## 3 Results  
As shown in Table 1, we conducted an analysis of the distribution of participants across demographic variables, with a more comprehensive examination of age, average monthly income, educational level, gender, frequency of traveling on HSR, and length of travel.  
We calculated the mean and standard deviation of user satisfaction for the different experimental conditions; see Table 2.  
The repeated-measures ANOVA of 2 (social anxiety: high/low) \(\times\) 3 (RTCI status: none/ success/failure) showed that the main effect of RTCI status was significant: F(2, 116) = 88.73, \(p\)! 0.001. The Successful-RTCI condition significantly improved user satisfaction compared to the No-RTCI and Failed-RTCI conditions, \(p\)! 0.001, and the user satisfaction under the No-RTCI condition was higher than that under the Failed-TTCI condition, \(p\)! 0.001. The main effect of social anxiety was not significant: F(1, 58) = 0.09, \(p\) = 0.763. The interaction between RTC and social anxiety was significant: F(2, 116) = 5.09, \(p\) = 0.008, see Figure 3. A simple effects test found that for individuals with low social anxiety there was no significant difference in perceived availability in the No-RTCI (72.75 \(\pm\) 14.60) or Failed-RTCI conditions: (71.25 \(\pm\) 13.55), F(1, 29) = 0.85, \(p\) = 0.363; for individuals with high social anxiety, the perceived availability under RTCI failure (67.08 \(\pm\) 13.23) was significantly lower than that without RTCI: (77.50 \(\pm\) 12.37), F(1, 29) = 28.28, \(p\)! 0.001. In addition, for the Successful-RTCI condition, there was no difference between the individuals with low or high social anxiety. This indicated that the level of social anxiety modulated the customer experience of the effectiveness of RTCI use.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Eigenvalue** & **Options** & **Percent** \\ \hline Age & 18–25 & 51.66\% \\  & 26–35 & 35.00\% \\  & 36–45 & 10.00\% \\  & 46–55 & 3.34\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Average monthly income} & Less than CNY 5000 & 51.31\% \\  & CNY 5000–10,000 & 28.95\% \\  & More than CNY 10,000 & 19.74\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Educational level} & Middle school & 14.48\% \\  & University degree & 42.10\% \\  & Postgraduate degree & 31.58\% \\  & Doctoral degree and above & 11.84\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gender} & Female & 63.16\% \\  & Male & 36.84\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Frequency of travelling on high-speed rail} & 1–4 times per month & 14.47\% \\  & 1–4 times per half year & 42.11\% \\  & 1–4 times a year & 31.58\% \\  & 1 time in several years & 11.84\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Length of time travelling on high-speed rail} & Less than 1 h & 23.68\% \\  & 1–3 h & 43.42\% \\  & 3–6 h & 27.64\% \\  & More than 6 h & 5.26\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Number of past purchases of unfixed-seat tickets} & Never before & 53.96\% \\  & Infrequent & 34.20\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & Frequently & 6.58\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & Non-recurrent & 5.26\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Distribution of participants on demographic variables.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RTCI**} \\ \hline  & **None** & **Success** & **Failure** \\ \hline Social anxiety (low) & 72.75 \(\pm\) 14.60 & 86.83 \(\pm\) 9.56 & 71.25 \(\pm\) 13.55 \\ Social anxiety (high) & 77.50 \(\pm\) 12.37 & 88.67 \(\pm\) 8.74 & 67.08 \(\pm\) 13.23 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation under different experimental conditions.