Systematic review reveals key intellectual structures in sensory marketing literature, highlighting critical pathways for immersive digital and cultural experiences.
Multisensory marketing has emerged as a strategically significant approach that influences consumer perception, emotional engagement and behavioural responses. Despite growing scholarly attention, existing research remains fragmented across distinct sensory modalities and lacks an integrated understanding across diverse contexts. This study offerings a systematic review of multisensory marketing research published between 2000 and 2025 using a hybrid bibliometric and thematic analysis approach. An initial dataset of 384 articles was retrieved from the Scopus database through a structured search. Following the screening and eligibility assessment, 111 articles were retained for bibliometric analysis, while 43 highly relevant peer-reviewed studies were further selected for in-depth thematic analysis. Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol, the study integrates bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer (including keyword co-occurrence and co-citation analyses) with thematic synthesis and the Theory-Context-Characteristics-Method (TCCM) framework to investigate dominant research themes, theoretical foundations and methodological approaches within the literature. The findings reveal significant research domains related to multisensory integration, consumer behaviour, emotional responses, cultural perspectives and digital sensory experiences. The review further identifies key research gaps and proposes a research agenda for future studies. The study contributes to the sensory marketing literature by providing a comprehensive synthesis of the intellectual structure of the field and offering practical insights for developing immersive, emotionally engaging consumer experiences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: