Abstract
Nostalgia is a complex emotion that connects the present with both the remembered past and the imagined future. While traditionally studied in its past-oriented form, future-oriented variants, such as anticipatory and anticipated nostalgia, remain underexplored, partly due to methodological challenges. Although these forms also engage prospective cognitive processes, like episodic future thinking and mental simulation, they have usually been addressed through conventional, memory-based paradigms. This perspective proposed novel methodological design guidelines for eliciting nostalgia across its full temporal spectrum (past and future oriented variants) by combining Virtual Reality (VR) with a specific class of content: liminal spaces, contexts marked by transition and ambiguity. VR offers immersive and controllable environments, while liminal settings symbolically reflect change, a core feature of nostalgic experience. Specifically, we offered design guidelines for constructing liminal spaces aimed at eliciting both past- and future-oriented nostalgia, through the manipulation of two key variables: familiarity and ambiguity. This approach seeks to enhance experimental control and ecological validity, addressing current limitations in nostalgia research. Finally, it offered potential clinical applications, especially in contexts where reconnecting with meaning and future self-continuity is essential, such as during life transitions or emotional distress.
1 Introduction
Nostalgia is a complex and mixed emotion that connects the present to both the remembered past and the imagined future (; ; Yang et al., 2023; ). It can be elicited by a variety of stimuli (e.g., music, natural landscapes, images of the past; see (; Wildschut et al., 2006; ) and is characterized by a temporally fluid structure that facilitates meaning-making across life transitions (; ). Although nostalgia has traditionally been examined in its past-oriented form, closely linked to autobiographical memory and emotion regulation, it also unfolds in future-oriented variants, such as anticipatory and anticipated nostalgia (Yang et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022; ; ), which remain comparatively underexplored in empirical research.
These temporal forms of nostalgia differ not only in focus, but also in the cognitive mechanisms they engage (). While past-oriented nostalgia draws primarily on autobiographical recall, future-oriented nostalgia involves prospective processes such as mental time travel, imagination, and simulation (; ; ; ). These forms are particularly salient during transitional life phases (), moments when identity, social roles, and meaning are being redefined (; ; ; ). Despite growing theoretical interest, current empirical methods of induction mainly rely on traditional emotion-elicitation techniques, also for novel future-oriented forms of nostalgia. Most experimental paradigms have emerged from autobiographical memory research, relying on recall-based techniques such as the Event Reflection Task (ERT) or on sensory cues like song lyrics, smells or food (; ; ; ; ; ; ). These methods typically evoke warm, familiar, and emotionally positive associations with family, friends, or childhood (Wildschut et al., 2006; ; ). While they can offer high ecological validity, they entail low experimental control, and standardization (Wildschut and Sedikides, 2024; ). Furthermore, they depend heavily on participants’ ability and willingness to access personal memories, introducing significant interindividual variability (; ). This inherent subjectivity makes cross-study comparisons difficult (). Moreover, no existing induction method of nostalgia simultaneously meets the key methodological requirements of statistical power, internal validity, and ecological validity (Wildschut and Sedikides, 2024).
Although it has been proposed that future-oriented nostalgia can share cognitive and neural substrates with autobiographical memory (), anticipating future experiences often involves more complex cognitive operations, such as simulation and imagination, and is thus more vulnerable to bias and variability (; ). Recent research further emphasizes the need for paradigms capable of differentiating between anticipated and anticipatory emotions, underlining the lack of operational clarity in this area (). Taken together, these limitations point to a critical need for novel methodological guidelines that can address the temporal fluidity and generative complexity of nostalgia, especially in its future-oriented forms.
Virtual Reality (VR) as an advanced emotion-elicitation method, also emerged as a suitable technique to work on cognitive processes related to anticipated or anticipatory emotions (e.g., (), such as episodic-future-thinking () or imagination (), as well as on peculiar complex emotional states with a mixed nature (e.g., awe, see (; ), also due to the sense of presence - as the illusion of “being there” (; ) in that simulation. Thus, here, we proposed to use VR to enhance the elicitation of nostalgia, especially in its future-oriented forms. Moreover, since emotion-induction in VR depends not only on medium but also on the content (e.g., (), especially for complex emotions (e.g., awe in , here, we also outlined the key role played by a peculiar content on the induction of VR-based nostalgia, that is liminal spaces. These situations, conceivable as psychological or environmental contexts marked by transition and ambiguity and characterized by symbolic openness and narrative fluidity, reify the concept of change itself (). Indeed, the core feature of “change” (; ; ; ; ; ; ), which has always been conceptually embedded into all forms of nostalgia, has rarely been considered in the experimental elicitation of this emotion. In this regard, we suggested that liminal spaces would turn into suitable nostalgia-inducing content, especially when embedded within virtual reality scenarios.
To summarize, this perspective introduces novel evidence-based design guidelines for eliciting nostalgia across its full temporal spectrum. These guidelines develop along two complementary dimensions: medium and content. First, regarding the medium, we highlight the potential of immersive technologies, particularly Virtual Reality (VR), as innovative tools for nostalgia induction, capable of engaging cognitive processes associated with both past- and future-oriented forms of nostalgia. Second, in terms of content, liminal spaces have already emerged as settings capable of evoking transitional experiences. These spaces can be purposefully designed within virtual environments (). More specifically, this perspective emphasizes that a particular type of emotional transition should be targeted within liminal spaces, namely, the one associated with nostalgia. To this end, we identify and detail key variables, or design dimensions, that should be manipulated to create simulated liminal environments capable of eliciting nostalgia, even within controlled laboratory settings.
2 The temporal and cognitive fluidity of nostalgia: change-related features of nostalgia
Nostalgia is a complex and mixed emotion, characterized by a distinctive blend of positive and negative affect, typically involving warmth, longing, and a sense of loss (; ). This emotional ambivalence makes nostalgia especially salient in situations of transition, ambiguity, or psychological threat, where it can function as a self-regulatory resource (; ). One of its most defining features is temporal fluidity: while it has traditionally been studied as a past-oriented emotion rooted in autobiographical memory, nostalgia also unfolds in future-oriented forms, namely, anticipated nostalgia (expecting to miss something in the future) and anticipatory nostalgia (pre-emptively missing something before it is lost) (Yang et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022; ; ). These two future-oriented forms differ not only in temporal direction but also in cognitive structure: whereas anticipated nostalgia involves the cognitive forecasting of nostalgia, anticipatory nostalgia involves an emotionally laden simulation of future loss in the present moment (; ). Future-oriented nostalgia engages higher-order cognitive processes such as episodic future thinking, mental simulation, and prospective memory (; ; ), and therefore requires greater imaginative flexibility than recalling a past experience. Unlike conventional autobiographical recall tasks used in laboratory settings, often based on personal memories, familiar music, or sensory cues (; ; ), future-oriented forms are more generative and cognitively demanding. This makes them less compatible with standardized induction paradigms, which tend to lack the contextual richness and narrative ambiguity that characterize real-life transitions (; ).
In ambiguous and transitional life phases, nostalgia supports meaning-making and continuity by linking past values with imagined futures (; ). The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, has been described as a paradigmatic ambiguous event (; ), during which nostalgia functioned as a coping mechanism in response to social disconnection and disrupted routines (; ). In such contexts, individuals engaged with nostalgic media not only to recover a sense of stability, but also to envision alternative post-crisis futures (Wulf et al., 2022). This dual orientation, anchored in memory but oriented toward future adaptation, makes nostalgia a uniquely flexible resource during change. Its emotional ambivalence, combining comfort with loss, enables individuals to tolerate uncertainty while maintaining continuity of identity (; ). Furthermore, nostalgia has been shown to support adaptive behaviors, including prosociality and environmental engagement, by reactivating core values and reinforcing meaning in life (; ; ). In this way, nostalgia functions not only as a regulatory mechanism in the face of change, but also as a motivational resource that links emotional insight with future-oriented action. Yet it is precisely within such transitional contexts, identity shifts, turning points, uncertain futures, that nostalgia most powerfully emerges and performs its psychological functions (; ; ). In other words, nostalgia can be deemed as a “change-directed” emotion () and even change-making (), in that it motivates individuals to engage with transitions by drawing from emotionally salient memories. A person is not as likely to miss something they don’t expect to be different or lost someday (Zhou et al., 2020). However, in this perspective, we adopt the broader term “change-related” to emphasize the contextual and experiential embedding of nostalgia within liminal and transitional phases, foregrounding not only its motivational potential, but also its regulatory, reflective, and meaning-making functions during times of uncertainty.
3 Towards novel evidence-based design guidelines for eliciting nostalgia in the lab: VR and liminal spaces as allies
Existing methods for eliciting nostalgia can be improved, particularly with regard to anticipatory and anticipated nostalgia, which depend on complex cognitive processes such as episodic future thinking, simulation, and self-projection (; ). These future-oriented forms are difficult to evoke through conventional memory- or stimulus-based paradigms, originally designed for past-oriented nostalgia. To address this, we propose novel evidence-based design guidelines for eliciting nostalgia across its full temporal spectrum by combining immersive Virtual Reality (VR) as the medium with liminal spaces as the content. We conceptualized future-oriented nostalgia as a change-related emotion that is especially likely to emerge in psychologically liminal contexts, situations marked by ambiguity, transition, and symbolic openness (). VR, with its capacity to simulate spatial and temporal dislocation with ecological realism and heightened presence (the subjective sense of “being there”), offers the ideal infrastructure for constructing such experiential spaces (). However, the effectiveness of VR relies not only on immersion but on the integration of psychologically resonant content. Liminal spaces, such as airports (), festivals (), restaurants (), beaches (), symbolize suspended states where boundaries blur, and temporal coordinates dissolve (). These spaces prompt narrative reconfiguration and emotional openness, conditions conducive to nostalgia’s integrative processes.
Our design guidelines entail two interdependent variables critical to simulating nostalgia-inducing liminal spaces: familiarity and ambiguity. Familiarity, via personally or culturally meaningful cues, supports temporal continuity and self-coherence (; ; ; ; ; ) while ambiguity, through open-ended, transitional elements, invites imaginative projection and reflective processing of nostalgia (; ). Their calibrated interplay allows VR environments to model the psychological conditions in which nostalgia, particularly future-oriented forms, naturally emerges. Moreover, liminality functions not just as a contextual backdrop but as a design principle for emotional transition. Anticipatory and anticipated nostalgia require individuals to imagine a future in which the present is already lost, an operation that blends presence, detachment, and narrative reorientation (Zhou et al., 2020). By affording a suspended experiential frame where “what is” and “what might be” can coexist (; ; ), liminal VR spaces become symbolic containers for emotional ambivalence, temporal fluidity, and self-reconstruction. Already applied in clinical fields to support mood regulation and emotional processing (e.g., in depression, anxiety, addiction, see (; ; ; ), VR now offers a structured, immersive platform for eliciting complex, generative emotions such as nostalgia. This integrated approach was detailed in the following.
4 Designing nostalgia-inducing liminal spaces in virtual reality: not all “liminal spaces” are equal
VR offers a powerful medium for exploring the full temporal spectrum of nostalgia, including its future-oriented forms (). Due to its immersive qualities and heightened sense of presence, VR enables individuals to inhabit liminal spaces, environments marked by symbolic openness, narrative fluidity and transitional ambiguity (). These characteristics make VR particularly suited to simulate moments of change and reflection, which are psychologically fertile conditions for nostalgia to emerge (; ). In this perspective, we propose novel evidence-based design guidelines for creating nostalgia-inducing virtual environments starting from a liminal content. Indeed, not all liminal spaces are equal and can potentially elicit a wide array of emotions or experiences. Here, our goal was to specifically target liminal scenarios able to induce nostalgia (past and future oriented) in an ecologically valid but controlled way. To this end, drawing from scientific literature on nostalgia (e.g., (; ; ; ), we outlined key variables that can be manipulated in order to facilitate the emergence of nostalgia in VR drawing from liminal spaces as content.
Specifically, central to our guidelines was the intentional manipulation of two variables: familiarity and ambiguity. Familiarity refers to the degree to which an environment or its elements are perceived as personally meaningful, culturally shared, or recognizably patterned (). It supports emotional safety, self-continuity, and reflective depth. In fact, familiarity is not limited to past-oriented content, nor is it constrained to autobiographical memory. Due to the shared neural architecture between episodic memory and episodic future thinking, familiar elements can serve as scaffolds for constructing plausible future scenarios (; ; ). In fact, several studies have shown that patients with impaired memory of the past are similarly deficient when asked to imagine future experiences (; ; ; ; ; ; ).
Several studies have examined how the familiarity of the context of an imagined event affects the phenomenology of the event itself, such as more detailed and more vivid imagined events (). Moreover, when asked to imagine events in familiar, common locations (e.g., library or dorm) versus unfamiliar locations (never-visited famous locations) the events set in familiar locations were imagined more clearly and easily (). So, by reducing cognitive load and enhancing affective grounding, familiar stimuli or contexts facilitate the projection of the self into potential futures with greater vividness and coherence (). In immersive settings, familiarity can arise from a variety of environmental features, ranging from personally significant cues to culturally shared symbols, which can be intentionally embedded to scaffold nostalgic engagement. In Table 1., we reported several key examples of studies that have intentionally relied on the dimension of familiarity for the elicitation of nostalgia, which show how familiarity can be operationalized in VR environments. Specifically, we identified key categories of familiarity that have been already implemented within experimental settings but only for past-oriented forms of nostalgia.
TABLE 1
| Category | Example | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Autobiographical spaces | A childhood bedroom with decade-specific toys; posters; furniture; and ambient sounds | |
| Childhood-related stimuli | Familiar objects from one’s formative years (e.g., toys, books, school-related items); evoking developmental anchors | Wildschut et al. (2006) |
| Music-based stimuli | Background music featuring popular songs from adolescence or formative years | |
| Collective rituals | Holiday, birthday parties, graduation ceremonies, marriages | Yin et al. (2024) |
| Festival environments | Symbolically rich and affect-laden spaces that foster communal memory through music, ritual, and shared narratives | , |
Examples and related references of how Familiarity design principle, drawn from liminality, can be embedded into experimental settings as nostalgia-inducing content.
Therefore, based on prior empirical evidence and theoretical models, we propose a set of preliminary design guidelines for embedding and modulating familiarity within immersive liminal scenarios, also applicable to future-oriented forms of nostalgia. Familiarity should be conceived as a multidimensional construct that, when carefully assessed by the individual’s experiential history, can be strategically manipulated to produce environments perceived as highly or minimally familiar. Sub-constructs of familiarity can serve as operational criteria for evaluating and embedding familiar stimuli within immersive environments (
Zhang et al., 2019).
1. Prior experience: person’s previous experiences related to the target stimulus;
2. Positive emotional valence: whether the stimulus has historically elicited or been associated with positive affect;
3. Occurrence frequency: how often the stimulus has been encountered and encoded, increasing its cognitive accessibility;
4. Depth of processing: degree of elaboration during previous exposures, which enhances memorability;
5. Retention rate: the strength and persistence of the memory trace over time, inversely related to temporal decay.
Higher levels across these five sub-constructs are expected to predict stronger perceived familiarity. Accordingly, and in line with the theoretical and empirical evidence discussed above, high familiarity environments are more likely to induce past-oriented nostalgia, whereas low familiarity, especially when embedded within liminal, ambiguous contexts, can more readily elicit future-oriented nostalgia. Moreover, if the evoked emotional tone is predominantly positive, as frequently reported (), such experiences can be more likely to trigger anticipated nostalgia rather than anticipatory nostalgia.
In contrast, ambiguity refers to the degree to which an environment resists fixed interpretation, temporal anchoring, or semantic closure. Ambiguous situations are open to multiple perspectives and interpretations, often lacking a singular, stable meaning (Weick, 2015). In design research, ambiguity is recognized not as a deficit but as a generative feature: it is considered an essential component of the design process () and is understood as emergent from the dynamic interplay between individuals and artefacts within a context (). Accordingly, ambiguity is frequently explored in stimuli and environments that demand a careful balance between expressive openness and communicative clarity (; Wiegers et al., 2011; ). It has been extensively used as a resource to foster reflection, emotional resonance, and deeper individual engagement (; ; ). Psychological literature further conceptualizes ambiguity as a feature of stimuli that are unexpected, novel, or interpretable in more than one way within their spatial or temporal context (; Schoth and Liossi, 2017). This quality mirrors one of the defining traits of liminality itself: the blurring and suspension of established spatial, temporal, and identity boundaries (; ). In this sense, ambiguity plays a critical role in enabling the transitional openness of liminal spaces, facilitating personal meaning-making processes that unfold beyond linear or categorical interpretation. Ambiguity can manifest in different modalities, as outlined in Table 2, and is often expressed in virtual environments through minimal, symbolic, or atmospherically open spaces that foster interpretive flexibility, imaginative immersion, and prospective self-projection (). These features are particularly salient within VR-based liminal settings, where ambiguity not only sustains interpretative openness but also enables disengagement from rigid autobiographical constraints, allowing for the exploration of alternative identities, meanings, and futures. The examples provided in Table 2 illustrate how ambiguity has been operationalized across distinct experimental categories to elicit nostalgia, though primarily in relation to past-oriented forms.
TABLE 2
| Category |
| Supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Visual ambiguity |
| , |
| Semantic or Information Ambiguity |
| , , Weiser and Brown (1996), , , |
| Context Ambiguity |
| |
| Cultural Ambiguity |
| , |
| Ambiguity of relationship |
| , , , , |
| Narrative Ambiguity |
| , , |
| Aesthetic Ambiguity |
| , , |
Examples of how Ambiguity design principle, drawn from liminality, can be embedded into experimental settings as nostalgia-inducing content.
Based on previous evidence, including insights relevant to future-oriented nostalgia, we developed the following design guidelines for embedding and manipulating ambiguity within virtual environments. While familiarity is primarily evaluated in relation to the individual’s past experiences with specific objects or contexts, ambiguity is assessed based on the degree of interpretative openness or uncertainty elicited by the environment. In design research, various levels of ambiguity have been operationalized, for instance, through graded measurement tools such as a nine-point ambiguity scale (Tseng, 2018), which captures the extent to which a space resists fixed categorization or invites multiple meanings. For example, a low level of visual ambiguity is characterized by clearly legible and unambiguous elements (e.g., a written sign on a wall or a well-defined, photorealistic liminal scene) providing immediate cues for recognition and interpretation. Conversely, a high level of visual ambiguity involves more abstract, indeterminate, or symbolically open-ended visual stimuli, thereby requiring the individual to actively interpret the environment and infer its meaning (e.g., using unclear signage, fog, or blurred spatial contours). This interpretative effort increases the cognitive and affective uncertainty of the setting, amplifying the sense of disorientation that is characteristic of liminal spaces. In line with the theoretical and empirical considerations discussed above, we hypothesize that high levels of ambiguity within virtual liminal environments are more likely to induce future-oriented nostalgia, as they stimulate imaginative projection, anticipation, and narrative openness. In contrast, low levels of ambiguity are more likely to evoke past-oriented nostalgia, by reinforcing recognition, memory retrieval, and a sense of temporal anchoring.
We now propose a synthesis of how familiarity and ambiguity can be strategically combined in virtual environments to elicit distinct forms of nostalgia. When manipulated together, these two dimensions shape the user’s experience along a temporal and affective axis, influencing whether nostalgia is more past- or future-oriented. Ambiguity promotes interpretative openness and imaginative engagement, while familiarity modulates affective grounding and autobiographical resonance. Their interaction defines the quality and directionality of the nostalgic experience. To support these guidelines visually, we introduce a conceptual example (
Figure 1) that maps the intersection between familiarity (low–high) and ambiguity (low–high). This example illustrates four distinct design quadrants, each associated with specific temporal orientations of nostalgia, and corresponding to a possible choice depending on the type of nostalgia one aims to elicit. Specifically.
Quadrant I–High Familiarity/Low Ambiguity, Past-Oriented Nostalgia: Virtual spaces in this quadrant feature recognizable, personally or culturally meaningful cues presented with clear, structured semantics. These environments foster straightforward autobiographical recall and emotional grounding by evoking comforting memories of the past. The nostalgic response is primarily evocative and affectively warm, centered on temporal anchoring and the recovery of self-continuity.
Quadrant II–High Familiarity/High Ambiguity, Past-Oriented Nostalgia (anticipated): These scenarios embed familiar stimuli within atmospheres marked by symbolic openness or ambiguity. The combination of recognizably positive cues and interpretative openness fosters anticipated nostalgia, positively valenced longing for the present as it unfolds. By blending emotional familiarity with perceptual uncertainty, these environments support reflective savoring and facilitate the projection of the self into future recollections. While not nostalgic in the moment, the individual develops a reflective awareness that the current experience will later acquire emotional significance.
Quadrant III–Low Familiarity/High Ambiguity, Future-oriented (anticipatory) nostalgia: These highly imaginative environments are perceptually and semantically open, lacking direct autobiographical anchoring but fostering projection into plausible futures. This configuration is more likely to elicit anticipatory nostalgia, a form of nostalgia more strongly associated with negative feeling yet carrying adaptive cognitive value in uncertain situations.
Quadrant IV–Low Familiarity/Low Ambiguity, Past-Oriented Nostalgia: Virtual spaces in this quadrant are unfamiliar yet semantically clear and perceptually coherent. In the absence of familiar cues, individuals can engage in past-oriented nostalgia as a regulatory mechanism, retrieving personal memories to restore emotional grounding. This compensatory process is particularly likely to occur in contexts of uncertainty or psychological threat, where nostalgia serves as an adaptive resource to maintain self-continuity and affective stability.
FIGURE 1
5 Conclusions
This perspective proposes novel guidelines for the systematic elicitation of nostalgia, particularly its future-oriented forms, by combining two complementary dimensions: the medium of Virtual Reality (VR) and the content of liminal spaces. While nostalgia has traditionally been studied through memory-based induction methods targeting past-oriented form, we argue that future-oriented nostalgia, especially in its anticipated and anticipatory variants, requires dedicated design strategies capable of engaging cognitive processes such as imagination, simulation, and projection. To address this gap, we introduced a novel design matrix based on the interaction between familiarity and ambiguity, two core variables that shape the phenomenology of nostalgia. We demonstrated theoretically how their intentional manipulation within immersive liminal environments can elicit different nostalgic experiences. Liminal spaces, conceptually aligned with transition, symbolic openness, and psychological thresholds, emerge as particularly suitable content for nostalgia induction when embedded in VR scenarios. VR, in turn, offers an immersive medium capable of enhancing the sense of presence and supporting temporally extended forms of emotional experience (; ). Together, this medium-content alignment enables the creation of controlled, ecologically valid settings that overcome the limitations of traditional, recall-based paradigms.
Despite its theoretical and design contribution, these guidelines present several limitations. First, it remains theoretical and design-driven and requires empirical validation across diverse populations and contexts. Second, nostalgia is highly subjective and culturally shaped, which raises the challenge of balancing personalization with experimental control. Third, the distinction between anticipated and anticipatory nostalgia, while theoretically grounded, still lacks validated measurement tools in immersive settings. Additionally, the role of multisensory components, such as sound, scent, and tactile feedback, in manipulating nostalgia within VR environments could be further explored.
Future research should aim to operationalize these guidelines experimentally, investigating how different configurations of familiarity and ambiguity influence the elicitation of nostalgia and its downstream effects on affect regulation, temporal coherence, and self-continuity. Additionally, the applicability of nostalgia-inducing VR scenarios should be explored across applied domains such as mental health, life transitions, career reflection, and cultural displacement. Future-oriented nostalgia, when elicited through immersive and presence-rich environments, may offer novel tools to support individuals facing reduced meaning, emotional disengagement, or identity discontinuity (122, 123). This approach also holds promise for clinical contexts, where future-oriented nostalgia, especially when elicited through immersive, presence-rich experiences, may help re-engage individuals with muted positive affect or diminished sense of meaning in life, as observed in depression and major life transitions (; ). By identifying familiarity and ambiguity as key variables, and by embedding them within immersive liminal environments, we offer guidelines that can facilitate the experimental elicitation of both past- and future-oriented forms of nostalgia in controlled laboratory settings. This enables new opportunities to investigate how nostalgia can be reliably induced, measured, and differentiated, thus advancing research on temporal self-continuity, emotion regulation, and meaning-making within immersive contexts.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
ES: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. JL: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – review and editing. AC: Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The project has been supported partially by the MentalFlex project grant (PRIN 2022 PNRR; P2022PXAZW), funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU, and by the E‐MOTIONS project grant, funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU (Mission 4, Component 1; CUP: J53D23008210008).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used for the creation of images through the Envato Labs platform (https://labs.envato.com/) and for the reformulation of some sentences during the last revision phase.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
1
AbdoA. M. E.-S. (2024). A comprehensive exploration of ambiguity and its effect on user experience design. Int. Des. J.14 (3), 215–228. 10.21608/idj.2024.347785
2
AbeytaA. A.RoutledgeC. (2016). Fountain of youth: the impact of nostalgia on youthfulness and implications for health. Self Identity15 (3), 356–369. 10.1080/15298868.2015.1133452
3
AbeytaA. A.RoutledgeC.JuhlJ. (2015). Looking back to move forward: Nostalgia as a psychological resource for promoting relationship goals and overcoming relationship challenges. J. Personality Soc. Psychol.109 (6), 1029–1044. 10.1037/pspi0000036
4
AddisD. R.WongA. T.SchacterD. L. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. Neuropsychologia45 (7), 1363–1377. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.016
5
AddisD. R.SacchettiD. C.AllyB. A.BudsonA. E.SchacterD. L. (2009). Episodic simulation of future events is impaired in mild alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia47 (12), 2660–2671. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.05.018
6
AndelmanF.HoofienD.GoldbergI.AizensteinO.NeufeldM. Y. (2010). Bilateral hippocampal lesion and a selective impairment of the ability for mental time travel. Neurocase16 (5), 426–435. 10.1080/13554791003623318
7
ArnoldK. M.McDermottK. B.SzpunarK. K. (2011). Imagining the near and far future: the role of location familiarity. Mem. and cognition39 (6), 954–967. 10.3758/s13421-011-0076-1
8
BaldwinM.LandauM. J. (2014). Exploring nostalgia's influence on psychological growth. Self Identity13 (2), 162–177. 10.1080/15298868.2013.772320
9
BaldwinJ. A.RaneyA. A. (2021). Enjoyment of unoriginal characters: individual differences in nostalgia-proneness and parasocial relationships. Mass Commun. Soc.24 (5), 748–768. 10.1080/15205436.2021.1916035
10
BarrettF. S.GrimmK. J.RobinsR. W.WildschutT.SedikidesC.JanataP. (2010). Music-evoked nostalgia: affect, memory, and personality. Emotion10 (3), 390–403. 10.1037/a0019006
11
BatchoK. I. (2013). Nostalgia: the bittersweet history of a psychological concept. Hist. Psychol.16 (3), 165–176. 10.1037/a0032427
12
BatchoK. I. (2020). When nostalgia tilts to sad: anticipatory and personal nostalgia. Front. Psychol.11, 1186. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01186
13
BatchoK. I.ShikhS. (2016). Anticipatory nostalgia: missing the present before it's gone. Personality Individ. Differ.98, 75–84. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.088
14
BentvelzenM.WoźniakP. W.HerbesP. S.StefanidiE.NiessJ. (2022). Revisiting reflection in hci: four design resources for technologies that support reflection. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6 (1), 1–27. 10.1145/3517233
15
BergsY.MitasO.SmitB.NawijnJ. (2020). Anticipatory nostalgia in experience design. Curr. Issues Tour.23 (22), 2798–2810. 10.1080/13683500.2019.1669539
16
BlackburnL.RegocziD.KempenaarL.ShanmugamS. (2024). “Step into the unknown: liminality as a safe playing space to learn,” in DaviesJ. P.GironacciE.McGowanS.NyamapfeneA.RattrayJ.TierneyA. M.WebbA. S. (Eds.) Threshold concepts in the moment (Leiden, Boston: Brill), 77, 140–154.
17
BlanchardE. G.AllardD. (2010). Handbook of research on culturally-aware information technology: perspectives and models: perspectives and models. IGI Glob.
18
BøS.NormanE.WolffK. (2022). Discrete emotions caused by episodic future thinking: a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Collabra Psychol.8 (1), 35232. 10.1525/collabra.35232
19
BoltriM.BrizziG.BrusaF.GabuttiC.CeraG.ScaliaA.et al (2025). Virtual reality-based running exposure to target the acute urge to be physically active in anorexia nervosa: a case series. Neuropsychobiology, 1–13. 10.1159/000547031
20
BonnettA. (2015). The geography of nostalgia: global and local perspectives on modernity and loss. London: Routledge.
21
BrownA. D.HumphreysM. (2002). Nostalgia and the narrativization of identity: a Turkish case study. Br. J. Manag.13 (2), 141–159. 10.1111/1467-8551.00228
22
BucciarelliL. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Des. Stud.23 (3), 219–231. 10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00035-7
23
CaoS. (2024). Emotion and cognition: on the cognitive processing model of nostalgia. Front. Psychol.15, 1440536. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1440536
24
CheungW.-Y. (2023). Anticipated nostalgia. Curr. Opin. Psychol.49, 101521. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101521
25
CheungW.-Y.WildschutT.SedikidesC.HepperE. G.ArndtJ.VingerhoetsA. J. (2013). Back to the future: nostalgia increases optimism. Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull.39 (11), 1484–1496. 10.1177/0146167213499187
26
CheungW.-Y.HepperE. G.ReidC. A.GreenJ. D.WildschutT.SedikidesC. (2020). Anticipated nostalgia: looking forward to looking back. Cognition Emot.34 (3), 511–525. 10.1080/02699931.2019.1649247
27
ChiricoA.GaggioliA. (2021). The potential role of awe for depression: reassembling the puzzle. Front. Psychol.12, 617715. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617715
28
ChiricoA.GaggioliA. (2023). “Virtual reality for awe and imagination,” in Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience: new insights and methods (Springer), 233–254.
29
ChiricoA.YadenD. B.RivaG.GaggioliA. (2016). The potential of virtual reality for the investigation of awe. Front. Psychol.7, 1766. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01766
30
ChiricoA.CipressoP.YadenD. B.BiassoniF.RivaG.GaggioliA. (2017). Effectiveness of immersive videos in inducing awe: an experimental study. Sci. Rep.7 (1), 1218. 10.1038/s41598-017-01242-0
31
Clayton McClureJ. H.RiggsK. J.DewhurstS. A.AndersonR. J. (2024). Differentiating anticipated and anticipatory emotions and their sensitivity to depressive symptoms. Emotion24 (7), 1642–1651. 10.1037/emo0001371
32
ClelandA. A.GaskellM. G.QuinlanP. T.TamminenJ. (2006). “Processing semantic ambiguity: different loci for meanings and senses,” in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society.
33
CohenJ. A.KassanA. (2018). Being in-between: a model of cultural identity negotiation for emerging adult immigrants. J. Couns. Psychol.65 (2), 133–154. 10.1037/cou0000265
34
d'ArgembeauA.RaffardS.Van der LindenM. (2008). Remembering the past and imagining the future in schizophrenia. J. Abnorm. Psychol.117 (1), 247–251. 10.1037/0021-843x.117.1.247
35
DahleyA.WisneskiC.IshiiH. (1998). “Water lamp and pinwheels: ambient projection of digital information into architectural space,” in CHI 98 conference summary on human factors in computing systems.
36
DenneJ. M.ThompsonN. L. (1991). The experience of transition to meaning and purpose in life. J. Phenomenological Psychol.22 (2), 109–133. 10.1163/156916291x00091
37
DreslerE.JacksonV. (2024). Multidimensionality of nostalgic festival experiences: the art deco festival case. J. Destination Mark. and Manag.31, 100827. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2023.100827
38
DunneA. (2008). Hertzian tales: electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design. MIT press.
39
EpplerM. J.MengisJ.BrescianiS. (2008). “Seven types of visual ambiguity: on the merits and risks of multiple interpretations of collaborative visualizations,” in 2008 12th international conference information visualisation (IEEE).
40
EpstudeK.PeetzJ. (2012). Mental time travel: a conceptual overview of social psychological perspectives on a fundamental human capacity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.42 (3), 269–275. 10.1002/ejsp.1867
41
FelderM. (2021). Familiarity as a practical sense of place. Sociol. Theory39 (3), 180–199. 10.1177/07352751211037724
42
FettermanA. K.EvansN. D.RaveyE. P.HendersonP. R.TranB. H. L.BoydR. L. (2025). The topics of nostalgic recall: the benefits of nostalgia depend on the topics that one recalls. Soc. Psychol. Personality Sci.16 (4), 444–456. 10.1177/19485506241229305
43
GambozN.De VitoS.BrandimonteM. A.PappalardoS.GaleoneF.IavaroneA.et al (2010). Episodic future thinking in amnesic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia48 (7), 2091–2097. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.030
44
GaverW.DunneA. (1999). “Projected realities: conceptual design for cultural effect,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
45
GaverB.MartinH. (2000). “Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
46
GaverW.BowersJ.BoucherA.LawA.PenningtonS.VillarN. (2006). “The history tablecloth: illuminating domestic activity,” in Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems.
47
GunesseeS.SubramanianN. (2020). Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters. Int. J. Operations and Prod. Manag.40 (7/8), 1201–1223. 10.1108/ijopm-07-2019-0530
48
HabakS.BennettJ.DaviesA.DaviesM.ChristensenH.BoydellK. M. (2021). Edge of the present: a virtual reality tool to cultivate future thinking, positive mood and wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health18 (1), 140. 10.3390/ijerph18010140
49
HepperE. G.RitchieT. D.SedikidesC.WildschutT. (2012). Odyssey's end: lay conceptions of nostalgia reflect its original homeric meaning. Emotion12 (1), 102–119. 10.1037/a0025167
50
HepperE. G.WildschutT.SedikidesC.RobertsonS.RoutledgeC. D. (2021). Time capsule: nostalgia shields psychological wellbeing from limited time Horizons. Emotion21 (3), 644–664. 10.1037/emo0000728
51
HolakS. L.HavlenaW. J. (1992). Nostalgia: an exploratory study of themes and emotions in the nostalgic experience. Adv. consumer Res.19 (1).
52
HolyfieldL.CobbM.MurrayK.McKinzieA. (2013). Musical ties that bind: Nostalgia, affect, and heritage in festival narratives. Symb. Interact.36 (4), 457–477. 10.1002/symb.67
53
HuangW.-J.XiaoH.WangS. (2018). Airports as liminal space. Ann. Tour. Res.70, 1–13. 10.1016/j.annals.2018.02.003
54
HuangY.BenfordS.SpenceJ.BlakeH. (2024). Exploring effects of a nostalgic storytelling virtual reality experience beyond hedonism. Cyberpsychology, Behav. Soc. Netw.27 (3), 221–226. 10.1089/cyber.2023.0183
55
IyerA.JettenJ. (2011). What's left behind: identity continuity moderates the effect of nostalgia on well-being and life choices. J. personality Soc. Psychol.101 (1), 94–108. 10.1037/a0022496
56
JanataP.TomicS. T.RakowskiS. K. (2007). Characterisation of music-evoked autobiographical memories. Memory15 (8), 845–860. 10.1080/09658210701734593
57
JuhlJ.WildschutT.SedikidesC.DiebelT.CheungW. Y.VingerhoetsA. J. (2020). Nostalgia proneness and empathy: generality, underlying mechanism, and implications for prosocial behavior. J. Personality88 (3), 485–500. 10.1111/jopy.12505
58
KaragözD.LonelinessR. H. (2024). Loneliness, travel nostalgia, subjective well-being and prevention regulatory focus: a moderated mediation model analysis. Curr. Issues Tour.27 (2), 217–233. 10.1080/13683500.2023.2175201
59
KimH.JamalT. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Ann. Tour. Res.34 (1), 181–201. 10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.009
60
KimS.KimS.PetrickJ. F. (2019). The effect of film nostalgia on involvement, familiarity, and behavioral intentions. J. Travel Res.58 (2), 283–297. 10.1177/0047287517746015
61
KleinS. B.LoftusJ.KihlstromJ. F. (2002). Memory and temporal experience: the effects of episodic memory loss on an amnesic patient's ability to remember the past and imagine the future. Soc. Cogn.20 (5), 353–379. 10.1521/soco.20.5.353.21125
62
LandR.RattrayJ.VivianP. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: a semiotic approach to threshold concepts. High. Educ.67 (2), 199–217. 10.1007/s10734-013-9705-x
63
LawsonB.LokeS. M. (1997). Computers, words and pictures. Des. Stud.18 (2), 171–183. 10.1016/s0142-694x(97)85459-2
64
LiedgrenJ.DesmetP. M.GaggioliA. (2023). Liminal design: a conceptual framework and three-step approach for developing technology that delivers transcendence and deeper experiences. Front. Psychol.14, 1043170. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1043170
65
LongK.VinesJ. (2013). “Mind pool: encouraging self-reflection through ambiguous bio-feedback,” in CHI'13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 2975–2978.
66
LyonsT. (2001). Ambiguous narratives. Cult. Anthropol.16 (2), 183–201. 10.1525/can.2001.16.2.183
67
ManziC.VignolesV. L.RegaliaC. (2010). Accommodating a new identity: possible selves, identity change and well‐being across two life‐transitions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.40 (6), 970–984. 10.1002/ejsp.669
68
MarchesiniL.ÖzcanE. (2016). “Embracing ambiguity: five types of ambiguity encountered in product design,” in International conference on design and emotion.
69
MeethanK. (2012). Walking the edges: towards a visual ethnography of beachscapes. In AndrewsH.RobertsL. (Eds.), Liminal landscapes: Travel, experience and spaces in-between. London: Routledge, 69–86.
70
Michels-RatliffE.EnnisM. (2016). This is your song: using participants’ music selections to evoke nostalgia and autobiographical memories efficiently. Psychomusicology Music, Mind, Brain26 (4), 379–384. 10.1037/pmu0000167
71
Núñez-PachecoC.LokeL. (2014). “Aesthetic resources for technology-mediated bodily self-reflection: the case of eloquent robes,” in Proceedings of the 26th Australian computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: the future of design.
72
O’CallaghanA.WearnA.BarrowM. (2020). Providing a liminal space: threshold concepts for learning in palliative medicine. Med. Teach.42 (4), 422–428. 10.1080/0142159x.2019.1687868
73
PizzolanteM.BorghesiF.SarcinellaE.BartolottaS.SalviC.CipressoP.et al (2023). Awe in the metaverse: designing and validating a novel online virtual-reality awe-inspiring training. Comput. Hum. Behav.148, 107876. 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107876
74
Preston‐WhyteR. (2004). “The beach as a liminal space,” in A companion to tourism, 349–359.
75
RapoportA.KantorR. E. (1967). Complexity and ambiguity in environmental design. J. Am. Inst. Planners33 (4), 210–221. 10.1080/01944366708977922
76
RasmussenK. W.BerntsenD. (2014). Autobiographical memory and episodic future thinking after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. J. Neuropsychology8 (1), 34–52. 10.1111/jnp.12003
77
ReichW. A.HarberK. D.SiegelH. I. (2008). Self-structure and well-being in life transitions. Self Identity7 (2), 129–150. 10.1080/15298860601119940
78
ReidC. A.GreenJ. D.WildschutT.SedikidesC. (2015). Scent-evoked nostalgia. Memory23 (2), 157–166. 10.1080/09658211.2013.876048
79
ReidC. A.GreenJ. D.BuchmaierS.McSweenD. K.WildschutT.SedikidesC. (2023). Food-evoked nostalgia. Cognition Emot.37 (1), 34–48. 10.1080/02699931.2022.2142525
80
RivaG.MantovaniF.CapidevilleC. S.PreziosaA.MorgantiF.VillaniD.et al (2007). Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions. Cyberpsychology and Behav.10 (1), 45–56. 10.1089/cpb.2006.9993
81
RivaG.BañosR. M.BotellaC.MantovaniF.GaggioliA. (2016). Transforming experience: the potential of augmented reality and virtual reality for enhancing personal and clinical change. Front. psychiatry7, 164. 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00164
82
RobinJ.BuchsbaumB. R.MoscovitchM. (2018). The primacy of spatial context in the neural representation of events. J. Neurosci.38 (11), 2755–2765. 10.1523/jneurosci.1638-17.2018
83
RohlfsA. (2023). Art, algorithm and ambiguity. Aesthetic ambiguity with regard to metacognition based on visual semiotics, visual rhetoric and gestalt psychology.
84
RoutledgeC.ArndtJ.WildschutT.SedikidesC.HartC. M.JuhlJ.et al (2011). The past makes the present meaningful: nostalgia as an existential resource. J. personality Soc. Psychol.101 (3), 638–652. 10.1037/a0024292
85
RoutledgeC.WildschutT.SedikidesC.JuhlJ.ArndtJ. (2012). The power of the past: Nostalgia as a meaning-making resource. Memory20 (5), 452–460. 10.1080/09658211.2012.677452
86
SchothD. E.LiossiC. (2017). A systematic review of experimental paradigms for exploring biased interpretation of ambiguous information with emotional and neutral associations. Front. psychol.8, 171.
87
SchacterD. L.BenoitR. G.SzpunarK. K. (2017). Episodic future thinking: mechanisms and functions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.17, 41–50. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.06.002
88
SchacterD. L.AddisD. R.HassabisD.MartinV. C.SprengR. N.SzpunarK. K. (2012). The future of memory: remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron76 (4), 677–694. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.001
89
SedikidesC.WildschutT.RoutledgeC.ArndtJ.HepperE. G.ZhouX. (2015). To nostalgize: mixing memory with affect and desire. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.51, 189–273. 10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.10.001
90
SedikidesC.WildschutT. (2016). “Nostalgia: a bittersweet emotion that confers psychological health benefits,” in The wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology, 125–136.
91
SedikidesC.WildschutT.BadenD. (2004). Conceptual issues and existential functions. Handb. Exp. Existent. Psychol.205 (1), 200–214.
92
SedikidesC.WildschutT.ArndtJ.RoutledgeC. (2008). Nostalgia: past, present, and future. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.17 (5), 304–307. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00595.x
93
SedikidesC.LeunissenJ.WildschutT. (2022). The psychological benefits of music-evoked nostalgia. Psychol. Music50 (6), 2044–2062. 10.1177/03057356211064641
94
SedikidesC.HongE. K.WildschutT. (2023). Self-continuity. Annu. Rev. Psychol.74 (1), 333–361. 10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-032236
95
SeehusenJ.CordaroF.WildschutT.SedikidesC.RoutledgeC.BlackhartG. C.et al (2013). Individual differences in nostalgia proneness: the integrating role of the need to belong. Personality Individ. Differ.55 (8), 904–908. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.020
96
ShipeR. L. (2017). Productive ambiguity: Promoting cross-cultural understanding through art. In ShinR. (Ed.), Convergence of Contemporary Art, Visual Culture, and Global Civic Engagement. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 63–79.
97
SimonovicN.TaberJ. M. (2022). Psychological impact of ambiguous health messages about COVID-19. J. Behav. Med.45 (2), 159–171. 10.1007/s10865-021-00266-2
98
SomarathnaR.BednarzT.MohammadiG. (2022). Virtual reality for emotion Elicitation–A review. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput.14 (4), 2626–2645. 10.1109/taffc.2022.3181053
99
StennerP.JacksonS. L. (2017). Liminality and experience. Springer.
100
SweeneyP. (2020). Nostalgia reconsidered. Ratio33 (3), 184–190. 10.1111/rati.12272
101
SzpunarK. K.McDermottK. B. (2008). Episodic future thought and its relation to remembering: evidence from ratings of subjective experience. Conscious. cognition17 (1), 330–334. 10.1016/j.concog.2007.04.006
102
TribertiS.ChiricoA.La RoccaG.RivaG. (2017). Developing emotional design: emotions as cognitive processes and their role in the design of interactive technologies. Front. Psychol.8, 1773. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01773
103
TriggD. (2024). Nostalgia and childhood. In BeckerT.TriggD. (Eds.) The routledge handbook of nostalgia. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY; London: Routledge, 201–212.
104
TrilivaS.SoolsA. M.PhilippasT. (2022). Using narrative futuring as a means of facing liminal employment status and space. Qual. Psychol.9 (3), 289–305. 10.1037/qup0000185
105
Trujillo-PisantyD.DurrantA.MartindaleS.JamesS.CollomosseJ. (2014). Admixed portrait: design intervention to prompt reflection on being online as a new parent.
106
TulvingE. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Can. Psychology/Psychologie Can.26 (1), 1–12. 10.1037/h0080017
107
TurnerV. (1983). “Liminal to liminoid,” in Play, flow, and ritual: an essay in comparative symbology.
108
TurnerJ. R.StanleyJ. T. (2021). Holding on to pieces of the past: daily reports of nostalgia in a life-span sample. Emotion21 (5), 951–961. 10.1037/emo0000980
109
van DijkeM.LeunissenJ. M. (2023). Nostalgia in organizations. Curr. Opin. Psychol.49, 101540. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101540
110
WaterworthJ. A.WaterworthE. L.RivaG.MantovaniF. (2015). “Presence: form, content and consciousness,” in Immersed in media: telepresence theory, measurement and technology (Springer), 35–58.
111
WeickK. E. (2015). Ambiguity as grasp: the reworking of sense. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag.23 (2), 117–123. 10.1111/1468-5973.12080
112
WeiserM.BrownJ. S. (1996). Designing calm technology. PowerGrid J.1 (1), 75–85.
113
WiegersT.LangeveldL.VergeestJ. (2011). Shape language: how people describe shapes and shape operations. Des. Stud.32 (4), 333–347. 10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.002
114
WildschutT.SedikidesC. (2024). “Psychology and nostalgia: a primer on experimental nostalgia inductions,” in The routledge handbook of nostalgia (Routledge), 54–69.
115
WildschutT.SedikidesC.ArndtJ.RoutledgeC. (2006). Nostalgia: content, triggers, functions. J. personality Soc. Psychol.91 (5), 975–993. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.975
116
WulfT.BreuerJ. S.SchmittJ. B. (2022). Escaping the pandemic present: the relationship between nostalgic media use, escapism, and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Popular Media11 (3), 258–265. 10.1037/ppm0000357
117
YangZ.WildschutT.IzumaK.GuR.LuoY. L.CaiH.et al (2022). Patterns of brain activity associated with nostalgia: a social-cognitive neuroscience perspective. Soc. Cognitive Affect. Neurosci.17 (12), 1131–1144. 10.1093/scan/nsac036
118
YangZ.IzumaK.CaiH. (2023). Nostalgia in the brain. Curr. Opin. Psychol.49, 101523. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101523
119
YinY.JiangT.WildschutT.SedikidesC. (2024). Nostalgia, ritual engagement, and meaning in life. Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull., 01461672241235740. 10.1177/01461672241235740
120
ZhangH.WuQ.MiaoC.ShenZ.LeungC. (2019). “Towards age-friendly exergame design: the role of familiarity,” in Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play.
121
ZhouX.HuangR.BatchoK.YeW. (2020). This won’t last forever: benefits and costs of anticipatory nostalgia. Front. Psychol.11, 577308. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577308
Summary
Keywords
nostalgia, complex emotion, liminal spaces, liminality, virtual reality, health, perspective
Citation
Sarcinella ED, Liedgren J and Chirico A (2025) Life in transition: nostalgia as change-related emotion. Front. Virtual Real. 6:1629484. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2025.1629484
Received
15 May 2025
Accepted
28 August 2025
Published
17 September 2025
Volume
6 - 2025
Edited by
Albert Rizzo, University of Southern California, United States
Reviewed by
Maria Alejandra Quiros Ramirez, Hochschule Coburg, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Sarcinella, Liedgren and Chirico.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Eleonora Diletta Sarcinella, eleonora.sarcinella1@unicatt.it
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.