The emergence of advanced visual technology has led to widespread use of 360˚ virtual tours (VTs) by attractions, especially in the post-COVID-19 era. However, limited studies focused on investigating users’ behavioral intentions to continue using 360˚ VTs, especially comparing different browsing modes and interface designs. This study aims to build a conceptual model based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) and flow state theory to explore the psychological mechanism influencing users’ behavioral intentions. A laboratory experiment was conducted with 115 participants, who explored 360˚ VTs of two attractions under different browsing modes and interface designs. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews. The partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) was used to analyze the quantitative data, while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Our results revealed that users’ behavioral intentions to continue using 360˚ VTs were positively influenced by hedonic pursuits, flow state (concentration and curiosity), perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. The psychological mechanism underlying the 360˚ VT experience varied depending on the browsing mode. Further, we identify that effective flow state attainment relies not on high-density sensory or informational inputs, but on purposefully combined interface elements, including spatial anchors and customizable content delivery. These insights contribute to the theoretical understanding of non-immersive virtual experiences while offering actionable guidance for tourism technology design.
Al-QaysiNMohamad-NordinNAl-EmranM (2020) Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies25(6): 4961–5002.
2.
BeckJRainoldiMEggerR (2019) Virtual reality in tourism: a state-of-the-art review. Tourism Review74(3): 586–612.
3.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
4.
CalistoMDLSarkarS (2024) A systematic review of virtual reality in tourism and hospitality: the known and the paths to follow. International Journal of Hospitality Management116: 103623.
5.
ChekembayevaGGarausM (2024) Authenticity matters: investigating virtual tours’ impact on curiosity and museum visit intentions. Journal of Services Marketing38(7): 941–956.
6.
ChenY-MHsuT-HLuY-J (2018) Impact of flow on mobile shopping intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services41: 281–287.
7.
ChinWW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research295(2): 295–336.
8.
CookDALevinsonAJGarsideS (2010) Time and learning efficiency in internet-based learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education15(5): 755–770.
9.
CreswellJWFettersMDIvankovaNV (2004) Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. The Annals of Family Medicine2(1): 7–12.
10.
CronbachLJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16(3): 297–334.
11.
CsikszentmihalyiM (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990).
12.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
13.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
14.
DehghaniMKimKJDangelicoRM (2018) Will smartwatches last? Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology. Telematics and Informatics35(2): 480–490.
15.
de Moura JrPJPorto BelliniCG (2020) The measurement of flow and social flow at work: a 30-year systematic review of the literature. Personnel Review49(2): 537–570.
16.
DuttaSDixitS (2024) The psychological influence of perceived destination attributes in 360° virtual tours on tourists’ responses. Tourism Recreation Research50: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2024.2392061.
17.
El-SaidOAzizH (2021) Virtual tours a means to an End: an analysis of virtual Tours’ role in tourism recovery post COVID-19. Journal of Travel Research61(3): 528–548.
18.
FanXJiangXDengN (2022a) Immersive technology: a meta-analysis of augmented/virtual reality applications and their impact on tourism experience. Tourism Management91: 104534.
19.
FanXLuJQiuM, et al. (2022b) Changes in travel behaviors and intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: a case study of China. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism41: 100522.
20.
FrankishC (1985) Modality-specific grouping effects in short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language24(2): 200–209.
21.
GhaniJASupnickRRooneyP (1991) The experience of flow in computer-mediated and in face-to-face groups.
22.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (2021) Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
23.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice19(2): 139–152.
24.
HanIShinHSKoY, et al. (2022) Immersive virtual reality for increasing presence and empathy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning38(4): 1115–1126.
25.
HeZWuLLiX (2018) When art meets tech: the role of augmented reality in enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tourism Management68: 127–139.
26.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(1): 115–135.
27.
HuberFHerrmannAMeyerF, et al. (2008) Kausalmodellierung mit partial least squares: eine anwendungsorientierte einführung. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
28.
HudsonSMatson-BarkatSPallaminN, et al. (2019) With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. Journal of Business Research100: 459–468. https://browzine.com/articles/246126314.
29.
HutaVRyanRM (2010) Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies11(6): 735–762.
30.
JickTD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly24(4): 602–611.
31.
JungTHLeeHChungN, et al. (2018) Cross-cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage tourism sites. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management30(3): 1621–1645.
32.
KenwrightB (2020) There's more to sound than meets the ear: sound in interactive environments. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications40(4): 62–70.
33.
KimJMerrill JrKXuK, et al. (2022) Perceived credibility of an AI instructor in online education: the role of social presence and voice features. Computers in Human Behavior136: 107383.
34.
KimMJHallCM (2019) A hedonic motivation model in virtual reality tourism: comparing visitors and non-visitors. International Journal of Information Management46: 236–249.
35.
KimMJLeeC-KJungT (2018) Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. Journal of Travel Research59(1): 69–89.
36.
LavoieRMainK (2022) Optimizing product trials by eliciting flow states: the enabling roles of curiosity, openness and information valence. European Journal of Marketing56(13): 50–77.
37.
LeeSALeeMJeongM (2021) The role of virtual reality on information sharing and seeking behaviors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management46: 215–223.
38.
LeungWKSChangMKCheungML, et al. (2023) VR Tourism experiences and tourist behavior intention in COVID-19: an experience economy and mood management perspective. Information Technology & People36(3): 1095–1125.
39.
LoS-YLaiC-Y (2023) Investigating how immersive virtual reality and active navigation mediate the experience of virtual concerts. Scientific Reports13(1): 8507.
40.
LoWHChengKLB (2020) Does virtual reality attract visitors? The mediating effect of presence on consumer response in virtual reality tourism advertising. Information Technology & Tourism22(4): 537–562.
41.
LoizidesFEl KaterATerlikasC, et al. (2014) Presenting Cypriot Cultural Heritage in Virtual Reality: A User Evaluation. Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, Cham.
42.
LuJLemosMCKoundinyaV, et al. (2022) Scaling up co-produced climate-driven decision support tools for agriculture. Nature Sustainability5(3): 254–262.
43.
LuJXiaoXXuZ, et al. (2022) The potential of virtual tourism in the recovery of tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism25(3): 441–457.
44.
LuYZhouTWangB (2009) Exploring Chinese users’ acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers in Human Behavior25(1): 29–39.
45.
MarascoABuonincontriPvan NiekerkM, et al. (2018) Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management9: 138–148.
46.
Marty-DugasJSmilekD (2019) Deep, effortless concentration: re-examining the flow concept and exploring relations with inattention, absorption, and personality. Psychological Research83(8): 1760–1777.
47.
Matute-VallejoJMelero-PoloI (2019) Understanding online business simulation games: the role of flow experience, perceived enjoyment and personal innovativeness. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology35(3): 71–85.https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3862.
48.
MohammadAIsmailH (2009) Development and evaluation of an interactive 360 virtual tour for tourist destinations. J Inform Technol Impact9: 137–182.
49.
Naranjo ZolotovMOliveiraTCasteleynS (2018) E-participation adoption models research in the last 17 years: a weight and meta-analytical review. Computers in Human Behavior81: 350–365.
50.
NowellLSNorrisJMWhiteDE, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods16(1): 1609406917733847.
51.
OmranWRamosRFCasaisB (2024) Virtual reality and augmented reality applications and their effect on tourist engagement: a hybrid review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology15(4): 497–518.
52.
RahimizhianSOzturenAIlkanM (2020) Emerging realm of 360-degree technology to promote tourism destination. Technology in Society63: 101411.
53.
RejaliSAghabaykKEsmaeliS, et al. (2023) Comparison of technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to assess a priori acceptance of fully automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice168: 103565.
54.
RichardM-OChebatJ-CYangZ, et al. (2010) A proposed model of online consumer behavior: assessing the role of gender. Journal of Business Research63(9): 926–934.
55.
RodriguesACheiranJFP (2020, 7-10 Nov. 2020) Virtual look around: interaction quality evaluation for virtual tour in multiple platforms. In: 2020 22nd Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality (SVR).
56.
RuzzaMTiozzoBMantovaniC, et al. (2017) Designing the information architecture of a complex website: a strategy based on news content and faceted classification. International Journal of Information Management37(3): 166–176.
57.
SalloumSAMohammad AlhamadAQAl-EmranM, et al. (2019) Exploring Students’ acceptance of E-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access7: 128445–128462.
58.
SarstedtMRingleCMHairJF (2017) Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of Market Research26(1): 1–40.
59.
SchiopuAFHornoiuRIPadureanMA, et al. (2021) Virus tinged? Exploring the facets of virtual reality use in tourism as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telematics and Informatics60: 101575.
60.
SkardSKnudsenESSjåstadH, et al. (2021) How virtual reality influences travel intentions: the role of mental imagery and happiness forecasting. Tourism Management87: 104360.
61.
SousaNAlénELosadaN, et al. (2024) Virtual reality in wine tourism: immersive experiences for promoting travel destinations. Journal of Vacation Marketing: 13567667241267306.https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667241267306.
62.
SpannCAShuteVJRahimiS, et al. (2019) The productive role of cognitive reappraisal in regulating affect during game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior100: 358–369.
63.
SpringerAWhittakerS (2019) Progressive disclosure: empirically motivated approaches to designing effective transparency. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Marina del Ray, California. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302322.
64.
StappungYAliagaCCartesJ, et al. (2023) Developing 360 virtual tours for promoting tourism in natural parks in Chile. Sustainability15(22): 16043.
65.
TalawarASheenaSAlathurS (2025) Advancements of virtual reality in tourism and hospitality research. A hybrid review using the TCCM framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research30(1): 38–56.
66.
TrevinoLKWebsterJ (1992) Flow in computer-mediated communication: electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication Research19(5): 539–573.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
70.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
71.
WangJSunYZhangL, et al. (2023) Effect of display methods on intentions to use virtual reality in museum tourism. Journal of Travel Research63(2): 314–334.
72.
WatermanAS (2008) Reconsidering happiness: a eudaimonist’s perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology3(4): 234–252.
73.
WeibelDStrickerDWissmathB (2012) The use of a virtual learning centre in the context of a university lecture: factors influencing satisfaction and performance. Interactive Learning Environments20(1): 77–87.
74.
Won JeongSFioreAMNiehmLS, et al. (2009) The role of experiential value in online shopping. Internet Research19(1): 105–124.
75.
WuDXuJAbdinnourS (2022) Tablets for problem-solving through a flow theory: the impact of navigation and visual appearance on perceived performance and efficiency. Information Technology & People35(1): 142–164.
76.
WuXLaiIKW (2021) Identifying the response factors in the formation of a sense of presence and a destination image from a 360-degree virtual tour. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management21: 100640.
77.
WuXLaiIKW (2023) The psychological premise of spatial presence in 360° virtual tours: the role of the spatial situation in first-time and repeat users. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology14(4): 523–539.
78.
YenDCWuC-SChengF-F, et al. (2010) Determinants of users’ intention to adopt wireless technology: an empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Computers in Human Behavior26(5): 906–915.
79.
YungRKhoo-LattimoreC (2019) New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism22(17): 2056–2081.
80.
ZhangAXiaoH (2024) Psychological well-being from virtual tourism: a mixed method approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research30: 1–17.https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2024.2343066.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
