Factors Influencing User Acceptance, Adoption, and Long-Term Engagement with Virtual Reality Across Application Domains: A Systematic Synthesis of Review Evidence
This systematic synthesis of review evidence from 2015 to 2025 identifies key determinants and barriers to Virtual Reality adoption across diverse domains, highlighting the need for an integrated framework that addresses methodological gaps and combines cognitive, experiential, physiological, and organizational factors to ensure long-term user engagement.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine you just put on a pair of high-tech goggles that transport you to a digital world. Suddenly, you're standing on a Martian landscape, practicing surgery on a virtual patient, or walking through a museum in ancient Rome. This is Virtual Reality (VR), a technology that has exploded from a niche toy into a tool used in schools, hospitals, factories, and even on the battlefield. But here is the tricky part: just because a technology works in a controlled test doesn't mean people will actually keep using it. Think of it like a new video game console. You might be thrilled to play it for an hour on day one, but if the controller is heavy, the game is boring, or your friends aren't playing, you might stop using it a week later. Scientists call this "acceptance" (liking it), "adoption" (starting to use it), and "long-term engagement" (sticking with it). The big question researchers are trying to solve is: Why do some people love VR and keep coming back, while others try it once and never touch it again?
This paper is a massive "review of reviews." Instead of running new experiments, the author, Amelia Kowalska, gathered and analyzed dozens of high-quality studies, summaries, and reports published between 2015 and 2025. She looked at how VR is used in everything from education and healthcare to tourism and military training to find the common threads that make people say "yes" and the reasons they say "no."
The main finding is that VR acceptance isn't just about one thing; it's a delicate balancing act between three different forces. First, there's the Instrumental Force: Does this tool actually help me do my job or learn something? (Like a calculator helping you solve math). Second, there's the Experiential Force: Is it fun, immersive, and does it feel like I'm really there? (Like the thrill of a rollercoaster). Third, there's the Friction Force: Does it make me dizzy, is it hard to figure out, or does my boss or teacher not support it?
The paper suggests that for short-term fun, like a tourist seeing a virtual beach, the "Experiential Force" (enjoyment and feeling present) is the star of the show. However, for serious work, like a surgeon training or a factory worker assembling parts, the "Instrumental Force" (usefulness) and "Friction Force" (is it easy to use and supported by the organization?) become the most important factors. If a factory worker finds the VR headset too heavy or the software confusing, they won't use it, no matter how useful it is on paper.
Crucially, the paper argues against the idea that we can just take a simple checklist used for regular computers and apply it to VR. It suggests that standard models often miss the unique "VR stuff," like Cybersickness (that nauseous feeling when your eyes see movement but your body doesn't) and Presence (the magical feeling that you are actually inside the virtual world). The review finds that Cybersickness is a major barrier that often gets ignored in studies, acting like a hidden speed bump that stops people from using VR long-term.
Perhaps the most significant discovery is what the paper says is missing. It points out that while we have tons of studies asking people, "Would you use this?" (which measures intention), we have very few studies that actually track if people do use it over months or years. It's like asking a dieter if they plan to eat healthy, rather than checking their fridge six months later. The paper suggests that many current studies are too short, often just looking at a single session, which means we don't really know what makes people stick with VR in the long run.
In short, the paper concludes that to make VR a permanent part of our lives, we need to build systems that are not only useful and fun but also comfortable, supported by organizations, and proven to work over time. It calls for a new, unified way of measuring these factors that accounts for the unique quirks of immersive technology, rather than just guessing based on short-term reactions. The author suggests that until we solve the puzzle of long-term engagement and fix the "friction" issues like dizziness and lack of support, VR will remain a cool gadget that many people try but few truly adopt for the long haul.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.