## 4 Discussion  
In this study, we constructed a moderated-effects model with social anxiety as a moderating variable to investigate the relationship between the application of RTCI and the satisfaction of high-speed rail passengers with unfixed-seat tickets, and obtained some meaningful results. The experimental results were consistent with our expectations, and the current study revealed a significant and positive impact of the RTCI cue on service ratings and passenger satisfaction for those holding unfixed-seat tickets for high-speed rail travel. This finding aligns with previous research on RTCI [6; 8; 9; 10]. Both groups of people with high and low social anxiety in the experiment were more satisfied than those in the No-RTCI-condition experiment when faced with a Successful-RTCI-condition experiment; therefore, it is judged that RTCI is not only applicable to transport such as bus and metro, but also to high-speed rail, and therefore the inclusion of relevant e-services to help passengers on high-speed rail will increase passenger satisfaction. In this era of competitive globalization, providing continuous improvements in service quality and facilities is the only way to ensure passenger loyalty [57]. However, when subjects were confronted with the Failed-RTCI-condition experiment (in which there was a carriage-congestion-message prompt, but the prompt was incorrect), subjects in the low- and high-social-anxiety groups showed very significant differences, starting with a decrease in the scores of both groups of respondents, which can be explained by the fact that facing a service failure can be a worse experience than when the service is successful [25]. This finding aligns with our hypothesis that RTCI satisfaction diminishes in the event of service failures, as reliability, assurance, and comprehension play pivotal roles in shaping passenger contentment with mass-transit-systems' service quality [33; 58]. However, the two groups exhibited differential patterns of change: participants in the low-social-anxiety group demonstrated a decrease in scores but still maintained higher scores, compared to the No-RTCI condition. Conversely, individuals in the high-social-anxiety group displayed lower satisfaction scores under the Failed-RTCI condition, as opposed to the No-RTCI-condition experiment. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impact of RTCI-prompted seat selection in comparison to traditional seat selection. The majority of the existing literature suggests that passengers' inclination to choose a seat and their satisfaction with the service are significantly enhanced through the utilization of RTCI. A prevailing notion is that the integration of novel and advanced technologies should enhance customers' evaluations of service quality, improve efficiency, and consequently lead to higher levels of satisfaction [6; 8; 9; 10]. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, our findings demonstrate that RTCI-assisted seat selection does not consistently outperform traditional seat selection. On the contrary, RTCI inaccurately predicts crowding in scenarios  
Figure 3: Interaction effects. where there are excessive passengers present in the carriage [11; 13]. In such instances of RTCI service failure, passenger satisfaction is generally diminished [58]. Our study reveals that individuals with varying levels of social anxiety exhibit distinct responses. Respondents with high social anxiety experienced equal or even lower satisfaction in the Failed-RTCI condition compared to the No-RTCI condition. Conversely, respondents with low social anxiety did not experience decreased satisfaction in the Failed-RTCI condition compared to the No-RTCI condition. The specific reasons for this disparity will be further elucidated in subsequent sections. When faced with a service failure, RTCI was perceived by passengers with high social anxiety as being comparable to or even inferior to traditional seat selection, in terms of trustworthiness and service satisfaction.