Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Immersive technologies are reshaping sport spectatorship by changing how spectators perceive events, allocate attention, experience emotions, and form behavioral responses. Yet empirical research on virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and 360-degree video remains fragmented in terms of technologies, theories, methods, and outcomes. This scoping review maps research on immersive technologies in sport spectatorship, focusing on experiential and psychological responses, behavioral intentions, and future research directions. Guided by PRISMA-ScR, we searched Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest for English-language peer-reviewed journal articles and supplemented the database search with a citation search. Thirty-four empirical journal articles met the inclusion criteria. VR was the most frequently examined technology. AR has been the subject of a growing amount of research recently. MR and 360-degree video were both underrepresented in the reviewed literature. Most articles used quantitative designs, particularly with post-exposure and online surveys, and were concentrated in a few countries and participant groups. The literature addressed adoption or resistance, immersive experience, psychological responses, and behavioral intentions. The reviewed articles examined experiential constructs such as presence, telepresence, flow, and engagement; cognitive responses such as attention and cognitive load; affective responses such as arousal and enjoyment; evaluative responses such as satisfaction and attitude; and negative responses such as irritation. Overall, the reviewed literature primarily examined the associations between immersive technology types and technology-related features, spectators’ experiential and psychological responses, and behavioral intentions such as continuance intention, word of mouth, revisit intention, intention to pay. Evidence concerning actual long-term spectator behavior remains limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: