## 3 Results
### Gender Effects  
The statistical analysis of gender effects was focused on the interaction term between test and gender, and the interaction term gender and group. The workload reported in pre-test was higher in women (M = 13.11, SE = 0.95) than in men (M = 8.55, SE = 0.92), but in post-test smaller differences were found between women (M = 10.64, SE = 0.86) and men (M = 9.40, SE = 0.83). The interaction term between test and gender had a significant effect on trainees' workload [F(1,54) = 6.32, \(p<0.02\), \(\eta^{2}=0.11\)]. In pre-test, women experienced more intensive negative emotions (M = 17.75, SE = 0.95) than men (M = 12.99, SE = 0.92), but in post-test smaller differences were found between women (M = 12.68, SE = 0.59) and men (M = 11.49, SE = 0.57). The interaction term between test and gender had a significant effect on trainees' negative emotion [F(1,54) = 10.83, \(p<0.002\), \(\eta^{2}=0.17\)] and fear of failure [F(1,54) = 5.21, \(p<0.026\), \(\eta^{2}=0.09\)]. In pre-test, the fear of failure was rated higher by women (M = 11.32, SE = 0.77) than by men (M = 8.83, SE = 0.92), but in post-test similar levels were reported by both women (M = 7.96, SE = 0.47) and men (M = 7.26, SE = 0.45). As Figure 3 shows, in pre-test the approach quality was better in men (M = 220.20, SE = 15.59) than in women (M = 97.37, SE = 16.83), but in post-test smaller differences were found between women (M = 244.84, SE = 13.53) and men (M = 278.88, SE = 12.54). Also as illustrated in Figure 4, the improvement of the approach quality in post-test as compared to pre-test was larger in women than in men. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Women**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Men**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean** & **SE** & **Mean** & **SE** \\ \hline
**AR immersion** & & & & \\ Attraction & 13.25 & 0.65 & 12.17 & 0.65 \\ Time investment & 12.67 & 0.64 & 12.00 & 0.64 \\ Usability & 6.00 & 1.24 & 6.50 & 1.24 \\ Emotional attachment & 13.33 & 1.15 & 12.25 & 1.15 \\ Focus of attention & 17.33 & 0.88 & 17.08 & 0.88 \\ Presence & 12.58 & 1.35 & 14.33 & 1.35 \\ Flow & 17.83 & 0.98 & 16.17 & 0.98 \\ Engagement & 31.92 & 2.29 & 30.67 & 2.29 \\ Engagement & 30.67 & 1.67 & 29.33 & 1.67 \\ Total immersion & 30.42 & 1.84 & 30.50 & 1.84 \\ \hline
**AR features and interactions** & & & & \\ AR comfort & 2.50 & 0.37 & 3.00 & 0.37 \\ AR trust & 2.35 & 0.34 & 2.92 & 0.34 \\ Gesture interaction & 3.25 & 0.36 & 3.25 & 0.36 \\ Voice interaction & 0.92 & 0.36 & 0.08 & 0.36 \\ Quiz & 3.67 & 0.43 & 3.00 & 0.43 \\ Holograms & 3.08 & 0.50 & 3.58 & 0.50 \\ AR projection field & 3.42 & 0.39 & 3.58 & 0.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive data of AR immersion and appreciation of AR features of the female and male trainees from the experimental group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pretest**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Posttest**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Mean** & **SE** & **Mean** & **SE** \\ \hline
**PANAS** & & & & & \\ Positive Emotion & EG & 36.89 & 1.08 & 35.43 & 1.40 \\  & CG & 35.77 & 1.05 & 35.65 & 1.35 \\ Negative Emotion & EG & 15.93 & 0.95 & 12.96 & 0.59 \\  & CG & 14.81 & 0.92 & 11.21 & 0.57 \\ \hline
**Motivation** & & & & & \\ Challenge & EG & 18.11 & 0.67 & 16.79 & 0.76 \\  & CG & 17.63 & 0.64 & 16.36 & 0.74 \\ Interest & EG & 25.18 & 0.65 & 24.25 & 0.78 \\  & CG & 23.76 & 0.63 & 24.08 & 0.76 \\ Success probability & EG & 8.79 & 0.32 & 8.18 & 0.35 \\  & CG & 8.34 & 0.31 & 8.51 & 0.34 \\ Fear of failure & EG & 10.96 & 0.77 & 8.21 & 0.47 \\  & CG & 9.18 & 0.75 & 7.01 & 0.45 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}