Keywords 关键词

1 Literature Review
1 文献综述

1.1 Creativity Research
1.1 创造力研究

With Guilford’s significant presidential address to the American Psychological Association in the 1950s, the research on creativity started (Mumford, 2003; Rhodes, 1961; Weisberg, 2015), but the definition of creativity is still vague through years of development, one literature contended there are at least 164 definitions of creativity (Sarkar & Chakrabarti, 2008). In the inquires of creativity definition, the researchers have developed four categories of creativity research to understand better what creativity is, which are known as the “4P Model”: Process, Person, Press (i.e., Environment), and Product (Besemer & Treffinger, 1981; Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2021; Oman, Tumer, Wood, & Seepersad, 2012; Rhodes, 1961).
随着吉尔福德在 1950 年代对美国心理学会的重要总统演讲，创造力的研究开始了（Mumford, 2003; Rhodes, 1961; Weisberg, 2015），但经过多年的发展，创造力的定义仍然模糊，有文献认为至少有 164 种创造力的定义（Sarkar & Chakrabarti, 2008）。在对创造力定义的研究中，研究人员发展了四个创造力研究类别，以更好地理解创造力是什么，这被称为“4P 模型”：过程、个人、压力（即环境）和产品（Besemer & Treffinger, 1981; Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2021; Oman, Tumer, Wood, & Seepersad, 2012; Rhodes, 1961）。

The Aspect of the Person.

Rhodes used “Person” to cover information about personality, intellect, habit, behaviour, and value system. (Rhodes, 1961). Put differently, this aspect is on the human capacity to develop ideas or products that are novel and useful (Martinsen, 2011).

The Aspect of the Process.

This aspect applies to perception, motivation, learning, thinking and communicating (Rhodes, 1961). It is a field where researchers from the design discipline often attend, and the process of design thinking and the methods for innovative or creative design are intensively studied.

The Aspect of the Press.

In this facet, the “Press” means the relationship between human and their contexts, including society and culture (Rhodes, 1961). Csikszentmihalyi is one of the most significant figures in this aspect, and he put forward a model including the field (social system), the domain (cultural system), and the person to demonstrate how creativity is accepted by the culture (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). This notion provides a theoretical foundation for assessing creativity in outcomes (Hennessey, Amabile, & Mueller, 2011).

The Aspect of the Product.

Influenced by the previous three aspects, the “Product” in this aspect covers all the outcomes of creative behaviours, including artworks, poems, ideas, and industrial products. Compared with the former three facets, product creativity is an area where the research is somewhat deficient and has been long ignored (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006). Researchers have put forward several models for product creativity assessment and verified them through experiments. Mainly, there are three approaches to assessing product creativity: the CAT (Consensual Assessment Technique), the CPSS (Creative Product Semantic Scale) and the PCMI (Product Creativity Measurement Instrument). Among them, the PCMI model is of high compatibility theoretically because it is based on CPSS and designed for assessing the creativity of industrial products. The PCMI model has been developed in recent years. The metrics of the initial version include novelty, resolution, emotion, attraction, importance and desire (D. Horn & Salvendy, 2006), and the current simplified version only covers affect, novelty and importance(Diana Horn & Salvendy, 2009). The initial version of the model has been used in our study because this model does not have a long history and is immature. Moreover, it is still rare to see the model be applied to assess the product in the context of museum culture and creativity; thus, as a model development, we need to start validation from the beginning version.

2 Description of the Survey

In Horn’s model validation stage of the initial model, they identified 41 potential pairs of adjectives and finally reduced to six pairs in total by evaluation; we chose the one with the highest factor loading for each dimension because these adjective pairs can better represent each assessment metric (see Table 1). We selected the positive polars of the six pairs only (Rare, Functional, Appealed, Favourable, Important, Desire) from the adjective-pair list, proposed a survey questionnaire on “Wenjuan Wang”, and invited design experts who owned cultural and creative product design expertise over three years to rate five museum cultural and creative products with 5-point Likert Scales (1 represents the lowest score and 5 means the highest score).

Table 1. Creativity Dimensions and the Corresponding Adjective Pairs with Factor Loadings
Full size table

The category of museum cultural and creative product we chose in the survey is “Strom Glass” because this is a novel and bestseller category for museum culture and creativity. Moreover, few customers are familiar with this category. Thus, it may evoke a sense of pleasure and curiosity in the participants and the assessment process, making the survey more pleasant. The storm glass is a mixed solution invented by Robert FitzRoy in the 1800s, which can be used to “forecast” the weather for the hybrid solution will crystallise or dissolve as per the temperature. Although the nearest experiments show the inaccuracy of such weather forecast instruments, many people still prefer to own one for home decoration because of the pleasant phenomenon of crystallisation and dissolution. We selected five different storm glasses, each with a unique cultural heritage element from three world-leading museums (the British Museum in London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the Palace Museum in Beijing) (see Fig. 1).
我们在调查中选择的博物馆文化创意产品类别是“风暴玻璃”，因为这是一个新颖且畅销的博物馆文化与创意类别。此外，熟悉这一类别的客户很少。因此，这可能会在参与者和评估过程中激发愉悦感和好奇心，使调查更加愉快。风暴玻璃是一种由罗伯特·菲茨罗伊在 19 世纪发明的混合溶液，可以用来“预测”天气，因为这种混合溶液会根据温度结晶或溶解。尽管最近的实验显示这种天气预测仪器不准确，但许多人仍然喜欢拥有一个作为家居装饰，因为结晶和溶解的现象令人愉悦。我们选择了五种不同的风暴玻璃，每种都有来自三家世界顶级博物馆的独特文化遗产元素（伦敦大英博物馆、纽约大都会艺术博物馆和北京故宫博物院）（见图1）。

Fig. 1. 图 1。
figure 1

Samples for the Survey 调查样本

Full size image 完整尺寸图像

3 Results
3 结果

We received 224 responses at the end of the survey. After reviewing them individually, we deleted two duplicates and reserved the rest 222 answers (Cronbach α = 0.95). On the age scale, 32.58% of the 221 participants are males, and 67.42% are females. On the scale of design experience, 43.44% of the participants have 3–5 years of experience, 19% have 5–7 years, 14.03% have 7–10 years, and the rest, 22.53%, have more than ten years of experience. We calculated the average score for the five products in different scales (see Table 2).
我们在调查结束时收到了 224 份回复。在逐一审核后，我们删除了两个重复项，保留了其余的 222 个答案（Cronbach α = 0.95）。在年龄分布上，221 名参与者中有 32.58%是男性，67.42%是女性。在设计经验方面，43.44%的参与者有 3-5 年的经验，19%有 5-7 年的经验，14.03%有 7-10 年的经验，其余 22.53%有超过十年的经验。我们计算了五个产品在不同量表上的平均分数（见表2）。

Table 2. Average Score of the Five Samples in Different Scales
表 2. 五个样本在不同量表上的平均分数
Full size table 全尺寸表格

From Table 2, the sample with the highest average score, i.e., the highest creativity score, can be identified, and the ranking of each product in each scale shows as follows (see Table 3).
从表2中，可以识别出样本中平均分最高的，即创意分最高的样本，并且每个产品在各个维度上的排名如下所示（见表3）。

Table 3. The Ranking of the Five Samples in Different Scales
表 3. 五个样本在不同尺度上的排名
Full size table 全尺寸表格

The average scores and their Standard Deviations of each dimension for each sample also have been figured out and presented in Table 4.
每个样本各维度的平均分及其标准差也已计算出来，并在表4中呈现。

Table 4. The Average Scores and Ranking of Each Dimension
表 4. 各维度的平均分和排名
Full size table 全尺寸表格

4 Discussion
4 讨论

From the above tables (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4), we discovered the following insights:
从上述表格（表2、表3和表4）中，我们发现了以下见解：

  1. (1)

    There are gender differences in rating the most creative products: males voted Gayer-Anderson Cat, while females chose Anubis. Differences can also be found in the scale of design experience: participants with design experience of fewer than seven years voted Gayer-Anderson Cat, and the ones with more than seven years of experience chose Anubis. If years of experience can be interpreted as the duration they expose to museum culture and creativity, surely they will be more critical of the novelty than the ones who have less experience because research revealed novelty is associated with surprise, which is a kind of first-sight emotion (Chang & Wu, 2007; Desmet, 2002), the more a person exposed to a novel product, the less emotion will be evoked. It may lead to a lower creativity score. However, this mechanism of how emotion impacts the perception of a product’s novelty and indirectly influences overall creativity needs to be investigated.
    在对最具创意的产品进行评分时存在性别差异：男性投票选择了盖尔-安德森猫，而女性则选择了阿努比斯。在设计经验的范围内也可以发现差异：设计经验少于七年的参与者投票选择了盖尔-安德森猫，而经验超过七年的参与者则选择了阿努比斯。如果将经验年限解释为他们接触博物馆文化和创意的时间，显然，他们对新奇事物的批判性会比经验较少的人更强，因为研究表明，新奇与惊讶相关，这是一种初见的情感（Chang & Wu, 2007; Desmet, 2002），一个人接触新产品的次数越多，所激发的情感就越少。这可能导致较低的创意评分。然而，情感如何影响对产品新奇性的感知，并间接影响整体创意的机制仍需进一步研究。

  2. (2)

    The products with the predominant creativity score (Gayer-Anderson Cat and Anubis) share the same order of six dimensions. In contrast, the same phenomenon cannot be discovered in the inferiors (Rosetta Stone, Qianli Jiangshan, and William the Hippopotamus). This exciting phenomenon may imply that there is a “recipe” for designing products with high creativity. More specifically, we could develop a system to predict the overall creativity score, perfect the creativity performance and assist the design practice after constructing an assessment model and understanding the correlations of metrics in the context of museum culture and creativity.
    具有主导创造力评分的产品（盖尔-安德森猫和阿努比斯）在六个维度的顺序上是相同的。相比之下，在劣势产品中（罗塞塔石碑，千里江山，和威廉河马）无法发现相同的现象。这个令人兴奋的现象可能暗示着设计高创造力产品的“配方”。更具体地说，我们可以开发一个系统来预测整体创造力评分，完善创造力表现，并在构建评估模型和理解博物馆文化与创造力背景下的指标相关性后，辅助设计实践。

  3. (3)

    In traditional creativity research, Novelty is the predominant metric; however, it may not apply to museum cultural and creative products because Novelty only ranks third in Gayer-Anderson Cat and Anubis (the two cases of high creativity score). However, it ranks first in the inferiors (Rosetta Stone, Qianli Jiangshan, and William the Hippopotamus). This finding corresponds with the discovery of O’Quin and Besemer (2006). Based on the result and the literature, we may conclude that Novelty is not a determining factor for creativity assessment, especially in the museum cultural and creative products category.
    在传统的创造力研究中，新颖性是主要的衡量标准；然而，这可能不适用于博物馆文化和创意产品，因为在高创造力评分的两个案例中，新颖性仅排名第三，分别是盖耶-安德森猫和阿努比斯。然而，在劣势产品中，它排名第一（罗塞塔石碑、千里江山和威廉河马）。这一发现与 O’Quin 和 Besemer 的研究结果相符（2006）。基于这一结果和文献，我们可以得出结论，新颖性并不是创造力评估的决定性因素，特别是在博物馆文化和创意产品类别中。

  4. (4)

    In Gayer-Anderson Cat and Anubis, the two cases of high creativity score, Emotion is the leading dimension, which may indicate that emotion is an essential metric in the creativity assessment of museum cultural and creative products, and it may be a metric that impacts the overall score of creativity to a great extent. Suppose data can validate this finding. In that case, the Affect dimension will replace the traditional positions of Novelty and Usefulness in assessing creativity, especially for museum culture and creativity products.
    在Gayer-Anderson Cat和Anubis中，两个高创造力得分的案例中，情感是主要维度，这可能表明情感是博物馆文化和创意产品创造力评估中的一个重要指标，并且可能在很大程度上影响创造力的整体得分。如果数据能够验证这一发现，那么情感维度将取代传统的新颖性和实用性在创造力评估中的位置，特别是对于博物馆文化和创意产品。

  5. (5)

    The traditional creativity study also emphasises the importance of Usefulness. However, this dimension ranks fifth in Gayer-Anderson Cat and Anubis, and design experts still rate these two products with high scores. Moreover, we offered the participants products with the same function but have not received similar scores. This phenomenon tells us that raters may easily be affected by their preference and interests, which is what Diana Horn and Salvendy (2009) contended. In their research (Diana Horn & Salvendy, 2009), Attraction refers to customers’ interest, which is subjective. In this survey, we discovered that Attraction ranks second or third place in all samples, which may indicate that this personal dimension is also an influential aspect of creativity assessment. In other words, the score of creativity for a product may be deeply impacted by assessor’s preference. Although we tried our best to obtain objective creativity scores of products, it is unavoidable that the score will be impacted by raters’ subjectivity. And this may create a gap between the theoretical score and the practical score and make the task of creativity measurement more difficult to accomplish.
    传统的创造力研究也强调了实用性的重要性。然而，在盖耶-安德森猫和阿努比斯中，这一维度排名第五，设计专家仍然给这两款产品打出了高分。此外，我们向参与者提供了功能相同的产品，但并未获得类似的分数。这一现象告诉我们，评审者可能会受到他们的偏好和兴趣的影响，这正是戴安娜·霍恩和萨尔文迪（2009）所主张的。在他们的研究中（戴安娜·霍恩与萨尔文迪，2009），吸引力指的是顾客的兴趣，这是主观的。在本次调查中，我们发现吸引力在所有样本中排名第二或第三，这可能表明这一个人维度也是创造力评估的一个重要方面。换句话说，产品的创造力评分可能会受到评审者偏好的深刻影响。尽管我们尽力获得产品的客观创造力评分，但评分不可避免地会受到评审者主观性的影响。 这可能会导致理论分数和实际分数之间出现差距，使得创造力测量的任务更难以完成。

  6. (6)

    An exciting phenomenon is that Importance ranks sixth among all dimensions in the result of five products, which means design experts contended that these museum’s cultural and creative products are not vital to them because they all give low scores. Since we used products of the same function, the scores may be influenced, and we need to use products of different functions to conduct another survey.
    一个令人兴奋的现象是，重要性在五个产品的结果中排名第六，这意味着设计专家认为这些博物馆的文化和创意产品对他们并不重要，因为他们都给出了低分。由于我们使用了功能相同的产品，分数可能会受到影响，因此我们需要使用不同功能的产品进行另一次调查。

5 Conclusion
5 结论

From the survey result, we summarised seven significant insights for further validation, and they are: (1) There are gender and experience differences in the measurement of creativity; (2) The products with high creativity scores share the same order of six metrics; thus, there may be a “recipe” for improving product creativity; (3) In cases of high creativity score, Emotion is the leading dimension; thus, this dimension may be dominant in creativity assessment; (4) Novelty is not predominant in the sample assessment, and this phenomenon may happen in other museum’s cultural and creative products; (5) Usefulness is easily influenced by other factors, which may include the preferences and interests of customers; (6) Importance ranks the last in all dimensions among all products and this may be caused by the fact that we used products with the same function.
根据调查结果，我们总结了七个重要的见解以供进一步验证，它们是：（1）在创造力的测量中存在性别和经验差异；（2）高创造力评分的产品在六个指标的顺序上是相同的，因此可能存在提高产品创造力的“配方”；（3）在高创造力评分的情况下，情感是主要维度，因此该维度可能在创造力评估中占主导地位；（4）新颖性在样本评估中并不占主导地位，这种现象可能在其他博物馆的文化和创意产品中发生；（5）实用性容易受到其他因素的影响，这些因素可能包括客户的偏好和兴趣；（6）在所有产品的所有维度中，重要性排名最后，这可能是因为我们使用了功能相同的产品。

The drawbacks of this research are: (1) We only based on the average score to summarise the insights; (2) We have not validated the results through statistical analysis tools such as Stata and SmartPLS.
这项研究的缺点是：(1) 我们仅基于平均分来总结见解；(2) 我们没有通过统计分析工具如 Stata 和 SmartPLS 来验证结果。

In the future, we will prove our insights and validate them to improve their validity and reliability. Furthermore, we will validate the metrics of the assessment model through biosensors, including Electrodermal Screening (EDS), Electroencephalograph (EEG) and Eye Tracker.
在未来，我们将证明我们的见解并验证它们，以提高其有效性和可靠性。此外，我们将通过生物传感器验证评估模型的指标，包括 电皮肤筛查 (EDS), 脑电图 (EEG) 和 眼动仪。