Predominately, references to hedonism were made throughout XR literature – hedonism theorizes that happiness is attained through an increase in positive emotion and life satisfaction met by reduced negativity. XR research specifically utilized this to exemplify the potential of immersive technology to assist in hedonic wellbeing. Specifically, social VR encourages interpersonal satisfaction through its ability to promote gratitude (Collange and Guegan, 2020). Barsasella et al. (2021) similarly evidenced the power of XR in combating issues of aging thus enhancing the life satisfaction of the elderly. Showcasing how XR can promote positivity and satisfaction by reducing real-world negative stimuli. It would be interesting to uncover to what extent satisfaction and happiness transcends into users’ real life. Asking the question of whether effects are short-term or long-term. Additionally, as research has shown XR’s ability to induce positivity, it is worth future research to assess if it can also induce negative affective states. Therefore, promoting positive psychology through the identification and management of risk.

Although less explicitly mentioned, XR research often hinted toward concepts influencing eudaimonic happiness. Equivocal discussions of eudaimonism use environmental mastery, achievement, meaningful experiences, and self-realization as antecedents of positive personal growth. AR games in particular provide consumers with a sense of achievement which fosters a sense of self-fulfillment (e.g., Ku et al., 2021). Furthermore, XR activities can supply meaningful experiences by promoting social wellbeing and imagination (Laato et al., 2021). Not only does this show how XR can address eudaimonic needs, but also indicates the satisfaction of needs in general. Moreover, 11 papers discussed hedonic and eudaimonic traits of happiness simultaneously. This suggests a link between the two philosophies and that positive self-transcendent emotions increase the meaningfulness of XR activities (e.g., Gaggioli et al., 2016). However, what happens when eudaimonia is met by negative hedonic states? The nuances of the relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic should further be explored. Furthermore, Kosa et al. (2020) stated that environmental mastery fosters intrinsic motivation and explained how this can improve wellbeing.

In its general application, U&G illuminates how specific forms of media satisfy specific psychological needs. This was a prevailing theme throughout the current dataset that discusses AR technology (e.g., Rauschnabel et al., 2017; Laor, 2020). Papers revealed explicit links between U&G and AR gaming, immersion, and AR face filters (e.g., Javornik, 2016; Laor, 2020). Primarily these examples suggest further the notion that AR can gratify social needs, as well as supplementary needs of achievement, escapism, and positive self-reflection. In addition to explicating how XR improves wellbeing, research pinpoints gratification of needs as a motivator for the continual use of XR, identifying immersion as a key influence (e.g., Kosa et al., 2020).

SRT is used to explain the restorative effect of natural stimuli in reducing psychological stress (Shaffee and Shukor, 2018). Within the current dataset, there was a trend to focus on how XR can facilitate this (e.g., Alyan et al., 2021; Jo et al., 2021). It was common for mentions of SRT to be alongside discussions of attention restoration theory (e.g., Karacan et al., 2021; Newman et al., 2022). Suggesting that in addition to a calming effect, virtual environments can also reduce mental fatigue and concentration (e.g., Seabrook et al., 2020; Jo et al., 2021). By reducing negative emotions such as stress and fatigue, SRT allows for hedonic wellbeing (Li et al., 2021). Although SRT traditionally focuses on natural stimuli, papers have shown how alternative virtual environments can reduce stress (e.g., Torous et al., 2021; Schrempf et al., 2022). Proposing potential new methods of stress reduction that use XR technology to foster hedonic wellbeing. Using this theory, research should assess how beneficial XR will be as a method of stress reduction in a clinical setting. Perhaps this will facilitate in the implementation of XR in clinical settings. This could support attempts made in positive psychology to ease the symptoms of mental health conditions.

Flow theory was consistently noted throughout current data, on topics such as mental health, positive technology and mindfulness (e.g., Riva et al., 2020; Seabrook et al., 2020; Alyan et al., 2021). Traditionally, Flow is an increase in engagement which is known to facilitate personal capacity and goal achievement. A past study found improvements in self-efficacy (personal capacity), reduced self-criticism and subsequent negative affect (Kaimal et al., 2020). This demonstrates how engagement with XR can facilitate personal capacity and promote hedonic wellbeing. Again, this highlights the ability of XR to gratify eudaimonic needs. As well as supporting preliminary links between hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing that should be investigated further. Similar to the discussion of U&G, the data highlighted the immersive quality of XR as a direct constituent of Flow (e.g., Kosa et al., 2020; Jang, 2021). Suggesting immersion to be a causal feature of XR to produce an effect on wellbeing. Subsequently, to direct XR use in a way that ensures positive wellbeing, we must understand how causal mechanisms, such as immersion, mediate the relationship between technology use and consumer wellbeing.

Evidently, research assesses consumer experience in relation to emotional wellbeing– focusing on how XR can be used to induce emotion and reduce stress. This was clear in intervention studies that operated alongside therapy and a restorative nature. Furthermore, the literature depicts a social element in emotional wellbeing – represented by the overlap of contexts presented in Table 2. Similarly, there also appears to be an overlap between emotional wellbeing and physical activity.

Alternatively, contexts of psychological wellbeing were depicted by stipulations of eudaimonic and hedonic happiness. This implies that wellbeing has been measured through eudaimonic constructs such as self-acceptance, personal growth, and environmental mastery. As well as hedonic measures that report positive emotions and life satisfaction. The data reveals that awe, achievement, and engagement are just some of the contextual effects incorporated into psychological wellbeing.

A portion of the research investigated the effect of XR in the context of social wellbeing; relating to social relationships, acceptance, contribution, and social actualization (Salehi et al., 2017). These contexts emphasized the importance of perceived authenticity and social connectedness in facilitating wellbeing.

Although less prevalent, there was also a discussion of cognitive wellbeing. Congruent with psychological wellbeing, satisfaction is used as an indicator of wellbeing. However, in a more localized manner – for instance, work-life satisfaction (Luhmann et al., 2021). This again insinuates overlap between contexts that suggest improvements in one context may impact another context. However, more research that is tailored to wellbeing attained in specific life domains should be conducted to establish how contextual use affects each context of wellbeing.

Ryff (2021) proposes that spirituality and wellbeing are mediated by interactions with nature, art, and literature. Therefore, this indicates that the papers studying restorative nature and art therapy using XR technology are also assessments of spirituality. This can be understood further using eco-existential positive psychology. This depicts the effect of nature on identity, happiness, and social connectedness (Passmore and Howell, 2014). Alongside the evidence that supports SRT, XR should be assessed as a tool in stress reduction to identify its role in clinical settings.

Furthermore, the data comprised articles which discussed the effect of physical activity and XR in contributing to mental wellbeing. These included studies of AR gaming golfing and cycling in virtual reality.

These contexts demonstrate a fragmented review of wellbeing whilst providing preliminary evidence of overlaps between contexts. This further provides the notion that researchers lack a consensus when defining contexts of wellbeing (Mansfield et al., 2020). Providing a potential research agenda that investigates XR’s holistic effect on wellbeing. So to develop a standardized extension of wellbeing theory into an XR domain. Unfortunately, the current review fails to depict alternative contexts such as subjective wellbeing – and cannot comment on the generalizability of studies conducted within COVID-19 (n = 6), offering further pathways for future consolidations.

Social connectedness appeared ubiquitous within the data and seemed an essential element across a range of wellbeing theories. More often, social connectedness was measured as an outcome (Miller et al., 2014; Laor, 2020; Wingenbach and Zana, 2022). As well as a mediating variable (Watanabe et al., 2017; Orosz et al., 2018; Laor, 2020) and an independent variable (Baker et al., 2019; Ewell et al., 2020). Most studies revealed increases in social connection when using XR technology (e.g., Miller et al., 2014; Barreda-Angeles and Hartmann, 2022). This was assumed to be due to increases in shared experiences (Laato et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021). However, not all research found that social connection was beneficial and instead warned of social isolation and anti-social behaviors (Kaimara et al., 2022).

Further remarks of negative affect warned of addiction (Hussain et al., 2018; Grajek et al., 2022; Usmani et al., 2022), anti-social behaviors (Kothgassner et al., 2017; Kaimara et al., 2022), and detachment (Kaimal et al., 2020; Karacan et al., 2021). Positive outcomes were attributed to enhanced psychological intervention and reductions in stress, anxiety, and depression (Tanja-Dijkstra et al., 2014; Kogan et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2022). These emotional outcomes were in relation to XR’s ability to enhance mindfulness, meditation, and relaxation (Yaden et al., 2018; Ellis et al., 2020; Crosswell and Yun, 2022). Discussions of physical activity were evenly distributed as an antecedent (Kogan et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019), mediator (Singh et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2020), and an outcome (Ku et al., 2021; Siani and Marley, 2021) of XR. Congruent with theory, studies also reported increases in life satisfaction (Laor, 2020; Jang, 2021; Xu et al., 2021).

Investigations of psychological intervention delivered through XR recurrently emerged within screening. Predominately, these studies supported the feasibility and effectiveness of VR-mediated therapies (Wrzesien et al., 2015; Kaimal et al., 2020; Jeppesen et al., 2022), alternative methods of intervention (Epting, 2021; Matsumoto et al., 2021; Crosswell and Yun, 2022), and within restorative nature (Schebella et al., 2020; Alyan et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021). The most common finding of these studies was an increase in accessibility (Barsasella et al., 2021; Jang, 2021; Riches et al., 2021).

Presence, immersion, and engagement additionally appeared habitually throughout the data (Vogt et al., 2015; Dirin and Laine, 2018; Miller et al., 2021), allied with a discussion of Flow and eudaimonism. The data depicts a storyline in which emotion induction is determined by presence and immersion (Mcintosh et al., 2019; Kosa et al., 2020; Schebella et al., 2020). In certain studies, these characteristics motivated the continual use of XR technology (Meneses-Fernandez et al., 2017; Kosa et al., 2020; Laato et al., 2021). Congruent with theory, engagement motivated by escapism was mentioned throughout contexts; AR gaming (Laor, 2020), clinical intervention (Wang et al., 2020) and achievement/self-fulfillment (Orosz et al., 2018; Ellis et al., 2020; Grajek et al., 2022), further evidencing the application of eudaimonism in answering RQ 3 and 4.

Despite suggestions of increased accessibility for clinical populations (Singh et al., 2017; Thabrew et al., 2022), certain studies depicted a socio-economic divide within emerging technologies (Meneses-Fernandez et al., 2017; Riches et al., 2021; Usmani et al., 2022). Causing concern over the Metaverse’s ability to add to this divide – it is therefore important for proprietors to acknowledge this if they wish to avoid a negative impact on societal wellbeing.