# User Experience in VR Fashion Product Shopping: Focusing on Tangible Interactions
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Effects of Tangible Interaction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dependent Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Independent Variable**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Non-Normalized Coefficient**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Standardized Coefficient**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} \\  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Coefficient**} & & & & \\  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Coefficient**} & & & & **(adj. R\({}^{2}\))** & \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard Error**} & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Intention to use} & (constant) & 0.169 & 0.964 & & 0.175 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.421} & \multirow{3}{*}{6.294 **\(\ast\)**} \\  & TM & 0.211 & 0.161 & 0.226 & 1.308 & & \\  & SI & 0.261 & 0.209 & 0.235 & 1.248 & & \\  & ER & 0.477 & 0.275 & 0.330 & 1.735 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Playfulness} & (constant) & 1.396 & 0.753 & & 1.855 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.356} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.796 **\(\ast\)**} \\  & TM & 0.085 & 0.126 & 0.123 & 0.676 & & \\  & SI & 0.070 & 0.163 & 0.086 & 0.432 & & \\  & ER & 0.507 & 0.215 & 0.473 & 2.361 \(\ast\) & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Sharpness} & (constant) & 0.344 & 0.963 & & 0.357 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.334} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.343 \(\ast\)} \\  & TM & 0.193 & 0.161 & 0.222 & 1.198 & & \\  & SI & 0.339 & 0.209 & 0.329 & 1.628 & & \\  & ER & 0.203 & 0.275 & 0.151 & 0.741 & (257) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Telepresence} & (constant) & \(-\)0.169 & 0.722 & & \(-\)0.234 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.649} & \multirow{3}{*}{15.992 **\(\ast\)**} \\  & TM & 0.335 & 0.121 & 0.374 & 2.777 \(\ast\) & \\  & SI & 0.324 & 0.156 & 0.304 & 2.069 \(\ast\) & \\  & ER & 0.435 & 0.206 & 0.313 & 2.114 \(\ast\) & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Interactivity} & (constant) & \(-\)1.168 & 0.675 & & \(-\)1.730 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.730} & \multirow{3}{*}{23.477 **} \\  & TM & 0.279 & 0.113 & 0.291 & 2.468 \(\ast\) & & \\  & SI & 0.603 & 0.146 & 0.530 & 4.120 \(\ast\) & & \\  & ER & 0.310 & 0.193 & 0.209 & 1.610 & (0.699) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Usability} & (constant) & 0.394 & 1.365 & & 0.288 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.202} & \multirow{3}{*}{2.195} \\  & TM & \(-\)0.181 & 0.228 & \(-\)0.162 & \(-\)0.795 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & SI & 0.169 & 0.296 & 0.126 & 0.571 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & ER & 0.737 & 0.389 & 0.423 & 1.894 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of multiple regression analysis for immersive VR. \(\ast\)\(p\) < 0.5; \(\ast\)\(p\) < 0.05; \(\ast\)\(\ast\)\(p\) < 0.001. In the case of the non-immersive type, tangible manipulation (B = 0.469, \(p<0.001\)) and expressive representation (B = 0.869, \(p<0.001\)) were found to have a significant effect on intention to use, with an explanatory power of 67.7%. It was found that expressive representation (B = 0.565, \(p<0.001\)) had a significant effect on sharpness, with an explanatory power of 54.9%. For telepresence, spatial interaction (B = 0.295, \(p<0.05\)) had a significant effect, whereas expressive representation (B = 0.615, \(p<0.05\)) had a significant effect on usability. The sub-factor of tangible interaction did not significantly affect playfulness or interactivity. Therefore, H3, based on all tangible interaction factors (TM, SI, ER) that will affect UX of fashion product shopping in the VR environment, was rejected. In the case of the non-immersive type, intention to use experience was also an item which was affected by tangible manipulation and an expressive representation. It can be stated that this is because the VR environment is experienced through the control of the monitor screen and mouse; in addition, it is easy to move within a shopping space or manipulate the products, and the expression of products and stores implemented in VR can be a factor increasing the intention to use for VR shopping. In addition, it was confirmed that the expressive representation item, which provides a visual immersion experience, plays an important role in sharpness.