# The Application of Fuzzy Theory in the Evaluation of Visual Images of Smartphone Rear Cameras
## 3 Results and Discussions
### The Results of the Effect of Willingness to Buy  
According to the results of the general linear model shown in Table 12, it was revealed that the purchasing intentions toward different smartphone rear cameras showed significant differences (F\({}_{(10,1100)}=11.170\), \(p=0.000\)). The results from the post hoc test (i.e., LSD) results show specific differences between samples; i.e., participants were significantly more willing to purchase S14 than S27, S49 and S58; however, participants perceived S14 as significantly less worthy than S47. Participants' purchasing intentions for S27 were significantly lower than for S14, S33, S39, S47, S50, S58, S74, S95 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S33 were significantly higher than for S27 and S49; participants' purchasing intentions for S33 were significantly lower than for S39, S47, S50 and S74; participants' purchasing intentions for S39 were significantly higher than for S27, S33, S39, S47, S50 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S39 were significantly higher than for S27, S33, S49, S58 and S95; participants' purchasing intentions for S39 were significantly higher than for S27, S39, S47, S50 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S39 were significantly higher than those for S47; participants' purchasing intentions for S47 were significantly higher than those for S14, S27, S33, S39, S47, S50, S58, S74, S95 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S49 were significantly lower than those for S14, S33, S39, S47, S50, S58, S74, S95 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S50 were significantly higher than those for S27, S33, S49 and S58; participants' purchasing intentions for S50 were significantly lower than those for S47; participants' purchasing intentions for S58 were significantly lower than those for S14, S39, S47, S50, S74 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S57 were significantly lower than those for S27, S33, S47, S49, S59 and S95; participants' purchasing intentions for S59 were significantly higher than for S27 and S49; participants' purchasing intentions for S58 were significantly lower than those for S14, S39, S47, S50, S74 and S99; participants' purchasing intentions for S74 were significantly lower than for S27, S33, S47, S49, S59 and S95; participants' purchasing intentions for S95 were significantly higher than for S27 and S49; participants' purchasing intentions for S99 were significantly higher than for S27, S49 and S58; participants' purchasing intentions for S99 were significantly higher than for S27, S49 and S58; participants' purchasing intentions for S99 were significantly higher than for S27, S49 and S58; participants' purchasing intentions for S99 were significantly lower than for S47.  
Based on the mean results, participants expressed higher purchasing intentions for S39 (M = 4.04, SD = 1.22) and S47 (M = 4.43, SD = 1.29), and higher purchasing intentions for S14 (M = 3.87, SD = 1.47), S27 (M = 3.12, SD = 1.62), S33 (M = 3.54, SD = 1.41), S49 (M = 3.05, SD = 1.55), S50 (M = 3.93, SD = 1.46), S58 (M = 3.52, SD = 1.35), S74 (M = 3.99, SD = 1.44),  
Figure 8: The radar map for visual image evaluation.  
S95 (M = 3.60, SD = 1.56) and S99 (M = 3.80, SD = 1.29), for which they expressed the lowest purchasing intentions. However, participants perceived a significant difference between S39 and S47 (i.e., S39 \(<\) S47). Although participants expressed a willingness to purchase both S39 and S47, participants were significantly more willing to purchase S47 than S39.  
Besides, combined with the fuzzy logic results (see Section 3.4), participants scored S39 and S47 higher on the harmonious and ordered dimension, 0.5790 and 0.6436, respectively. However, S49 had a lower score for the harmonious and ordered dimension. This suggests that the harmonious and ordered dimension is likely to be an important factor influencing participants' purchasing intentions.