Military and Defence Applications

  • Coral Dando
  • Claire Tranter


Virtual environments are synthetic computer simulations that represent activities at a high degree of realism, and which are presented to a user in such a way that s/he temporarily suspends belief and accepts them as real environments (see Witmer & Singer, 1998). Virtual Environments (VEs) allow people to communicate as avatars, which are digital visual projections that represent a synthetic reality (Fox & Ahn, 2013), so that individuals can change aspects of their identity, or even create a novel, entirely fictitious, and unrepresentative online identity. Virtual environments have numerous applications for military and defence purposes, ranging from allowing personnel to experience realistic high-pressure situations with a sense of presence but in the absence of real-world risk, to modelling threats to national and international infrastructure to improve resilience. Additional and emerging opportunities also exist for communication and intelligence gathering purposes, exploring online social cognition and group behaviour, and for understanding how to mitigate the negative effects of combat-related stress disorders, for example.


Virtual Reality Virtual Environment Cognitive Style Motion Sickness Military Personnel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, S., Polovina, S., Akhgar, B., Stainforth, A., Fortune, D., & Stedmon, A. (2015). Tackling financial and economic crime through strategic intelligence management. In Stedmon, A. & Lawson (Eds.). Hostile Intent and Counter-terrorism: Human Factors Theory and Application. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Attrill, A. (2014). The misconception of online splurging and associated security risks. Cybertalk, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boon, K. E., Huq, A. Z., & Lovelace, D. C. (2010). Assessing the GWOT (Vol. 110). Oxford University Press, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Buss, D., & Greling, H. (1999). Adaptive individual differences. Journal of Personality, 67, 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornish, P., Hughes, R., & Livingstone, D. (2009). Cyberspace and the national security of the United Kingdom. Threats and responses. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  8. Cruz-Neira, C., Reiners, D., Springer, J. P., Neumann, C., Odom, C. N. S., & Kehring, K. (2011). An integrated immersive simulator for the dismounted soldier. Paper Presented at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando, Floria.Google Scholar
  9. Dando, C. J., & Bull, R. (2011). Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: Training police officers to interview tactically. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dando, C. J., Bull, R., Ormerod, T. C., & Sandham, A. L. (2015). Helping to sort the liars from the truth-tellers: The gradual revelation of information during investigative interviews. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dando, C. J., Taylor, P., & Ormerod, T. C. (2013). Detecting deception: Can computers interview to detect persons of interest following an insider attack? Paper Presented at the American Psychology and Law Conference, 7–9 March, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Dando, C. J., & Tranter, C. L. (2015). Intelligence interviewing: Synthetic environments, cognition and cognitive styles. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practise, 7, 42–50.Google Scholar
  13. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J. P., & Rampnoux, O. (2011). Origins of serious games. In Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 25–43). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eshel, T. (2011). Virtual reality prepares soldiers for the real fight. Retrieved from
  17. Fox, J., & Ahn, S. J. G. (2013). Avatars: Portraying, exploring, and changing online and offline identities. In Handbook of research on technoself: Identity in a technological society (pp. 255–271). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher, A. G., & Cates, C. U. (2004). Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: What this means for procedural-based medicine. Jama, 292, 3024–3026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gehlbach, H., Young, L. V., & Roan, L. K. (2012). Teaching social perspective taking: How educators might learn from the Army. Educational Psychology, 32, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groves, P. M., & Thompson, R. F. (1970). Habituation: A dual-process theory. Psychological review, 77, 419–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hafich, A., Fowlkes, J., & Lenihan, P. (2007, January). Use of haptic devices to provide contextual cues in a virtual environment for training. In The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC) (Vol. 2007, No. 1). National Training Systems Association.Google Scholar
  22. Hoffman, H. G., Doctor, J. N., Patterson, D. R., Carrougher, G. J., & Furness, T. A. (2000a). Virtual reality as an adjunctive pain control during burn wound care in adolescent patients. Pain, 85, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffman, H. G., Patterson, D. R., & Carrougher, G. J. (2000b). Use of virtual reality for adjunctive treatment of adult burn pain during physical therapy: A controlled study. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 16, 244–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Intelligence Science Board. (2009). Intelligence interviewing. National Intelligence Agency, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Isen, A. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making on complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janofsky, J. S. (2006). Lies and coercion: Why Psychiatrists should not participate in police and intelligence interrogations. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 472–478.Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, M. C., & Dando, C. J. (2012). Computer-mediated investigative interviews: A potential screening tool for the detection of insider threat. In S. Tomblin, N. MacLeod, R. Sousa-Silva, & M. Coulthard (Eds.). Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Conference of Forensic Linguistics, Birmingham: Centre for Forensic Linguistics (pp. 272–282).Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kennedy, R. S., Lilienthal, M. G., Berbaum, K. S., Baltzley, D. R., & McCauley, M. E. (1989). Simulator sickness in US Navy flight simulators. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 60, 10–16.Google Scholar
  30. Knerr, B. W. (2007). Immersive simulation training for the dismounted soldier (Report No. ARI-SR-2007–01). Army research Institution Filed Unit, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  31. Kolasinski, E. M. (1995). Simulator sickness in virtual environments (Report No. ARI-TR-1027). Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  32. Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuykendall, J. (2010). Future training innovations. FLETC Journal, 8, 9–12.Google Scholar
  34. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). International affective picture system (IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings. The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  35. Lathan, C. E., Tracey, M. R., Sebrechts, M. M., Clawson, D. M., & Higgins, G. A. (2002). Using virtual environments as training simulators: Measuring transfer. In Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications, Taylor & Francis: CRC Press (pp. 403–414).Google Scholar
  36. Lee, A. (2006). Flight simulation, virtual environments in aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77, 164.Google Scholar
  37. Lin, H., & Wang, H. (2014). Avatar creation in virtual worlds: Behaviors and motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macedonia, M. (2002). Games soldiers play. IEEE Spectrum, 39, 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manojlovich, J., Prasithsangaree, P., Hughes, S., Chen, J., & Lewi, M. (2003). Utsaf: A multi-agent-based framework for supporting military-based distributed interactive simulations in 3d virtual environments. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans (Vol. 1, pp. 960–968).Google Scholar
  40. Marett, K., & George, J. F. (2004). Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: Gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McEwen, B. S., & Seeman, T. (1999). Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress: Elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKenna, K. Y., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McLay, R. N., Graap, K., Spira, J., Perlman, K., Johnston, S., Rothbaum, B. O., Difede, J., Deal, W., Oliver, D., Baird, A., Bordnick, P. S., Spitalnick, J., Pyne, J. M., & Rizzo, A. (2012). Development and testing of virtual reality exposure therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in active duty service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military medicine, 177, 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  46. Orvis, K. A., Moore, J. C., Belanich, J., Murphy, J. S., & Horn, D. B. (2010). Are soldiers gamers? Videogame usage among soldiers and implications for the effective use of serious videogames for military training. Military Psychology, 22, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richardson, B. H., Taylor, P. J., Snook, B., Conchie, S. M., & Bennell, C. (2014). Language style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rizzo, A., Buckwalter, J. G., Forbell, E., Reist, C., Difede, J., Rothbaum, B. O., Lange, B., Koenig, S., & Talbot, T. (2013). Virtual reality applications to address the wounds of war. Psychiatric Annals, 43, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rizzo, A., Hartholt, A., Grimani, M., Leeds, A., & Liewer, M. (2014). Virtual reality exposure therapy for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Computer, 47, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rizzo, A., Pair, J., Graap, K., Rothbaum, B. O., Difede, J., Reger, G., & Perlman, K. (2008). Virtual Iraq: Initial results from a VR exposure therapy application for combat-related post traumatic stress disorder. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality, 16, 420–425.Google Scholar
  52. Rose, F. D., Attree, E. A., Brooks, B. M., Parslow, D. M., & Penn, P. R. (2000). Training in virtual environments: Transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training. Ergonomics, 43, 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sandham, A., Ormerod, T., Dando, C., & Menacere T. (2015). On the trail of the terrorist: A research environment to simulate criminal investigations. In Stedmon, A. & Lawson (Eds.). Hostile Intent and Counter-terrorism: Human Factors Theory and Application. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
  54. Shahrbanian, S., Ma, X., Korner-Bitensky, N., & Simmonds, M. J. (2009). Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of virtual reality for pain reduction in adults with acute or chronic pain. Annual Review of Cyberpsychology and Telemedicine, 144, 40–43.Google Scholar
  55. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor, P. J., Dando, C. J., Ormerod, T. C., Ball, L. J., Jenkins, M, C., Sandham, A., & Menacere, T. (2013). Detecting insider threats through language change. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teteris, E., Fraser, K., Wright, B., & McLaughlin, K. (2012). Does training learners on simulators benefit real patients? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, R. F., & Spencer, W. A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychological Review, 73, 16–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tranter, C., Dando, C. J., & Sandham, A. (2014). Cognition in context: Investigating the impact of individual differences on information-gathering interviews in synthetic environments. Paper Presented at the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, 2–4 June, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  61. Wang, Z. C., Tsai, C. C., & Chien, M. C. (2012). Design of an intelligent soldier combat training system. International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 2, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wahlquist, J. A. (2010). Setting and agenda for the high-value detainee interrogation group. International Journal of Intelligence Ethics, 1, 24–45.Google Scholar
  63. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson, C. (2008). Avatars, virtual reality technology, and the U.S. military: Emerging policy issues (Report No. RS22857). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  65. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus Effect: Self transformations in virtual reality. Human Communication Research, 33, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Psychology Press, Mahwah, New Jersey: London.Google Scholar
  68. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Revisiting the value issue in intellectual styles. Perspectives on the Nature of Intellectual Styles, 63–85.Google Scholar
  69. Ziv, A., Wolpe, P. R., Small, S. D., & Glick, S. (2003). Simulation-based medical education: An ethical imperative. Academic Medicine, 78, 783–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coral Dando and Claire Tranter 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Coral Dando
  • Claire Tranter

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations