Immersive experience framework: a Delphi approach

ABSTRACT

The concept of immersion has been widely used for the design and evaluation of user experiences. Augmented, virtual and mixed-reality environments have further sparked the discussion of immersive user experiences and underlying requirements. However, a clear definition and agreement on design criteria of immersive experiences remains debated, creating challenges to advancing our understanding of immersive experiences and how these can be designed. Based on a multidisciplinary Delphi approach, this study provides a uniform definition of immersive experiences and identifies key criteria for the design and staging thereof. Thematic analysis revealed five key themes – transition into/out of the environment, in-experience user control, environment design, user context relatedness, and user openness and motivation, that emphasise the coherency in the user-environment interaction in the immersive experience. The study proposes an immersive experience framework as a guideline for industry practitioners, outlining key design criteria for four distinct facilitators of immersive experiences – systems, spatial, empathic/social, and narrative/sequential immersion. Further research is proposed using the immersive experience framework to investigate the hierarchy of user senses to optimise experiences that blend physical and digital environments and to study triggered, desired and undesired effects on user attitude and behaviour.

KEYWORDS:

• Immersion
• experience
• Delphi
• design criteria
• evaluation framework
• immersive interfaces

1. Introduction

Since the introduction and growth of immersive technologies (AR/VR/MR) in the consumer market, lots of attention has been given to technological advances and their implications for consumer experiences (Han, Bergs, and Moorhouse 2022). In virtual reality (VR) environments, ‘immersion’ has been adopted as a key criterion for the design and evaluation of user experiences (Hudson et al. 2019). In more recent work, the concept of immersive experience has also been studied for augmented reality (AR) (Shin 2019) and mixed reality (MR) (Sung et al. 2021) contexts. However, in contrast to immersive VR experiences, in which the user is transported to a fully digital environment, AR and MR environments incorporate the immediate physical surrounding as part of the experience and are thus categorised to create extended reality environments (Rauschnabel et al. 2022). Due to the differences in technological setup, the role of immersion in these different environments remains unclear. Albeit a growing academic literature is available on the essence of immersion, the definition and scope of the concept remains contested, and a uniform perspective has so far been difficult to establish. This creates a challenge in furthering our understanding of immersive experiences and how these should be designed to reach their true potential. Unclarity and differences in interpretation are often a result of context differences, however, with immersive experiences, various definitions are also evident within the same context. In the games and entertainment context, for instance, immersion has been extensively studied and was identified as a core feature that stimulates players to feel embodied in virtual worlds and come back to engage with the content. In this context, Adams (2004) describes immersion in three distinct categories (tactical, strategic, narrative), while Haggis-Burridge (2020) uses four categories to describe various aspects of immersive characteristics (systems, spatial, narrative/sequential, social/empathic). In other contexts, Haywood and Cairns (2005) studied immersion through experiences in museums and revealed engagement through participation and narrative to trigger basic forms of immersion, while Dionísio et al. (2013) created immersive experiences for testing a virtual Eat&Travel restaurant and their study’s findings suggest using spatial immersion to increase guest satisfaction and enjoyment as well as stimulating the desire to learn and share their experience with others. In virtual immersive experiences, visual environment design has been the dominant form to engage users in the environment (Bowman and McMahan 2007). However, various studies have confirmed the use of spatial sound to relating visual cues to create more immersive environments (e.g. Murphy and Pitt 2001; Poeschl, Wall, and Doering 2013) to enhance the sense of presence. Murphy and Pitt (2001) used virtual sound in the context of virtual storytelling in which sound encouraged users to explore the virtual environment and thus could be used as auditory cues. Kim, Jeon, and Kim (2017) studied the effect of a hand-held haptic system on immersion in virtual environments and concluded that simple haptic triggers that can be simulated in VR provided greater levels of immersion in VR and a sense of presence in the experience. Despite immersive experiences being a central objective in many virtually mediated environments and in triggering memorable user experiences, our current understanding of immersive experiences is fragmented and lacks a comprehensive framework to purposefully design and stage rich user experiences.

Building on immersion literature from multiple disciplines, this study aims to address the current gap by defining immersive experience as a key concept and providing a theoretical framework that adds to the body of knowledge. It outlines a much-needed research agenda for academics and assists industry practitioners to design and stage- specific forms of immersive experiences for users. The present paper will thus build on exploring definitions of immersion to date and discuss their limitations and opportunities through contrasting these views by integrating multidisciplinary perspectives from psychology to marketing, tourism, games, and entertainment. The ensuing contributions of this paper are threefold. First, key criteria to generate various forms of immersive experiences are identified from the literature building on the knowledge of relevant disciplines. An expert panel representing perspectives from these disciplines is consulted in a Delphi approach to define the concept of immersive experience and generate a theoretical framework. The results extend our current knowledge of user experiences and provide key areas of discussion and further investigation. Second, the paper proposes a future research agenda based on distinct forms of immersive experiences and discusses opportunities for practitioners and changes that are expected to influence the impact of immersion. Third, our framework contributes to the repertoire of industry practitioners on how to apply immersive experiences as a solution to change user behaviour, which could prove useful in various areas, such as our long struggle of changing behaviour towards more sustainable choices.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Immersion

The term immersion typically means being completely involved in an environment or activity and has been particularly relevant in the games and entertainment context (Jennett et al. 2008). Hansen and Mossberg (2013, 212) defined immersion as ‘spatio-temporal belonging in the world that is characterized by deep involvement in the present moment’. While it is a subjectively experienced phenomenon, elements causing the perception of immersion can be multifaceted. The goal is to submerge the player into another world, leading to a sensation of being detached from the physical world (Pine and Gilmore 1998), often argued to help people escape everyday worries and concerns. Such commitment of attention can lead to a mental state where other things in the immediate surrounding go unnoticed, such as time-passing or events happening in immediate proximity. Immersion is argued to be a key component of enjoyment in the games context, largely defining the evaluation of the experience. However, the opportunities of immersion have since been studied in other contexts, such as linguistics (language immersion) and social sciences, to describe an experience characteristic and resulting effects (Xiaoqiong 2008). Prior findings have largely emphasised the need for immersion to reach a state of complete focus and enjoyment (Tussyadiah et al. 2018) in undertaking activities, which consequently increases productivity and positively affects mental well-being. In contrast, Vella (2016) argued that immersion had a negative effect on well-being in the gaming context. Similarly, Haggis-Burridge (2020) argued that immersive design in the video game context can be a source of certain user behaviours which have the potential to lead to positive effects along with negative consequences like addiction.

Over the last decade, several attempts have been made to understand the concept and scope of immersion. For instance, Adams (2004) defined three distinct categories within the concept of immersion, tactical immersion, strategic immersion and narrative immersion. Tactical immersion describes the sense of immersion that results from being physically engaged in an activity. This form is commonly described as being ‘in the zone’ amongst skilled athletes. Strategic immersion in comparison refers to immersion caused by being mentally challenged through critically thinking, reflecting, and evaluating a situation at hand. Finally, narrative immersion is caused by being sucked into a storyline or narrative, and often associated with being absorbed in a book or game. Haggis-Burridge (2020) categorised the types of immersion in the video game context as systems immersion, spatial immersion, narrative/sequential immersion, and empathic/social immersion. Whereas the first three categories largely confirm the types of previous categorisations, empathic or social immersion embraces the interactive character that results in an immersive state through peer-to-peer or peer-to-computer interaction. Interestingly, previous studies in the games literature suggested that social interaction in the games environment would decrease the sense of immersion, as it would distract from the main engagement and activities within the game (Hudson et al. 2019). However, it was also recognised that some forms of social immersion increased the psychological perception of immersion not only in some game formats interacting with non-player-characters (NPC) or peers but this was also confirmed in the leisure and tourism context (Hudson et al. 2019). Compared to Adams (2004), Haggis-Burridge (2020) includes both mental and physical engagement within the activity in the definition of systems immersion. While it is arguable that mental and physical engagement occurs simultaneously while being engaged in an activity, a distinction between both processes might be more relevant in relation to various degrees of expertise and experience of a player. For instance, a player with little experience with game mechanics might show a higher degree of mental and physical engagement compared to a veteran that has grown entirely accustomed to the controls of the game and needed physical interaction. Flow theory suggests that an activity with a balanced challenge to skill ratio leads to a state of flow, in which users are highly immersed in the activity. However, as the task becomes repetitive, this ratio is deemed to fall into unbalance, causing the state of immersion to deteriorate. In this situation, players are likely to fall into autopilot mode, reducing the immersion in the experience if it is not retriggered through a new challenge or variety in context. Following this example, it seems evident that different types of immersion can occur simultaneously, and it might not be entirely possible nor desirable to isolate specific types, as it might lead to a less immersive experience. In contrast, Jennett et al. (2008) argue that there are three distinct degrees of immersion that were identified in the gaming context. ‘Engagement’ describes the state in which the player familiarises themselves with the setup, environment, and interaction of the game and game mechanics. The profound argument in this form of immersion is the time and effort spent to engage with the context. Jennett et al. (2008) argue that this is paramount before being able to transcend to the second degree of immersion, ‘engrossment’. In this state of immersion, the player’s emotions are engaged, and game mechanics are elevated to player embodiment within the game context. The third and highest degree was described as ‘total immersion’, which signifies the sense of presence and the moment, when players are mentally and emotionally cut off from their physical surroundings. However, it was argued that reaching this level of immersion is rather difficult to construct even within the gaming and entertainment context. While the three levels help us categorise immersion into levels of depth, it is questionable whether a clear hierarchy exists between levels of engagement and engrossment. We argue that players can engage emotionally with games long before they have learned the mechanics, and disengagement with the player’s surroundings does not require emotional engagement. Instead, Haggis-Burridge (2020, 8) suggested that different forms and degrees of immersion are often used in a balanced way in successful games to ‘create a pleasing overall effect for a large number of players’. For instance, the game Destiny attempts to continuously keep players engaged by adjusting the challenges and difficulty of the game to the player’s skill level, while in Ori and the blind forest different game mechanics are unlocked in various stages of the game depending on player skill and progress of the narrative. While literature on immersion is largely in the context of video games, Haywood and Cairns (2005) studied immersion in museums and revealed that engagement was desirable in museum settings and could trigger a basic level of immersion based on participation and narrative as design components in the environment. However, their study falls short on the full potential that the interplay of types of immersion in the museum context could create.

2.2. Facilitators of immersive experiences

Spatial immersion is often facilitated through means of low lighting and separation from the outside world in the physical design of the museum. Empathic and social immersion can be stimulated by exhibits that urge visitors to relate to cultures from around the world and/or the past, along with the shared social experience of viewing them. Narrative or sequential immersion could come from both the curated experience and the sense of exploration around a vast museum space. Systems immersion may be stimulated by the shifted social rules of most museum spaces, created through slow-paced movement, quietness, respect for viewing lines of other visitors. In the context of theme parks, we can observe that narrative immersion of a character’s storyline is often complemented with spatial immersion in the physical space (e.g. dark rides). Interestingly, in recent years we can observe a development of emerging rides towards involving the visitor as a character in the story, rather than being limited as a passive viewer of it. In that sense, narrative immersion is used to create the perception of an unfolding story with the participant as a central character. However, such rides often require limited action from the visitor, which limits the potential of systems immersion in the narrative. In contrast, a few rides (e.g. Toy Story Midway Mania in the Disney parks; Men in Black: Alien Attack in Universal Studios Orlando) incorporate game elements in the ride to create immersion through interaction and active participation in the narrative. In 2019, the attraction Millennium Falcon: Smugglers Run was opened in one of the Disney parks, which combines a high-speed motion simulator with a games console to navigate the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars. Narrative immersion is used in creation of the underlying storyline that puts the visitor as an active participant in the story using the game’s controller (systems immersion). Social immersion is created by involving a group of four visitors in one ride, each taking a separate role in the story ranging from shooter, mechanic, to captain. Spatial immersion is created through the physical artefacts in the ride that relate to the theme of the ride. In the context of user experiences, having a clear vision on the overall effect that is aspired by the user is crucial to integrate various forms of immersion throughout the progression of the experience. The review of use cases indicates that other contexts could greatly benefit from immersive designs applied in the video games environment. However, a clear framework for immersion is needed to capitalise on the various forms of immersion and purposefully employ these. As a reference point for doing so, Figure 1 presents the types of immersion discussed in this section.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for immersive experiences*. *Adapted from Haggis-Burridge (2020).

Previous studies have demonstrated that immersive experiences both represents an area of limited conceptual development to date but also one that incorporates promising avenues for redefining and redesigning existing experiences, especially in relation to purposely doing so in light of attempts to influence behaviour, for instance in the context of promoting (more) sustainable behaviour. However, the review of literature in respective fields shows that a structured approach to study immersion and a clear definition is lacking. As a result, we have a limited understanding of the effects immersive experiences can bring forth in user behaviour during and post-immersion. Several studies indicated that spatial immersion can be used not only to engage users in an experience, but also for studying user behaviour (Qvist et al. 2016). Studies such as Celikcan et al. (2018) have further demonstrated the role of immersion to enhance the learning process. An increasing number of studies are emerging that consider the post-immersion effect, suggesting that immersive experiences are not only enjoyable in the consumption phase, but have measurable effects on the users’ post-immersion behaviour, ranging from the desire to learn more about a given topic (Dionísio et al. 2013) to building cultural understanding and pro-active behaviour (Gilboy and Bill 2011). However, it is also apparent that many studies in this field and wider consumer behaviour literature have considered perceived levels of immersion in their studies but have not further investigated it as an intended design element in their theoretical construct.

2.3. Immersive experience requirements

Reviewing literature in immersive experiences, the term ‘immersion’ is largely used by studies in the contexts of psychology, games and entertainment, education, and human–computer interaction. These research areas were further investigated for the identification of generic requirements for immersive experiences. We reviewed requirements to identify factors that contribute to generating immersive experiences and aimed to established a list of factors that can be intentionally designed and controlled. Integrating these in our framework could further allow for controlled testing of each requirement to measure its contribution to generating specific or a combination of facilitators of immersive experience. Table 1 summarises identified requirements related to each field of research. While this list is not exhaustive of all studies in the respective fields, it sums up all recurring requirements that were identified in the review.

Table 1. Immersive experience requirements.

Research Area	Requirement	Sources
Psychology	Sense of control Attention focus on task Maintained curiosity arousal Intrinsically motivated task Challenge-skill balance Clear goals Unambiguous, immediate feedback Interactivity Arousal Positive affect Time-distortion	Park, Parsons, and Ryu (2010), Perttula et al. (2017), Tuunanen and Govindji (2016)
Games & Entertainment	Openness to experience Openness to empathy (cognitive empathy) Effortless interface Prolonged concentration and imagination Authentic environment Sensory engagement Rich narrative Relatable content to user Competitiveness, problem solving Storytelling Audiovisual alignment Functional alignment Match between game convention to user expectations (action vs. outcome) Meaningful interactions Use of schema familiar to the player Use of predictable and unpredictable narratives in a familiar framework Player interactivity to influence narrative Emotional involvement (positive and negative emotions) Complex and exploratory environment Various opponents Variety of models, textures and dynamic lights Novel rewards	Lukka (2014), Ermi and Mäyrä (2005), Bøckman (2003), Järvinen, Heliö, and Mäyrä (2002), McMahan (2003), Douglas and Hargadon (2000), Jennett et al. (2008), Nacke and Lindley (2008)
Education	Reflection of experience to users’ own life Unfamiliarity Embodiment/presence in experience context Cognitive engagement Social bonding with peers	Vega and Plotts (2020)
Human-Computer Interaction	Involvement and motivation of user Connection to users’ real-life context for mobility, relationships, communication Bodily presence Spatial disorientation Emotional aspects Attention (mental effort) Image motion Application quality Interactivity Clarity of purpose Storytelling Sensory engagement Seamless integration into physical context Virtual simulation Information processing Presence	Kim (2013), Zhang, Perkis, and Arndt (2017), Cowan and Ketron (2019), Hinckley (2018), Lee and Park (2020)

In current literature, the concept of immersive experiences is fragmented. Most studies state that immersion is important but are ambiguous in how they are defining this term, which leaves us with little knowledge on how it should be designed in interactive systems, the underlying mechanisms to achieve immersive user experiences, and the effects it has on users and their behaviour. To close this knowledge gap, it is imperative to define requirements for immersive experience facilitators (see Figure 1) and discuss their implications. In the following section, we outline a Delphi approach to generate an immersive experience framework to give structure to the concept of immersive experiences. We discuss related implications for industry practitioners and future research in the conclusion of this study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Delphi technique

Reviewing literature on immersive experiences, it quickly became apparent that a clear uniform definition of immersive experiences was still contested, which is often the result of various contexts. In the case of immersive experience, multiple perspectives were also evident within the games and entertainment context alone. In Table 1, it is notable that requirements of immersive experiences are not clearly perceptible but include multiple factors that are dependent on the attitude of the user. A Delphi approach was suitable to establish clarity amongst requirements. Specifically, the outcome should clearly distinguish between characteristics of immersive experiences to establish a uniform definition and design criteria for immersive experiences to establish measurable ways that can create immersion. The outcome of the Delphi approach yielded the immersive experience framework and was generated in four rounds.

This method is considered a qualitative analysis that uses multiple rounds of questioning in which experts in the respective field share their opinion about the issue at hand (Linstone and Turoff 1975). It aims to identify a clearer perspective on complex issues and helps making more confident decisions on emerging scenarios. In the first round, experts are typically invited to share their opinions on an issue at hand which are then further analysed, and consensus developed in subsequent rounds. These rounds also provide opportunities for experts to express the reasoning for their decision. In the final round, the aggregated opinions are presented to the expert and an opportunity is provided to confirm or re-evaluate their arguments.

3.2. Expert selection

Experts were recruited through snowball sampling and invited by the researchers to participate in this 4-round Delphi study. In the selection procedure, experts were carefully screened based on their prior experience working with immersive experiences in their respective fields. The group should encompass experts from all relevant disciplines in which immersive experiences were previously studied (Table 2). Participants were selected based on a minimum of 5 years of experience designing and evaluating immersive experiences in their respective context. A balanced mix of academics and practitioners was sought to form the expert panel.

Table 2. Participant description immersive experience experts.

Expert Code	Background	Field	Area of expertise
E1	Education, sustainability, experiences for sustainable behaviour	Academic	Education
E2	Creative entertainment games, game design & development, video game scripting, user interface design, storytelling/diversity in video games	Academic/Practitioner	Games & Entertainment, Human-Computer Interaction
E3	Online marketing for creative business, e-sports, event, media management, marketing entertainment industry	Academic/Practitioner	Games & entertainment
E4	Visual art, event projections, audio-visual synergy, live projection events	Practitioner	Games & entertainment
E5	Digital marketing & media innovation, education	Academic	Human-Computer Interaction
E6	3D environment art for games, media innovation	Practitioner	Games & Entertainment
E7	Theme Park & entertainment, emotion research, psychology	Academic	Psychology
E8	Imagineering, experience design & management	Academic/Practitioner	Design
E9	Game development & production, new & innovative media, application in serious contexts	Practitioner	Games & Entertainment, Human-Computer Interaction
E10	Imagineering, transformative tourism	Academic/Practitioner	Tourism

3.3. The research process

In the first round, an in-depth interview was conducted with each participant to explore their definition of ‘immersive experiences’ and how immersive experiences were used in their field of work. This stage aimed to explore how immersive experiences were created in the respective disciplines before attempting to identify various types of immersive experiences based on the theoretical underpinning of this research. In the second part of the interview, participants were presented with Figure 1 and invited to share their level of agreement or disagreement. In addition, they were prompted to identify requirements which correspond to each of the four facilitators of immersive experiences. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, and a total of 69 requirements for immersive experiences were identified in the first round. To distinguish design criteria from the list of 69 requirements, in round two, participants were presented with the complete list of requirements in addition to the ones uncovered in prior studies (Table 1) and asked to assert each requirement as ‘design criterion’, ‘user trait’, or ‘user response’ of immersive experiences. Percentage of agreement was pre-determined across participants, and only design criteria that were selected by 60% or more of respondents were further considered for upcoming rounds. Round two resulted in a shortlist of 39 design criteria. In round three, participants were asked to assign each design criterion to one or more of the four facilitators of immersive experiences (Figure 2). Comparable to round two, only agreement of 60% or more of facilitators for allocated design criteria was further considered. Seven criteria fell below this threshold and were considered unstable items. These were sent back to the expert panel in the upcoming round and prompted to be re-evaluated, reformulated or removed. In round four, participants were given the opportunity to adjust prior choices and share remaining comments on any design criterion for each facilitator of immersive experiences. Adjustments were limited to semantic modifications of some criteria. Table 3 provides an overview of participants and participation in respective rounds.

Figure 2. Immersive experience framework.

Table 3. Participant description immersive experience experts.

Expert Code	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4
E1	x	x	X	x
E2	x	x	X	x
E3	x	x	X	x
E4	x	x	X	x
E5	x	x	X
E6	x	x	X	x
E7	x	x	X	x
E8	x	x	X	x
E9	x	x	X	x
E10	x	x	X	x

3.4. Validity and reliability

As the aim of the Delphi study was to identify and determine design criteria of facilitators to establish an immersive experience framework, a typical design of a Likert-scale type was not considered suitable. Pre-determined percentage values were used as threshold level to determine the inclusion and exclusion of design criteria while adopting the Delphi logic of an iterative process over four rounds. While the quantity of experts is within the recommended number of participants in a Delphi study, it is more important that the respective fields are represented adequately. Although the selection of participants included a balanced mix of academics and practitioners and covers all relevant disciplines as identified in the review of literature, additional participants in the area of psychology could have further bolstered this view and increase confidence in study findings.

4. Findings

The analysis of data from the first Delphi round revealed 69 requirements across five themes that were identified for creating immersive experiences. The established themes indicate issues comparable to the reviewed literature, showing that requirements were not clearly distinguished between user traits (UT), referring to conditions set by users (e.g. openness to new experiences) and not explicitly designable by creators of immersive experiences and design criteria (DC), which we define as measurable principles that can be intentionally integrated to reach an immersive experience. We make this distinction to define designable criteria for immersive experiences while integrating themes that were identified in this study in our framework. Table 4 presents the themes revealed after Delphi Panel round 1 and categorises them into user traits (UT) or design criterion (DC). In the following section, key findings are summarised per theme.

Table 4. Themes revealed after Delphi Panel round 1.

No	Themes	UT / DC	Immersive Experience Facilitator
1.	Transition into/out of experience	UT ←→ DC	Spatial
2.	In-experience user control	DC	Spatial, Systems
3.	Environment design	DC	Spatial
4.	User context relatedness	UT ←→ DC	Social/Empathic, narrative/sequential
5.	User openness & motivation	UT	–

4.1. Definition of immersive experiences

The Delphi round 1 outcomes revealed various levels of interpretation for the concept of immersion and understanding of immersive experiences. We expect this to result from the various backgrounds of experts that participated in this study. Immersive experiences are dependent on the user engagement on a physical, mental, and emotional level. It is plausible that the concept needs to be defined from a user perspective, rather than from a designer’s perspective and intention. In this light, openness of users to engage in the immersive experience is considered a pre-requirement. E1 argued that ‘immersive experience’ indicates a lived state which is caused by engagement with the source material. The intensity of the engagement allows us to temporarily forget our immediate physical environment and commit our full concentration to the engagement. E9 described immersive experiences as ‘the point where people fluently interact with a system without breaking their suspension of disbelief’. In this definition, the immersive environment creates the perception for the user to be real and take the role of the user’s sense of presence. As such, the environment needs to offer authentic interaction potential, which creates an opportunity to engage multiple senses to enhance the immersive effect. To create a suspension of disbelief, it is therefore crucial that the environment makes contextual sense. This does not necessarily have to correlate with the laws of the physical environment but be consistent within the context of the immersive environment (E6). In games and other media, immersive experiences are often used as measure of success (E2, E5, E7), while it was emphasised that immersive experiences can be achieved through various facilitators (e.g. spatial, gameplay, narrative), which need to be designed with a holistic framework to blend and harmonise immersive experience facilitators across the duration of the experience. In contrast to the concept of Flow, which describes the experience of a user during their interactions, the concept of immersion also includes the post-experience effects of interactions. Due to the lasting physical and mental sensations of immersive experiences, they can offer opportunities to increase learning processes or stimulate changes in user attitude and behaviour. Based on the outcomes of round 1, we define immersive experiences as the acceptance of one’s involvement in the moment that is conceived through multiple senses, creating fluent and uninterrupted physical, mental, and/or emotional engagements with a present experience, with the ability to attain a lasting mental and emotional effect on the user post-experience.

4.2. Transition into/out of experience

Experts were largely in agreement that immersive experiences benefit from a design that allows users to transition into and out of the experience. E6 indicated that realisation of being in an immersive experience is often only felt when the immersion breaks, showing that immersive experiences are to be understood as a ‘lived state’ rather than an effect. In this light, the proposed framework of immersive experiences provides design criteria to facilitate this lived state and extension thereof. This state allows users to forget about elements of the user’s reality, while the focus shifts towards elements creating the reality in the immersive experience. This process of shifting the focus could allow the triggering of our brains for learning and information retention/processing, as potential disruptors are diminished. All immersive experiences include an environment that the user escapes from, and thus all undergo a transition phase, a moment that bridges the user’s environment and the immersive environment (E1). Designers can facilitate this process by preparing users to move into the immersive experience by providing time to close previous activities and mental and emotional states, and to get ready to engage in the experience (e.g. Spawn Island in Fortnite, waiting area design of theme park rides). As with the immersive experience itself, it is crucial to reduce potential interruptions and reduce any anticipation of getting interrupted in this phase. Some experts (E1, E10) suggested the benefit of creating an interruptive moment to take users out of the current environment and instantly establish the alertness to embrace the immersive experience. These can be achieved by pushing users out of their comfort zone and familiar surroundings (E10) and creating a sense of unfamiliarity of context that would encourage users to explore and to let go of their own reference points. A sudden transition moment could also lower barriers to entering the immersive experience, while creating a convenient moment to enter the immersive state if carefully designed. From a technical standpoint, transitions can be achieved through use of atmospheric lighting that mirrors the immersive environment, and through sensory stimuli or introduction of actors from the immersive context. E4 further noted that a transition should also be considered for easing out of the immersive experience to avoid a sudden break of the immersive experience creating a disruptive effect.

4.3. In-experience user control

All experts agreed that immersive experiences were related to the degree of active participation by users. Immersion facilitates the process of the user linking their mental presence with their interaction with the experience. Fluency of interaction, e.g. quality and responsiveness of the interface design and interactions, was highlighted as a key condition to maintain the suspension of disbelief and avoid distraction caused by technical misalignments (E5, E7, E9). Referring to familiar interactive modes from the physical environment, immersive experiences need to be designed to allow users to authentically interact in the experience (E10). In this light, complete spatial immersion is not needed to reach the highest state of immersion, but the degree of interaction needs to be consistent and logical to the designed experience. Relating to new AR environments, augmentation control was highlighted as key interactive design condition in which content was smoothly responding to user interaction to clearly reflect the intention of the user (E5). Much of the discussion on in-experience user control revolved around the systems immersion facilitator, which emphasises the sense of influence of the user within the experience. As such, users are empowered to create the perception of being able to determine the outcome of the experience. Within the interaction, many links can be drawn to the concept of Flow (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988), in which the level of complexity is in balance with the user’s skill level to optimally engage users in the activity. E9 emphasised that balance was not only needed in the complexity of mechanics, but also in aesthetic skills creating an appreciation of what is shown. Simultaneously, this indicates that users maintain the free will to decide whether to engage or leave the experience, creating a feeling of safety in the environment and experience (E2, E3, E4).

4.4. Environment design

The environment of any intended immersive experience is a key factor in the success and attainable level of immersion. While it was argued that an elevated level of detail in the environment could often lead to a more immersive character of the experience and facilitate suspension of disbelief, logicality of artefacts and consistency of the environmental design were considered more important criteria for reaching an immersive state in the experience. In this light, highly realistic content is not always needed, but the contextual environment needs to make logical sense and relate to the desired engagement of the user within the experience. As such, it often helps to design the environment according to laws of the physical world, but this was not considered a necessity if the environment remained consistent in the immersive experience (E2, E6, E8). E2 agreed that coherency within the space was crucial which is often supported by visual and auditory clarity. This theme was intricately linked to the spatial immersion facilitator, which aims to transport users into a different environment with the aim of creating a sense of presence in the new environment. Through consistency, detachment from the physical world can be triggered and a sense of presence in the experience can be established. Sensory immersion can further support this process by engaging multiple senses of the user that are consistent with the immersing environment (E8). E10, in contrast to other experts, argued that unfamiliar contexts can stimulate interest and motivate users to explore new environments. The user acceptance of such unknown environments can be supported in a transition phase which serves as a moment of setting the stage (e.g. introducing gameplay mechanics in video games, key characters in the experience, or an opening act before the main event). In this transition, as well as the main environment, the desired experience can be emphasised through environmental artefacts and matching lighting conditions (E6). E3 and E7 similarly noted that every detail in the environment is intentional and needs to be connected to the bigger framework of the experience.

4.5. User context relatedness

The relatedness to the user’s personal context is grouped into three subthemes: personal context, social context, and physical context. Experts agreed that the post-experience perceptions of the immersive experience provide valuable avenues in the design by considering the effect of immersive experiences on the user’s mental and emotional state. To allow this effect to occur, it was advised to use immersive experiences to allow users to temporarily forget about elements of their own reality and completely focus on the elements of the experience. E9 noted that the degree of immersion was defined by the user’s background and profession and could therefore require various design criteria to be more applicable to one type of user compared to another. For instance, users have different perceptions of what constitutes a ‘realistic’ environment and the level of detail needed to create this perception. In the case of using technology to assist the immersive experience, hardware-based limitations can impact of the quality of the user’s experience and so these need to be considered to avoid the technology distracting users from their experience (E5). In the array of immersive AR experiences, using tracking sensors, and procedural and contextual embedding are fundamental to generating immersive experiences.

In line with considerations of the transition phase, a precondition of immersive experiences is an environment (typically the physical world) that users leave to enter another. In environment design, it was noted that close relation to the characteristics of the physical world were helpful, albeit not necessary (E9). A noticeable change and development in the environment supported by a narrative could further connect the unfolding of events, creating the compulsion to continue the sequence of events (E2, E6). Such storylines need to be connected logically through building on the user’s existing mental models that help make sense of the environment.

From a social perspective, two lines of thought were evident. In the experience, it was considered crucial that the environment made sense for everyone involved, where all actors followed the same rules and were subject to the same laws (E6). Being able to experience the content with others was considered a strong element in building an emotional connection to the experience and enhancing the immersive character (E4, E5, E6). A second social dimension was revealed to occur around the user’s social context. Following the conceptualisation of social immersion, experiences have more immersion potential if users can relate the experience to people in their real lives because this creates a sense of familiarity. In game play scenarios, fictional characters’ consistency with expected characteristics from the physical world and their sharing of insights with the user, provide opportunities for users to bond with characters. It was revealed that characters that share familiar values and beliefs support the relatability of users within the experience (E7). According to E2 and E9, this can further motivate players to actively engage and learn more about characters and their stories.

4.6. User openness & motivation

Next to the technical design of immersive experiences, it was evident that the success and resulting effect of immersive experiences needs to be regarded as a ‘deal’ between the user and the system. From the user, two conditions need to be met, the psychological state of being open to allow immersive experiences to happen, and the active behavioural intention to interact with and co-create the immersive experience. The state attained during an immersive experience was described as one of ‘full concentration’ (E1) which can convey emotions and a desired outcome. It was revealed that while immersion was influenced by dedicated attention, it needs to account for emotions to reach its full potential (E4). E6 supported this view by depicting that immersive experiences are not rationally processed, but rather being ‘unconscious until the immersion breaks’.

In addition to the psychological state of users, active participation was outlined as key criterion in creating immersive experiences. To encourage active user engagement, the motivation of users to engage in the experience needs to be understood (E3, E5). Much research in marketing is being conducted to understand consumer needs and wants. However, this understanding needs to be on a fundamental level, connecting to people’s values and beliefs to ensure experiences are intrinsically engaging (E3, E5).

Both conditions are naturally interrelated because they require users to release prior judgement and thoughts on how experiences should be to be open to immerse oneself and authentically interact with the present experience (E10). This link is further described in the conceptualisation of systems immersion, which refers to the mental and physical engagement in the experience. Similar to the discussion on creating a transition phase to open people up to the experience (E1, E4), E8 further added that spatial immersion could potentially be considered as a gate towards user acceptance and openness to enter the immersive experience.

5. Discussion

Based on the findings of our study, we define immersive experiences as the acceptance of one’s involvement in the moment that is conceived through multiple senses, creating fluent and uninterrupted physical, mental, and/or emotional engagements with a present experience, with the ability to attain a lasting mental and emotional effect on the user’s post-experience. Conceptual development of immersion and immersive experiences has so far progressed slowly, which has created much debate on a uniform definition. However, other phenomena to study engaging experiences such as flow, cognitive absorption and presence have been more prominent and have been more extensively studied. Even though these phenomena share some common characteristics with each other and with the concept of immersion respectively, it is important to note that they are all considered theoretically different from one another. Flow is understood as the optimal experience that is caused by balancing the level of challenge for the individual that results in a state of absorption in the current activity (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi 2014). It is important that this state is an intrinsically motivated activity, which is generated through fully utilising one’s existing skillset without being too difficult or too easy. Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (1988) also state that it is imperative to receive immediate and continuous feedback on the progress that is being made to reach and stay in this mental state. The reward lies in the engagement with the activity rather than its outcome (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi 2014). While this definition is certainly in line with the principles of immersion of feeling present and involved in the moment, flow entirely deals with the essence of being fully engaged in a particular activity, while immersion seems to be attainable through other means as well. Immersion is also described as a longitudinal state which can gradually shift between being more and less immersed in various steps of the process (Brown and Cairns 2004). Furthermore, in contrast to flow studies, immersion studies seem to largely include the effects or evaluation of the immersive experience beyond the mere phenomenon in the moment of immersion. Consideration of the evaluative nature of the experience is more in line with principles of cognitive absorption. Cognitive absorption was defined in the context of information technology describing the user’s response to engaging with the technology as a ‘state of deep involvement with software’ (Agarwal and Karahana 2000). Cognitive absorption was mainly assessed by a user’s perception of usefulness and ease of use of the technology at hand, therefore showing close links to theories of technology acceptance (e.g. TAM (Davis 1989)). In cognitive absorption, five dimensions were identified as; (1) temporal dissociation from real time, (2) focused immersion in the engagement, (3) heightened enjoyment in the interaction, (4) user’s perceived control, and (5) degree of curiosity arousal (Agarwal and Karahana 2000). Key similarities to the characteristics of flow are evident in these dimensions. However, cognitive absorption seems to largely evaluate the attitude of the user of the software rather than examine the user’s state. This also indicates that cognitive absorption differs from immersion as a theoretical concept because it seems to measure one’s attitude towards technology compared to immersion, which evaluates the resulting experience. Presence, on the other hand, was defined as the subjective experience of being in a place or environment while physically situated in another (Witmer and Singer 1998). Studies of presence have significantly increased since the introduction of VR in the consumer market in the late 90s. Presence is generated through various cognitive processes that are stimulated through an interplay of multisensory information perceived through various senses. In the context of VR, presence is understood as the sense of being in a computer-generated environment. This can for instance be stimulated by how closely this environment reflects reality or the freedom of interaction within. Kim and Biocca (1997) postulated presence to be measured in arrival and departure, arguing that the sense of presence was not only created through the feeling of embodiment in a virtual environment, but also the separation from the physical world. In contrast, Schubert, Friedmann, and Regenbrecht (2001) tried to determine three realms of presence: (1) spatial presence, (2) involvement, and (3) experienced realism. According to these realms, it is not only the physiological feeling of being in a different environment, but also the interaction within the space that determines how real the user perceives the environment to be. In comparison to immersion, presence seems to largely focus on the characteristic of spatial immersion and how this feeling is generated, while other ways of being immersed in a particular activity or experience are not considered.

5.1. Evaluation of the framework

The findings of the Delphi study revealed that not all criteria in the framework are necessarily required for immersive experiences but should be understood as elements that contribute towards the immersive effect. For instance, systems immersion criteria 4, 5 and 10 were argued by experts to only having to be met at a certain level to result in an immersive experience, whereas an increase in any of these requirements would be subject to the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps more important is the attitude of the experiencer which requires openness to engage and embrace any potentially immersive experience. In this light, it is crucial to create scenarios in which the experiencer is undisturbed allowing the person to open up to new immersive experiences. As suggested by experts in this study, this could for instance be achieved through more explicit use of transition times and spaces that prepare experiencers for the actual experience. This approach is commonly found in theme park waiting lines which uses explicit and implicit storytelling through placement of story-related artefacts in the physical surrounding of the cueing space. Video games design in the battle royale classification (e.g. Fortnite, PUBG) have similarly integrated waiting zones which allow players to roam the environment and explore the use of tools before the actual match begins. It was also noted that the criteria defined in the framework will have to be re-evaluated based on the employed technology. In the case of AR, the contrast between the current environment and immersive experience might not always need to be distant to be effective, as the technological intention of AR entails the overlay of content in the immediate surrounding. The intention of the immersive experience can also lead the design of the immersive environment, such as in the creation of ‘dream-like’ spaces (e.g. paintings of Dali) where coherency within the space may not be an important factor, e.g. non-Euclidian spaces such as a concert hall inside a cupboard may benefit the intended experience rather than harm it. The framework provides key design criteria that should be considered in designing immersive experiences. The framework is not to be understood as a one-size-fits-all solution, as immersive experiences are context- dependent and individual criteria could be easily exaggerated. In some contexts less, but better integrated, details in an environment could result in a more immersive experience than a clunky integration of a lot of criteria and detail. Balance between detail and coherency is crucial. The relevance and effect of immersive experience facilitators can be subjectively perceived and thus might not affect all users on the same emotional level. This might especially be the case for criteria relating to social/empathic immersion which is intricately linked to users’ personal environment.

5.2. Facilitator effects on the experiencer

Immersive experiences can be stimulated through multiple senses, but the result always occurs in the mind of the user. This means that, regardless of digital or physical stimuli, the cognitive impact of any immersive experience has the potential to be equal. Despite this similarity, there will be notable factors that influence the likelihood of one experience being powerfully immersive compared to another. If we compare four experiences, the likelihood of powerful immersion varies considerably: a physical journey to the Amazon rainforest, a day spent at an immersive theatre performance, an hour playing a high-quality VR video game, or an evening playing a standard television-based video game. Between these examples, there is variation in duration, organisational requirements, coherency of physical experience, and commitment requirements from the experiencer, among other factors. Even if a virtual experience becomes capable of replicating the audiovisual fidelity of a physical environment, it is unknown how much the experiencer’s awareness of its virtual nature will influence their ability to become deeply immersed. However, it may be that this factor is smaller than another: the coherency of a physical experience will be higher than the coherence of a digital experience, most notably because the information received by all senses will always tell the same story to the experiencer’s mind, but also in part because the digital experience can be turned on and off at will. A physical trip to the Amazon will always have a natural preparatory period that serves as transition period into the immersive experience, in which the normal daily life of the experiencer will seamlessly blend into their journey, whereas digital experiences are likely to be significantly more abrupt in their beginnings and ends. According to experts in this study, environmental artefacts in the design of the immersive space do not require to be consistent or familiar to the experiencer’s physical environment. However, it is crucial that they remain consistent in the immersive experience and make sense in the experience context. The ability for the experiencer’s mind to become immersed will depend on the coherence of the sensory input they receive. In the case of a physical journey the sensory input will always make logical sense, but any different layering of reality, either through actors or digital enhancement, will require either high-production values, from willingness to the audience, or both.

If coherence is a deciding factor on the ability for a user to become immersed, this still leaves debate on the importance of various stimuli. It is likely that stimulating all or multiple senses will create the most powerful immersive effect, but using many senses also increases the risk that the sensory messaging will clash, creating a non-harmonious version of the scene and lowering the user’s sense of engagement. Further research may reveal which senses are most important for creating immersive experiences least liable to disruption. These should be targeted with the most attention for immersive experience engineers. Digital interface devices, such as AR headsets, can allow the natural coherence of the real world to supplement the digital experience. This may provide a more engaging experience than is possible with full VR headsets or, if there is incoherence between the digital and physical sensory stimuli, it may lower the potential for immersion. Controlling the user’s environment, to lower the chance of incoherence, is likely to assist in creating a sense of immersion. MR headsets that allow natural interaction between the digital and physical elements, are likely to reduce these challenges, but there need to be further research both in how this impacts the experience and methodologies for studying a person’s level of immersion.

Just as there appear to be at least four facilitators of immersive experiences (systems, spatial, social/empathic, narrative/sequential) and that these function in overlapping ways, it may also be that the various senses have lesser or greater influence over their impact on immersion. For example, a glitch in the graphics in a VR device, removing visuals, may have a profound impact on the user’s sense of spatial immersion, whereas a lack of scent stimuli may have little or no influence on systems immersion. The diverse types of immersive experience facilitators occur simultaneously, either supporting or countering each other, and the stimuli given to the experiencer create these categories so they will also have multiple impacts across the immersive experience facilitators. Identifying the connections between stimuli and facilitator will be a challenging task but developing an understanding of this will allow us to smooth the transition between ‘only-physical’ stimuli to ‘blended’ or ‘majority-digital’ stimuli. Enhancing this transition should also mitigate the negative impact of the experiencer’s mind rejecting digital stimuli as unreal and therefore less immersive. Lowering the barrier to acceptance of digital stimuli offers the potential for more impactful multi-sensory immersive experiences and raises the chances that significant levels of immersion can be reached across the four facilitators.

User context relatedness was identified as another key aspect for the success of immersive experiences. In this light, experts particularly highlighted the after-effects of immersive experiences into the real life of the experiencer. In the video games context, prior studies identified the potential benefits of video games in the development of social and professional skills such as communication and teamwork, which can be transferred into real- life scenarios (Adachi and Willoughby 2013). To allow for similar conditions to occur, it is crucial that immersive experiences are designed with the experiencer’s personal values and context of the experiencer in mind. The same narrative or immersive environment is expected to have differing effects on various users, and thus begs the question how immersive experiences can allow for customised environments to occur, while the immersive space remains the same. A potential approach is evident in Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG), which often offer a vast multifaceted virtual world in which players can engage with other players and non-playable characters (NPC), while the development of the player’s own character allows for personalised skill trees and ways of engaging with the world. This approach attempts to maximise in-experience user control, not only allowing for a vast variety of interacting with the world, but also various degrees to engage with the world in the player’s own preference. It could be speculated that digital immersive experiences can be seen as artificial and of lower value than physical experiences; however, the idea of ‘artificiality’ is a complex topic and may be influenced by cultural and generational contexts. For a Gen Z child in a post-industrial country, digital and physical worlds are less divided than for previous generations. Previous generations may use terms such as ‘the real world’ in opposition to virtual worlds but digital natives perceive digital spaces and platforms as part of reality. While it is likely that a physical experience will retain credibility as the truest measure of having participated in an activity, virtual participation is increasingly normal for audiences of all ages and may have been permanently altered by the boost in online activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than a physical versus digital divide, for what is perceived as a shallow experience, it may be that the quality of either is the decisive factor for defining its immersive potential for future audiences.

6. Conclusion

The aim of the study is to enhance our understanding of immersive experiences in the context of experience design through information technologies. Our study addresses the gap in literature that lacks a clear definition of immersive experiences. Through a multidisciplinary Delphi approach, this paper establishes immersive experiences as a key concept by providing an immersive experience framework to our current body of knowledge. We define immersive experiences as the acceptance of one’s involvement in the moment that is conceived through multiple senses, creating fluent and uninterrupted physical, mental, and/or emotional engagements with a present experience, with the ability to attain a lasting mental and emotional effect on the user post-experience. Our study revealed four distinctive immersive experience facilitators (systems, spatial, social/empathic, narrative/sequential) that interact in the creation of immersive experiences. Five key themes were identified through thematic analysis that emphasise the coherency in the interaction between the user and the environment. The Delphi study revealed key design criteria for each of the four immersive experience facilitators that provide a guideline for practitioners in designing and staging immersive experiences.

We propose further research using the immersive experience framework to investigate which user senses are most important to address for creating immersive experiences that are least liable to disruption. This is particularly important to further our understanding of the interplay and adoption of immersive technologies like AR, VR and MR. Additional research in this area is needed to optimise immersive experiences that are blending digital and physical worlds. Design criteria outlined in the framework consider blended environments, which create opportune environments to explore the use of complementary methodologies to study the user experience and level of immersion. The potential after-effect that could be created through immersive experiences, such as triggering stronger learning processes, offers promising areas for future research in contexts such as education and training, tourism, and marketing. For instance, studies in the video games context have revealed that playing video games enhanced players’ communication and collaboration skills (Griffiths 2002), while other studies in cultural education suggested that culturally immersive experiences affected post-experience attitudes and behaviour (Gilboy and Bill 2011). We advocate for future research studying specific desired and undesired effects of immersive experiences on user attitudes and behaviours.

Research ethics considerations

All participants of this study were informed about the context and purpose of this study prior to participation in the Delphi study. All participants were aware that this study included subsequent rounds and that they were free to discontinue their participation at any moment in the process if they wished to do so. The identity of participants was anonymised for the entire procedure, and only provided content and collective decisions of each subsequent rounds were shared with all participants. All data of this study were handled anonymously and in full compliance with the GDPR and the Netherlands Research Integrity Code. The data is stored for the long term on Microsoft Sharepoint of Breda University of Applied Sciences for further processing and use. Microsoft Sharepoint of Breda University of Applied Sciences is a safe and secure environment supported by the IM/ICT department of BUas.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

https://tinyurl.com/yuxb3rhj.

Additional information

Funding

The project was funded by the Dutch National Funding Organisation for Research SIA (Regieorgaan SIA).