Cross-Cultural Responses to Digital Guides in Authoritarian Heritage: A Case Study of the Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall

Abstract

Over the past two decades, transitional justice has become a central concern in Taiwan’s cultural and political landscape. This study investigates how 1029 visitors from Taiwan, Sinophone regions (China, Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia), and international backgrounds engage with digital interpretation systems at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (CKSMH)—a politically sensitive site associated with Taiwan’s authoritarian past. Using a mixed-methods approach combining surveys and qualitative responses, the study analyzes cross-cultural differences in visitor motivation, use of digital tools, perceived experiential value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Results show that international visitors reported higher levels of engagement and satisfaction, particularly in educational, esthetic, entertainment, and escapist dimensions. In contrast, Sinophone visitors expressed lower satisfaction and more frequent discomfort with the site’s historical narrative. Key factors such as language accessibility, cultural proximity, and usability influenced how visitors perceived the digital content. The findings suggest that interactive digital tools can support both cultural engagement and critical reflection while also revealing tensions in memory politics at sites of transitional justice.

1. Introduction

As debates over historical memory and democratic values continue to reshape public space, former authoritarian landmarks are increasingly reinterpreted through new lenses. In Taiwan, the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (CKSMH) exemplifies this transformation—from a monumental symbol of authoritarian reverence to a politically contested site of remembrance and reinterpretation. Understanding how such spaces are experienced and mediated requires an interdisciplinary approach that engages with both tourism studies and memory politics.

One foundational framework is John Urry’s concept of the “tourist gaze,” which argues that tourist experiences are not passive or neutral but shaped by social, cultural, and media-influenced expectations [1]. Visitors interpret heritage sites through prior knowledge, affective predispositions, and cultural filters—an especially complex process in politically sensitive environments like CKSMH, where narratives of authoritarianism, resistance, and identity are in tension.

Building on this, Dean MacCannell’s theory of authenticity emphasizes how tourists seek not only information but also emotional and symbolic connection [2]. At sites of memory, this quest often centers on a perceived “authentic” experience of the past—one that is mediated not only by physical artifacts but increasingly by digital technologies, such as augmented reality (AR), touchscreen displays, and mobile guides. These tools can enhance immersion and interactivity, but they also carry curatorial power: they structure how visitors engage with history and whose voices are heard or silenced in that process.

At the heart of these dynamics lies Wüstenberg’s framework of memory politics, which positions memorial spaces as arenas of narrative contestation and civic engagement [3]. In post-authoritarian societies, memory work must balance competing interpretations of history and digital tools are increasingly employed to present plural perspectives, facilitate participation, and reframe official narratives. CKSMH, situated within Taiwan’s ongoing transitional justice discourse, provides a compelling case for analyzing how digital interpretation influences memory-making across different cultural groups.

Globally, examples like the Berlin Wall Memorial, Robben Island, and Seodaemun Prison History Hall illustrate how digital heritage interpretation can support plural memory narratives and facilitate dialogic public history [4,5]. Taiwan’s CKSMH, situated within ongoing debates about democratization and authoritarian legacy, presents a unique case for examining how such technologies mediate visitor perception across cultural contexts. This study investigates whether digital interpretation at CKSMH fosters more inclusive and participatory memory-making. While prior research has highlighted the theoretical potential of digital tools in post-authoritarian heritage, there remains limited empirical evidence—particularly in East Asia—on how culturally diverse visitors engage with these technologies in contested settings. To address this gap, the study poses three guiding questions:

(1)

How do tourists from different regional backgrounds (Taiwanese, Sinophone, and international) perceive and use digital interpretation tools at CKSMH?

(2)

How do variations in usability and digital engagement affect visitor satisfaction and behavioral intention across these groups?

(3)

How do cultural proximity and language accessibility shape visitors’ interpretation of Taiwan’s authoritarian history?

In addressing this, the study contributes to the emerging call for more visitor-centered approaches in digital heritage and memory studies [6,7]. The findings aim to inform broader discourse on the role of memorial institutions in transitional justice—particularly under conditions of narrative contestation and political sensitivity.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework of Transitional Justice and Memory Sites

Transitional justice (TJ) refers to mechanisms that address historical injustices and human rights violations through truth-telling, reparations, memorialization, and institutional reform. In recent scholarship, TJ has increasingly engaged with memory justice and trauma heritage, emphasizing the spatial, emotional, and participatory dimensions of memorial sites in post-authoritarian or post-conflict societies [8]. Heritage spaces—such as museums or historical monuments—serve as critical platforms for negotiating truth and recognition, especially when official narratives have marginalized traumatic histories [9].

The use of digital tools in these sites has become a new frontier for TJ discourse, enabling both symbolic redress and interactive engagement. As shown in the case of atrocity museums, memorials, and repatriation efforts, digital interventions can amplify suppressed voices and support inclusive public memory work [10]. Moreover, the integration of cultural heritage law and TJ mechanisms shows promise in revealing past crimes, ensuring non-recurrence, and fostering collective healing [11].

The CKSMH, once emblematic of Taiwan’s authoritarian legacy, has now become a site of digital and discursive reinterpretation. It provides a fertile ground for examining how digital interpretation technologies can mediate competing memory narratives within the broader goals of transitional justice and democratization.

Emerging perspectives also introduce concepts such as “ecological memory”, which frames memory not merely as a political or institutional construct but as a dynamic, regenerative process rooted in community participation [12]. From this standpoint, effective TJ processes must embrace pluralistic and localized memory practices, avoiding homogenized historical narratives. For instance, grassroots memorials such as the Kurapaty site in Belarus illustrate how civic groups reclaim agency in shaping post-authoritarian memory cultures [13].

Digital memory archives further advance TJ’s goals by promoting transparency, challenging state monopolies on history, and fostering democratic participation. These “justice archives” provide platforms for alternative narratives to emerge, often beyond institutional frameworks [14]. Similarly, commemorative spaces have been reconceptualized as sites of dialogical truth-telling, where multiple interpretations of the past can coexist and contend for public legitimacy [4].

In Eastern European contexts, studies on memorial museums suggest that even limited attitudinal change among younger generations can spark intergenerational dialogue and reflection on authoritarian legacies [15,16]. From a sociological perspective, TJ initiatives are most impactful when embedding in everyday experiences and community-based memory work—not just formal legal or institutional reforms [17].

In summary, contemporary transitional justice extends far beyond legal redress, encompassing civic engagement, heritage reinterpretation, and digital innovation. This study aligns with these paradigms by examining how digital interpretation at the CKSMH mediates historical understanding among culturally diverse tourists. Once emblematic of Taiwan’s authoritarian past, the site now provides fertile ground for observing how digital technologies facilitate competing memory narratives and contribute to more inclusive, dialogical models of post-authoritarian reckoning.

2.2. Tourist Gaze and Cultural Interpretation

Tourism today is increasingly understood not merely as movement or consumption but as a cultural and interpretive practice. The concept of the “tourist gaze”, first articulated by [1], highlights how heritage is viewed through lenses shaped by cultural background, class, and media exposure. This gaze is inherently selective and socially constructed, influencing how tourists perceive and engage with historical narratives. More recent scholarship extends the concept to include “digital” and “counter-gazes,” emphasizing the participatory and reflexive nature of tourist engagement in the age of mobile technology and social media [18].

Closely related is the idea of “memory work”, wherein tourists not only observe but actively contribute to meaning-making at heritage sites. Emotional and sensory responses—shaped by site layout, atmosphere, and interactive features—affect how visitors interpret spatial identity and historical significance [19]. At sites with contested or traumatic histories, these responses are often filtered through pre-existing cultural frameworks and historical distance.

In authoritarian or post-authoritarian contexts, the gaze is frequently curated through architectural symbolism and narrative framing. For example, studies on CKSMH reveal how spatial design and iconography can reinforce dominant political ideologies while marginalizing alternative perspectives [20]. Although recent exhibition updates have introduced more pluralistic elements, they often remain peripheral to the overarching narrative state narrative.

The act of viewing itself becomes a culturally performative process. Visitors negotiate meaning based on their degree of political familiarity, linguistic accessibility, and personal resonance with the content. For international tourists, sites like CKSMH present a staged encounter with Taiwan’s contested memory politics—mediated by tourism infrastructure and digital guidance systems.

Recent research has emphasized the role of digital technologies in reshaping this interpretive dynamic. Augmented reality (AR), mobile guides, and digital storytelling platforms not only structure visitor attention but also foster emotional engagement and reflective learning, especially in “dark heritage” contexts [21,22]. These technologies personalize narrative pathways and accommodate diverse cultural expectations, allowing visitors to follow thematic trails aligned with their identities [23].

Multilingual and affective interfaces have been shown to increase emotional resonance and historical understanding, particularly in trauma-related heritage spaces [24]. Furthermore, inclusive design in AR environments can empower underrepresented groups by adapting content to their sociocultural backgrounds and interpretive preferences [25]. Such tools not only enhance the tourist gaze but also facilitate critical consciousness, turning heritage visits into participatory acts of memory construction.

2.3. Digital Interpretation and Exhibition Technology Trends

In the transformation of cultural memory spaces, digital interpretation technologies have become central to enhancing both visitor engagement and historical understanding. Contemporary museums increasingly integrate tools such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), wearable devices, interactive projections, and smart guide systems to reshape how visitors experience place, movement, and meaning [26,27,28].

A growing body of research shows that these technologies have evolved from simple audio guides to complex systems that include personalized content, AR smart glasses, gesture-based interfaces, and real-time localization tools. These innovations significantly increase visitor interest, learning outcomes, and overall satisfaction—especially when interaction is intuitive and content is culturally relevant.

Comparative studies confirm that immersive digital features—such as AR-guided tours, 3D scanning, and responsive media—enhance not only perceived value but also willingness to revisit heritage sites [29]. Critically, usability and functionality remain decisive factors in how digital tools are received across visitor groups.

At open-air or complex heritage venues, AR-enabled smart glassed and location-aware apps have demonstrated clear advantages over traditional mobile guides by providing contextual, spatially anchored experiences that improve memory retention and emotional resonance [30]. These tools help visitors actively co-construct historical meaning in real-time.

The role of digital interpretation becomes even more salient in politically or emotionally charged heritage environments. When embedded thoughtfully within curatorial design, interactive media can deepen public engagement, broaden narrative inclusion, and foster emotional connection—especially in contexts involving contested histories or transitional justice [23,24].

Recent advances also emphasize inclusivity. Research on IoT integration and image recognition demonstrates how responsive object design allows visitors to physically interact with artifacts—through movement, gesture, or tactile engagement—stimulating immersive learning and empathetic understanding [31]. Other studies highlight how digital tools support cognitive accessibility for marginalized audiences, such as visually impaired users or visitors on the autism spectrum [32,33].

In summary, digital interpretation technologies are not merely supplementary features but fundamental interfaces through which cultural memory is now constructed and negotiated. For sites like CKSMH, their design, accessibility, and interactivity shape how visitors from different cultural backgrounds perceive authoritarian legacies and democratic transitions. Future implementations should emphasize multilingual design, participatory features, and cultural responsiveness to align more fully with the goals of transitional justice.

2.4. Empirical Studies on Visitor Experience in Memory Sites

This section synthesizes empirical research on visitor experience across representative memory sites, structured around four comparative domains: (1) Berlin Wall and Holocaust museums in Germany; (2) apartheid-era memorials in South Africa; (3) recent audience research on the CKSMH; and (4) other transitional justice sites in Taiwan. While rooted in different geopolitical contexts, these sites share core characteristics—symbolic density, traumatic legacies, and politicized narrative framing—making them useful case studies for understanding how visitors interpret authoritarian pasts through spatial, digital, and curatorial mediation.

At Berlin Wall memorials and Holocaust museums, research has shown that international tourists often arrive with limited contextual understanding, and exhibit narratives may not always bridge these cultural gaps. To address this, scholars advocate for differentiated, audience-sensitive content and stronger visitor orientation strategies. Studies of user-generated content from Holocaust memorials consistently reveal themes such as “historical obligation”, “trauma engagement”, and “consumer-style commemoration”, reflecting complex emotional responses and moral negotiations within these spaces [34].

In South Africa, heritage institutions like the Hector Pieterson Memorial and Robben Island have been extensively studied for their ability to evoke empathetic remembrance and civic reflection. Visitors with backgrounds in human rights education or historical consciousness tend to report deeper emotional engagement and stronger revisitation intentions. Ethnographic work further characterizes these visits as affective rituals in which individuals internalize memory narratives and establish symbolic links to collective identity [35].

In Taiwan, the CKSMH has evolved from a site of authoritarian glorification to a space of contested historical reinterpretation. Yet, its architecture and visual symbolism continue to reflect the commemorative intent of its original design. As illustrated in Figure 1, spatial elements—such as the elevated staircase, dome ceiling with Kuomintang (KMT) emblem, and a seated bronze statue of Chiang Kai-shek—reinforce ideological centrality and ceremonial order. These elements frame the visitor experience through a structured gaze, shaping emotional and cognitive responses.

These spatial and visual configurations underscore how architectural form functions as an extension of memory politics. By presenting this visual evidence, the figure enhances scholarly understanding of how material design continues to shape public encounters with Taiwan’s authoritarian past.

Recent curatorial reforms, including the “Gaze and Dialogue” initiative, have introduced multilingual digital guides, AR storytelling, and participatory wall displays aimed at fostering inclusivity and multi-vocality [36]. However, scholars caution that without critical reflexivity, digital tools may risk reproducing state-centric narratives rather than challenging them [20].

By contrast, other Taiwanese memory sites offer more pointed curatorial approaches. The 228 Memorial integrates multilingual testimony, visual archives, and immersive design to center marginalized voices and emotional connections. These strategies support intercultural dialogue and postcolonial healing by allowing visitors to align personal affect with broader memory frameworks [37,38,39]. National Human Rights Museum (formerly the Jing-Mei White Terror Memorial) focuses on carceral authenticity, using preserved prison cells and digital tablets to immerse visitors in the lived experiences of political prisoners [40,41].

Compared to these two sites, CKSMH presents a more ambivalent interpretive stance. While it has introduced interactive digital features, it remains bound by the symbolic and spatial legacy of its authoritarian past. Ongoing debates over Chiang Kai-shek’s legacy continue to influence how curatorial narratives are framed and received [42].

Together, these empirical studies underscore how design choices—spatial, narrative, and technological—fundamentally shape visitor perception and memory-making. They also highlight the importance of interpretive transparency and curatorial intention in advancing the educational and civic goals of transitional justice heritage.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study investigates the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (CKSMH) in Taipei, Taiwan—a politically charged heritage site undergoing digital transformation. CKSMH was chosen as a representative case due to its dual function as both a popular tourist destination and a contested memory space linked to Taiwan’s authoritarian past. The Hall features several digital interpretation technologies, including augmented reality (AR) photo zones, multilingual touchscreen displays, and app-based audio guides, making it an ideal venue for examining how digital tools mediate historical narratives and visitor engagement.

A mixed-methods research design was adopted to explore how visitors from different cultural backgrounds interact with these technologies. Quantitative data were collected through structured on-site surveys, while qualitative insights were gathered from open-ended responses and in-depth interviews. This triangulated approach enabled a multidimensional analysis of visitor motivation, experiential value, and interpretive engagement.

Five digital demonstration zones were selected for study, including two beacon-triggered push notifications, two AR stations, and one VR installation. These were embedded within the permanent exhibition to capture real-time interaction.

To deepen the analysis of affective and cognitive responses, 12 visitors were selected for semi-structured interviews based on age, education level, historical interest, and familiarity with digital media. Interview sessions explored perceptions of CKSMH’s narrative farming, symbolic architecture, and digital interactivity. All interviews were anonymized, conducted with informed consent, and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

This design goes beyond surface-level satisfaction, allowing investigation into how immersive technologies shape visitor interpretation within a transitional justice text. Figure 2 captures these interactions through photographs of AR tablet use, VR immersion, and intergenerational dialogue—highlighting usability, engagement, and co-learning across cultural groups.

3.2. Sampling and Participant Composition

Data collection took place from 20 June to 17 July 2024. A total of 1029 valid survey responses were obtained through stratified random sampling. Trained research assistants stationed at key exhibition entry and exit points to ensure demographic diversity and to assist visitors across age and language groups. Respondents represented a wide range of regions, including Taiwan, mainland China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Europe, North America, Japan, and South Korea. To facilitate cross-cultural analysis of memory interpretation, the sample was categorized into three visitor groups based on theoretical frameworks related to cultural distance, interpretive proximity, and language accessibility:

(1)

Taiwanese domestic visitors (including local independent travelers and student groups): 639 respondents;

(2)

Sinophone tourists (including those from mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Malaysia): 238 respondents;

(3)

International tourists (including visitors from Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea, and other non-Sinophone regions): 152 respondents.

This classification reflects not only regional origin but also varying degrees of emotional, cultural, and linguistic proximity to Taiwan’s transitional justice discourse. It draws on foundational theories such as Urry’s concept of the “tourist gaze”, which emphasizes the socially constructed nature of visitor perceptions [43]; Hofstede’s cultural distance framework, which highlights how value systems shape intercultural interpretation [44]; and Assmann’s model of language-based memory mediation, which underscores the role of linguistic access in shaping historical understanding [45].

Recent empirical studies further support these frameworks. For example, visitors’ sociopolitical context and familiarity with traumatic narratives strongly affect their emotional responses and interpretive engagement at transitional justice sites [46,47]. Additionally, recent research underscores how inclusive digital interpretation systems can mitigate cultural distance and improve engagement across heterogeneous audiences [48,49].

3.3. Questionnaire Structure and Variable Operationalization

The questionnaire was constructed by synthesizing theoretical and empirical insights from the fields of tourism motivation, experience economy, and digital interpretation usability. Variables were operationalized into five core domains: background variables, visit motivation, perceived experiential value, digital interpretation usage and evaluation, and outcome variables.

(1)

Background Variables:

These included gender, age, education, occupation, and nationality. The regional classification of nationality followed established typologies and prior research on heritage tourism in Taiwan [20,36], grouping participants into three categories: (a) domestic Taiwanese visitors, (b) Sinophone tourists (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia); and (c) international tourists (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Europe, North America).

(2)

Visit Motivation:

This section was informed by foundational motivational frameworks such as Crompton’s push–pull theory and Pearce’s Travel Career Pattern model, which explain how intrinsic desires and external attributes jointly shape travel decisions. Building on these classic models, recent studies have emphasized the importance of contextualizing visitor motivation within the sociopolitical and emotional dynamics of contested or memorial sites [50]. Accordingly, the questionnaire adopted a multiple-choice format encompassing five motivational domains that are widely recognized in contemporary heritage tourism literature [51,52]: esthetic appreciation, ritual/social participation, educational interest, exploratory curiosity, and social companionship.

(3)

Perceived Experience Value:

This section drew upon the widely adopted four-dimensional framework of the visitor experience—education, entertainment, escapism, and esthetics—which has been foundational in evaluating experiential value in heritage and museum contexts [53]. While originally introduced by Pine and Gilmore, recent studies have validated and extended the applicability of this model in contested heritage and digital environments, showing that each dimension can significantly influence satisfaction, memory, and behavioral intention in cultural settings [54]. Accordingly, a 5-point Likert scale was used to measure perceived experiential value across four dimensions: (a) Escapism (e.g., “The visit helped me escape from everyday life”), (b) Education (e.g., “I acquired new knowledge from the exhibition”), (c) esthetics (e.g., “The visual layout was appealing”), and (d) Entertainment (e.g., “I enjoyed the overall experience”).

(4)

Digital Interpretation Usage and Evaluation:

This section evaluates user engagement with digital interpretation tools within the museum context. Grounded in the foundational frameworks of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the evaluation framework is further enriched by incorporating recent empirical studies that reflect the evolving nature of digital museum experiences. Recent research highlights the critical roles of interactivity, immersion, and perceived presence in shaping user acceptance and satisfaction with digital technologies in museum settings [55,56,57]. Item development was informed by validated instruments from prior studies and adapted to suit the specific context of digital interpretation in museums. Five key constructs were measured using a 5-point Likert scale: (a) Usability (e.g., “The guide was easy to operate”); (b) Interpretability (e.g., “The content helped me understand the exhibition”); (c) Interactivity (e.g., “The interactive features piqued my curiosity”); (d) Immersion (e.g., “I felt immersed in the digital environment”); (e) Intention to reuse (e.g., “I would like to use similar guides in future visits”).

(5)

Outcome Variables:

Overall satisfaction and behavioral intentions were measured using single-item and binary-choice questions based on the Expectation–Disconfirmation Theory [58]. Items included: (a) Overall satisfaction (5-point Likert scale); (b) Willingness to recommend the site (Yes/No); (c) Willingness to revisit (Yes/No).

Additionally, open-ended responses were solicited to capture qualitative reflections on emotional response, clarity of historical narrative, and digital tool feedback. This integrated structure allowed for robust statistical analysis while preserving visitor voice and interpretive depth in understanding how digital guides shaped historical comprehension at a politically sensitive heritage site.

3.4. Survey Instrument

The questionnaire was developed in four language versions—Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, English, and Korean—to accommodate the multilingual composition of the visitor population. All translations underwent professional back-translation and were pilot-tested with small visitor samples to ensure both conceptual and linguistic accuracy. Items were presented on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), measuring constructs related to visitor motivation, experience value, digital guide usability, and overall satisfaction. Internal consistency reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.84, indicating strong coherence across survey items. Questionnaires were administered in person using tablet devices provided by trained staff at the exhibition site. Visitors completed the questionnaire in designated digital zones either during or immediately after their interaction with the digital tools to ensure contextual relevance and response immediacy.

3.5. Analytical Procedures

Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 28.0. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. One-way ANOVA was used to test group differences in perceived experience value, satisfaction, and digital guide usability, followed by post hoc Tukey HSD tests for pairwise comparisons among regional visitor groups.

Qualitative data, including open-ended survey responses and interview transcripts, were organized and coded with the assistance of NVivo 14.0. The software was used to facilitate the sorting, grouping, and retrieval of qualitative content. However, the analytical process remained inductive and researcher-driven. Through close readings and iterative coding, key themes were identified, such as emotional responses, perceived narrative bias, and evaluations of digital engagement.

To ensure the reliability of the coding process, an intercoder verification procedure was implemented. A second coder independently analyzed 20% of the data, yielding a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of κ = 0.81, which indicates a high level of agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through collaborative discussion, and the finalized coding scheme was then consistently applied across the dataset. To enhance the credibility of the findings, thematic results were triangulated with quantitative survey patterns and reviewed by external experts.

3.6. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, due to the absence of formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the study employed expert panel review and informed consent protocols to maintain ethical standards. Participants were briefed on the research purpose and provided signed consent prior to participating in interviews.

Second, although the survey was multilingual and professionally back-translated, subtle differences in cultural interpretation and reading comprehension may have introduced response bias. Regional groupings were based on place of residence and self-reported identity, which may not fully capture nuanced sociocultural distinctions.

Third, the study’s cross-sectional design captured visitor responses at a single point in time, limiting the ability to assess long-term impacts or changes in interpretive engagement. Future studies may benefit from longitudinal tracking or experimental designs to explore evolving perceptions and sustained engagement with digital interpretation tools.

Finally, although digital interpretation tools were made available to all visitors, actual levels of engagement likely varied due to factors such as time constraints, staff availability, and individual familiarity with technology—variables that were not directly controlled in this study.

4. Results

This chapter presents empirical findings from the survey and interviews, comparing perceptions across three visitor groups: Taiwanese domestic visitors, Sinophone tourists, and international tourists. The results are organized into five major sections corresponding to research questions and analytical dimensions: visitor motivation, digital guide usage and evaluation, experience value, and behavioral intentions.

4.1. Cross-Regional Comparison of Visitor Motivation

To understand how cultural background influences visitor motivations at the CKSMH, this section analyzes five primary motivation types across Taiwanese, Sinophone, and international tourists.

Table 1. Cross-regional comparison of visitor motivation: Chi-square test results (% selected by group).

Region	Taiwanese Visitors (%)	Sinophone Tourists (%)	International Tourists (%)	χ2 (Chi-Square)	p-Value
Esthetic	72.3	68.9	75.1	1.83	0.401
Ritual/Social	65.7	48.6	29.3	72.69	<0.001
Educational	58.4	60.1	72.8	11.17	0.0038
Curiosity/Exploration	40.5	42.7	56.9	12.91	0.0016
Social Companionship	49.2	35.4	28.1	29.03	<0.001

summarizes the distribution of selected motivations across groups. A chi-square test was conducted for each motivation to determine whether the observed differences were statistically significant. The results are also visualized in Figure 3, which illustrates the comparative percentages for each motivation type by visitor region, highlighting notable differences—particularly in ritual/social, educational, and curiosity-driven motivations.

(1)

Significant Differences in Motivation

Ritual/Social Participation (p < 0.001): This was significantly more common among Taiwanese visitors (65.7%), reflecting local cultural familiarity with the ceremonial functions of the site.

“We came to see the changing of the guard and take pictures. It’s something every local should do at least once.” (Taiwanese visitor).

Educational Motivation (p = 0.0038): International visitors were the most likely to select this (72.8%), suggesting a strong orientation toward historical learning and civic education.

“I wanted to understand Taiwan’s past and politics. The guide helped a lot.” (International visitor).

Curiosity/Exploratory Drive (p = 0.0016): Again, international visitors led in this category (56.9%), indicating interest in using new technologies such as AR/VR to enhance their experience.

“I was curious about the AR stations. They made the visit more engaging than I expected.”

Social Companionship (p < 0.001): More common among Taiwanese and Sinophone tourists, especially those traveling in groups or with family.

“I came with my relatives. We joined a tour, and this was one of the stops.” (Sinophone visitor).

(2)

No Significant Difference

Esthetic Motivation (p = 0.401): Although selected by the majority in all groups (around 70%), the difference was not statistically significant, indicating that architectural appeal is a universal draw.

(3)

Interpretation and Implications

The results highlight that international tourists are more likely to seek educational and exploratory experiences, often through digital interpretation tools. In contrast, local and Sinophone visitors tend to engage with the site through habitual, symbolic, or group-based motivations. These findings suggest that digital heritage strategies should differentiate content based on visitor intent: informative and immersive tools for international audiences and socially or ritually framed experiences for domestic and regional travelers.

4.2. Digital Interpretation: Usage Patterns and Cross-Cultural Evaluation

Digital interpretation tools at the CKSMH—including mobile audio guides, AR installations, and interactive apps—were adopted to varying degrees across regional visitor groups. Survey results reveal that international tourists had the highest usage rate (68.8%), followed by Taiwanese domestic visitors (42.1%) and Sinophone tourists (37.0%). These differences suggest that cultural familiarity, technological literacy, and language accessibility played key roles in shaping user engagement.

Table 2. Cross-regional comparison of usability ratings for digital interpretation tools: ANOVA and Tukey HSD results.

Region	Taiwanese Visitors	Sinophone Tourists	International Tourists	F-Value	p-Value	Post Hoc (Tukey HSD) Result
Usability	4.1	3.8	4.3	12.3	<0.001	Int’l > TW > Sino (all p < 0.05)
Interpretability	4.0	3.7	4.4	18.7	<0.001	Int’l > TW > Sino (all p < 0.01)
Interactivity	3.9	3.6	4.2	14.9	<0.001	Int’l > TW > Sino (all p < 0.01)
Immersion	4.1	3.5	4.3	19.2	<0.001	Int’l > TW > Sino (all p < 0.001)
Reuse Intention	4.0	3.6	4.5	22.5	<0.001	Int’l > TW > Sino (all p < 0.001)

presents a comparative evaluation of digital guide features across five usability dimensions. The results clearly demonstrate that international tourists consistently rated all aspects higher, particularly in interpretability (4.4) and reuse intention (4.5). In contrast, Sinophone tourists gave the lowest ratings across all dimensions. These differences are further illustrated in Figure 4, which provides a visual comparison of regional ratings across usability features of digital interpretation tools at CKSMH.

These quantitative differences are further illustrated and supported by qualitative insights from visitor interviews and open-ended responses. The following excerpts help contextualize the ANOVA findings by highlighting the reasons behind the rating discrepancies across usability dimensions.

(1)

Usability

International tourists consistently gave the highest usability scores (M = 4.3), often attributing their satisfaction to language support and intuitive navigation:

“I don’t speak Mandarin, but the English app was clear and easy to follow. It really made a difference.” (International visitor).

In contrast, Sinophone visitors rated usability lowest (M = 3.8), frequently citing operational issues or unclear instructions:

“The app didn’t explain how to start the AR feature. I had to ask staff, and even then, it didn’t always work.” (Sinophone visitor).

(2)

Interpretability

Interpretability differences (F = 18.7, p < 0.001) are reflected in reactions to historical content:

“The AR guide gave good context about Chiang’s rule and Taiwan’s transformation. I learned a lot.” (International visitor)

“It felt too neutral—there was no mention of the White Terror. I expected more depth.” (Taiwanese visitor).

This shows that narrative expectations differed: international visitors appreciated surface-level explanations, while local and Sinophone tourists desired greater historical complexity.

(3)

Interactivity and Immersion

Scores for interactivity (M = 4.2, Int’l) and immersion (M = 4.3, Int’l) were strongly influenced by engagement with multimedia:

“After scanning the statue, an animation played—it was cool and unexpected.” (International visitor)

“The AR scanner was hard to use. Sometimes it didn’t respond. My mom gave up after a few tries.” (Taiwanese visitor).

This suggests that technical barriers and interface expectations differed significantly across age and familiarity groups.

(4)

Reuse Intention

Visitors who rated the experience highly expressed a strong intention to reuse digital guides:

“I’d love to try similar guides in other heritage sites. It helped me learn while having fun.” (International visitor).

Meanwhile, Sinophone tourists, despite linguistic proximity, were less willing to reuse the guide (M = 3.6), often due to perceived ideological framing:

“If the guide keeps telling the same official version of history, I don’t see the point of using it again.”

To statistically test the significance of these group differences, one-way ANOVA was conducted across the three visitor groups for each of the five evaluation dimensions. The results are summarized below:

4.3. Experience Value Across Visitor Groups

This section evaluates how visitors from different cultural backgrounds experienced the CKSMH using Pine and Gilmore’s four realms of experience—educational, esthetic, entertainment, and escapist value. Each dimension was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale.

Table 3. Cross-regional comparison of experience value ratings: ANOVA and Tukey HSD results.

Region	Taiwanese Visitors	Sinophone Tourists	International Tourists	F-Value	p-Value	Post Hoc (Tukey HSD) Result
Educational	4.0	3.7	4.5	24.1	<0.001	Int’l > TW > Sino (all p < 0.01)
Esthetic	4.3	4.1	4.6	7.3	0.001	Int’l > Sino; Int’l > TW (all p < 0.05)
Entertainment	4.2	3.9	4.4	10.8	<0.001	Int’l > Sino (all p < 0.01)
Escapism	4.0	3.6	4.2	12.5	<0.001	Int’l > Sino (all p < 0.001)

presents the average scores for each experience dimension across the three regional visitor groups. Results reveal that international tourists consistently reported higher experiential value than both Taiwanese and Sinophone tourists across all four dimensions. These findings are further illustrated in Figure 5, which visually compares average ratings across the four experience value dimensions by visitor group, highlighting international tourists’ consistently higher scores.

(1)

Educational and Entertainment Value

As shown in Table 3, international tourists rated the educational value highest (M = 4.5), followed by Taiwanese (M = 4.0) and Sinophone visitors (M = 3.7). One-way ANOVA confirmed significant group differences (F = 24.1, p < 0.001), with Tukey HSD post hoc tests indicating that all pairwise differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Qualitative responses support these findings:

“I actually learned a lot about Taiwan’s history. The content wasn’t overwhelming, and the digital guide made it fun.” (International visitor).

Entertainment followed a similar pattern. International visitors rated it 4.4, Taiwanese 4.2, and Sinophone tourists 3.9. These differences were also significant (F = 10.8, p < 0.001), suggesting that international tourists were more engaged by the interactive and media-rich nature of the exhibition.

(2)

Esthetic and Escapist Value

Esthetic value was high across all groups but highest among international tourists (M = 4.6). Sinophone tourists gave slightly lower scores (M = 4.1), though the difference remained statistically significant (F = 7.3, p = 0.001).

Escapism showed the greatest contrast between international (M = 4.2) and Sinophone visitors (M = 3.6), with Taiwanese tourists in between (M = 4.0). ANOVA revealed this difference to be statistically significant (F = 12.5, p < 0.001). This likely reflects differing levels of emotional and political distance:

“I was constantly thinking about the political baggage here. It wasn’t exactly relaxing.” (Sinophone visitor).

(3)

Interpretation and Implications

As evidenced by Table 3, international tourists consistently experienced higher affective and cognitive engagement. These differences can be attributed to Cultural distance and novelty effects, which increased curiosity and reduced ideological friction. Effective digital mediation, which offered accessible and immersive storytelling for non-local visitors. Emotional ambivalence among Sinophone tourists may have dampened their enjoyment or immersion. The visitor experience at CKSMH is significantly shaped by cultural background and historical proximity. By recognizing these perceptual gaps—clearly evidenced in Table 3—site managers and curators can better design inclusive, resonant experiences for diverse audiences.

4.4. Overall Satisfaction and Revisit Intention

This section analyzes visitors’ overall satisfaction and their behavioral intentions—specifically, willingness to recommend and intention to revisit the CKSMH. These indicators provide insight into how cultural interpretation and digital engagement shape long-term affective and cognitive responses.

Table 4. Cross-regional comparison of visitor satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

Region	Taiwanese (%)/Mean	Sinophone (%)/Mean	International (%)/Mean
Overall Satisfaction	4.2	4.0	4.5
Willingness to Recommend	76.3%	71.8%	89.5%
Revisit Intention	59.4%	52.6%	74.3%

summarizes the overall satisfaction (mean score on a 5-point Likert scale) and the percentage of visitors in each group who expressed willingness to recommend or revisit CKSMH.

International tourists reported the highest satisfaction (M = 4.5), followed by Taiwanese (M = 4.2) and Sinophone visitors (M = 4.0). A one-way ANOVA showed that these differences were statistically significant (F = 13.8, p < 0.001), with Tukey post hoc tests confirming that international tourists differed significantly from the other two groups (p < 0.01).

In terms of behavioral intention, 89.5% of international visitors indicated they would recommend CKSMH to others—significantly higher than Taiwanese (76.3%) and Sinophone tourists (71.8%). A similar trend was found for revisit intention, with 74.3% of international visitors expressing willingness to return, compared to 59.4% of Taiwanese and only 52.6% of Sinophone respondents.

These results align with the expectation–disconfirmation theory, which posits that visitor satisfaction is a strong predictor of post-visit behaviors. International visitors’ high satisfaction likely stems from multilingual support, technological novelty, and reduced political baggage, leading to stronger endorsement and return potential:

“I learned a lot and enjoyed the visit. I would definitely recommend it to friends coming to Taiwan.” (International visitor)

In contrast, Sinophone visitors offered more reserved responses, often linked to dissatisfaction with historical framing:

“The guide was too neutral. I wouldn’t revisit unless there’s a different exhibition next time.”

These findings suggest that visitor satisfaction and loyalty are mediated by cultural proximity and narrative alignment. While international tourists respond positively to CKSMH as an educational and esthetic site, Sinophone tourists may experience ideological dissonance, which diminishes satisfaction and behavioral intent. From a management perspective, this highlights the need to tailor narrative content to diverse interpretive expectations. Design rotating exhibitions or alternative storytelling layers to attract repeat visits. Ensure digital tools offer both critical depth and emotional resonance to meet varying visitor needs.

Visitor satisfaction and intent to return are highest among those least embedded in Taiwan’s contested historical narratives—particularly international tourists. As shown in Table 4, perceived neutrality or political omission may suppress positive behavioral outcomes among Sinophone and Taiwanese audiences, reinforcing the importance of pluralistic and emotionally engaging interpretation at transitional justice heritage sites.

4.5. Cross-Cultural Patterns of Engagement and Interpretation

This section synthesizes the key findings across visitor groups—Taiwanese, Sinophone, and international tourists—to identify distinct cultural patterns in site motivation, digital guide interaction, experiential value, and behavioral outcomes. In doing so, it also addresses the study’s core research questions.

(1)

Taiwanese Visitors: Ritual Familiarity with Moderate Engagement

Taiwanese domestic visitors typically approached the CKSMH with ritualistic or esthetic motivations drawn by symbolic architecture and national identity practices (RQ1). Their use of digital guides was moderate (42.1%), and while satisfaction was generally positive (M = 4.2), it was not significantly elevated. Educational and escapist scores were middling (Table 3), suggesting that many viewed the visit as a reaffirmation of civic routine rather than an emotionally or intellectually transformative experience.

“It’s a place we’ve seen growing up. The changing of the guard is still the main attraction.”

While not strongly critical, some expressed a desire for more narrative complexity, indicating latent interest in transitional justice perspectives (RQ3). Their revisit and recommendation intentions (59.4% and 76.3%, respectively) suggest moderate public value but limited transformative impact.

(2)

Sinophone Tourists: Cultural Proximity and Narrative Dissonance

Sinophone visitors (from China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Malaysia) exhibited lower satisfaction (M = 4.0) and the lowest intention to revisit (52.6%) despite shared language and partial cultural familiarity (RQ2). Though some were motivated by group or social reasons, their interaction with digital tools (37.0%) was limited, and their critiques centered on perceived narrative bias or historical omission—particularly regarding authoritarian legacies and the White Terror.

“The guide felt like state propaganda. It didn’t talk about the darker parts of Chiang’s rule.”

This group consistently gave the lowest scores across experiential dimensions, particularly escapism (M = 3.6), reflecting emotional ambivalence and potential discomfort with the site’s framing of Taiwanese identity and authoritarian memory (RQ3). Their responses underscore the challenge of representing politically contested histories to culturally proximate yet ideologically divergent audiences.

(3)

International Tourists: Exploratory Gaze and High Engagement

International tourists formed the most distinct pattern: they exhibited strong educational and exploratory motivations, the highest engagement with digital guides (68.8%), and the highest ratings across all experiential dimensions (Table 3). Satisfaction was also highest (M = 4.5), with 89.5% willing to recommend the site and 74.3% open to revisiting.

“The digital guide was immersive and helped me understand Taiwan’s past without needing prior knowledge.”

These findings suggest that cultural distance, narrative novelty, and accessible digital interfaces enabled this group to interpret CKSMH through a lens of civic learning and cultural curiosity (RQ1 and RQ2). The site functioned less as a site of national contestation and more as an educational heritage experience, mediated effectively by technology (RQ3).

(4)

Summary of Findings in Relation to Research Questions

RQ1. How do tourists from different regional backgrounds perceive and use digital interpretation tools at CKSMH?

Usage varied significantly: highest among international tourists, lowest among Sinophone visitors, with Taiwanese in between.

RQ2. How do variations in usability and digital engagement affect visitor satisfaction and behavioral intention?

Higher digital engagement (especially among international tourists) correlated with greater satisfaction and revisit intention.

RQ3. How do cultural proximity and language accessibility shape visitors’ interpretation of Taiwan’s authoritarian history?

Cultural proximity does not guarantee narrative alignment: Sinophone visitors showed greater discomfort than distant international tourists.

These patterns illustrate that memory sites like CKSMH are not experienced uniformly. Visitors arrive with distinct cultural lenses, historical expectations, and emotional thresholds, which shape how they engage with both physical space and digital narratives. For transitional justice to resonate across cultures, heritage interpretation must not only be technologically accessible but also emotionally pluralistic and historically inclusive.

5. Discussion

This study set out to explore how tourists from different cultural backgrounds engage with digital interpretation at the CKSMH and what factors influence their satisfaction and willingness to revisit or recommend the site. The findings offer key insights into the intersection of regional identity, digital mediation, and memory interpretation at a politically contested heritage site.

5.1. Regional Variations in Tourist Motivation

This study identified distinct patterns of tourist motivation across regional groups. Taiwanese visitors were primarily attracted by ceremonial esthetics and symbolic architecture, reflecting culturally conditioned practices of memorial engagement. Sinophone visitors emphasized group travel and familial bonding, often interacting with the site in socially driven ways. In contrast, international tourists were largely motivated by educational curiosity and authenticity-seeking, consistent with prior cross-cultural heritage tourism research [59,60,61]. These differences support the idea that cultural background influences not only visitation motives but also interpretive expectations.

However, the recent literature offers divergent perspectives. Some scholars argue that younger tourists increasingly prioritize leisure and novelty regardless of origin [62], while others emphasize that emotional and cultural motivations—especially when framed in a heritage context—can significantly shape perceived value and loyalty to the destination, moderated by visitors’ place of origin. These counterpoints suggest that motivation is not static but co-produced by context, presentation, and visitor identity. Overall, the findings underscore that understanding regional visitor motivations is essential for designing inclusive and resonant heritage experiences. Digital interpretation tools should, therefore, be tailored to accommodate diverse motivations and foster meaningful engagement across cultural groups.

5.2. Usability and Cross-Group Disparities in Digital Engagement

Although digital interpretation tools at CKSMH were widely available, their use and perceived effectiveness varied significantly across regional groups. International visitors evaluated the guides most positively, citing interpretive clarity, narrative structure, and immersive qualities. In contrast, Sinophone tourists—despite linguistic proximity—reported greater usability difficulties and less emotional resonance. These findings suggest that mere translation does not ensure equitable cultural transmission. Differences in historical background, prior knowledge, and interpretive expectations can mediate how digital tools are received and processed by users from diverse regions. Recent usability studies in heritage settings confirm that interface simplicity, cultural relevance, and affective cues are critical to achieving digital engagement in-memory environments [63,64,65]. Shim et al. demonstrated that digital storytelling aligned with national memory contexts enhances both visitor empathy and comprehension, even among international audiences [66].

However, recent critical literature cautions against assuming technological neutrality. For instance, digital tools that are deployed without ethical grounding or cultural nuance can inadvertently reinforce dominant narratives and exclude marginal perspectives [67,68]. Thus, CKSMH’s design must go beyond multilingual translation and consider narrative framing, emotional scaffolding, and cultural proximity in order to provide equitable interpretive agency across visitor groups.

5.3. Memory Politics and Comparative Interpretive Frameworks

Compared with other Taiwanese memory sites, such as the 228 Memorial and Jing-Mei Human Rights Park, CKSMH presents a relatively ambivalent narrative structure. While the “Gaze and Dialogue” project introduced AR technologies and multilingual guides, the site’s monumental architecture—centered on Chiang Kai-shek’s statue and Kuomintang emblems—continues to shape a spatial rhetoric of authoritarian glorification. These architectural and symbolic elements often overshadow curatorial attempts at dialogic engagement and contribute to interpretive ambiguity, particularly for visitors without prior historical knowledge.

By contrast, the 228 Memorial explicitly centers on victim narratives and postwar state violence through the use of survivor testimonies, archival materials, and multilingual digital interfaces [38,41]. This approach fosters affective engagement and historical clarity across cultural audiences. Furthermore, the museum’s spatial design and curatorial tone actively resist authoritarian symbolism, making it more effective in eliciting empathy and promoting transitional justice discourse [69].

Tseng highlights how Jing-Mei Park’s spatial storytelling—via preserved prison cells and participatory multimedia—generates visceral empathy by embedding carceral memory in place-specific narratives [41]. Meanwhile, Chang shows how immigrant-themed exhibitions at CKSMH attempt to destabilize dominant historical frames but are often absorbed into the institution’s residual symbolism [42]. This suggests that even with technological enhancements, CKSMH’s lack of cohesive narrative intention may limit its pedagogical efficacy. Ultimately, as Matten warns, contested memory sites must negotiate architectural symbolism with curatorial reflexivity to enable inclusive and dialogic memory practices [70]. CKSMH’s interpretive evolution, though promising, still lags behind its counterparts in critically confronting Taiwan’s authoritarian past.

5.4. Synthesis and Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the expanding scholarship on digital museology, transitional justice, and visitor experience, particularly in politically contested heritage contexts. The findings confirm that regional background significantly mediates not only visit motivation and interpretive outcomes but also digital tool reception. Recent research highlights that effective digital storytelling—especially when it incorporates multimodal interaction and visitor-centered narrative design—can significantly improve both accessibility and emotional engagement in cultural heritage settings [71,72]. Emerging studies have called for a shift toward holistic and participatory digital frameworks. A five-phase methodology emphasizing alignment with local site meanings and ethical storytelling has been proposed to guide such practices [68]. Similarly, a multisensory virtual museology model has been developed to enhance equity and inclusion across diverse visitor backgrounds [73]. Studies in European heritage settings demonstrate that multimodal interpretation can foster intercultural empathy and situated engagement if implemented with contextual sensitivity [74,75].

However, recent scholarship warns that technologically immersive systems—if poorly implemented or ideologically ambiguous—may alienate users or inadvertently reinforce hegemonic narratives under the pretense of innovation [76]. Thus, digital tools should not be seen as neutral conduits of memory but as interpretive agents embedded in contested symbolic terrains. In sum, this study reinforces the theoretical view that digital interpretation must be critically curated to balance technological engagement with dialogic, historically situated memory practices. In transitional justice heritage, this means recognizing regional diversity not only as a demographic variable but as a determinant of meaning-making itself.

6. Conclusions and Implications

This study examined how visitors from diverse cultural backgrounds engage with digital interpretation technologies at the CKSMH, a politically sensitive heritage site undergoing reframing within Taiwan’s transitional justice discourse. Results revealed meaningful differences in visitor motivation, engagement, and satisfaction across regional groups. International tourists expressed consistently higher satisfaction and emotional engagement, while Sinophone tourists experienced more ideological dissonance and narrative discomfort. These findings underscore the cultural importance of cultural proximity, language accessibility, and inclusive curatorial framing in shaping visitor interpretation.

6.1. Key Conclusions

(1)

Cultural Distance Shapes the Tourist Gaze and Emotional Engagement

International visitors reported greater satisfaction and experiential value, likely due to educational interest and cultural detachment from Taiwan’s authoritarian history. In contrast, Sinophone visitors demonstrated lower satisfaction and interpretive discomfort, shaped by historical proximity and ideological tension. This supports prior research indicating that memory reception is filtered through emotional identification and sociopolitical context.

(2)

Digital Guides Operate as Both Educational Interfaces and Political Agents

While digital tools significantly enhance understanding and immersion, they also risk reinforcing state-centric narratives if they lack perspectival content. Visitors’ dissatisfaction with overly celebratory portrayals of Chiang Kai-shek suggests that current interpretive strategies at CKSMH need to evolve into more dialogic and critically reflexive platforms.

(3)

Visitor Satisfaction Is Contingent on Guide Usability and Accessibility

Ease of use, language options, and technological accessibility emerged as key predictors of engagement. Although international visitors benefited from multilingual digital guides, older and less digitally literate tourists encountered barriers, pointing to the need for a more inclusive, user-friendly design.

6.2. Practical Recommendations

(1)

Diversify interpretive content: Future digital guides should incorporate multiple historical perspectives, such as White Terror survivor testimonies, Indigenous narratives, and postwar democratic reform efforts. This would support emotional engagement and plural memory construction.

(2)

Strengthen cross-cultural usability: Simplified navigation, clear visual cues, and audio support in additional languages (e.g., Thai, Vietnamese, Korean) would improve accessibility for regional tourists and aging visitors.

(3)

Embed visitor feedback in curatorial planning: Use empirical data on motivation and satisfaction to tailor interpretation. For example, international visitors may benefit from deeper historical scaffolding, while Sinophone tourists may need clearer narrative framing and interactive prompts.

(4)

Integrate analog-digital hybridity: Physical signage, tactile exhibits, and docent-led walkthroughs should complement digital tools to serve visitors with varying technological literacy levels.

(5)

Train on-site staff for digital facilitation: Support personnel can bridge gaps in digital access, especially for elderly or less tech-savvy users.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and descriptive focus, which do not test causal relationships between variables such as motivation, digital engagement, and satisfaction. Additionally, responses may reflect temporary impressions rather than enduring interpretive outcomes. To address these gaps, future studies should:

(1)

Apply regression modeling or SEM to examine mediation and moderation effects—e.g., how digital usability mediates the relationship between motivation and satisfaction.

(2)

Conduct longitudinal studies to track evolving visitor perceptions after digital or curatorial updates.

(3)

Employ digital ethnography to observe real-time visitor interactions with AR/VR tools, capturing nonverbal cues and spatial behavior.

(4)

Compare visitor responses at CKSMH with other memory sites like the 228 Memorial or National Human Rights Museum (formerly Jing-Mei White Terror Memorial) to assess how spatial symbolism and digital design jointly shape memory interpretation.

These methodological advancements would provide deeper insight into how digital museology can actively support transitional justice and inclusive heritage narratives.