hypotheses can now be
undertaken.
– (H1) aimed to examine whether the cognitive dimension
inuenced the motivational dimension. For VR, the hy-
pothesis was fully validated for young visitors, as their
very positive cognitive dimension (in both its meanings)
signicantly inuenced their (very positive) motiva-
tion. However, for middle-aged visitors, the hypothesis
could not be completely validated, as their diculty in
understanding the device did not negatively aect their
motivation, which remained very positive. Conversely,
H1 was completely validated for all categories of AR
visitors, where both the cognitive and the motivational
dimensions were either positive or very positive.
– (H2) aimed to explore the inuence of the aective di-
mension on the motivational one. This hypothesis was
validated for both VR and AR, as a positive or very posi-
tive aective dimension corresponded to a positive or
very positive motivational dimension.
– (H3) examined whether the physiological dimension af-
fected the motivational one. For VR, this hypothesis was
validated for young visitors, whose very positive physi-
ological reactions inuenced their motivation (which
was also very positive). However, for middle-aged/se-
nior visitors, the hypothesis could not be validated, as
their negative physiological reactions did not aect their
overall evaluation of the experience, nor their willing-
ness to repeat such an experience and to recommend it
to others (all this corresponding to a very positive mo-
tivational dimension). For AR, the hypothesis was fully
validated for both young and middle-aged visitors, as
their very positive physiological reactions corresponded
to their very positive motivational dimension.
– (H4) investigated the inuence of the expressive dimen-
sion on the motivational one. This hypothesis was al-
most fully conrmed, as visitors, in both VR and AR pri-
marily reported very positive aspects during interviews,
which positively inuenced their motivation (which
was always positive or very positive). However, the
minimal negative aspects (related to the physiological
In VR, the physiological dimension appears negative for
middle-aged visitors, who, despite their expressions of
wonder (as conrmed by interviews), experienced mul-
tiple negative physiological reactions (vertigo, dizziness
and physical instability). Conversely, for young visitors in
VR, this dimension is very positive, as they did not expe-
rience any negative physiological reactions. In AR, the
physiological dimension can be considered very positive for
both young and middle-aged visitors, who only expressed
wonder and did not report or exhibit any negative physical
reactions.
4.5 Motivational dimension
– In both visits, visitors expressed their desire to repeat
such an experience and armed that they would recom-
mend it to others.
– VR oered a heightened level of enhancement of the
visit, particularly due to the empty nature of the castle,
which constituted an ideal setting for such immersive
virtual experiences, creating a complete detachment
from reality and fostering imagination.
– Dierently, AR served as a valuable addition to enhance
the physical visit, making it more appealing. However,
some middle-aged and senior visitors reported that the
rupestrian art paintings were enjoyable even on their
own (without the need for AR). Thus, for young visitors,
the technological experience added signicant value to
the visit, while other visitors reported that they would
have enjoyed the visit even without the AR, considering
it merely as a plus.
Overall, the motivational dimension is very positive for
both young and middle-aged VR visitors, who perceived
the experience as signicantly enhancing the overall visit;
they also armed that they would repeat such an experience
and recommend it to others. For AR, this dimension is very
positive for young visitors, who perceived the technology as
a substantial added value, and less positive for middle-aged
ones, who enjoyed it but considered it as less essential to
their visit. However, they all said they would repeat such an
experience and recommend it to others.
4.6 Triangulation of results
In VR, both young and middle-aged visitors conrmed, dur-
ing the interviews, all positive emotions detected through
PO. However, when it came to negative emotions observed
among middle-aged visitors, encompassing some cognitive,
aective and physiological aspects, they either denied or
1 3
Page 11 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
the Abrics de la Ermita, both located in the peripheral town
of Ulldecona (Catalonia, Spain). The qualitative methods
employed, namely PO and interviews, allow us to explore
the specic eects of each technology on visitors. The
choice of a real-world study, and the adoption of a cross-
sectional perspective, enables us to examine a diverse sam-
ple of visitors, spanning various ages and backgrounds. This
approach minimises potential biases that could arise from
a more homogeneous sample or from external factors that
might change over time. However, the main limitation of the
study is the relatively small sample size, which constrains
the generalisability of our ndings to broader populations
or specic demographic categories. Nonetheless, given the
diversity within the group, it still oers valuable insights.
Our study utilises the ve dimensions of emotions frame-
work, theorised by Soon et al. (2023), to explore visitors’
emotional responses within the two heritage sites. Adapt-
ing this framework to heritage sites situated in a peripheral
area stands as a primary contribution of our research. Con-
sequently, the theoretical framework employed in this study
holds potential applicability to other heritage sites incorpo-
rating VR or AR experiences. In such contexts, where the
systematic investigation of the emotional impacts and their
inuence on visitor motivation is pivotal, such framework
oers valuable insights into enhancing the appeal and repu-
tation of peripheral destinations.
In our specic cases, we demonstrate how visitors' moti-
vation is only inuenced by their positive cognitive, aec-
tive, and physiological reactions, as motivation tends to
remain high despite any negative emotions experienced. The
expressive dimension (corresponding to the interviews),
mainly highlighting the positive aspects of the experiences,
also reinforces the visitors’ motivation and positively con-
tributes to their overall evaluation.
Moreover, the mixed-method approach employed reveals
a disparity between what users report in interviews (the
expressive dimension) and what is observed in their actions
and physical reactions. This underscores the need, in future
qualitative research on advanced technological experiences,
for PO as a complement to in-depth interviews, as it pro-
vides a more comprehensive overview of the real eects
of VR and AR on visitors. In addition, integrating the two
methods also allow for a more thorough elicitation of visi-
tors' negative reactions. The reliability of results is also bol-
stered by the real-world approach, with visitors that had not
been prepared in advance.
Regarding the comparative objectives of the study, it is
evident that there are dierences in the experiences gener-
ated by the two technologies (AR and VR) due to their vary-
ing degrees of immersivity. AR, being less immersive, is
more suitable for contexts where a non-digital experience is
already present, thereby “extending” it. On the other hand,
dimension) mentioned by visitors during interviews did
not aect their motivation, resulting in H4 not being
fully validated.
These ndings also suggest that the negative emotional
eects experienced by participants, encompassing the
physiological and aective dimensions, do not signicantly
inuence visitors’ decisions or willingness to engage in
such activities, nor do they aect their inclination to recom-
mend them to others or to repeat such an experience. We
may assume that the positive aspects that emerged among
visitors are the primary drivers inuencing participants’
decisions.
– (H5) investigated the misalignment between the actual
users’ emotional experiences (captures through PO)
and their verbal report in interviews (the expressive
dimension). This hypothesis was conrmed by empiri-
cal ndings. Specically, the cognitive, physiological,
and aective dimensions captured through PO do not
always correspond to what participants expressed ver-
bally (expressive dimension), especially for the negative
aspects. This underscores the importance of employing
a mixed-method approach to gain more comprehensive
outcomes.
When comparing the ndings from both experiences, it
results that positive emotions were predominant among
both VR and AR visitors. However, emotions tended to
be more moderate in AR, while VR elicited stronger emo-
tional responses, including adrenaline, evocative power,
higher amusement, and wonder, due to its heightened level
of immersion and detachment from reality. Notably, nega-
tive emotions such as physical instability, dizziness, ver-
tigo, distrust, and fear were exclusively associated with VR,
whereas AR did not evoke any negative emotions.
– (H6) posits that VR, with its greater immersivity, pro-
duces a stronger positive emotional impact compared to
AR. However, this hypothesis was only partially con-
rmed, as the heightened immersivity of VR not only
amplied positive emotional responses but also nega-
tive ones. This nding suggests that all emotions, both
positive and negative, are more pronounced in VR than
in AR.
5 Discussion, limitations and conclusion
The study delves into the emotional impacts of two dis-
tinct advanced technologies, VR and AR, within two heri-
tage sites, the mediaeval castle and the cave paintings of
1 3
36 Page 12 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o n s . o
r g / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 /.
References
Aslan I, Dang CT, Petrak B, Dietz M, Filipenko M, André E (2019)
Viewing experience of augmented reality objects as ambient
media—a comparison of multimedia devices. In: European con-
ference on ambient intelligence, pp 324–329. Springer, Cham
Bagozzi RP, Gopinath M, Nyer PU (1999) The role of emotions in
marketing. J Acad Mark Sci 27(2):184–206
Bec A, Moyle B, Timms K, Schaer V, Skavronskaya L, Little C
(2019) Management of immersive heritage tourism experiences:
a conceptual model. Tour Manage 72:117–120
Beck J, Egger R (2018) Emotionalise me: self‐reporting and arousal
measurements in virtual tourism environments. In: Information
and communication technologies in tourism 2018, pp 3–15. h t t p s
: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 - 3 1 9 - 7 2 9 2 3 - 7 _ 1
Bogicevic V, Seo S, Kandampully JA, Liu SQ, Rudd NA (2019) Vir-
tual reality presence as a preamble of tourism experience: the role
of mental imagery. Tour Manage 74(February):55–64. h t t p s : / / d o i
. o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . t o u r m a n . 2 0 1 9 . 0 2 . 0 0 9
Bogicevic V, Liu SQ, Seo S, Kandampully J, Rudd NA (2021) Virtual
reality is so cool! How technology innovativeness shapes con-
sumer responses to service preview modes. Int J Hosp Manag
93:102806
Bretos MA, Ibáñez-Sánchez S, Orús C (2023) Applying virtual reality
and augmented reality to the tourism experience: a comparative
literature review. Span J Mark ESIC 28(3):287–309
Chung N, Lee H, Lee SJ, Koo C (2015) The inuence of tourism web-
site on tourists’ Behavior to determine destination selection: a
case study of creative economy in Korea. Technol Forecast Soc
Change 96:130–143. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . t e c h f o r e . 2 0 1 5 . 0 3 . 0
0 4
Chung N, Lee H, Kim JY, Koo C (2018) The role of augmented real-
ity for experience-inuenced environments: the case of cultural
heritage tourism in Korea. J Travel Res 57(5):627–643. h t t p s : / / d o
i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 0 0 4 7 2 8 7 5 1 7 7 0 8 2 5 5
Del Chiappa G, Andreu L, Gallarza M (2014) Emotions and visitors’
satisfaction at a museum. Int J Cult Tour Hosp Res 8(4):420–431
Disztinger P, Schlögl S, Groth A (2017) Technology acceptance of vir-
tual reality for travel planning. In: Informationa and Communica-
tion technologies in tourism 2017, pp 255–268. Springer, Cham
Döpker A, Brockmann T, Stieglitz S (2013) Use cases for gamication
in virtual museums. Proceedings of the Jahrestagung der Gesell-
schaft Für Informatik 2013:2308–2321
Errichiello L, Micera R, Atzeni M, Del Chiappa G (2019) Explor-
ing the implications of wearable virtual reality technology for
museum visitors’ experience: a cluster analysis. Int J Tour Res
21(5):590–605. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / j t r . 2 2 8 3
Falk JH, Ballantyne R, Packer J, Benckendor P (2012) Travel
and learning: a neglected tourism research area. Ann Tour Res
39(2):908–927
VR’s higher level of immersivity makes it suitable for con-
texts with limited physical experiences, such as an empty
castle, enhancing places with rich history but few physi-
cal remains. In such settings, VR is capable of “transport-
ing” visitors to the ancient place and to provide them with
a parallel virtual experience. The study also highlights that
positive emotional impacts tend to be higher in VR than in
AR. However, VR is also the technology that elicits some
negative impacts, especially in the physiological dimension.
Despite this, users do not typically report these negative
emotions during interviews, possibly due to unawareness or
a reluctance to acknowledge them. However, it seems that
these negative emotional impacts do not signicantly inu-
ence the visitors’ evaluation of the overall experience.
Overall, the positive emotional responses observed
among visitors to advanced technologies in heritage sites
suggest their potential to attract tourists to other peripheral
and scarcely known areas through their application to heri-
tage sites. Moreover, these technologies have the potential
of reinforcing the sense of community and enhancing resil-
ience. Future research should apply the ve dimensions of
emotions scheme to other peripheral areas and investigate
the inuence of visitors’ physical and emotional reactions
on their motivation. Finally, a step further could involve the
exploration of the holistic impact of such technological inter-
ventions on peripheral communities. Moving in this direc-
tion, the insights gained from this study can inform strategic
initiatives aimed at enhancing the reputation of peripheral
destination, also fostering sustainable development.
Acknowledgements This publication is part of the project I+D+i
PID2020-112525RB-I00, nanced by MICIU/ AEI/ h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0
. 1 3 0 3 9 / 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3.
Author Contributions Irene Pinto: data curation; formal analysis;
investigation; methodology; resources; roles/writing– original draft;
writing– review & editing. Assumpció Huertas: conceptualisation;
funding acquisition; investigation; supervision; validation; roles/writ-
ing– original draft; writing– review & editing.
Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC
agreement with Springer Nature.
Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the
current study.
Declarations
Conict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Research involving human participants This study involved human
participants. Informed consent was obtained from the participants in-
volved in the study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
1 3
Page 13 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
Kim MJ, Lee CK, Jung T (2020) Exploring consumer behavior in
virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus organism-
response model. J Travel Res 59(1):69–89
Kourouthanassis P, Boletsis C, Bardaki C, Chasanidou D (2015) Tour-
ists responses to mobile augmented reality travel guides: the
role of emotions on adoption behavior. Pervasive Mob Comput
18:71–87
Larsen RJ, Fredrickson BL (1999) Measurement issues in emotion
research. Well-Being Found Hedonic Psychol 4:60
Lee WJ, Kim YH (2021) Does VR tourism enhance users’ experience?
Sustainability 13(2):806
Li T, Chen Y (2019) Will virtual reality be a double-edged sword?
Exploring the moderation eects of the expected enjoyment of a
destination on travel intention. J Destin Mark Manag 12(101):15–
26. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j d m m . 2 0 1 9 . 0 2 . 0 0 3
Li J, Yang D, He L, Tao S, Zeng L, Buckley R (2012) Psychological,
physiological and behavioural responses of tourists to interactions
rhesus macaques at Zhangjiajie, China. J Ecotour 11(3):202–206
Li S, Scott N, Walters G (2015) Current and potential methods for
measuring emotion in tourism experiences: a review. Curr Issue
Tour 18(9):805–827
Li C, Zheng P, Li S, Pang Y, Lee CK. (2022) AR-assisted digital twin-
enabled robot collaborative manufacturing system with human-
in-the-loop. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
76:102321.
Loizides F, El Kater A, Terlikas C, Lanitis A, Michael D (2014) Pre-
senting cypriot cultural heritage in virtual reality: a user evalua-
tion. In: Euromediterranean conference, pp 572–579. Springer,
Cham
Loureiro SMC, Guerreiro J, Ali F (2020) 20 years of research on vir-
tual reality and augmented reality in tourism context: a text-min-
ing approach. Tour Manage 77:104028
Marchiori E, Niforatos E, Preto L (2017) Measuring the media eects
of a tourism-related virtual reality experience using biophysical
data. In: Schegg R, Stangl B (eds) Information and communica-
tion technologies in tourism 2017. Springer, Cham, pp 203–215
McCall V, Gray C (2014) Museums and the ‘new museology’: theory,
practice and organisational change. Museum Manag Curatorship
29(1):19–35
Minocha S, Tudor AD, Tilling S (2017) Aordances of mobile virtual
reality and their role in learning and teaching. Electron vis Arts
2017:1–10
Moyle B, Scherrer P, Weiler B, Wilson E, Caldicott R, Nielsen N
(2017) Assessing preferences of potential visitors for nature-
based experiences in protected areas. Tour Manage 62:29–41
Mura P, Tavakoli R, Sharif SP (2017) Authentic but not too much’:
exploring perceptions of authenticity of virtual tourism. Inf Tech-
nol Tour 17(2):145–159
Musante K, DeWalt BR (2010) Participant observation: a guide for
eldworkers. Rowman Altamira
Nayyar A, Mahapatra B, Le D, Suseendran G (2018) Virtual Reality
(VR) & Augmented Reality (AR) technologies for tourism and
hospitality industry. Int J Eng Technol 7(221):156–160
Olabuénaga JIR, Ispizua MA (1989) La descodicación de la vida
cotidiana: métodos de investigación cualitativa. Universidad de
deusto, Bilbao
Pervolarakis Z, Zidianakis E, Katzourakis A, Evdaimon T, Partarakis
N, Zabulis X, Stephanidis C (2023) Visiting heritage sites in AR
and VR. Heritage 6(3):2489–2502. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / h e r i t
a g e 6 0 3 0 1 3 1
Prayag G, Hosany S, Odeh K (2013) The role of tourists’ emotional
experiences and satisfaction in understanding behavioral inten-
tions. J Destin Mark Manag 2(2):118–127
Rainoldi M, Driescher V, Lisnevska A, Zvereva D, Stavinska A, Relota
J, Egger R (2018) Virtual reality: an innovative tool in destina-
tions’ marketing. Gaze J Tour Hosp 9:53–68
Fan X, Jiang X, Deng N (2022) Immersive technology: a meta-analy-
sis of augmented/virtual reality applications and their impact on
tourism experience. Tour Manage 91:104534
Fenu C, Pittarello F (2018) Svevo tour: The design and the experimen-
tation of an augmented reality application for engaging visitors of
a literary museum. Int J Hum Comput Stud 114:20–35
Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S, Orús C (2019) The impact of virtual,
augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer expe-
rience. J Bus Res 100:547–560
Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S, Orús C (2021) Impacts of technological
embodiment through virtual reality on potential guests’ emotions
and engagement. J Hosp Market Manag 30(1):1–20. h t t p s : / / d o i . o
r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 9 3 6 8 6 2 3 . 2 0 2 0 . 1 7 7 0 1 4 6
Gaberli Ü (2019) Tourism in digital age: an explanation for the impacts
of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on tourist
experiences. J Tour Intell Smartness 2(2):61–69
Gaberli U (2022) Cultural tourism, internet of things, and smart tech-
nologies in museums. In: Handbook of research on digital com-
munications, internet of things, and the future of cultural tourism,
pp 260–270. IGI Global
Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures, vol 5019. Basic books
Göbel S, Geelhaar J (2008) Digitale museumsanwendungen (digital
museum appliances). I-Com 7(2):26–31
González-Rodríguez MR, Díaz-Fernández MC, Pino-Mejías M (2020)
The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’ experience: a
textual data analysis. Soft Comput 24(18):13879–13892
Guttentag D (2010) Virtual reality: applications and implications for
tourism. Tour Manag 31:637–651
Han, D. I., tom Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2018). User experience
model for augmented reality applications in urban heritage tour-
ism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(1), 46-61.
Han D-I, Weber J, Bastiaansen M, Mitas O, Lub X (2018) Virtual and
augmented reality technologies to enhance the visitor experience
in cultural tourism. In: tom Dieck MC, Jung T (eds) The power of
augmented and virtual reality for business. Springer, Berlin
Hornung O, Smolnik S (2022) AI invading the workplace: negative
emotions towards the organizational use of personal virtual assis-
tants. Electron Mark 32:123–138
Hu R, Wang C, Zhang T, Nguyen T, Shapoval V, Zhai L (2021) Apply-
ing augmented reality (AR) technologies in theatrical perfor-
mances in theme parks: a transcendent experience perspective.
Tour Manag Perspect 40:100889
Huang YC, Backman SJ, Backman KF, Moore D (2013) Exploring
user acceptance of 3D virtual worlds in travel and tourism mar-
keting. Tour Manage 36:490–501
Huang YC, Backman KF, Backman SJ, Chang LL (2016) Exploring the
implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing:
an integrated research framework. Int J Tour Res 18(2):116–128
Idescat (2023) El municipi en xifres Ulldecona (Montsià). Accessed 25
Oct 2023 from h t t p s : / / w w w . i d e s c a t . c a t / e m e x / ? i d = 4 3 1 5 6 7
Ismagilova G, Saullin L, Gafurov I (2015) Using historical heritage
as a factor in tourism development. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
188:157–162
Jung T, tom Dieck MC, Lee H, Chung N (2016) Eects of virtual real-
ity and augmented reality on visitor experiences in museum. In:
Information and communication technologies in tourism. h t t p s : / /
d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 - 3 1 9 - 2 8 2 3 1 - 2 - 4 5
Jung T, tom Dieck MC, Moorhouse N, tom Dieck D (2017) Tourists’
experience of virtual reality applications. In: Proceedings from
2017 IEEE international conference on consumer electronics
(ICCE), pp 208–210
Jung T, Tom-Dieck MC (2017) Augmented reality, virtual reality and
3D printing for the co-creation of value for the visitor experience
at cultural heritage places. J Place Manag Dev 10(2):140–151
Kim J, Fesenmaier DR (2015) Measuring emotions in real time: impli-
cations for tourism experience design. J Travel Res 54(4):419–429
1 3
36 Page 14 of 15
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Virtual Reality (2025) 29:36
Tussyadiah IP et al (2018) Virtual reality, presence, and attitude
change: empirical evidence from tourism. Tour Manage 66:140–
154. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . t o u r m a n . 2 0 1 7 . 1 2 . 0 0 3
Verhulst I, Woods A, Whittaker L, Bennett J, Dalton P (2021) Do VR
and AR versions of an immersive cultural experience engender
dierent user experiences? Comput Hum Behav 125:106951. h t t
p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . c h b . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 6 9 5 1
Voit A, Mayer S, Schwind V, Henze N (2019) Online, VR, AR, lab,
and insitu: Comparison of research methods to evaluate smart
artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human
factors in computing systems, pp 1–12
Walle AH (1997) Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research. Ann
Tour Res 24(3):524–536
Wei W, Qi R, Zhang L (2019) Eects of virtual reality on theme park
visitors’ experience and behaviors: A presence perspective. Tour
Manage 71:282–293
Yersüren S, Özel ÇH (2023) The eect of virtual reality experience
quality on destination visit intention and virtual reality travel
intention. J Hosp Tour Technol 15(1):70–103
Yu J, Kim S, Hailu TB, Park J, Han H (2023) The eects of virtual
reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) on senior tourists’ expe-
riential quality, perceived advantages, perceived enjoyment, and
reuse intention. Current Issues Tour. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 6
8 3 5 0 0 . 2 0 2 3 . 2 1 6 5 4 8 3
Yung R, Khoo-Lattimore C (2017) New realities: a systematic litera-
ture review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism
research. Current Issues Tour. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 6 8 3 5 0 0
. 2 0 1 7 . 1 4 1 7 3 5 9
Zhu C, Io MU, Ngan HFB, Peralta RL (2023) Understanding aug-
mented reality marketing in world cultural heritage site, the lens
of authenticity perspective. J Vacat Mark 29(2):242–255. h t t p s : / /
d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 3 5 6 7 6 6 7 2 2 1 0 9 0 9 9 0
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations.
Scherer KR, Moors A (2019) The emotion process: event appraisal and
component dierentiation. Annu Rev Psychol 70:719–745
Soon PS, Lim WM, Gaur SS (2023) The role of emotions in aug-
mented reality. Psychol Mark 40(11):2387–2412
Stangl B, Ukpabi DC, Park S (2020) Augmented reality applications:
the impact of usability and emotional perceptions on tourists’
app experiences. In: Information and communication technolo-
gies in tourism 2020: proceedings of the international conference
in surrey, United Kingdom, January 08–10, 2020, pp 181–191.
Springer
Suh A, Prophet J (2018) The state of immersive technology research: a
literature analysis. Comput Hum Behav 86:77–90
Swartout W, Traum D, Artstein R (2010) Ada and grace: toward real-
istic and engaging virtual museum guides. In: Intelligent virtual
agents, pp 286–300. Springer
Tavakoli R, Mura P (2015) ‘Journeys in Second Life’–Iranian Muslim
women’s behaviour in virtual tourist destinations. Tour Manage
46:398–407
tom Dieck MC, Jung T, Michopoulou E (2019) Experiencing virtual
reality in heritage attractions: perceptions of elderly users. In:
Augmented reality and virtual reality, pp 89–98.Springer, Cham
tom Dieck MC, Jung T (2018) A theoretical model of mobile aug-
mented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism. Current
Issues Tour 21(2):154–174. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 6 8 3 5 0 0 . 2
0 1 5 . 1 0 7 0 8 0 1
Tom-Dieck MC, Jung T, Han D-I (2016) Mapping requirements for the
wearable smart glasses augmented reality museum application. J
Hosp Tour Technol 7(3):230–253
Truno M, Jung T, Campana S (2022) Mixed reality experiences in
museums: exploring the impact of functional elements of the
devices on visitors’ immersive experiences and post-experience
behaviours. Inf Manag 59(8):103698. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . i
m . 2 0 2 2 . 1 0 3 6 9 8
Tussyadiah IP (2014) Toward a theoretical foundation for experience
design in tourism. J Travel Res 53(5):543–564
1 3
Page 15 of 15 36
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Irene Pinto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Irene Pinto on Feb 07, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
