The purpose of this article is to explore the acceptance of virtual reality (VR) training in a single police service that implemented the technology as a key part of its training procedures. We examined satisfaction data from surveys of police officers and civilian staff collected over three years, complemented by interviews with staff involved in the development and use of VR. The technology acceptance model (TAM) provides the theoretical framework for exploring six hypotheses based on previous research, enabling the study to assess the perceived ease of use, usefulness, enjoyment, immersion, interaction, and future intention to use VR technology. Insights were derived from a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics, along with thematic analysis. Results show a consistent upward trend in officer satisfaction with VR, along with strong evidence of perceived usefulness, immersion, and interactivity. Significant findings indicate a link between satisfaction with VR and education, with PhD holders reporting the highest levels of satisfaction. Gender differences were also evident, with female participants expressing higher satisfaction than males. In addition, participants with more than 10 years of service reported significantly lower satisfaction than mid-service officers, suggesting that age may be a contributory factor. These findings are discussed in the context of the interplay between demographic factors and technology acceptance in policing. We emphasize the need for the development of tailored training and communication strategies to support the effective implementation of VR technology as a medium for instruction for employees of all ages and genders.
AbbasNPolicekN (2021) “Don’t be the same, be better”: an exploratory study on police mobile technology resistance. Police Practice and Research22(1): 849–868.
2.
AbbasiMSTarhiniAHassounaM, et al. (2015) Social, organizational, demography and individuals’ technology acceptance behaviour: a conceptual model. European Scientific Journal11(9): 48–76.
3.
AdamsAHartJIacovidesI, et al. (2019) Co-created evaluation: identifying how games support police learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies132: 34–44.
4.
AgarwalRPrasadJ (1999) Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?Decision Sciences30(2): 361–391.
5.
Al-HawariMAMouakketS (2010) The influence of technology acceptance model (TAM) factors on students’ satisfaction and e-retention within the context of UAE e-learning. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues3(4): 299–314.
6.
Al BelooshiA (2023) Empowerment of women in the Abu Dhabi Police General Headquarters (ADPGHQ). PhD thesis, University of Bradford, UK.
7.
AllenM (2019) Examining the technology acceptance of the iCOP application among police officers. The Journal of Technology Studies45(1): 10–23.
8.
BinschOOudejansNvan der KuilMN, et al. (2023) The effect of virtual reality simulation on police officers’ performance and recovery from a real-life surveillance task. Multimedia Tools and Applications82(11): 17471–17492.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
10.
Burton-JonesAHubonaGS (2006) The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management43(6): 706–717.
11.
CakarB (2011) Factors affecting police officers’ acceptance of GIS technologies: A study of the Turkish national police (ark:/67531/metadc84182). PhD dissertation, University of North Texas, USA.
12.
ColvinCAGohA (2005) Validation of the technology acceptance model for police. Journal of Criminal Justice33(1): 89–95.
13.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
14.
GarciaETWareSGBakerLJ (2019) Measuring presence and performance in a virtual reality police use of force training simulation prototype. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI international conference of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society.
15.
González-GómezFGuardiolaJMartín-RodríguezO, et al. (2012) Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education58(1): 283–290.
16.
GültekınK (2011) Technology acceptance and the effect of gender in the Turkish national police: The Case of the polnet system. Turkish Journal of Police Studies/Polis Bilimleri Dergisi13(3): 61–80.
17.
HamiltonDMcKechnieJEdgertonE, et al. (2021) Immersive VR as a pedagogical tool in education: a systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education8(1): 1–32.
18.
HanJHSaHJ (2022) Acceptance of and satisfaction with online educational classes through the technology acceptance model (TAM): the COVID-19 situation in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review23(3): 403–415.
19.
HussainATHalfordEAlKaabiF (2023) The Abu Dhabi Police Virtual Training Centre: a case study for building a VR development capacity and capability. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice17: paad028.
20.
KleygreweLHutterRVKoedijkM, et al. (2024) VR Training for police officers: a comparison of training responses in VR and real-life training. Police Practice and Research25(1): 18–37.
21.
KlugeEWRileyR (2008) Teaching in virtual worlds: opportunities and challenges. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology5: 127–135.
22.
KurkinenE (2013, May) The effect of age on technology acceptance among field police officers. In: ComesTFiedrichFFortierSGeldermannJMüllerT (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international ISCRAM conference, Baden-Baden, Germany, May 2013. ISCRAM, 468–477.
23.
LeeMKOCheungCMKChenZ (2005) Acceptance of internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information and Management42(8): 1095–1104.
24.
LeeYHHsiehYCChenYH (2013) An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning systems: applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour and Information Technology32(2): 173–189.
25.
LiawSS (2008) Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education51(2): 864–873.
26.
LinKWuYSunIY, et al. (2022) Rank, experience, and attitudes towards domestic violence intervention: a moderated mediation analysis of Chinese police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice15(4): 2225–2240.
27.
LindsayRJacksonTWCookeL (2011) Adapted technology acceptance model for mobile policing. Journal of Systems and Information Technology13(4): 389–407.
28.
LindsayRJacksonTWCookeL (2014) Empirical evaluation of a technology acceptance model for mobile policing. Police Practice and Research15(5): 419–436.
29.
LiuX (2010) Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: an exploratory study of educational wikis. Communication Education59(1): 52–69.
30.
LumCKoperCWillisJ (2016) Understanding the limits of technology’s impact on police effectiveness. Police Quarterly20(2): 1–29.
31.
ManisKTChoiD (2019) The VR hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for VR hardware. Journal of Business Research100: 503–513.
32.
MartaindaleMHSandelWLDuronA, et al. (2024) Can a virtual reality training scenario elicit similar stress response as a realistic scenario-based training scenario?Police Quarterly27(1): 109–129.
33.
McCleeryJPZitterASolórzanoR, et al. (2020) Safety and feasibility of an immersive virtual reality intervention program for teaching police interaction skills to adolescents and adults with autism. Autism Research13(8): 1418–1424.
34.
NagyJT (2018) Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning19(1): 160–185.
35.
ObasiJE (2017) Police Officers’ Perceptions of Body-Worn Camera Technology. Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States: Walden University.
36.
OngCSLaiJY (2006) Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior22(5): 816–829.
37.
PaolineEAIII (2003) Taking stock: toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice31(3): 199–214.
38.
PapastergiouMSolomonidouC (2005) Gender issues in internet access and favourite internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education44(4): 377–393.
39.
ParkSY (2009) An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-Learning. Educational Technology and Society12(3): 150–162.
40.
PletzC (2021) Which factors promote and inhibit the acceptance of immersive VR technology in teaching-learning contexts? Results of an expert survey. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning16(13): 248–272.
41.
PorterCEDonthuN (2006) Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research59(9): 999–1007.
42.
RebeloFNoriegaPDuarteE, et al. (2012) Using VR to assess user experience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society54(6): 964–982.
43.
RizzoAJohnBNewmanB, et al. (2013) VR As a tool for delivering PTSD exposure therapy and stress resilience training. Military Behavioral Health1(1): 52–58.
44.
RogersEM (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
45.
Sánchez-FrancoMJ (2006) Exploring the influence of gender on web usage via partial least squares. Behaviour & Information Technology25(1): 19–36.
46.
SchatzREggerSKleygreweL, et al. (2021) Training experience framework and structural equation model. European Commission, Horizon 2020.
47.
SchumacherPMorahan-MartinJ (2001) Gender, internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior17(1): 95–110.
48.
SharplesSBurnettGCobbS (2014) Sickness in VR. In: WiederholdBKBouchardS (eds) Advances in VR and Anxiety Disorders. New York: Springer, 35–62.
49.
SharplesSCobbSMoodyA, et al. (2008) VR Induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays29(2): 58–69.
50.
ShermanWRCraigAB (2003) Understanding VR: Interface, Application, and Design. Netherlands, Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier.
51.
SlaterMWilburS (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments6(6): 603–616.
52.
SunHZhangP (2006) The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64(2): 53–78.
53.
TeoT (2009) Modelling technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education52(2): 302–312.
54.
ThompsonSHTLimVKG (1996) Factors influencing personal computer usage: the gender gap. Women in Management Review11(8): 18–26.
55.
TomaževičNSeljakJAristovnikA (2014) Factors influencing employee satisfaction in the police service: the case of Slovenia. Personnel Review43(2): 209–227.
56.
van BraakJ (2004) Domains and determinants of university students’ self-perceived computer competence. Computers & Education43(3): 299–312.
57.
VenkateshVBalaH (2008) Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences39(2): 273–315.
58.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
59.
VrielinkR (2015) Appreciation of the use of Blackboard at the Police Academy of the Netherlands using the Technology Acceptance Model. The Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, Innovation and Change1(1): 1–16.
60.
WillisJJKoperCSLumC (2020) Technology use and constituting structures: accounting for the consequences of information technology on police organisational change. Policing and Society30(5): 483–501.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
