## 5 Results
### Results of t-Test and Structure Model  
Table 5 describes the means and standard deviations for the construction items from the standing group and sitting group. All the means of PPS and EE for SIG, with the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis** & **Factors** & **Path Coefficient (\(\beta\))** & **t** & **Sig.** & **Support or Not** \\ \hline H1 & PPS \(\rightarrow\) BI & 0.031 & 0.190 & \(p\) \textgreater{} 0.05 & No \\ H2 & PPS \(\rightarrow\) PE & \(-0.438\)* & \(-3.004\) & \(p\) \textless{} 0.05 & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. PPS: perceived physical safety; EE: effort expectancy; PE: performance expectancy; BI: behavioral intention (* \(p\)\textless{} 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Path coefficients (\(\beta\)) and structure model results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Constructs** & **Items** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Cronbach’s Alpha (\(\alpha\))** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{PE} & PE1 & 5.85 & 0.864 & \multirow{6}{*}{0.881} \\  & PE2 & 5.93 & 0.859 & \\  & PE3 & 6.03 & 0.862 & \\  & PE4 & 5.83 & 1.13 & \\  & PE5 & 5.9 & 0.871 & \\  & PE6 & 6.05 & 0.815 & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{EE} & EE1 & 6.58 & 0.55 & \multirow{6}{*}{0.831} \\  & EE2 & 6.63 & 0.585 & \\  & EE3 & 6.53 & 0.64 & \\  & EE4 & 6.65 & 0.483 & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{PPS} & PPS1 & 6.43 & 0.595 & \multirow{6}{*}{0.854} \\  & PPS2 & 6 & 0.877 & \\  & PPS3 & 6.23 & 0.733 & \\  & PPS4 & 6.4 & 0.632 & \\  & PPS5 & 6.53 & 0.554 & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{BI} & BI1 & 6.1 & 0.982 & \multirow{6}{*}{0.906} \\  & BI2 & 5.9 & 1.122 & \\  & BI3 & 6.2 & 0.974 & \\  & BI4 & 6 & 0.832 & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note. PPS: perceived physical safety; EE: effort expectancy; PE: performance expectancy; BI: behavioral intention.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Basic descriptive results of interviews based on the extended UTAUT of 40 participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Constructs** & **PE** & **EE** & **PPS** & **BI** & **PE** & **EE** & **PPS** & **PE** & **EE** & **PPS** \\  & \(-0.438\)** ** & \(-0.125\) & & & & & & \\ BI & \(0.457\)** ** & \(0.156\) & \(0.031\) & & & & & \\ Age & \(0.059\) & \(-0.361\)* & \(-0.054\) & \(-0.015\) & & & & \\ EE(STG) & & & & \(-0.409\) & & & & \\ PPS(STG) & & & & \(0.237\) & \(-0.458\)* & & & & \\ BI(STG) & & & & \(0.049\) & \(-0.204\) & \(-0.104\) & & \\ EE(SIG) & & & & & & & \(0.342\) & \\ PPS(SIG) & & & & & & \(0.422\) & \(-0.050\) & \\ BI(SIG) & & & & & & & \(0.636\)** & 0.339 & 0.365 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. PPS: perceived physical safety; EE: effort expectancy; PE: performance expectancy; BI: behavioral intention.  
STG: standing group; SIG: sitting group (* \(p\)\textless{} 0.05, ** \textgreater{} 0.01) (2-tailed).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Correlation analysis results between constructs and age in the whole, STG, and SIG groups. exception of EE3 and EE4, are confirmed to be higher than the means for STG. All the means of PE items for STG are higher than the means for SIG. To examine potential gender differences in PE, EE, PPS, and BI, an independent samples \(t\)-test was conducted. The results in Table 6 indicated no significant gender effects on PE, EE, PPS, or BI. Table 7 shows the T value and structure model results. Standing posture impact on PPS is more significantly negative than sitting postures (t = \(-\)6.958, \(p\) < 0.001). Standing posture has a more significant positive influence on PE than sitting posture (t = 6.465, \(p\) < 0.001). This indicates that seated-immersed exercisers have higher perceived safety than standing exercisers. In contrast, standing-immersed exercisers have higher performance expectations and expect IEG to bring them better and healthier outcomes.