From technology to interaction: How ritual interaction drives participation intention in immersive digital environments.

From technology to interaction: How ritual interaction drives participation intention in immersive digital environments - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice iScience . 2026 May 24;29(6):116091. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2026.116091 From technology to interaction: How ritual interaction drives participation intention in immersive digital environments Dong Lu 1 , Hao Peng 1 , Tian Wang 1, 3, ∗ , Ivan Ka Wai Lai 2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Economics and Management, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China 2 Centre for Gaming and Tourism Studies, Macao Polytechnic University, Macau 999078, China ∗ Corresponding author wangtian@sicnu.edu.cn 3 Lead contact Received 2026 Jan 26; Revised 2026 Apr 14; Accepted 2026 May 7; Collection date 2026 Jun 19. © 2026 The Author(s) This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13224139  PMID: 42231973 Summary Despite rapid advances in immersive technologies (AR, VR, and MR), many digital experiences struggle to sustain user participation. Prior research emphasizes technological realism while overlooking how structured interactions shape meaning-making and motivation. Drawing on interaction ritual chains (IRC) theory, this study introduces ritual interaction (RI)—comprising contextual elements, ritual symbols, scripted processes, and shared emotion—to examine its impact on participation intention. Using PLS-SEM, results show that RI influences participation through a sequential psychological process: it enhances immersion, which strengthens presence, ultimately driving participation intention. Immersion plays a more proximal role than presence. Moderation analysis indicates that experience type strengthens the effect of RI on immersion in culture-based, but not nature-based, environments. By shifting focus from technological affordances to interactional structure, this study highlights how structured interaction can motivate participation and informs the design of immersive systems while contributing to human-computer interaction and mediated social behavior research. Subject areas: human-computer interaction, interdisciplinary application studies Graphical abstract Open in a new tab Highlights • Ritual interaction drives participation via immersion-presence sequence • Immersion functions as a more proximal driver than presence • Cultural contexts amplify ritual interaction effects on immersion • Structured interaction outweighs technological sophistication in engagement Human-computer interaction; interdisciplinary application studies Introduction Immersive technologies, including augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR), have rapidly transformed digital experiences across domains such as entertainment, education, training, and digitally mediated social interaction. While advances in hardware and software have enabled high levels of sensory realism and interactivity, users often report only shallow immersion, limited emotional connection, and weak intentions to re-engage with these systems. 1 , 2 , 3 This persistent gap between technological capability and user behavior suggests a fundamental challenge: technological sophistication alone does not guarantee meaningful participation in immersive environments. Existing research has predominantly adopted a technology-centric perspective, emphasizing sensory intensity, interface design, and system performance as the primary determinants of user experience. 4 , 5 However, such an approach overlooks a critical question: how do users actually engage with and make sense of immersive environments? In digitally mediated contexts, experience is not solely a function of technological affordances but is constructed through interaction—through processes of attention alignment, symbolic interpretation, and emotional synchronization. As a result, even highly advanced systems may fail to generate meaningful engagement if they lack structured interactional mechanisms. This limitation highlights the need to examine the interactional structures that organize user experience rather than focusing solely on technological features. Drawing on interaction ritual chains (IRC) theory, 6 sustained participation is driven by the interaction ritual—a process of mutual focus and emotional synchronization. Building on this perspective, recent research has introduced the concept of ritual interaction (RI), defined as the structured configuration of symbolic cues, scripted sequences, and interactional rules that scaffold the emergence of ritual processes. 7 While the interaction ritual represents the emergent social-psychological process, RI refers to the interactional conditions that make such rituals possible. Although prior studies have examined ritualized interaction primarily in physically co-present settings, 8 theoretical advancements suggest that high-fidelity digital environments can facilitate ritual outcomes if they support non-verbal synchrony and mutual focus. 9 Foundational research on digital rituals provided initial insights into online social ties, 10 yet these models often overlook the complexities of embodied, multi-sensory XR platforms. Recent evidence indicates that even with high visual realism, deep social presence frequently fails to materialize in the absence of structured, meaningful interactional scripts. 11 Consequently, the mechanisms through which RI operate in immersive settings to influence behavioral engagement remain underexplored. Addressing this gap, the present study examines RI as an interactional condition that shapes behavioral engagement in immersive digital environments. It is proposed that RI influences participation intention through a sequential psychological process involving psychological immersion 12 , 13 and presence. 14 Furthermore, the analysis investigates how this mechanism varies across experience types (natural vs. cultural). Drawing on the ritual view of communication, 15 the argument is made that cultural environments, characterized by higher symbolic density and richer meaning structures, strengthen the effects of RI by intensifying processes of meaning construction, whereas such effects may be weaker in natural environments that lack pre-defined social scripts. By integrating IRC theory with research on immersive digital interaction, this study moves beyond technology-centered explanations and proposes an interaction-centered framework for understanding user engagement. Specifically, it conceptualizes immersive experience as an emergent outcome of structured interaction, rather than as a direct consequence of technological sophistication. This study makes three contributions: First, it extends interaction ritual theory from co-present social settings to high-fidelity mediated environments. Second, it provides a process-based explanation of engagement by identifying a sequential pathway from interactional conditions to behavioral outcomes. Third, it identifies boundary conditions under which these effects vary, offering a more nuanced understanding of how interactional and contextual factors jointly shape experiential outcomes. Theoretical background IRC theory and the RI framework IRC theory provides a foundational framework for understanding how social interaction generates shared meaning, emotional energy, and behavioral motivation. 6 Building on Goffman’s 8 conceptualization of everyday encounters as structured “interaction rituals”, Collins explains that when individuals achieve a mutual focus of attention and a shared emotion, they produce a temporary shared reality. This micro-level synchronization generates emotional energy—a sustained feeling of confidence, elation, and initiative—which serves as the primary driver for continued participation and social bonding. In this sense, the interaction ritual is not merely a social event but a psychological engine that transforms coordinated action into individual motivation. While IRC theory traditionally emphasizes physical co-presence, its extension to digitally mediated environments depends on whether technology can reproduce these core rhythmic and emotional processes. 16 , 17 Johannessen 18 and Mizrahi-Werner et al. 16 show that rhythmic entrainment and mutual focus can occur in virtual spaces if platforms support real-time interaction and attentional alignment. Crucially, they challenge the traditional emphasis on bodily co-presence, demonstrating that online interactions can generate collective effervescence, group solidarity, and emotional energy even without physical assembly. This perspective highlights that the success of digital experiences depends on whether the mediated environment can systematically scaffold the conditions necessary for interaction rituals to emerge. To operationalize these conditions, Lu et al. 7 conceptualize RI as a structured configuration of interactional elements that act as a foundational scaffold for ritual emergence. Rather than treating rituals as purely spontaneous, this framework identifies four designable components that organize the user experience: contextual elements, ritual symbols, scripted processes, and shared emotion. Contextual elements provide the interactional “stage” through which attention is organized; ritual symbols encode cultural meaning and guide interpretation; scripted processes structure the temporal unfolding of interaction; and shared emotion facilitates emotional synchronization among participants. Crucially, these four components do not operate in isolation; rather, they function as an integrated interactional mechanism that systematically transforms the digital environment into a meaningful social space. By defining RI in this functional manner, the framework moves beyond mere technological features to focus on the functional organization of experience. It provides the necessary theoretical basis for examining how structured design elements systematically induce the psychological states of immersion and presence. Consequently, RI is positioned as the structural antecedent that organizes cognitive and emotional resources, thereby generating the interactional “gravity” required to sustain user engagement in immersive digital systems. The influence of RI on users’ participation intention in immersive digital environments Building on the above conceptualization, RI can be understood as an integrated interactional structure that organizes users’ attention, meaning-making, and emotional responses within immersive digital environments. Rather than operating as isolated design features, its constituent elements function synergistically to generate situational coherence and symbolic significance. 7 Through coordinated interaction, shared attention, and symbolic representation, RI transforms digitally mediated environments into socially meaningful spaces. This transformation unfolds through four interrelated mechanisms: contextual embedding, which constructs a technology-mediated interactional “stage”; symbolic identification, which anchors shared meaning in virtual artifacts and avatars; procedural guidance, which structures the temporal flow of interaction; and emotional resonance, which enables affective alignment among participants. Together, these mechanisms scaffold the conditions for the generation of emotional energy, which in turn serves as a proximal driver of sustained engagement and participation intention. In immersive digital environments, contextual elements replace traditional physical spaces with technology-constructed virtual scenes, providing a unique spatiotemporal backdrop for interaction and enabling individuals to achieve a sense of presence. 19 This aligns with Steuer’s 20 foundational view that vividness and interactivity are prerequisites for telepresence. Given that ritual efficacy depends on a specific “stage”, 6 the deliberate arrangement of digital scenes—through music, visual design, and environmental atmosphere—anchors mutual focus and enhances contextual immersion. By strengthening individuals’ situational involvement, these elements provide the environmental infrastructure necessary to support participation motivation. Ritual symbols in immersive digital environments manifest as virtual props, identity markers, and environmental elements. 21 Within the IRC framework, symbols function as carriers of emotion and group identity. 6 Drawing on Biocca’s theory of embodied self-presence, 22 digital symbols and avatars can be understood as cognitive extensions of the self that compensate for the absence of physical bodily cues. Prior research suggests that such symbols facilitate communication and reinforce group commitment by providing a shared semiotic system. 6 , 23 Consequently, ritual symbols—such as badges or virtual equipment—enhance role perception and identity recognition, thereby increasing individuals’ intention for sustained participation. Furthermore, RI relies on explicit scripted processes. Participants follow established rules to maintain interactional order, a structure identified as fundamental to stable collective action. 24 In immersive digital environments, such scripts are particularly critical, as they enable “rhythmic entrainment”—the synchronization of interactional pacing that substitutes for physical co-presence. 6 As Yee notes, 25 structured interactional norms reduce social uncertainty and cognitive load in virtual settings. By providing clear interaction pathways, scripted processes allow individuals to coordinate their behaviors more effectively, thereby enhancing their willingness to participate. Finally, shared emotion constitutes both the core mechanism and the key outcome of RI. When participants achieve emotional resonance, they generate group cohesion and emotional energy, which serves as the primary motivational resource sustaining ongoing engagement. 6 This emotional synchronization reflects the successful operation of digital mediation, whereby collectively experienced positive emotions—such as excitement or joy—reinforce the perceived significance of the interaction. 7 , 26 Such shared emotional states motivate individuals to re-engage with the digital environment in order to reproduce these positive experiences. Based on the above analysis, this study argues that in immersive digital environments, RI—through mechanisms of contextual embedding, symbolic identification, procedural guidance, and emotional resonance—enhances individuals’ participation motivation and behavioral tendencies. H1: RI positively influences users’ participation intention in immersive digital environments. The mediating role of immersion Immersion is conceptualized as a dynamic and multifaceted psychological construct that reflects an individual’s depth of engagement within a digitally mediated environment. 27 Although prior research has distinguished between technological immersion and psychological immersion—where the former emphasizes the objective properties of a system, including its sensory fidelity and interactive capabilities 5 —this study focuses on immersion as a progressive experiential state that unfolds along a continuum of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional responses. Building on the hierarchical perspective proposed by Brown and Cairns, 28 immersion can be understood as a staged process comprising engagement, engrossment, and total immersion, with each stage requiring the overcoming of increasing psychological thresholds, particularly in terms of attentional focus and emotional involvement. In this sense, immersion fundamentally manifests as a state of attentional absorption, in which cognitive resources are intensely allocated to the mediated environment, accompanied by a temporary detachment from the physical world. 29 Beyond cognitive absorption, immersion also entails affective involvement, as users form emotional connections with mediated content and experience heightened empathy. 30 , 31 Accordingly, immersion can be characterized as a multidimensional experiential state encompassing focused attention, embodied perception, emotional engagement, and temporal dissociation, reflecting a holistic integration of cognitive and affective involvement in digital environments. 32 Within immersive digital environments, RI provides the structural conditions that facilitate the emergence of immersion. Contextual elements offer multisensory stimuli that capture and sustain attention, enabling individuals to experience attentional immersion characterized by focused engagement. 33 Ritual symbols and scripted processes operate through narrative mechanisms, allowing individuals to explore alternative roles and identities, which may lead to a temporary loss of self-awareness and the psychological experience of “entering another world”. 34 , 35 Furthermore, shared emotion fosters strong affective connections among participants, thereby enhancing emotional immersion. 36 Beyond its formation, immersion plays a critical role in mediating the relationship between interactional structure and behavioral engagement. Prior research indicates that immersion-induced emotional engagement significantly influences individuals’ behavioral intentions in digital environments. 37 By enhancing experiential involvement and perceived meaningfulness—thereby reducing the perceived “artificiality” of the digital medium—immersion strengthens users’ satisfaction and emotional attachment, increasing their intention to continue participating. 38 In this sense, immersion serves as a key attentional mechanism through which structured interaction organizes cognitive resources in digitally mediated environments. Specifically, within ritual-based digital environments, immersion functions as a critical mediating variable. Through dramatized interactions with contextual elements and virtual agents, individuals become deeply immersed at attentional, narrative, and emotional levels. This immersive state, in turn, motivates sustained engagement and participation. H2a: RI positively influences immersion in immersive digital environments. H2b: Immersion positively influences users’ participation intention. H2c: Immersion mediates the relationship between RI and users’ participation intention. The mediating role of presence Presence represents a closely related yet conceptually distinct experiential outcome of immersive digital environments. 39 While immersion reflects the degree of users’ attentional absorption and experiential involvement within an environment, 29 , 40 presence refers to a subjective psychological state in which individuals experience a sense of “being there” in a mediated environment. 20 , 41 Presence is commonly characterized as an “illusion of non-mediation”, whereby individuals temporarily suspend their awareness of the technological interface and perceive virtual stimuli as if they were unmediated. 41 In such a state, individuals respond to virtual objects and entities both cognitively and affectively as though they were physically real, thereby reinforcing the perceived authenticity of the mediated environment. 42 Prior research conceptualizes presence as a multidimensional construct. For example, Biocca identified self-presence, social presence, and physical presence as the pillars of the “cyborg’s dilemma”, highlighting the importance of bodily extension. 22 Similarly, Lee proposed a three-dimensional framework: physical, social, and self-presence. 42 Compared to alternative conceptualizations, Lee’s framework is particularly suitable for AR, VR, and MR technologies due to its emphasis on psychological operationalization. Accordingly, this study conceptualizes presence as a higher-order construct comprising these three dimensions. Physical presence refers to the psychological state in which virtual objects are experienced as actual physical objects. 42 In RI, contextual elements and ritual symbols provide the “vividness” and “interactivity” required to anchor mutual focus. 20 Beyond mere sensory fidelity, the deliberate arrangement of the digital “stage” provides “environmental presence” 43 —a state where the environment’s responsiveness validates the user’s existence within the virtual space. By providing a coherent spatiotemporal backdrop that encourages sensory engagement, RI fosters a robust sense of physical presence. 2 , 3 Social presence refers to the extent to which virtual social actors are experienced as real social entities. 42 Within RI, scripted processes structure interaction patterns and generate “rhythmic entrainment”, 6 facilitating the synchronized pacing necessary for meaningful social exchange. Unlike simple communication, these structured interactions enhance the perceived agency and realism of virtual agents and avatars, thereby strengthening social presence. 44 , 45 Self-presence is the psychological experience in which one’s virtual self is perceived as an extension of the actual self. 42 Consistent with Biocca’s theory of embodiment, 22 RI utilizes ritual symbols (e.g., identity markers) and shared emotion to act as cognitive anchors. These anchors reinforce the link between the user’s identity and their virtual representation. Furthermore, scripted coordination and emotional resonance generate a collective identity, reinforcing the individual’s sense of self within the virtual narrative. Through this structural alignment of environmental cues, social synchronization, and emotional resonance, RI transforms technological interfaces into psychologically real spaces. By rendering virtual environments authentically “lived”, presence strengthens the perceived authenticity of the experience, thereby increasing participation intention. H3a: RI positively influences presence in immersive digital environments. H3b: Presence positively influences users’ participation intention. H3c: Presence mediates the relationship between RI and users’ participation intention. The serial mediating role of immersion and presence Psychological immersion has been identified as a key experiential antecedent to the emergence of presence in digitally mediated environments. 27 While technological immersion provides the underlying sensory infrastructure, it is the psychological state of immersion, characterized by focused attention and intensive allocation of cognitive resources that sustains engagement. Stage-based models suggest that individuals progress through successive levels of cognitive and emotional involvement, culminating in deep experiential absorption. 12 , 28 This attention-based conceptualization is consistent with the information processing perspective (IPP) model, 46 which emphasizes the role of cognitive resource allocation in shaping experiential and behavioral outcomes. Although the IPP model does not explicitly posit that immersion generates presence, its framework suggests that attentional engagement and immersive experiences may function as foundational precursors to the emergence of presence. The process model of spatial presence further clarifies the cognitive mechanisms underlying presence. 47 Attentional engagement allows users to construct spatial mental representations, which generate the subjective feeling of being present. Immersion establishes a psychological threshold in which full cognitive absorption suppresses awareness of the technological interface, creating the “illusion of non-mediation”. 41 While some prior studies have treated immersion and presence as parallel or interchangeable constructs due to their high correlation, the IPP logic dictates a clear temporal and functional hierarchy: immersion represents the “cognitive gatekeeper” that dictates how resources are mobilized, whereas presence is the “phenomenological outcome” of that mobilization. Consistent with this integrated logic, presence is understood as an emergent experiential state built upon prior attentional engagement, rather than an independent or concurrent process. Building on these mechanisms, immersion and presence are conceptualized as sequential mediators in the relationship between RI and participation intention. Interactional structures first elicit immersion, which promotes presence, and this progressive psychological process ultimately translates into higher participation intention. H4a: Immersion positively influences presence in immersive digital environments. H4b: RI positively influences users’ participation intention through the sequential mediating effects of immersion and presence. The moderating role of experience type Existing scholarship categorizes immersive experiences into distinct types based on their content and structural affordances, typically distinguishing between nature-based experiences and culture-based experiences. 39 Drawing on the ritual view of communication, 15 which conceptualizes communication as a symbolic process through which reality is produced, maintained, and transformed, this study argues that the effectiveness of RI depends on the level of symbolic density and the richness of narrative affordances within the digital environment. Nature-based immersive experiences, as environments with low symbolic density, primarily emphasize perceptual representation and sensory realism, such as visually oriented virtual scenes of forests, oceans, or landscapes. These environments emphasize sensory realism and environmental reproduction. From a ritual perspective, nature-based contexts often lack the “pre-defined social scripts” and collective memory required for deep symbolic interaction. 15 In such contexts, RI tends to be limited to peripheral or affective responses. While sensory stimuli may generate emotional resonance, the lower symbolic density of natural environments, which are characterized by a focus on being rather than meaning making, often constrains sustained cognitive involvement and limits deeper interpretive engagement. As a result, RI functions less effectively as a core driver of immersion and presence in natural settings. 2 , 48 In contrast, culture-based immersive experiences, representing environments with high symbolic density, are grounded in socially constructed meaning systems, narrative structures, and symbolic representations, such as cultural heritage, historical narratives, or symbolic practices. Communication in such environments is not merely the transmission of information but the “representation of shared beliefs” and the “creation of a symbolic world”. 15 Culture-based environments are characterized by higher symbolic density and richer meaning structures, which provide the necessary semiotic resources for RI. Structured scenarios, identity-based role enactment, and narrative-driven interaction allow users to actively participate in the process of meaning construction. Empirical research on cultural heritage VR has shown that immersive experiences can effectively induce a strong sense of presence, nostalgia, and storytelling, particularly when embedded with rich symbolic cues. 49 These rich symbolic cues and guided interaction patterns intensify the effects of RI by fostering deeper cognitive involvement and identity formation. Consequently, in culture-based environments, the structured nature of RI is more powerful in triggering the immersion and presence required for a lived reality. Accordingly, this study argues that experience type moderates the effects of RI. Specifically, RI is more effective in culture-based immersive environments than in nature-based environments. H5a: The positive effect of RI on immersion is stronger in culture-based immersive experiences than in nature-based immersive experiences. H5b: The positive effect of RI on presence is stronger in culture-based immersive experiences than in nature-based immersive experiences. Model summary In summary, this study develops a theoretical framework grounded in the RI framework and IRC theory. RI influences participation intention through the mediating roles of immersion and presence, including both independent and sequential mediation effects. Furthermore, experience type moderates the relationships between RI and the two experiential mechanisms. The overall conceptual model is presented in Figure 1 . Figure 1. Open in a new tab Conceptual framework This figure illustrates the proposed relationships among ritual interaction (RI), immersion, presence, and participation intention. Solid arrows indicate hypothesized direct effects, while the model also incorporates a sequential mediation pathway from RI to participation intention through immersion and presence. The moderating role of experience type (culture-based vs. nature-based) is specified on the relationships between RI and both immersion and presence. Results Model predictive validity, explanatory power, and theoretical effect sizes Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to evaluate the proposed theoretical model, using SmartPLS 4.1.0 for estimation and hypothesis evaluation. The predictive validity (Stone-Geisser’s Q 2 ), explanatory power ( R 2 ), and theoretical effect sizes ( f 2 ) of the structural model were assessed. The Q 2 values for immersion ( Q 2 = 0.348), presence ( Q 2 = 0.429), and participation intention ( Q 2 = 0.311) were all significantly greater than 0, indicating satisfactory predictive relevance. 50 RI explained 49.4% of the variance in immersion ( R 2 = 0.494), while RI and immersion together explained 58.3% of the variance in presence ( R 2 = 0.583). Moreover, immersion and presence explained 55.7% of the variance in participation intention ( R 2 = 0.557), suggesting moderate to substantial explanatory power for the endogenous constructs. 51 Consistent results for the culture-based and nature-based groups further support the model’s predictive validity and explanatory capacity (see Table 1 ). Table 1. Reliability, validity, explanatory power, and predictive validity of second-order factors Variable Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE R 2 Q 2 BI IM PR RI PI 0.746 0.84 0.567 0.557 0.311 0.753 – – – IM 0.864 0.908 0.711 0.494 0.348 0.739 0.843 – – PR 0.826 0.896 0.742 0.583 0.429 0.597 0.713 0.862 – RI 0.828 0.886 0.66 – – 0.531 0.703 0.696 0.812 Open in a new tab Diagonal values are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE); values below the diagonal are the correlation coefficients. Theoretical effect size analysis revealed that, for the overall sample model, all path coefficients had f 2 values greater than or equal to 0.02, except for hypothesis H1. This indicates that all tested paths, except H1, exert meaningful explanatory effects. 51 The f 2 value for H1 was below 0.02, suggesting that RI does not have a direct effect on participation intention, but its influence is likely fully mediated by immersion and presence (see Table 2 ). Table 2. Theoretical effect size Hypothesis Path f 2 Effect size Main Effects H1 RI → participation intention 0.001 none H2a RI → immersion 0.977 large H2b immersion → participation intention 0.394 large H3a RI → presence 0.179 medium H3b Presence → participation intention 0.023 small H4a Immersion → presence 0.239 medium Open in a new tab Main effect As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2 , after controlling for education, age, gender, income, and occupation, most of the main effect hypotheses were supported, except for H1. Specifically, the effect of RI on participation intention was not statistically significant ( β = −0.043, p > 0.05), indicating that H1 was not supported. However, as suggested by Zhao et al., 52 “the correlation between the independent and dependent variables does not need to be significant in mediation effect analysis”. Accordingly, RI does not exert a direct effect on participation intention but may be fully mediated through immersion and presence. Table 3. PLS-SEM path coefficients of hypothesized direct effects Hypothesis Path Coefficient t value p value Bootstrap 95% CI H1 RI → participation intention −0.043 0.964 0.335 [-0.128, 0.043] H2a RI → immersion 0.703 32.978 <0.001 [0.662, 0.745] H2b immersion → participation intention 0.652 13.121 <0.001 [0.553, 0.747] H3a RI → presence 0.384 9.730 <0.001 [0.305,0.459] H3b presence → participation intention 0.162 3.258 0.001 [0.065, 0.261] H4a immersion → presence 0.444 11.402 <0.001 [0.368, 0.521] Control Paths education → participation intention −0.041 1.224 0.221 [-0.105, 0.024] age → participation intention −0.002 0.053 0.957 [-0.064, 0.062] gender → participation intention −0.027 0.489 0.625 [-0.136, 0.079] income → participation intention 0.053 1.221 0.222 [-0.0332.0.137] occupation → participation intention 0.018 0.550 0.583 [-0.046, 0.082] Open in a new tab Figure 2. Open in a new tab Results of path analysis Estimated standardized path coefficients (β) from partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Solid lines indicate statistically significant paths at p < 0.01 (two-tailed). Dashed lines indicate paths not significant at p > 0.05. The model includes control variables (education, age, gender, income, and occupation) with paths to participation intention. RI exerted a positive effect on both immersion ( β = 0.703, p < 0.001) and presence ( β = 0.384, p < 0.001), supporting H2a and H3a. Similarly, immersion ( β = 0.652, p < 0.001) and presence ( β = 0.162, p < 0.001) significantly influenced participation intention, supporting H2b and H3b. Furthermore, the positive effect of immersion on presence was significant ( β = 0.444, p < 0.001), validating H4a. Mediation and serial mediation effect The proposed mediation hypotheses were tested using the bootstrap method with 5,000 resamples, following Zhao et al. 52 As shown in Table 4 , the indirect effects for H2c (RI → Immersion → Participation Intention) and H3c (RI → Presence → Participation Intention) were statistically significant, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) excluding zero. These results indicate that RI affects participation intention through the independent mediating roles of immersion and presence, supporting H2c and H3c. Table 4. Indirect effects of RI via mediators Mediation Type Hypothesis Path Indirect Effect t value p value Bootstrap 95% CI Simple Mediation H2c RI → immersion → participation intention 0.459 12.847 <0.001 [0.388, 0.531] H3c RI → presence → participation intention 0.062 3.050 0.002 [0.024, 0.105] Serial Mediation H4b RI → immersion → presence → participation intention 0.051 3.069 0.002 [0.019, 0.085] Open in a new tab The serial indirect effect for H4b (RI → Immersion → Presence → Participation Intention) was also significant, with the 95% CI excluding zero (see Table 4 ). This result provides evidence for a sequential mediation, in which the effect of RI on participation intention is transmitted first through immersion and subsequently through presence. To rigorously validate the theorized directionality, we compared the original model with an alternative reversed sequence (presence → immersion). While both models were estimated using PLS-SEM, the model fit indices (SRMR, d_ULS, d_G, NFI, BIC, and AIC weights) consistently favored the original hypothesized order (see Table 5 ). Specifically, the original model yielded a lower BIC (−430.761) and a higher AIC weight (0.505) compared to the reversed sequence (BIC = −430.717; AIC weight = 0.495). Moreover, the path coefficients in the original model demonstrated greater magnitude and statistical robustness. This empirical evidence aligns with the process model of presence, 47 which conceptualizes immersion—characterized by attentional absorption and cognitive resource allocation—as a cognitive precursor to the formation of spatial mental representations. It is these representations that ultimately generate the subjective experience of presence. By integrating both statistical fit and theoretical coherence, our results provide robust support for the sequential mediation pathway (H4b). Table 5. Model fit comparison: original vs. reversed sequence model Fit Index Original Model Reversed Model (Immersion → Presence) (Presence → Immersion) SRMR 0.057 0.058 d_ULS 0.691 0.694 d_G 0.324 0.325 Singular Variance 1108.955 1107.145 NFI 0.807 0.808 BIC −430.761 −430.717 AIC Weight 0.505 0.495 Open in a new tab Moderation effect Multi-group analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effect of experience type (culture-based vs. nature-based) on the relationships between RI and the endogenous constructs of immersion and presence. For the path from RI to immersion, the culture-based group exhibited a higher path coefficient (β = 0.763) than the nature-based group (β = 0.634), with a significant between-group difference (Δ = 0.129, p = 0.009). This indicates that RI exerts a stronger influence on immersion in culture-based virtual tourism compared to nature-based virtual tourism, supporting H5a. In contrast, experience type did not significantly moderate the relationship between RI and presence. The between-group difference (Δ = −0.029) was not statistically significant ( p = 0.744), suggesting that the effect of RI on presence is comparable across culture-based and nature-based experiences. This finding may be attributed to the formation of presence relying more on the integration of sensory inputs, media immersiveness, and interaction feedback mechanisms, rather than the type of experience content itself. 4 Consequently, sufficient RI in both cultural and natural virtual tourism contexts can elicit similar levels of presence (see Table 6 ). Table 6. Multi-group analysis of the moderating effect of experience type Hypothesis Path Culture-based group (β) Nature-based group (β) Between-group difference (Δ) p value H5a RI→immersion 0.763 0.634 0.129 0.009 H5b RI→presence 0.373 0.402 −0.029 0.744 Open in a new tab Discussion Research findings and theoretical contributions This study develops a process-based framework to explain how RI shapes users’ participation intention in immersive digital environments. Drawing on IRC theory 6 and the RI framework, 7 the findings demonstrate that RI does not directly influence participation intention but operates through a sequential psychological mechanism, in which immersion precedes and facilitates the formation of presence, ultimately leading to behavioral intention. First, this study extends the applicability of the RI framework from physical tourism settings to immersive digital environments. Traditional IRC theory emphasizes physical co-presence as a functional prerequisite for generating emotional energy. 6 Building on Lu et al.’s 7 conceptualization of RI in physical tourism settings, the present study extends its applicability to immersive digital environments and shows that the four core components of RI—contextual elements, ritual symbols, scripted processes, and shared emotion—remain effective even in the absence of physical co-presence. This finding supports emerging perspectives on digital environments enabling “tele-ritualization” 53 and aligns with research demonstrating that meaningful interactional order and emotional resonance can be established virtually. 54 By identifying immersion and presence as mediating mechanisms linking RI to participation intention, this study reconceptualizes the boundary conditions of IRC theory and the RI framework in immersive digital environments. It demonstrates that ritual outcomes, traditionally contingent upon physical co-presence, can instead be generated through processes of attentional coordination and emotional alignment. Second, the study identifies a sequential mediation mechanism linking interactional structures to behavioral outcomes. Specifically, RI enhances users’ immersion, which subsequently strengthens presence, ultimately increasing participation intention. This finding extends prior debates in the literature on the conceptual hierarchy of immersion and presence. 5 , 40 While past studies have sometimes treated immersion and presence as parallel or overlapping constructs, 39 our results suggest that immersion serves as a proximal, upstream mechanism that captures attentional and emotional resources, 43 whereas presence operates as a downstream experiential state reflecting the perception of “being there”. 20 This sequential ordering clarifies theoretical ambiguities in prior VR and digital experience research. 4 , 46 Third, the findings refine existing perspectives by highlighting the central role of immersion in shaping participation intentions. Whereas previous research often emphasizes presence as the primary experiential outcome, 3 , 39 our results suggest that the influence of presence is contingent upon the depth of immersive engagement. This observation is consistent with the conceptual logic of the IPP model, 46 which emphasizes that attentional resource allocation shapes experiential and behavioral outcomes. Accordingly, the intensity of engagement derived from immersion can be interpreted in this study as a key mechanism facilitating participation intention. Unlike prior studies treating immersion and presence as parallel predictors, this study conceptualizes them as sequentially ordered experiential processes, highlighting the hierarchical and functional distinction between immersion and presence. Fourth, the study identifies the boundary condition of experience type. RI’s effect on immersion is stronger in culture-based experiences than in nature-based ones, indicating that symbolic density and narrative richness enhance the effectiveness of interactional structures. This finding resonates with prior work on symbolic and narrative affordances in immersive experiences, 2 and extends these ideas by linking them explicitly to structured ritual interactions. Conversely, the non-significant moderation effect on presence suggests that technological affordances—rather than content type—may play a larger role in presence formation, clarifying the differential contributions of content versus technology in shaping immersive experiences. Practical contributions This study offers several design-oriented implications for practitioners, managers, and developers of immersive digital experiences. First, immersive experiences should be structured around the RI framework, providing a conceptual guide for design rather than relying solely on technological enhancements. The four core components of RI—contextual elements, ritual symbols, scripted processes, and shared emotion—can inform potential design strategies. For example, contextual elements can be operationalized through immersive environmental staging, such as spatial audio, dynamic lighting, or culturally grounded scene construction (e.g., historical reconstructions or ceremonial spaces). Ritual symbols can be embedded as interactive artifacts, identity markers, or role-based avatars, such as virtual costumes, symbolic props, or culturally meaningful objects that reinforce users’ sense of identity and belonging. Scripted processes can be implemented through guided sequences, including step-by-step ritual participation, narrative-driven tasks, or collaborative missions, providing structure to user behavior. Shared emotion can be facilitated through synchronized events, such as collective celebrations, timed audiovisual climaxes, or multi-user interactions that promote emotional alignment. Together, these elements offer conceptual levers for translating interactional mechanisms into experiential design, enabling users to transition from passive observation to active participation. Second, designers should prioritize immersion-oriented experience design rather than focusing exclusively on perceptual realism or technological fidelity. The findings indicate that immersion plays a more proximal role than presence in driving participation intention. Accordingly, design strategies may benefit from emphasizing attention capture, narrative engagement, and emotional involvement. Approaches such as first-person perspectives, branching narratives, role-based interaction, and emotionally guided storytelling can enhance users’ attentional absorption and affective engagement. This suggests that meaningful interaction design may be more effective than improvements in graphical realism alone, aligning design choices directly with the mechanisms identified in the study. Third, differentiated design strategies should be applied across experience types. In culture-based immersive experiences, designers can leverage dense symbolic systems and narrative structures by incorporating historical storytelling, ritual reenactments, or identity-based role-playing to enhance immersion and shared emotion. Conversely, nature-based experiences, which typically lack predefined social scripts, may require additional interactional scaffolding—such as guided tasks, narrative overlays, or symbolic interpretation layers—to achieve comparable levels of engagement. These distinctions align design interventions with the moderated effect of experience type identified in the study. Finally, it is important to recognize the boundary conditions of these implications. The findings are based on users’ subjective perceptions rather than the direct manipulation of design features. Therefore, while this study identifies which interactional dimensions are associated with stronger immersion and presence, it does not establish causal relationships between specific design elements or technological configurations and experiential outcomes. Practitioners and managers should interpret these implications as theoretically informed guidelines, adapting them to operational contexts and iterative development cycles. Limitations of the study This study has several limitations that define the scope conditions of our findings and suggest directions for future research. First, the study does not differentiate between types of immersive technologies (e.g., AR, VR, and MR) and relies on cross-sectional survey data. Different technologies afford varying levels of interactivity, sensory richness, and embodiment, and user experiences may evolve over repeated interactions. Future research could examine how specific technological affordances interact with RI to shape immersion and presence over time, using longitudinal or experimental designs. Second, the study is situated within a specific cultural and experiential context. Ritual interactions are inherently embedded in cultural meaning systems, and experience types (culture-based vs. nature-based) may influence users’ perceptions. Cross-cultural and cross-contextual studies, as well as systematically varied sets of immersive experiences, are needed to test the generalizability of our findings. Third, the study focuses on perceived RI rather than directly manipulating design features of immersive systems. As a result, causal relationships between specific interaction mechanics, interface structures, or audiovisual configurations and experiential outcomes cannot be established. Future research should integrate experimental or design-based approaches to examine how particular design features translate into perceived RI, immersion, and presence. Fourth, the study was conducted in a tourism-oriented theme park, where participants were already situated in a leisure and affectively primed context. While this enhances ecological validity, it may also amplify sensitivity to ritual elements and emotional engagement. Future studies should replicate the proposed model across diverse contexts—such as home-based VR, museum installations, and online virtual environments—to explore boundary conditions and contextual effects. Collectively, these limitations highlight the need to integrate technological, cultural, and contextual perspectives in future research on immersive experiences, thereby advancing a more comprehensive understanding of RI mechanisms. Resource availability Lead contact Further information and requests for resources should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the lead contact, Tian Wang ( wangtian@sicnu.edu.cn ). Materials availability This study did not generate new unique reagents. Data and code availability • The survey data reported in this paper will be shared by the lead contact upon request. • This paper does not report original code. • Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the lead contact upon request. Acknowledgments The authors sincerely thank all anonymous participants who voluntarily took part in this study and shared their time and insights. Their contributions were essential to the completion of this research. This research was supported by the Chengdu Philosophy and Social Science Research Projects (no. 2024BZ168, no. 2025CS096), the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan (no. 2026NSFSC1109), the Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province Project (no. SCJJ25RKX170), the Sichuan Province Philosophy and Social Science Research Projects (no. SC25TJ019), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 71972137), and the Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research of Chinese Ministry of Education (no. 23YJA790075). Author contributions Conceptualization, D.L. and I.K.W.L.; methodology, D.L., H.P., and T.W.; investigation, H.P.; writing—original draft, D.L.; writing—review and editing, D.L., T.W., and I.K.W.L.; funding acquisition, D.L. and T.W.; resources, D.L. and T.W.; supervision, D.L. Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests. Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-4) in order to improve language and grammar. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the content of the publication. STAR★Methods Key resources table REAGENT or RESOURCE SOURCE IDENTIFIER Deposited data Raw survey data from immersive digital experience participants This paper Available from lead contact upon request Software and algorithms SmartPLS 4.1.0 SmartPLS GmbH https://www.smartpls.com IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 26 IBM https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics Other Ritual Interaction (RI) scale (four dimensions: contextual elements, ritual symbols, scripted processes, shared emotion) Lu et al. 7 N/A Immersion scale (four dimensions: embodied perception, emotional expression, spatiotemporal dislocation, high involvement) Wu et al. 32 N/A Presence scale (three dimensions: physical presence, social presence, self-presence) Makransky et al. 55 N/A Participation Intention scale Huang et al. 56 N/A Open in a new tab Experimental model and study participant details Human subjects Participants in this study were adult visitors recruited from immersive digital attractions. A total of 594 valid responses were collected, with a near-equal gender distribution (296 males, 49.83%; 298 females, 50.17%). The majority of the sample was aged between 21 and 40 (83.34%) and held an undergraduate degree (62.46%); further demographic details, such as occupation and travel frequency, are presented in Table S1 . Inclusion was contingent upon participants being 18 years or older and having finished the entire attraction sequence. Ethical clearance was granted by the Academic Ethics Committee of Sichuan Normal University ((approval number 2026KS0039, dated March 1, 2025), with informed consent secured before data collection. Regression analysis indicated that gender had no significant impact on participation intention (β = −0.027, p = 0.625), confirming the stability of the hypothesized model across different gender groups. Method details Measurement instruments The measurements of RI, immersion, and presence adopt a reflective-reflective second-order construct model, encompassing a total of eleven first-order latent variables. The measurement of RI was adapted from the validated scale developed by Lu et al., 7 which includes four dimensions: contextual elements, ritual symbols, scripted processes, and shared emotions. The measurement of immersion followed the scale developed by Wu et al., 32 comprising four dimensions: embodied perception, emotional expression, spatiotemporal dislocation, and high involvement. These dimensions align with the conceptualization of immersion as a state of attentional absorption. For presence, the scale proposed by Makransky et al. 55 was employed, consisting of spatial presence, social presence, and self-presence. In addition, participation intention was measured with reference to the study by Huang et al., 56 which assesses individuals’ willingness to engage in similar immersive digital experiences in the future. The experience type was operationalized as a categorical variable (nature-based vs. culture-based) according to the classification proposed by Fan et al. 39 All items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The means and standard deviations of the measurement items, as well as those of the first-order and second-order latent constructs, are presented in Table S2 . Pilot test and refinement The initial questionnaire was reviewed by an expert panel of three professors specializing in applied psychology and digital media to evaluate content validity. To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments, a pilot test was conducted at three professional VR/AR experience centers in Chengdu. These centers feature large-scale immersive digital installations that integrate motion-tracking and multisensory feedback, providing a representative environment for studying ritual-based digital interaction. The pilot test yielded 142 valid responses with an effective response rate of 91.61%. Reliability and validity analyses indicated satisfactory measurement quality. Based on the feedback, several items were refined for linguistic clarity, resulting in the final version of the formal questionnaire, which included demographic information and individuals’ prior experience with immersive technologies. Data collection The formal survey was conducted at Fantawild Oriental Heritage, a large-scale theme park featuring multiple virtual tourism attractions. In this study, virtual tourism is treated as a concrete application context through which digitally mediated immersive experiences can be systematically observed and analyzed. Reflecting the park’s specific portfolio, the sample includes the site’s sole nature-based project alongside three representative culture-based attractions (see Table S3 ). By analyzing these distinct experiences within the same macro-setting, the study effectively controlled for the broader theme park environment, isolating the impact of digital immersive characteristics (e.g., interactivity and symbolic construction) on RI and participation intention. Data was collected using an intercept survey method. To capture the immediate psychological impact of the digital experiences and minimize potential confounding from the park’s surrounding environment, visitors were invited to complete the questionnaires immediately upon exiting each attraction. By collecting data immediately after each attraction and using activity-specific item wording, this procedure ensured that reported RI and participation intentions reflected direct responses to the immersive experience itself while also minimizing potential contextual carryover from the broader theme park environment. The survey maintained strict anonymity and confidentiality, and participants received a small incentive (RMB 5). The field study was conducted over three consecutive days, during which 620 questionnaires were distributed. After excluding 26 invalid responses—due to attention-check failures, straight-lining, or implausibly short completion times—594 valid responses were retained, yielding an effective response rate of 95.8%. Experience grouping Participants were classified into experience-type groups based on their perceived evaluations of the nature-based and culture-based characteristics of the immersive experience. Specifically, a difference score was computed for each participant by subtracting the perceived culture-based rating from the perceived nature-based rating, with higher values indicating a stronger orientation toward nature-based experiences. Following prior methodological research emphasizing the importance of clear group distinctions in moderation and multi-group analysis, 57 , 58 participants were assigned to groups based on this difference score. Those with scores greater than or equal to 1 were classified into the nature-based group ( n = 187), whereas those with scores less than or equal to −1 were classified into the culture-based group ( n = 277). Participants with scores between −1 and 1 ( n = 130) were categorized as a neutral group and excluded from the moderation analysis to enhance the clarity of group differentiation and improve the interpretability of between-group comparisons. To assess the robustness of this grouping approach, independent-samples t-tests were conducted across the core constructs, including RI, immersion, presence, and participation intention. Levene’s tests for equality of variances indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was satisfied for all variables (RI: F = 0.204, p = 0.652; immersion: F = 0.392, p = 0.532; presence: F = 0.472, p = 0.492; participation intention: F = 0.290, p = 0.590). These results suggest that the unequal group sizes are unlikely to introduce systematic bias into the subsequent multi-group analysis. Quantification and statistical analysis Statistical software and approach Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed using SmartPLS 4.1.0. The choice of PLS-SEM was appropriate given the exploratory nature of the research, the presence of second-order reflective constructs, and the focus on predicting endogenous constructs. Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was used to assess the significance of path coefficients and indirect effects. As PLS-SEM is a non-parametric method, it does not require assumptions of multivariate normality. Common method bias test As all survey items were completed by participants at a single point in time, covering measures of independent variables, mediators, moderators, and dependent variables, potential Common Method Variance (CMV) needed to be addressed. To mitigate CMV, the study implemented the measures recommended by Conway and Lance. 59 First, respondents were selected immediately after completing a digital immersive experience to ensure sample relevance. Second, the research objectives were clearly communicated at the beginning of the questionnaire, with assurances of participant privacy. Instructions emphasized that “there are no right or wrong answers” to reduce evaluative concerns. Finally, the concept of digital immersive experiences was explained at the start, and item order was randomized to minimize sequence effects. A post-hoc statistical assessment using Harman’s single-factor test 60 indicated that while factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 explained 62.18% of the total variance, the first factor accounted for only 32.81%, well below the 50% threshold. Considering both these proactive procedural controls and the statistical results, common method bias is unlikely to have substantially affected the data. Reliability and validity test Given that the moderating effects in this study were evaluated using Multi-Group Analysis (MGA), it was necessary to ensure that the measurement structure remained consistent and valid across groups. Consequently, reliability and validity assessments were conducted for the full sample, the Culture-based Group, and the Nature-based Group. 61 As shown in Table S4 , for the full sample, the composite reliability (CR) of the measurement model’s latent variables exceeded 0.7, and most Cronbach’s α values were above 0.7 (ranging from 0.637 to 0.835), meeting the criteria recommended by Campbell and Fiske. 62 Although a few latent variables had slightly lower Cronbach’s α values, values above 0.6 were considered acceptable given the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size, and the complexity of the constructs. 51 Overall, the scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability. 63 Convergent validity was confirmed, as all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.5, and factor loadings for each item were above 0.7. 51 Discriminant validity was further verified using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, 63 with the square roots of the AVE for each latent variable exceeding the correlations with other constructs (see Table S5 ). For the Culture-based Group and Nature-based Group, the Cronbach’s α values ranged from 0.658 to 0.839 and 0.608 to 0.821, respectively, with CR and AVE values exceeding 0.8 and 0.5. The square roots of the AVE for each latent variable within these groups were greater than the corresponding inter-construct correlations, confirming adequate convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability for both groups (see Tables S4 and S5 ). Further analysis of the second-order latent variables (RI, immersion, presence) and the first-order latent variable (participation intention) also demonstrated robust psychometric properties. All second-order latent variables showed Cronbach’s α and CR values significantly greater than 0.7, and AVE values exceeded 0.5, demonstrating good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was confirmed as correlations between latent variables were lower than the square roots of their AVE. Model fit indices, following Henseler et al., 64 were satisfactory: SRMR = 0.071 (0.08), d_ULS = 0.602 (0.95), and d_G = 0.289 (0.95), indicating a good overall model fit. Measurement invariance test Measurement invariance of the second-order model was assessed by examining configural invariance, compositional invariance, and equality of composite mean values and variances for both first- and second-order latent variables. Configural invariance was confirmed, as the Culture-based Group and Nature-based Group demonstrated consistent measurement structures across all first-order latent variables. Permutation tests for the first-order model variables produced c-values no lower than 0.997 with p -values above 0.05, indicating no significant differences in composite scores between the two groups, thus satisfying compositional invariance. Tests for differences in the means and variances of the composite scores revealed that, except for “physical presence”, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences and variance ratios of other first-order latent variables included zero, supporting equality of composite mean values and variances. Analysis of second-order latent variables followed the same procedure, confirming configural invariance, compositional invariance, and equality of composite mean values and variances. These results establish measurement invariance for the model, enabling multi-group comparison (see Table S6 ). Footnotes Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2026.116091 . Supplemental information Document S1. Tables S1–S6 mmc1.pdf (630.1KB, pdf) References 1. Li M., Sun X., Zhu Y., Qiu H. Real in virtual: The influence mechanism of virtual reality on tourists’ perceptions of presence and authenticity in museum tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2024;36:3651–3673. doi: 10.1108/ijchm-07-2023-0957. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Tussyadiah I.P., Wang D., Jung T.H., Tom Dieck M.C. Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tour. Manag. 2018;66:140–154. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Yu H., Oh H., Wang K.C. Virtual reality and perceptions of destination presence. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2024;36:3950–3968. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2023-0744. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Slater M., Wilbur S. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence. (Camb). 1997;6:603–616. doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Slater M. A note on presence terminology. Presence: Connect. 2003;3:1–5. [ Google Scholar ] 6. Collins R. Princeton University Press; 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Lu J., Lai I.K.W., Zhang H., Liu G., Li J. How can tourism be made engaging and meaningful? A measurement scale for ritual interaction. Tour. Manag. 2024;103 doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104900. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Goffman E. The nature of deference and demeanor. Am. Anthropol. 1956;58:473–502. doi: 10.1525/aa.1956.58.3.02a00070. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Lyu C., Jiang Y., Balaji M.S. From interaction rituals to mental restoration: The role of psychological ownership in synchronous technology-mediated tourism. Tour. Manag. 2025;111 doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2025.105231. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Ling R. The MIT Press); 2008. New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile Communication Is Reshaping Social Cohesion. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Santoso M., Bailenson J. How video passthrough headsets influence perception of self and others. Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 2024;27:798–806. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16904. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Jennett C., Cox A.L., Cairns P., Dhoparee S., Epps A., Tijs T., Walton A. Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2008;66:641–661. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Punpeng G., Yodnane P. The route to immersion: A conceptual framework for cross-disciplinary immersive theatre and experiences. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023;10:961–969. doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-02485-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Biocca F., Harms C., Burgoon J.K. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence. (Camb). 2003;12:456–480. doi: 10.1162/105474603322761270. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Carey J.W., Adam G.S. Essays on Media and Society. Routledge; 2008. Communication as Culture, Revised Edition. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Mizrahi-Werner J., Liebst L.S., Demant J. Beyond bodily co-presence: A micro-sociological study of online interaction rituals. Symb. Interaction. 2025;48:46–68. doi: 10.1002/symb.1206. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Sandikci O., Saatcioglu B., Fischer E. Creating and maintaining digital third places: Orchestrating interaction ritual chains at a distance. J. Retailing. 2026;102:24–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2025.08.001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Johannessen L.E.F. Interaction rituals and technology: A review essay. Poetics. 2023;98 doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2023.101765. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Bogicevic V., Seo S., Kandampully J.A., Liu S.Q., Rudd N.A. Virtual reality presence as a preamble of tourism experience: The role of mental imagery. Tour. Manag. 2019;74:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.009. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 1992;42:73–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. He Z., Wu L., Li X.R. When art meets tech: The role of augmented reality in enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tour. Manag. 2018;68:127–139. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.003. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Biocca F. The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2006;3:330–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Bormann E.G. Symbolic Convergence Theory: A communication formulation. J. Commun. 1985;35:128–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1985.tb02977.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Ostrom E. Cambridge University Press; 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Yee N. Yale University Press; 2014. The Proteus Paradox: How Online Games and Virtual Worlds Change Us—And How They Don't. [ Google Scholar ] 26. Song W., Zhao T., Huang E., Liu W. How positive and negative emotions promote ritualistic consumption through different mechanisms. Front. Psychol. 2022;13 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901572. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Baños R.M., Botella C., Alcañiz M., Liaño V., Guerrero B., Rey B. Immersion and emotion: Their impact on the sense of presence. Cyberpsychol. Beyond Behav. 2004;7:734–741. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.734. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Brown E., Cairns P. In: CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Dykstra-Erickson E., Tscheligi M., editors. Association for Computing Machinery; 2004. A grounded investigation of game immersion; pp. 1297–1300. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Agarwal R., Karahanna E. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 2000;24:665–694. doi: 10.2307/3250951. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Busselle R., Bilandzic H. Measuring Narrative Engagement. Media Psychol. 2009;12:321–347. doi: 10.1080/15213260903287259. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Herrera F., Bailenson J., Weisz E., Ogle E., Zaki J. Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLoS One. 2018;13 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204494. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Wu L., Hu J., Wu B. Construction of tourist sentiment lexicon in the context of digital immersion. Tour. Trib. 2025;40:74–89. doi: 10.19765/j.cnki.1002-5006.2024.00.027. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Spence C., Gao Y. Enhancing dynamic visual experiences through touch. Multisens. Res. 2025;38:289–324. doi: 10.1163/22134808-bja10161. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Gruenewald T., Chen C. Narrative virtual reality as a memory machine. Convergence. 2025;31:1306–1326. doi: 10.1177/13548565251320727. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Green M.C., Brock T.C. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000;79:701–721. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Xie J., Li X. From theatrical elements to festival attendees’ perceived emotional synchrony: The perspective of interaction ritual chain theory. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 2023;56:83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.06.016. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Flavián C., Ibáñez-Sánchez S., Orús C. The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019;100:547–560. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Hudson S., Matson-Barkat S., Pallamin N., Jegou G. With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019;100:459–468. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.062. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Fan X., Jiang X., Deng N. Immersive technology: A meta-analysis of augmented/virtual reality applications and their impact on tourism experience. Tour. Manag. 2022;91 doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104534. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Witmer B.G., Singer M.J. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence. 1998;7:225–240. doi: 10.1162/105474698565686. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Lombard M., Ditton T. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2006;3 doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Lee K.M. Presence, explicated. Commun. Theory. 2004;14:27–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Heeter C. Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence. (Camb). 1992;1:262–271. doi: 10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Pfaller M., Kroczek L.O.H., Lange B., Fülöp R., Müller M., Mühlberger A. Social presence as a moderator of the effect of agent behavior on emotional experience in social interactions in virtual reality. Front. Virtual Real. 2021;2 doi: 10.3389/frvir.2021.741138. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Mal D., Döllinger N., Wolf E., Wenninger S., Botsch M., Wienrich C., Latoschik M.E. Am I the odd one? Exploring (in) congruencies in the realism of avatars and virtual others in virtual reality. Front. Virtual Real. 2024;5 doi: 10.3389/frvir.2024.1417066. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Bystrom K.-E., Barfield W., Hendrix C. A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence. (Camb). 1999;8:241–244. doi: 10.1162/105474699566107. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Wirth W., Hartmann T., Böcking S., Vorderer P., Klimmt C., Schramm H., Saari T., Laarni J., Ravaja N., Gouveia F.R. A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychol. 2007;9:493–525. doi: 10.1080/15213260701283079. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Guttentag D.A. Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tour. Manag. 2010;31:637–651. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Škola F., Rizvić S., Cozza M., Barbieri L., Bruno F., Skarlatos D., Liarokapis F. Virtual reality with 360-video storytelling in cultural heritage: Study of presence, engagement, and immersion. Sensors. 2020;20:5851. doi: 10.3390/s20205851. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Geisser S. A predictive approach to the Random Effect Model. Biometrika. 1974;61:101–107. doi: 10.2307/2334290. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. Pearson Education Limited; 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Zhao X., Lynch J.G., Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about Mediation Analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010;37:197–206. doi: 10.1086/651257. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Johannessen L.E.F., Collins R. The future of Interaction Rituals: An interview with Randall Collins. Theor. Soc. 2024;53:1491–1504. doi: 10.1007/s11186-024-09587-y. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Caldas O.I., Mauledoux M., Aviles O.F., Rodriguez-Guerrero C. Breaking presence in immersive virtual reality toward behavioral and emotional engagement. Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed. 2024;248 doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2024.108124. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Makransky G., Lilleholt L., Aaby A. Development and validation of the multimodal presence scale for virtual reality environments: A confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017;72:276–285. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Huang Y.C., Backman K.F., Backman S.J., Chang L.L. Exploring the implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: An integrated research framework. Int. J. Tourism Res. 2016;18:116–128. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2038. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 57. Aiken L.S., West S.G., Reno R.R. Sage Publications; 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. [ Google Scholar ] 58. Preacher K.J., Rucker D.D., Hayes A.F. Addressing Moderated Mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav. Res. 2007;42:185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 59. Conway J.M., Lance C.E. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding Common Method Bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010;25:325–334. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 60. Harman H.H. The University of Chicago Press; 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. [ Google Scholar ] 61. Pituch K.A., Stevens J.P. Taylor and Francis; 2015. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychol. Bull. 1959;56:81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Fornell C., Larcker D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981;18:39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. Testing Measurement Invariance of Composites Using Partial Least Squares. Int. Mark. Rev. 2016;33:405–431. doi: 10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Document S1. Tables S1–S6 mmc1.pdf (630.1KB, pdf) Data Availability Statement • The survey data reported in this paper will be shared by the lead contact upon request. • This paper does not report original code. • Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the lead contact upon request. Articles from iScience are provided here courtesy of Elsevier ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.8 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Coping with inauthenticity: A social interaction perspective linking daily surface acting with deliberate drinking after work#670223
• Designing Immersive Participatory Practices for Enacting Eco-Social Transformations#436028
• Changing the Rules: Architecture and the New Millennium#717368
• The Ritual Infrastructure of Conversation#730637
• Enhancing handicraft intangible cultural heritage learning through immersive VR serious games: a multimodal study on natural interaction effectiveness.#418203