## 3 Results
### Behavioral Parameters  
The results of participants performing the three VR tasks are presented in Table 2. In the task of exploring the communication style, the NS-blaming was significantly greater in the HA group than in the LA group (\(p<0.05\)), but the NS-placating, NS-computing, and NS-distracting showed no significant difference between the two groups (Figure 2). In the task of practicing functional communication, the communication scores were not significantly different in the interactions with all dysfunctional communication styles between the two groups. In the task of expressing empathy, the empathetic feeling score and emotional intensity score showed no significant difference between the two groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**High Aggression**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low Aggression**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(t\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & **(\(n\) = 30)** & & & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & & \\ \hline AQ & & & & & & \\ Physical aggression & 23.8 & 6.5 & 15.4 & 4.4 & 5.79 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Verbal aggression & 16.5 & 4.6 & 12.0 & 2.7 & 4.47 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Anger & 14.2 & 3.7 & 10.3 & 2.4 & 4.71 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Hostility & 23.2 & 5.8 & 16.0 & 4.8 & 5.13 & \(<\)0.001 \\ STAXI & & & & & & \\ Anger expression-in & 19.2 & 4.3 & 15.3 & 4.4 & 3.46 & 0.001 \\ Anger expression-out & 19.1 & 4.1 & 12.0 & 2.7 & 7.80 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Anger control-out & 19.2 & 4.6 & 24.0 & 3.7 & \(-\)4.34 & \(<\)0.001 \\ PACI & & & & & & \\ Open communication & 68.3 & 17.4 & 74.9 & 15.5 & \(-\)1.50 & 0.138 \\ Closed communication & 63.5 & 13.4 & 70.3 & 13.0 & \(-\)1.94 & 0.057 \\ SSQ & 26.2 & 10.2 & 22.0 & 7.9 & 1.76 & 0.084 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* AQ, Aggression Questionnaire; STAXI, State Trait Anger Expression Inventory; PACI, Parent Adolescence Communication Inventory; SSQ, Simulator Sickness Questionnaire.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of psychological scale scores in participants with high aggression and low aggression.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**High Aggression**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low Aggression**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(t\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & **(\(n\) = 30)** & & & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{The task of exploring the communication style} \\ NS-placating & 0.8 & 0.9 & 1.2 & 0.9 & \(-\)1.57 & 0.121 \\ NS-blaming & 0.4 & 0.7 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 2.27 & 0.027 \\ NS-computing & 1.1 & 0.9 & 0.7 & 1.0 & 1.58 & 0.120 \\ NS-distracting & 1.2 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 1.1 & \(-\)0.51 & 0.609 \\ \multicolumn{5}{c}{The task of practicing functional communication} \\ CS-placating & 67.2 & 19.3 & 67.8 & 17.9 & \(-\)0.12 & 0.905 \\ CS-blaming & 62.4 & 22.0 & 58.1 & 24.8 & 0.69 & 0.492 \\ CS-computing & 54.4 & 23.1 & 60.6 & 22.9 & \(-\)1.02 & 0.311 \\ CS-distracting & 61.4 & 26.1 & 62.8 & 23.1 & \(-\)0.22 & 0.824 \\ \multicolumn{5}{c}{The task of expressing empathy} \\ Empathetic feeling score & 34.8 & 7.7 & 36.0 & 6.5 & \(-\)0.65 & 0.522 \\ Emotional intensity score & 40.3 & 5.9 & 42.8 & 5.0 & \(-\)1.69 & 0.097 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* NS, number of selections; CS, communication score.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the behavioral parameters in participants with high aggression and low aggression.