Constructing and validating the museum product creativity measurement (MPCM): dimensions for creativity assessment of souvenir products in Chinese urban historical museums
构建和验证博物馆产品创意测量（MPCM）：中国城市历史博物馆纪念品产品创意评估的维度

The definition of a “museum” has undergone various interpretations throughout its evolution. As per the investigation of Evans (1999b), in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, museums were characterised by their reformulation of earlier collection and exhibition practices; later, in the early nineteenth century, the emphasis shifted towards a scientific and rational approach to classification; by the late nineteenth century, museums had transformed into institutions aimed at educating and enlightening the public. In the 1970s, the emergence of the new museology movement brought about a significant redefinition of museums, with the concept of “community museums” emphasising their role in serving society (Lehmannová 2020). This transformative shift broadened the focus of museums from their collections and categorisation to include considerations of their audiences, as well as the social, political, and economic contexts in which they operate (Nielsen 2015). This shift also fostered the idea of visitor participation in exhibition curation, which continues to be a prominent topic of discussion (Mairesse 2019).
“博物馆”的定义在其演变过程中经历了多种解读。根据埃文斯的研究（1999b），在十七世纪末和十八世纪，博物馆的特点在于重新构建早期的收藏和展览实践；而在十九世纪初，重点转向科学和理性的分类方法；到十九世纪末，博物馆已转变为旨在教育和启发公众的机构。在 1970 年代，新博物馆学运动的出现带来了博物馆的重大重新定义，“社区博物馆”的概念强调了它们在服务社会中的角色（莱曼诺娃 2020）。这一变革性转变将博物馆的关注点从其收藏和分类扩展到考虑其观众，以及它们所处的社会、政治和经济背景（尼尔森 2015）。这一转变还促进了访客参与展览策划的理念，这仍然是一个重要的讨论话题（梅尔塞 2019）。

Simultaneously, non-English-speaking nations also strive for cultural autonomy, recognising the profound emotional impact of culture. They perceive a vibrant and independent cultural identity as essential for achieving independence. Within this context, developing countries frequently emphasise the importance of museums as a means to disseminate and strengthen national consciousness (Hudson 1999). In the early 1990s, museums began implementing admission fees, prompting them to explore their visitors’ preferences and conduct market research (Chung et al. 2023; Evans 1999a; Hudson 1999; Nielsen 2015). Around the same time, museums sought to generate profits by offering creative products inspired by the success of creative industries in the neoliberal market era. The commercialisation of museums sparked a debate about whether these institutions had prioritised economic gain over educational and social responsibilities (Brown and Mairesse 2018). To adapt to the evolving landscape, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) made the decision to redefine the concept of a “museum” in a clear and definitive manner. Following an extensive debate on the matter, ICOM approved the proposal on August 24th, 2022, with an overwhelming consensus (rate: 92.41%). The new museum definition now states, “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution dedicated to serving society through research, collection, conservation, interpretation, and exhibition of both tangible and intangible heritage. With a commitment to accessibility, inclusivity, diversity, and sustainability, museums operate ethically and professionally, engaging communities and offering diverse experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection, and knowledge sharing.”

Based on the revised definition provided by ICOM (2022), it can be inferred that the term “museum” encompasses a multifaceted concept, incorporating key elements such as non-profit orientation, societal service, preservation of tangible and intangible heritage, inclusivity, sustainability, active involvement of communities, enjoyment, education, introspection, and knowledge dissemination. Beneath these keywords lies a deeper understanding of ideas such as socialisation, education, the projection of a nation’s cultural identity, visitor engagement, and the harmonisation of economic and societal values. China’s contribution to international cultural diversity is significant, owing to its highly esteemed long history and rich cultural heritage. According to statistics from the World Heritage Convention of UNESCO, China boasts 57 world heritages, which ranks second highest globally, with only two fewer than Italy^{Footnote 1}.

In comparison to museums worldwide, Chinese museums possess unique characteristics. The concept of museums was initially introduced during the late Qing dynasty by missionaries to facilitate colonial rule. However, Chinese intellectuals and government officials who advocated for museums had different goals, aiming to enlighten and entertain the Chinese people while strengthening the nation (Yu and Hirzel 2022). Thus, the primary mission of Chinese museums was rooted in education. Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, several waves of museum development occurred. As most museums in China are state-owned or government-controlled, distinct Chinese features have been imprinted on them since 1949 (Yu and Hirzel 2022). During the early years of the new China, patriotic education was significant for museums, as cultural institutions were seen as the best way to preserve and legitimise state-centred patriotism (Chung et al. 2023). Later, during the era of Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese government considered museums, along with other cultural institutions, as contributors to the nation’s leisure economy (Chung et al. 2023). Thus, leisure tourism became the third goal of Chinese museums. In the present era of Xi Jinping, President Xi has emphasised the critical role of museums in cultural preservation, innovation, and dissemination (Xi 2017). These efforts are being undertaken throughout China, with the government regarding museum products as a reflection of the nation’s cultural image to the world and as a means of promoting a harmonious value system globally, acting as carriers of Chinese culture (Zhang and Courty 2022).

In such circumstances, Chinese museum products carry the weight of complex missions both internationally and domestically. The Chinese concept of “museum product” encompasses a range of merchandise sold in museum souvenir shops, whether online or offline. In scholarly literature, it is also referred to as “museum cultural and creative product,” “museum cultural product,” “museum cultural creative merchandise,” “museum souvenir,” or “museum creative product” (Li et al. 2021; Liu and Zainal Abidin 2022; Tu et al. 2019). Typically, the design of these products draws inspiration from museum collections, necessitating innovative design practices (Li et al. 2021; Liu and Zainal Abidin 2022; Tu et al. 2019). Unlike designers of conventional products, designers of museum products must carefully consider cultural elements, striving to present a creative and contemporary rendition of traditional culture while satisfying consumers’ desires for cultural consumption (Song and Li 2018; Tu et al. 2019).

From an industry perspective, the Chinese urban museum creative market has experienced a significant surge in recent years. Statistics indicate that the number of visitors to city museums in China reached a staggering 578 million in 2022^{Footnote 2}, with the revenue of the Chinese urban museum creative market nearing 40 billion by the end of 2021^{Footnote 3}. The purchasing behaviour of Chinese consumers for museum products has also transformed. In addition to making purchases after visiting physical museums, more consumers now prefer to acquire urban museum products through flagship museum shops on online platforms like Tmall.com. The number of visitors to “online museums” reached a remarkable 1.6 billion in 2019, surpassing the number of offline visitors to nationwide museums in 2018 by 1.5 times^{Footnote 4}. Regarding statistics^{Footnote 5}, over 25 urban museums in China have established online flagship souvenir shops, making museum products more accessible to the public. However, it is essential to highlight that the development of rural museums in China has been slower and falls short of expectations. Rural museum products are relatively unfamiliar to Chinese consumers, given the relatively recent establishment of rural museums in only three provinces across China in 2021^{Footnote 6}. Additionally, online shops have yet to be established for rural museums. Thus, our focus will primarily be on urban museums in China.

The consumer behaviour theory has been introduced into the realm of academic research on museum products. Wajid et al. (2021) point out that market success can be evaluated through the creativity of products, and Tu et al. (2019) posit that the dimensions of exceptional creativity and profound cultural connotation play an indispensable role in shaping consumers’ purchase intentions. Similarly, Liu and Zainal Abidin (2022) summarise that creativity, utility, originality, culture, and fashionability constitute the quintessential characteristics that exert a significant influence on consumer satisfaction. Moreover, C.-T. Lin et al. (2018) contend that function, uniqueness, culture, design, experience, and price collectively constitute the six factors that significantly impact the intentions of museum consumers, thereby corroborating the aforementioned findings. The culmination of these research outputs illuminates the criticality of creativity^{Footnote 7} as a critical factor that profoundly influences consumers’ motivation to purchase.

In our investigation, creativity refers to the diversity between the museum products and the original collection sources and the distinctions between museum products from different museums (C.-T. Lin et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the aspect of creativity remains inadequately addressed in the development process of museum products. Numerous scholars, such as Chakrabarti and Khadilkar (2003) and Liu and Zainal Abidin (2022), highlight the creativity deficiency within these products. This deficiency has given rise to a pervasive issue known as “Homogenisation,” wherein products across different museums exhibit only slight variations. This critical challenge confronts the entire creative industries of museums in China (Bao and Lu 2019; Cheng 2019a, b; Li 2019; Zhao et al. 2023). To tackle this problem, we need to establish a creativity standard specifically tailored for museum products. In light of this, we revisited various creativity assessment models employed for products, including the CAT (Consensual Assessment Technique) (Amabile 1982), the CPSS (Creative Product Semantic Scale) (Besemer and O’Quin 1986; Besemer and Treffinger 1981) and the PCMI (Product Creativity Measurement Instrument) (Horn and Salvendy 2006, 2009). Among these models, the PCMI model stands out as it provides metrics and is the only one designed for industrial products. It encompasses two editions: the first edition comprises six dimensions (Novelty, Emotion, Attraction, Desire, Resolution, and Importance), while the second edition is more concise, featuring only Novelty, Importance, and Affect.

To evaluate the appropriateness of the PCMI model for assessing creativity in museum products, we recruited the participation of over 200 design experts. These experts were tasked with evaluating five products sourced from renowned museums worldwide. Our findings yielded intriguing results, revealing that Novelty was not the most prominent dimension in assessing creativity. Instead, the dimension of Affect, encompassing Emotion, Attraction, and Desire, emerged as the primary factor. Furthermore, our analysis indicated that Resolution and Importance were not as crucial in evaluating creativity in museum products, although statistical analysis did not support their removal from the model. A comprehensive account of these findings was published in the works of Cheng et al. (2023a, b). Consequently, we conclude that the PCMI model is unsuitable for assessing creativity in the context of museum products.

This study aims to construct a comprehensive and valid measurement model to evaluate the creativity of products purchased in online souvenir shops affiliated with museums. In this research, we have adapted metrics derived from studies on product creativity and museum product design, tailoring them to suit the specific context of museums. These metrics have been integrated into a fresh model, which we then subjected to validation through an online survey. Although we provided participants with samples of museum products, we emphasised that their assessments should reflect the overall impression of products within Chinese museums.

Our investigation has narrowed its focus to Chinese urban historical museums and their consumers for several reasons. Firstly, our research aims to investigate the assessment of creativity in translating traditional cultural symbols into modern artefacts. Therefore, historical museums were chosen as our primary research objectives. Secondly, the creative market of urban museums in China is more developed than rural ones, and consumers are generally more familiar with urban museum products. Hence, we decided to concentrate on urban museum products. Thirdly, as an initial study, we intentionally limited the number of variables involved, such as consumers from different cultural backgrounds. Additionally, due to the stringent border controls during the pandemic, we ultimately abandoned conducting a cross-cultural (Eastern-Western) study. Consequently, we selected Chinese participants from across China.

Attributes of the museum product

In the literature on museum product design, museum products are often studied under the Spatial Perspective of Culture (Leong and Clark 2003) and the Three Levels of Design (Norman 1988). The first model offers a perspective to investigate cultural elements in cultural and creative product design, and it divides culture into three layers: the “Tangible Layer” (Outer Layer), the “Behavioural Layer” (Middle Layer), and the “Intangible Layer” (Inner Layer). The second well-known model divides the design into three levels: the “Visceral Level” (Outer Layer), the “Behavioural Level” (Middle Layer), and the “Reflective Level” (Inner Layer). Lin (2007) matched Leong’s cultural perspective and Norman’s Three Levels of Design to explain how to design a modern cultural product, according to Lin (2011), creativity, culture, and industry are the three central components of cultural and creative industries, and aesthetics (the product’s appearance) plays a significant role in consumers’ purchasing motivation. Therefore, some scholars argue that a museum product should possess three critical attributes: creativity, culture, and aesthetics (Guo et al. 2023; Luo and Dong 2017; Tu et al. 2019). In line with the research mentioned above, an attributes model of culture and creativity has already been proposed. Aesthetics (including Affect) is placed in the outer layer, creativity in the middle layer, and culture in the inner layer (Cheng 2021). For a better understanding of this model, please refer to Table 1.
在博物馆产品设计的文献中，博物馆产品通常在文化的空间视角（Leong 和 Clark 2003）和设计的三个层次（Norman 1988）下进行研究。第一个模型提供了一个视角来研究文化和创意产品设计中的文化元素，它将文化分为三个层次：“有形层”（外层）、“行为层”（中层）和“无形层”（内层）。第二个著名模型将设计分为三个层次：“内脏层”（外层）、“行为层”（中层）和“反思层”（内层）。Lin（2007）将 Leong 的文化视角与 Norman 的设计三个层次相匹配，以解释如何设计现代文化产品。根据 Lin（2011），创造力、文化和产业是文化和创意产业的三个核心组成部分，而美学（产品的外观）在消费者的购买动机中起着重要作用。 因此，一些学者认为博物馆产品应具备三个关键属性：创造力、文化和美学（郭等 2023; 罗和董 2017; 涂等 2019）。根据上述研究，已经提出了一个文化与创造力的属性模型。美学（包括情感）位于外层，创造力位于中层，文化位于内层（程 2021）。为了更好地理解该模型，请参见表 1。

Attribute of aesthetics (including affect)
美学属性（包括情感）

In literature, aesthetics first refers to a product’s appealing appearance (Besemer and O’Quin 1986; Lin 2007). The product’s appearance is essential and fundamental. As researchers who studied the value of product appearance in consumers’ perception of museum products pointed out, aesthetics play a significant role in persuading customers to purchase, making it a primary attribute that attracts attention (Horn and Salvendy 2006; Luo and Dong 2017; Peter et al. 2003). Some researchers even contended that museum products are mainly for environmental decoration and manifest the taste of the customers (Lin 2011). Thus, the appearance of products is the top priority in museum product development.
在文献中，美学首先指的是产品的吸引外观（Besemer 和 O’Quin 1986; Lin 2007）。产品的外观是至关重要和基本的。研究产品外观在消费者对博物馆产品感知中的价值的研究者指出，美学在说服顾客购买方面发挥着重要作用，使其成为吸引注意的主要属性（Horn 和 Salvendy 2006; Luo 和 Dong 2017; Peter 等 2003）。一些研究者甚至认为，博物馆产品主要用于环境装饰，体现顾客的品味（Lin 2011）。因此，产品的外观在博物馆产品开发中是首要任务。

In addition, aesthetics is related to emotions in affective studies. As cognition research has revealed, appearance charming products often evoke pleasant emotions (Cheng et al. 2023a; Cheng and Qiu 2023a, b; Desmet 2002; Guo et al. 2023; Norman 2005; Wu et al. 2015; Wu and Huang 2018). Thus, the significance of aesthetic emotions on pleasing the consumers is also widely discussed in the literature of museum product design. According to Zhang (2019), museum products need to elicit an emotional experience in consumers. Sun et al. (2022) further argue that creativity in museum products should prioritise the profound aesthetic and affective impact they have on individuals. Additionally, Chiou and Wang (2018) summarise three purchasing motives, one of which includes the aspect of emotion. Li et al. (2021) also emphasise the significance of incorporating emotional values in the study of museum products. In summary, the initial emotional response evoked by the captivating appearance of a product plays a pivotal role in determining consumers’ purchasing motives. This underscores the importance of aesthetics, including affection, as crucial attributes of museum products.
此外，审美与情感在情感研究中相关。正如认知研究所揭示的，外观迷人的产品往往会引发愉悦的情感（Cheng et al. 2023a; Cheng and Qiu 2023a, b; Desmet 2002; Guo et al. 2023; Norman 2005; Wu et al. 2015; Wu and Huang 2018）。因此，审美情感在取悦消费者方面的重要性在博物馆产品设计的文献中也得到了广泛讨论。根据张（2019）的说法，博物馆产品需要在消费者中引发情感体验。孙等（2022）进一步认为，博物馆产品的创造力应优先考虑其对个体的深刻审美和情感影响。此外，邱和王（2018）总结了三种购买动机，其中之一包括情感方面。李等（2021）也强调了在博物馆产品研究中融入情感价值的重要性。 总之，产品迷人外观所引发的初始情感反应在决定消费者购买动机中起着关键作用。这强调了美学的重要性，包括情感，作为博物馆产品的重要特征。

Attribute of creativity 创造力的属性

Despite the extensive research on creativity dating back to the 1950s (Mumford 2003; Rhodes 1961; Weisberg 2015), a consensus on its definition has yet to be reached. Sarkar and Chakrabarti (2008) discovered a staggering 164 definitions of creativity in their study. However, most scholars concur that Novelty is a fundamental aspect of creativity (Harvey and Berry 2023; Hills and Bird 2019; Paul and Kaufman 2014; Runco and Charles 1993; Schubert 2021; Sternberg et al. 1999; Weisberg 2015). Consequently, creativity is often associated with the degree of divergence a product exhibits in comparison to the original museum collection, with more significant differentiation (less similarity or typicality) considered indicative of higher creativity (Han et al. 2019; Hills and Bird 2019; Stein 1953). However, recent research has revealed that a product with a moderate differentiation level is perceived as more creative, supported by empirical evidence (Schubert 2021). In addition to Novelty, other factors such as Usefulness (functionality or resolution), Importance (product’s relevance to life), Affect (attractiveness, desire, pleasant emotions), and Aesthetics (the visually appealing appearance of a product) are also recognised as dimensions of creativity (Besemer and O’Quin 1986; Cheng et al. 2023b; Christensen and Ball 2016; Cropley and Cropley 2005; Hazeri et al. 2017; Horn and Salvendy 2006, 2009; Jagtap 2019; Kampylis and Valtanen 2010; O’Quin and Besemer 2006; Runco and Charles 1993; Sarkar and Chakrabarti 2008).
尽管自 1950 年代以来对创造力进行了广泛研究（Mumford 2003; Rhodes 1961; Weisberg 2015），但对其定义尚未达成共识。Sarkar 和 Chakrabarti（2008）在他们的研究中发现了多达 164 种创造力的定义。然而，大多数学者一致认为新颖性是创造力的一个基本方面（Harvey 和 Berry 2023; Hills 和 Bird 2019; Paul 和 Kaufman 2014; Runco 和 Charles 1993; Schubert 2021; Sternberg 等 1999; Weisberg 2015）。因此，创造力通常与产品与原始博物馆藏品相比所表现出的差异程度相关，差异越大（相似性或典型性越低）被认为表明创造力越高（Han 等 2019; Hills 和 Bird 2019; Stein 1953）。然而，最近的研究表明，具有适度差异水平的产品被认为更具创造力，这得到了实证证据的支持（Schubert 2021）。 除了新颖性，其他因素如实用性（功能或解决方案）、重要性（产品与生活的相关性）、情感（吸引力、欲望、愉悦情绪）和美学（产品的视觉吸引力）也被认为是创造力的维度（Besemer 和 O’Quin 1986; Cheng 等 2023b; Christensen 和 Ball 2016; Cropley 和 Cropley 2005; Hazeri 等 2017; Horn 和 Salvendy 2006, 2009; Jagtap 2019; Kampylis 和 Valtanen 2010; O’Quin 和 Besemer 2006; Runco 和 Charles 1993; Sarkar 和 Chakrabarti 2008)。

In the realm of museum product design literature, it is widely acknowledged that a successful museum product must encompass the aforementioned facets of creativity. Conversely, products that fail to meet the market’s expectations are often deemed lacking in creativity (Dong et al. 2023; Lin 2007; Wajid et al. 2021). We concur with these perspectives and adopt the following creativity definition of museum products: creativity in museum products pertains to the intricate level of innovation with which cultural elements are transplanted, utilised, and disseminated through creative design (Tu et al. 2019). However, we argue that creativity in museum products extends beyond the aforementioned aspects. When conceptualising a museum product, it is imperative to consider the social missions of the museum, such as cultural diffusion and public education. This is because the purpose of inventing museum products is to expand the functionalities of a museum, which is supported by scholars such as Pavitt (2009), Li et al. (2021), Tu et al. (2019) as well as Jordanous and Keller (2016).
在博物馆产品设计文献领域，成功的博物馆产品必须涵盖上述创造力的各个方面这一观点广泛被认可。相反，未能满足市场期望的产品通常被认为缺乏创造力（董等 2023; 林 2007; Wajid 等 2021）。我们同意这些观点，并采用以下博物馆产品的创造力定义：博物馆产品中的创造力涉及文化元素通过创意设计被移植、利用和传播的复杂创新水平（涂等 2019）。然而，我们认为博物馆产品中的创造力超越了上述方面。在构思博物馆产品时，必须考虑博物馆的社会使命，如文化传播和公众教育。这是因为发明博物馆产品的目的是扩展博物馆的功能，这一点得到了 Pavitt（2009）、李等（2021）、涂等（2019）以及 Jordanous 和 Keller（2016）等学者的支持。

Attribute of culture 文化的属性

The concept of cultural connotation often refers to the characteristics inherent in culture. Symbolic figures embody these cultural connotations and serve as the fundamental sources for the design and development of museum products as well as the determinants of the uniqueness of products (Huang et al. 2023; Li and Li 2022; Tu et al. 2019). In this regard, culture plays a crucial role in inspiring, translating, and implementing culturally oriented products (Cheng 2021; Dong et al. 2023; Hsu and Lin 2011). As such, culture becomes a vital criterion for distinguishing between ordinary products and those that are culturally oriented, including museum products found in museum souvenir shops. Scholars argue that museum products serve as a means for consumers to comprehend and appreciate traditional culture. Through these cultural elements, consumers gain a deeper understanding of the culture. Consequently, products that fail to convey cultural awareness are deemed unsuccessful (Huang et al. 2023; Shiau and Hu 2020; Tu et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2023).
文化内涵的概念通常指的是文化中固有的特征。象征性人物体现了这些文化内涵，并作为博物馆产品设计和开发的基本来源，以及产品独特性的决定因素（Huang et al. 2023; Li and Li 2022; Tu et al. 2019）。在这方面，文化在激发、翻译和实施以文化为导向的产品中发挥着至关重要的作用（Cheng 2021; Dong et al. 2023; Hsu and Lin 2011）。因此，文化成为区分普通产品和以文化为导向的产品（包括博物馆纪念品商店中的博物馆产品）的重要标准。学者们认为，博物馆产品是消费者理解和欣赏传统文化的一种手段。通过这些文化元素，消费者对文化有了更深刻的理解。因此，未能传达文化意识的产品被视为不成功（Huang et al. 2023; Shiau and Hu 2020; Tu et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2023）。

It is important to note that culture is dynamic, evolving over time. Traditional cultural patterns may no longer align with modern lifestyles. Thus, there is a need to update and present traditional culture freshly. Innovation becomes a means to achieve this. Therefore, we argue that one of the underlying missions of museum products is to encourage museum visitors to be innovative in the renewal of culture (Faraone 2022; Zhang and Courty 2022). Moreover, as products originating from museums, they also promote the museums’ values of inclusivity, welcoming visitors from all walks of life, irrespective of their race, fame, wealth, or health (Guo et al. 2023; Huang et al. 2023; Li et al. 2021; Tu et al. 2019).
重要的是要注意，文化是动态的，随着时间的推移而不断演变。传统文化模式可能不再与现代生活方式相符。因此，有必要以新颖的方式更新和展示传统文化。创新成为实现这一目标的手段。因此，我们认为博物馆产品的一个基本使命是鼓励博物馆访客在文化的更新中发挥创新（Faraone 2022; Zhang and Courty 2022）。此外，作为源自博物馆的产品，它们还促进了博物馆包容性的价值观，欢迎来自各行各业的访客，无论他们的种族、名声、财富或健康状况如何（Guo et al. 2023; Huang et al. 2023; Li et al. 2021; Tu et al. 2019）。

In summary, the cultural attribute of museum products encompasses three levels: (1) cultural awareness, which facilitates an understanding of past culture through symbols and elements; (2) museum inclusivity, which embodies the values system of contemporary culture; and (3) encouragement of innovation, bridging the gap between cultural connotations and modern values systems.
总之，博物馆产品的文化属性包括三个层面：（1）文化意识，通过符号和元素促进对过去文化的理解；（2）博物馆包容性，体现当代文化的价值体系；（3）鼓励创新，弥合文化内涵与现代价值体系之间的差距。

Dimensions and hypotheses of museum product creativity
博物馆产品创意的维度与假设

Dimension and hypotheses of cultural values
文化价值的维度和假设

Social psychologists argued that creativity should be evaluated in the context of society (Kampylis and Valtanen 2010) because our definition of creativity may significantly impact social trends and values (Amabile 1982). Building upon the earlier discussion about the attribute of culture in museum products, we have identified three perspectives to explain further the dimension of Cultural Values: cultural industries, museology, and cultural policy context.
社会心理学家认为，创造力应该在社会的背景下进行评估（Kampylis 和 Valtanen 2010），因为我们对创造力的定义可能会显著影响社会趋势和价值观（Amabile 1982）。在之前关于博物馆产品中文化属性的讨论基础上，我们确定了三个视角来进一步解释文化价值的维度：文化产业、博物馆学和文化政策背景。

In the first perspective, Tony Blair’s “New Labour” government put creative industries forward as a cultural policy in Britain. Their initial goal is to create job opportunities and generate wealth (Bilton 2000; Flew 2012; Howkins 2018). As a result, museums have become a catalyst for cultural innovation and encourage individuals to live more innovative lifestyles (Arnold-Forster and Speight 2010; Norris and Tisdale 2016b; Song et al. 2022). Through the years, the debate has expanded beyond mere semantics to encompass the importance of democratic values such as freedom, inclusion, and equality in the pursuit of a more just and balanced society (Flew 2012).
在第一种观点中，托尼·布莱尔的“新工党”政府将创意产业作为英国的文化政策。它们的初衷是创造就业机会和产生财富（Bilton 2000; Flew 2012; Howkins 2018）。因此，博物馆成为文化创新的催化剂，鼓励个人过上更具创新性的生活方式（Arnold-Forster 和 Speight 2010; Norris 和 Tisdale 2016b; Song et al. 2022）。多年来，辩论已超越单纯的语义，涵盖了在追求更公正和平衡的社会中，民主价值观如自由、包容和平等的重要性（Flew 2012）。

In the second perspective, there was a significant influence from the democracy movement, which prompted museum curators and scholars to develop a new theory called “new museology.” This theory aimed to actively participate in social issues and create inclusive museums welcoming all individuals (An 1992), which is termed as “Museum Inclusiveness”. It aligns with the ethical values that the museum community seeks to uphold. These two fields show that cultural value is explicitly identified as a shared pursuit. Therefore, cultural value deserves attention in evaluating museum culture and creativity.
在第二种视角中，民主运动产生了显著影响，促使博物馆策展人和学者们发展出一种新的理论，称为“新博物馆学”。该理论旨在积极参与社会问题，创建欢迎所有人的包容性博物馆（An 1992），这被称为“博物馆包容性”。它与博物馆界所追求的伦理价值观相一致。这两个领域表明，文化价值被明确认定为共同追求。因此，在评估博物馆文化和创造力时，文化价值值得关注。

In cultural policy, museum products serve as a medium to evoke people’s awareness about their traditional culture because it is regarded as an approach to uniting and integrating a nation from the perspective of cultural governance (Cheng 2023). Additionally, museum products can help shape a new national image, which is why the UK Government has prioritised its creative industries (Howkins 2018; Pavitt 2009). In this vein, whether customers perceive such intentions is crucial for creative product development.
在文化政策中，博物馆产品作为一种媒介，唤起人们对传统文化的意识，因为它被视为从文化治理的角度团结和整合一个国家的方法（Cheng 2023）。此外，博物馆产品可以帮助塑造新的国家形象，这就是为什么英国政府优先考虑其创意产业的原因（Howkins 2018; Pavitt 2009）。在这种情况下，客户是否感知到这些意图对创意产品开发至关重要。

Based on the above discussion and relevant literature (Li et al. 2021; Tu et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2023), we summarised three indicators for cultural value assessment: innovation encouragement, museum inclusiveness, and cultural awareness. These indicators highlight the significance of cultural value in the creative products of museums and suggest a strong connection between cultural value and importance.
根据上述讨论和相关文献（Li et al. 2021; Tu et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2023），我们总结了文化价值评估的三个指标：创新鼓励、博物馆包容性和文化意识。这些指标突显了文化价值在博物馆创意产品中的重要性，并暗示了文化价值与重要性之间的紧密联系。

Based on this, we propose two hypotheses regarding Cultural Values:
基于此，我们提出了关于文化价值的两个假设：

1. (1)

   H1: Cultural Values have a significant and positive impact on Creativity.
   H1: 文化价值观对创造力有显著的积极影响。

2. (2)

   H2: Cultural Values have a significant and positive impact on Importance.
   H2: 文化价值观对重要性有显著的积极影响。

Dimension and hypothesis of novelty
新颖性的维度和假设

Generally, Novelty means the newness of a product feature or a consumer’s perception of the newness (Sung et al. 2016). In the context of museum products, we define Novelty as the freshness of the product provided for the consumer, and it is not restricted to the product feature, the category and the way cultural elements are utilised. In traditional creativity literature, Novelty is the leading factor determining the degree of creativity (Kampylis and Valtanen 2010; Runco and Jaeger 2012). For an extended period, Novelty is used as the only metric for creativity assessment (Kampylis and Valtanen 2010), and on some occasions, it is used as an alternative term for creativity. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the role of Novelty in creativity varies. Besides Novelty, Usefulness (equivalent to Resolution) is introduced as a second criterion of creativity (Mednick 1962). This notion has become a consensus in creativity research (Amabile 1982; Besemer and Treffinger 1981; Dong et al. 2023; Horn and Salvendy 2006; Mumford 2003). Some scholars have claimed that Novelty and Usefulness are the “standard” or “golden” criteria of product creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012; Weisberg 2015).
一般来说，Novelty 指的是产品特征的新颖性或消费者对新颖性的感知（Sung et al. 2016）。在博物馆产品的背景下，我们将 Novelty 定义为提供给消费者的产品的新鲜感，它不仅限于产品特征、类别和文化元素的利用方式。在传统的创造力文献中，Novelty 是决定创造力程度的主要因素（Kampylis and Valtanen 2010; Runco and Jaeger 2012）。在较长一段时间内，Novelty 被用作创造力评估的唯一指标（Kampylis and Valtanen 2010），在某些情况下，它被用作创造力的替代术语。然而，必须承认 Novelty 在创造力中的作用是多样的。除了 Novelty，实用性（相当于解决方案）被引入作为创造力的第二个标准（Mednick 1962）。这一概念已成为创造力研究中的共识（Amabile 1982; Besemer and Treffinger 1981; Dong et al. 2023; Horn and Salvendy 2006; Mumford 2003）。 一些学者声称，新颖性和实用性是产品创造力的“标准”或“黄金”标准（Runco 和 Jaeger 2012; Weisberg 2015）。

However, there has been some debate among scholars regarding the significance of the role of Novelty in assessing creativity within the context of products. For instance, some scholars have found that an intermediate level of Novelty is optimal when evaluating artwork (Schubert 2021), while others argue that the importance of Novelty in creativity assessment depends on the context in which it is being evaluated (Lloyd-Cox et al. 2022). Corresponding with such findings, in the realm of museum creativity measurement, we have found that Novelty’s ranking in creativity assessment is relatively low, and it is observed that Novelty is not the leading factor that determines overall Creativity (Cheng et al. 2023a, b). It suggests that the role of Novelty in assessing creativity may vary depending on the specific domain being evaluated.
然而，学者们对新颖性在产品创意评估中的重要性存在一些争论。例如，一些学者发现，在评估艺术作品时，中等水平的新颖性是最佳的（Schubert 2021），而另一些人则认为，新颖性在创意评估中的重要性取决于评估的具体背景（Lloyd-Cox et al. 2022）。与这些发现相对应，在博物馆创意测量领域，我们发现新颖性在创意评估中的排名相对较低，并且观察到新颖性并不是决定整体创意的主要因素（Cheng et al. 2023a, b）。这表明，新颖性在创意评估中的作用可能因评估的具体领域而异。

Whether Novelty influences Creativity positively or negatively is another research topic. The majority of the researchers believed Novelty posed a positive impact on Creativity (Amabile 1982; Besemer and O’Quin 1986; Horn and Salvendy 2009; Jagtap 2019), while some revealed the opposite view that Novelty might harm creativity on some occasions such as conducting convergent thinking (Gillebaart et al. 2013). However, evidence that Novelty negatively impacts creativity is still few. Based on the statement mentioned earlier, in the context of museum products, we put forward the hypothesis concerning Novelty as follows:
新颖性对创造力的影响是积极的还是消极的，这是另一个研究课题。大多数研究人员认为新颖性对创造力产生了积极影响（Amabile 1982; Besemer 和 O’Quin 1986; Horn 和 Salvendy 2009; Jagtap 2019），而一些人则提出相反的观点，认为新颖性在某些情况下可能会损害创造力，例如进行聚合思维时（Gillebaart 等 2013）。然而，证据表明新颖性对创造力产生负面影响的情况仍然很少。基于前面提到的陈述，在博物馆产品的背景下，我们提出关于新颖性的假设如下：

1. (3)

   H3: Novelty has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.
   H3: 新颖性对创造力有显著的积极影响。

Dimension and hypothesis of resolution
分辨率的维度和假设

In the consensus of creativity research, Resolution is the second criterion affiliated with Novelty to assess creativity (Lloyd-Cox et al. 2022), referring to the functionality of a product (Liu and Zainal Abidin 2022). However, whether that Resolution has an impact on Creativity is still controversial. The literature argued that Resolution positively impacts Creativity (Amabile 1982; Besemer and Treffinger 1981; Dong et al. 2023; Horn and Salvendy 2006), but another group of experts contended that Resolution negatively influences Creativity. These experts have conducted experiments to demonstrate the negative role of Resolution and revealed an insignificantly negative link between Resolution and Creativity (Han et al. 2019), indicating that a product with a high-Resolution score may perform poorly in Creativity.
在创造力研究的共识中，分辨率是与新颖性相关的第二个标准，用于评估创造力（Lloyd-Cox et al. 2022），指的是产品的功能性（Liu and Zainal Abidin 2022）。然而，分辨率是否对创造力有影响仍然存在争议。文献认为分辨率对创造力有积极影响（Amabile 1982; Besemer and Treffinger 1981; Dong et al. 2023; Horn and Salvendy 2006），但另一组专家则认为分辨率对创造力有负面影响。这些专家进行了实验，以证明分辨率的负面作用，并揭示了分辨率与创造力之间的微弱负相关（Han et al. 2019），这表明高分辨率评分的产品在创造力方面可能表现不佳。

Our previous work witnessed this phenomenon, where Resolution and Importance (metrics for product creativity) were rated low in five selected museum creative products (Cheng et al. 2023a). Nevertheless, in our further study, we rejected the hypothesis that Resolution is not crucial and can be removed (Cheng et al. 2023b), which confuses the role of Resolution in museum products. This confusion surrounding Resolution has brought to light its paradoxical importance in museum products. From the customers’ end, a product’s functionality significantly impacts their purchasing decision, making Resolution crucial. Nevertheless, from the market’s perspective, designers, developers and distributors have not adequately addressed the need for unique product functions due to the current supply chain limitations (Cheng, 2018, 2019b; Cheng et al. 2023b). This neglect suggests that Resolution has not been given the attention it requires.
我们之前的研究见证了这一现象，在五个选定的博物馆创意产品中，分辨率和重要性（产品创意的指标）被评为较低（Cheng et al. 2023a）。然而，在我们的进一步研究中，我们拒绝了分辨率并非关键且可以被忽略的假设（Cheng et al. 2023b），这混淆了分辨率在博物馆产品中的角色。围绕分辨率的这种混淆突显了其在博物馆产品中的矛盾重要性。从客户的角度来看，产品的功能显著影响他们的购买决策，使得分辨率至关重要。然而，从市场的角度来看，设计师、开发者和分销商由于当前供应链的限制，未能充分满足对独特产品功能的需求（Cheng, 2018, 2019b; Cheng et al. 2023b）。这种忽视表明，分辨率并没有得到应有的重视。

As the impact of Resolution on museum products is subject to debate, we endeavour to gain a deeper understanding of how it operates. As a result, we put forward a hypothesis positing that:
由于决议对博物馆产品的影响存在争议，我们努力深入了解其运作方式。因此，我们提出一个假设：

1. (4)

   H4: Resolution has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.
   H4: 决心对创造力有显著的积极影响。

Dimension and hypotheses of importance
重要性的维度和假设

Besides the two widely-agreed components of creativity (Novelty and Resolution), other new dimensions have been introduced (Barnes and Shirley 2007; Besemer and Treffinger 1981; Boden 2004; Christensen and Ball 2016; Dong et al. 2023; Kampylis et al. 2009; Saunders 2002; Vernon 1989; Weisberg 2015). Importance is one of the newly introduced dimensions. Horn and Salvendy (2006) introduced it as an independent metric in their first edition of the PCMI model, which refers to the significance of a product for a consumer’s daily life. Other scholars consider Importance as a subscale of Resolution, arguing that a product’s importance and relevance are essential indicators of Resolution (Sarkar and Chakrabarti 2008, 2011). Therefore, to some extent, evidence suggests that it may have an independent effect on creativity. Our previous survey showed that such overlaps existed (Cheng et al. 2023a). In that random in-depth interview, some participants (e.g., #1, #508) responded that they intended to choose the product with specific functions and would filter out the ones irrelevant to daily life in the purchase process.
除了创造力的两个广泛认可的组成部分（新颖性和解决方案），还引入了其他新的维度（Barnes 和 Shirley 2007; Besemer 和 Treffinger 1981; Boden 2004; Christensen 和 Ball 2016; Dong 等 2023; Kampylis 等 2009; Saunders 2002; Vernon 1989; Weisberg 2015）。重要性是新引入的维度之一。Horn 和 Salvendy (2006) 在他们的 PCMI 模型第一版中将其作为一个独立的指标引入，指的是产品对消费者日常生活的重要性。其他学者认为重要性是解决方案的一个子量表，认为产品的重要性和相关性是解决方案的重要指标（Sarkar 和 Chakrabarti 2008, 2011）。因此，在某种程度上，证据表明它可能对创造力有独立的影响。我们之前的调查显示存在这种重叠（Cheng 等 2023a）。在那次随机的深入访谈中，一些参与者（例如#1, #508) 表示他们打算选择具有特定功能的产品，并将在购买过程中筛选出与日常生活无关的产品。

(5) H5: Importance has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.
（5）H5：重要性对创造力有显著的积极影响。

(6) H6: Importance has a significant and positive impact on Resolution.
（6）H6：重要性对决策有显著的积极影响。

Dimension and hypothesis of affect
情感的维度和假设

In the first edition of the PCMI model, the Affect dimension is divided into three components: Emotion, Attraction, and Desire (Horn and Salvendy 2006), indicating this is a dimension of the consumer’s feelings evoked in the interaction process with the product. In this edition, Affect only comprises 24% of the total “variance accounted for (VAF)”, smaller than Resolution (27%). In the second edition, Affect is regarded as an integrated dimension and no more divided into three components (Horn and Salvendy 2009). They found that Affect (R² = 0.28) is equally vital as Novelty (R² = 0.25) in customers’ perception of Creativity. In the two editions of the PCMI model, Affect shares an equivalent status with Novelty or Resolution. Despite this, a previous study (Cheng et al. 2023a, b) revealed that Affect was the dominant dimension in the museum products, suggesting that creative product design in museums should focus on Affect rather than Novelty. This study aims to confirm the role of Affect in creativity assessment, proposing the following hypothesis:
在 PCMI 模型的第一版中，情感维度分为三个组成部分：情绪、吸引力和欲望（Horn 和 Salvendy 2006），这表明这是消费者在与产品互动过程中所激发的感受维度。在这一版中，情感仅占总“方差解释（VAF）”的 24%，低于解决方案的 27%。在第二版中，情感被视为一个综合维度，不再分为三个组成部分（Horn 和 Salvendy 2009）。他们发现，情感（R² = 0.28）与新颖性（R² = 0.25）在客户对创造力的感知中同样重要。在 PCMI 模型的两个版本中，情感与新颖性或解决方案具有相同的地位。尽管如此，之前的一项研究（Cheng 等 2023a, b）显示，情感是博物馆产品中的主导维度，这表明博物馆中的创意产品设计应关注情感而非新颖性。本研究旨在确认情感在创造力评估中的作用，提出以下假设：

(7) H7: Affect has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.
(7) H7：情感对创造力有显著的积极影响。

Dimension and hypotheses of aesthetics
美学的维度与假设

As mentioned above, in literature, Aesthetics often refers to the product’s appearance and the aesthetic emotions evoked by the beautiful appearance. In our research, we define Aesthetics as the product’s appearance because we have already incorporated the dimension of Affect. In Maslow’s human need model, creativity is one of the fundamental expressions of self-fulfilment. However, the aesthetic dimension of creativity is often overlooked in discussions of creativity (Howkins 2018). Moreover, aesthetics is often related to Novelty and emotion (Blijlevens et al. 2013). In the realm of design and psychology, some scholars argued that aesthetics is the third metric for design creativity assessment other than the metrics of Novelty and Resolution (Christensen and Ball 2016; Dong et al. 2023; Runco and Charles 1993) and some scholars argued that in a mature market, the functionality and the performance of a product are manually controlled, and thus the appearance of products becomes more important than other dimensions (Crilly et al. 2004). The psychology literature investigates aesthetics from various perspectives, including the structural form, style and appeal of products, the degree of novelty, and personal preferences (Christensen and Ball 2016; Hekkert 2006).
如上所述，在文献中，美学通常指的是产品的外观以及由美丽外观引发的美学情感。在我们的研究中，我们将美学定义为产品的外观，因为我们已经将情感维度纳入其中。在马斯洛的人类需求模型中，创造力是自我实现的基本表现之一。然而，创造力的美学维度在创造力的讨论中常常被忽视（Howkins 2018）。此外，美学通常与新颖性和情感相关（Blijlevens et al. 2013）。在设计和心理学领域，一些学者认为，美学是设计创造力评估的第三个指标，除了新颖性和解决方案的指标之外（Christensen and Ball 2016; Dong et al. 2023; Runco and Charles 1993），还有一些学者认为，在成熟市场中，产品的功能性和性能是手动控制的，因此产品的外观变得比其他维度更重要（Crilly et al. 2004）。 心理学文献从多个角度研究美学，包括产品的结构形式、风格和吸引力、新颖程度以及个人偏好（Christensen 和 Ball 2016; Hekkert 2006）。

Aesthetics is often associated with Affect. In emotional design research, pleasure is divided into multiple dimensions, including bodily, aesthetic, and pleasure for accompaniment, which supports emotion and aesthetics. Moreover, research suggests that the bodily and aesthetic dimensions can be evoked through the visual appearance of products, underlining the importance of visual appearance in assessing aesthetics (Chang and Wu 2007, 2009).
美学常常与情感相关。在情感设计研究中，愉悦被划分为多个维度，包括身体维度、美学维度和陪伴的愉悦，这些都支持情感和美学。此外，研究表明，身体和美学维度可以通过产品的视觉外观来唤起，这突显了在评估美学时视觉外观的重要性（Chang and Wu 2007, 2009）。

As museum products are expected to possess aesthetic attributes, the aesthetic pleasantness of these products becomes crucial to creativity measurement. Thus, we posit that Aesthetics significantly and positively impacts both overall Creativity and Affect, forming our hypotheses H8 and H9 as follows:
由于博物馆产品被期望具有美学属性，这些产品的美学愉悦性对创造力的衡量变得至关重要。因此，我们假设美学对整体创造力和情感有显著的正面影响，形成我们的假设 H8 和 H9，如下所示：

(8) H8: Aesthetics has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.
(8) H8: 美学对创造力有显著的积极影响。

(9) H9: Aesthetics has a significant and positive impact on Affect.
(9) H9：美学对情感有显著的积极影响。

Potential moderators and hypothesis of museum product
博物馆产品的潜在调节因素和假设

Public museums traditionally aim to educate their audiences to spread knowledge and promote modern values (Lehmannová 2020; Mairesse 2019). It is also why the Chinese government in the 1900s introduced the concept of museology and established public museums (Cheng 2023). Accordingly, education is believed to be an approach to promote social progress because people with a higher education background are believed to have a better understanding of societal goals (Spiel et al. 2018). However, research suggests that education does not necessarily influence perceptions of social equality (Gao and Zhao 2022). It is essential to test the effect of educational level on Cultural Values. This leads us to our hypothesis that educational level moderates the relationship between Cultural Values and creativity:
公共博物馆传统上旨在教育观众，以传播知识和促进现代价值观（Lehmannová 2020; Mairesse 2019）。这也是中国政府在 1900 年代引入博物馆学概念并建立公共博物馆的原因（Cheng 2023）。因此，教育被认为是促进社会进步的一种方式，因为受过高等教育的人被认为对社会目标有更好的理解（Spiel et al. 2018）。然而，研究表明，教育并不一定影响对社会平等的看法（Gao and Zhao 2022）。测试教育水平对文化价值观的影响至关重要。这引出了我们的假设：教育水平在文化价值观与创造力之间的关系中起调节作用：

(10) H10: Educational Level moderates the relationship between Cultural Values and Creativity.
(10) H10：教育水平调节文化价值观与创造力之间的关系。

Hypotheses summary 假设总结

The hypotheses to be verified are summarised in Table 2, and the proposed conceptual model is illustrated in Fig. 1.
待验证的假设总结在表2中，提出的概念模型在图1中说明。

Proposed conceptual model.
提议的概念模型。

Full size image

Participants and procedure
参与者和程序

To gather a comprehensive sample across China, we utilised the online survey platform Wenjuan.com. Prior to data collection, we conducted a pilot test with participants knowledgeable about the museum products to ensure the validity and clarity of the survey instrument. Ambiguous questions were revised based on the feedback received during the pilot test. Furthermore, we implemented three lie detectors to maintain the quality of the questionnaire. Data were collected through Weibo, a popular social media platform in China. We specifically targeted active museum visitors, fans, and customers who frequently share information about the museum products. We utilised a point-to-point advertising service provided by Weibo.com to effectively distribute the questionnaires to participants who followed the Weibo accounts of Chinese urban historical museums or online museum shops, as well as those who displayed an interest in cultural creativity or relevant hobbies (e.g., Han Costumes) on Weibo.com. Additionally, we distributed questionnaires to several professional groups on WeChat, where practitioners and experts in museum products congregated, in order to supplement our sample pool. Participants were provided with a subsidy for their qualified responses. To ensure data integrity, we implemented restrictions on IPs, phone numbers, and system accounts to prevent duplicate submissions. After a week of data collection, we conducted a thorough data-cleaning process.
为了在中国收集全面的样本，我们利用了在线调查平台问卷网。在数据收集之前，我们对了解博物馆产品的参与者进行了试点测试，以确保调查工具的有效性和清晰性。根据试点测试中收到的反馈，模糊的问题进行了修订。此外，我们实施了三个谎言检测器，以保持问卷的质量。数据通过微博收集，这是中国一个受欢迎的社交媒体平台。我们特别针对活跃的博物馆访客、粉丝和经常分享博物馆产品信息的客户。我们利用微博网提供的点对点广告服务，有效地将问卷分发给关注中国城市历史博物馆或在线博物馆商店的参与者，以及在微博网上对文化创意或相关爱好（例如汉服）表现出兴趣的用户。此外，我们还向微信上的几个专业群体分发问卷，那里聚集了博物馆产品的从业者和专家，以补充我们的样本池。 参与者获得了合格回答的补贴。为了确保数据的完整性，我们对 IP 地址、电话号码和系统账户实施了限制，以防止重复提交。在为期一周的数据收集后，我们进行了彻底的数据清理过程。

A total of 931 participants took part in our survey, with 223 responses (which lacked experience in purchasing museum products) being deemed invalid and subsequently excluded. This left us with 708 valid responses, yielding a valid response rate of 74.97%. The final sample revealed that 54.10% of participants were male, while the remaining 45.90% were female. Furthermore, 49.15% of participants were identified as consumers, while 50.85% identified as experts in the field. When considering age distribution, the largest group represented was those aged between 25 and 30, accounting for 34.46% of the sample. This was followed by the age group of 31–40, comprising 32.20% of participants. The age groups of 18–24, 41–50, 51–60, and above 61 comprised 21.75%, 8.90%, 2.26%, and 0.28% of the sample, respectively. Participants below the age of 18 constituted 0.14% of the sample. Regarding educational attainment, participants with associate degrees or below comprised 22.74% of the sample, while those with bachelor’s degrees accounted for 53.81%. The remaining 23.45% held master’s degrees or higher qualifications.
共有 931 名参与者参加了我们的调查，其中 223 份回复（缺乏购买博物馆产品的经验）被视为无效并被排除。这使我们得到了 708 份有效回复，有效回复率为 74.97%。最终样本显示，54.10%的参与者为男性，其余 45.90%为女性。此外，49.15%的参与者被认定为消费者，而 50.85%则认定为该领域的专家。在年龄分布方面，最大的一组是 25 至 30 岁的人，占样本的 34.46%。其次是 31 至 40 岁年龄组，占参与者的 32.20%。18 至 24 岁、41 至 50 岁、51 至 60 岁和 61 岁以上的年龄组分别占样本的 21.75%、8.90%、2.26%和 0.28%。18 岁以下的参与者占样本的 0.14%。关于教育程度，拥有副学士学位或以下的参与者占样本的 22.74%，而拥有学士学位的参与者占 53.81%。其余 23.45%持有硕士学位或更高的资格。

Table 3 depicts the descriptive statistics and variable correlations of sample data.
表3展示了样本数据的描述性统计和变量相关性。

Testing sample 测试样本

Since the invited participants are familiar with museum products, we did not ask them to rate specific products. Instead, we invite them to assess their impression of the category. Because museum product has various definitions, we offered typical pictures of museum creative products to help the participants accurately comprehend our objectives (see Fig. 2).
由于受邀参与者对博物馆产品很熟悉，我们没有要求他们对具体产品进行评分。相反，我们邀请他们评估对该类别的印象。由于博物馆产品有多种定义，我们提供了典型的博物馆创意产品图片，以帮助参与者准确理解我们的目标（见图 2）。

Typical Chinese museum products in urban museums.
城市博物馆中的典型中国博物馆产品。

Full size image

Measurement indicators 测量指标

Besides the demographics and questions relevant to individual differences, all questions were designed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree 1) to 7 (strongly agree). All the indicators we used to assess are positive adjectives.
除了与个体差异相关的人口统计信息和问题外，所有问题均采用 7 点李克特量表设计，范围从 1（强烈不同意）到 7（强烈同意）。我们用来评估的所有指标都是积极的形容词。

Indicators of novelty 新颖性指标

We assessed Novelty using the indicators from the CPSS model of Besemer and Treffinger (1981) and the second version of the PCMI model of Horn and Salvendy (2009). The two models are famous product creativity assessment models, and their indicators have been used and validated by many researchers in the creativity research realm (Lu and Luh 2012; Plucker et al. 2021). Our assessment involved evaluating indicators such as Infrequent, Rare, and Surprising to determine the degree of novelty present in our study.
我们使用 Besemer 和 Treffinger 的 CPSS 模型（1981）和 Horn 和 Salvendy 的 PCMI 模型的第二版（2009）中的指标来评估新颖性。这两个模型是著名的产品创造力评估模型，其指标已被许多创意研究领域的研究人员使用和验证（Lu 和 Luh 2012; Plucker 等 2021）。我们的评估涉及评估不常见、稀有和令人惊讶等指标，以确定我们研究中存在的新颖性程度。

Indicators of resolution 解决指标

The Resolution was measured by the metrics from the first edition of the PCMI model of Horn and Salvendy (2006) because the second edition does not contain the dimension of Resolution. The indicators comprise Efficient, Resourceful, Fitting, and Functional.
该分辨率是通过霍恩和萨尔文迪的 PCMI 模型第一版的指标进行测量的（2006），因为第二版不包含分辨率的维度。指标包括高效、资源丰富、适合和功能性。

Indicators of affect 情感指标

To measure Affect, we adopt the indicators from two PCMI models (Horn and Salvendy 2006, 2009). In the first edition of PCMI, Affect is divided into three aspects: Emotion, Attraction and Desire. We included all the indicators from these three aspects, which include Pleased, Delighted, Appealed, Stimulated, Favourable, Appealing, Attractive, Ideal, and Desirable.
为了测量情感，我们采用了两个 PCMI 模型的指标（Horn 和 Salvendy 2006, 2009）。在 PCMI 的第一版中，情感被分为三个方面：情绪、吸引力和欲望。我们包含了这三个方面的所有指标，包括愉快、快乐、吸引、刺激、积极、吸引人、迷人、理想和渴望。

Indicators of importance 重要性指标

In measuring Importance, we use the indicators from two PCMI models (Horn and Salvendy 2006, 2009). These indicators include Relevant, Important, and Crucial, which all work together to assess the significance of the museum products.
在衡量重要性时，我们使用两个 PCMI 模型（Horn 和 Salvendy 2006, 2009）中的指标。这些指标包括相关、重要和关键，它们共同作用于评估博物馆产品的意义。

Indicators of aesthetics 美学指标

The Aesthetics indicators are Polished, Complex, Elegant, Expressive, Organic and Well-Crafted, all from the Style dimension in the CPSS model introduced by Besemer and Treffinger (1981).
美学指标包括抛光、复杂、优雅、表现力、自然和精心制作，均来自 Besemer 和 Treffinger 于(1981)提出的 CPSS 模型中的风格维度。

Indicators of cultural values
文化价值观的指标

The indicators of Cultural Values are abstracted from the mission of museology in the context of creative industries and Chinese cultural policy. Thus, this involves focusing on three central principles: promoting cultural awareness, fostering innovation, and enhancing museum inclusivity. The three indicators for Cultural Values are Cultural Awareness, Innovation Encouraging, and Museum Inclusiveness.
文化价值的指标是从博物馆学在创意产业和中国文化政策背景下的使命中提炼出来的。因此，这涉及到关注三个核心原则：促进文化意识、培养创新和增强博物馆的包容性。文化价值的三个指标是文化意识、创新鼓励和博物馆包容性。

The indicators used for this research are summarised in Table 4.
本研究使用的指标总结在表4中。

Controlled variables 控制变量

To eliminate the potential effects of demographic characteristics such as age, gender, educational level, purchase experience and professional degree, we have controlled these variables in our study; all are dummy-coded. Age had seven categories (0 = below 18; 1 = between 18 and 24; 2 = between 25 and 30; 3 = between 31 and 40; 4 = between 41 and 50; 5 = between 51 and 60; 6 = above 61), gender had two categories (0 = female; 1 = male), the educational level has three categories (0 = below bachelor’s degree; 1 = bachelor’s degree; 2 = master’s degree or above), the professional degree has two categories (0 = customers; 1 = experts) and purchase experience has three categories (0 = never purchased; 1 = seldomly purchased; 2 = frequently purchased).
为了消除年龄、性别、教育水平、购买经验和专业学位等人口特征的潜在影响，我们在研究中控制了这些变量；所有变量均为虚拟编码。年龄分为七个类别（0 = 18 岁以下；1 = 18 至 24 岁；2 = 25 至 30 岁；3 = 31 至 40 岁；4 = 41 至 50 岁；5 = 51 至 60 岁；6 = 61 岁以上），性别分为两个类别（0 = 女性；1 = 男性），教育水平分为三个类别（0 = 本科以下；1 = 本科；2 = 硕士及以上），专业学位分为两个类别（0 = 顾客；1 = 专家），购买经验分为三个类别（0 = 从未购买；1 = 偶尔购买；2 = 经常购买）。

Basic analysis 基础分析

To validate the consistency and stability of our measurements, we performed reliability tests, validity tests, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the SPSSPRO program (Version 1.1.13). Table 5 depicts the result of construct reliability and validity.
为了验证我们测量的一致性和稳定性，我们使用 SPSSPRO 程序（版本 1.1.13）进行了可靠性测试、有效性测试、探索性因素分析（EFA）和验证性因素分析（CFA）。表5展示了构念可靠性和有效性的结果。

Cronbach’s alpha is commonly used in assessing the internal consistency and stability of a measurement tool. In our study, all dimensions of the measurement tool have a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7, except for the dimension of Resolution. It suggests that overall, the measurement tool has high internal consistency, but the reliability of the Resolution dimension falls within the average range (Cronbach’s alpha between 0.6 and 0.7). We have chosen to analyse further the Resolution dimension in light of this lower reliability score.
克朗巴赫α系数通常用于评估测量工具的内部一致性和稳定性。在我们的研究中，测量工具的所有维度的克朗巴赫α系数均高于 0.7，除了“解决方案”维度。这表明总体而言，测量工具具有较高的内部一致性，但“解决方案”维度的可靠性处于平均范围内（克朗巴赫α系数在 0.6 到 0.7 之间）。鉴于这一较低的可靠性评分，我们选择进一步分析“解决方案”维度。

To ensure the validity of our complete model, we conducted tests on its adequacy. Specifically, we examined the KMO values for each dimension, including Novelty, Resolution, Affect, Aesthetics, Importance, and Cultural Values. The results of KMO value are Novelty (0.593), Resolution (0.735), Affect (0.946), Aesthetics (0.913), Importance (0.711) and Cultural Values (0.678). The results indicate that all dimensions are of acceptable correlation except the dimension of Novelty. The KMO value for the overall model is 0.976, which indicates that the construct is highly valid. In sum, all the dimensions except the dimension of Novelty are suitable for factor analysis.
为了确保我们完整模型的有效性，我们对其适用性进行了测试。具体来说，我们检查了每个维度的 KMO 值，包括新颖性、解决方案、情感、美学、重要性和文化价值。KMO 值的结果为：新颖性（0.593）、解决方案（0.735）、情感（0.946）、美学（0.913）、重要性（0.711）和文化价值（0.678）。结果表明，除了新颖性维度外，所有维度的相关性均可接受。整体模型的 KMO 值为 0.976，这表明该构念具有很高的有效性。总之，除了新颖性维度外，所有维度均适合进行因子分析。

We used Composite Reliability (CR) to test factor reliability where all the CR values are >0.7 except Novelty. The result indicates that the model’s reliability and satisfaction level are satisfactory. After calculating the AVE values, we found that the dimensions of Novelty and Resolution are all <0.5 (Hu and Bentler 1999). Therefore, the dimension of Novelty was unsatisfactory in both CR and AVE, indicating that the indicators taken from the CPSS and PCMI models may not be reliable or valid in the context of museum cultural creativity.
我们使用复合可靠性（CR）来测试因子的可靠性，其中所有 CR 值均大于 0.7，除了新颖性。结果表明，该模型的可靠性和满意度水平令人满意。在计算 AVE 值后，我们发现新颖性和解决方案的维度均小于 0.5（Hu 和 Bentler 1999）。因此，新颖性的维度在 CR 和 AVE 中均不令人满意，这表明从 CPSS 和 PCMI 模型中提取的指标在博物馆文化创意的背景下可能不可靠或无效。

Statistically, Novelty should be removed, but we decided to keep it because, in the tradition of creativity research, Novelty is significant to creativity, and sometimes it even equals creativity. Moreover, the result of the exploratory factor analysis suggested integrating Resolution and Importance because they formed Factor #3 in the outcome. Although some literature supported integrating these two dimensions, we decided to follow the advice of Horn and Salvendy (2006) to separate them. If collinearity is found in the process of structural model construction, we would then integrate them and revise the conceptual model accordingly. Structural Equation Modelling of Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM) was used to test hypotheses for this study. The final revised conceptual model based on the results of this stage is illustrated in Fig. 3
从统计学上看，创新性应该被去除，但我们决定保留它，因为在创造力研究的传统中，创新性对创造力是重要的，有时甚至等同于创造力。此外，探索性因子分析的结果建议将解决方案和重要性整合，因为它们在结果中形成了因子#3。尽管一些文献支持将这两个维度整合，但我们决定遵循 Horn 和 Salvendy（2006）的建议将它们分开。如果在结构模型构建过程中发现共线性，我们将整合它们并相应地修订概念模型。本研究使用部分最小二乘法结构方程模型（PLS-SEM）来检验假设。基于这一阶段结果的最终修订概念模型如图 3 所示。^{Footnote 8}.

Revised conceptual model.
修订的概念模型。

Full size image

The reasons why we chose the PLS-SEM method are: (1) our study is exploratory research; (2) There is a formative construct, i.e., Creativity; (3) our data lack of normality. These reasons meet the criteria that Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, and Ringle (2019) suggested. Following the general PLS-SEM approach by Chen (2018), the validation process consists of two stages. The first stage is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the outer model, i.e., the measurement model. The second stage assesses the inner (structural) model, i.e., testing the proposed hypotheses on variance relationships, mediating and moderating effects. We analysed it by using SmartPLS (V.4.0.8.7).
我们选择 PLS-SEM 方法的原因是：(1) 我们的研究是探索性研究；(2) 存在一个形成性构念，即创造力；(3) 我们的数据缺乏正态性。这些原因符合 Hair、Risher、Sarstedt 和 Ringle（2019）所建议的标准。根据 Chen（2018）提出的一般 PLS-SEM 方法，验证过程分为两个阶段。第一阶段是评估外部模型的可靠性和有效性，即测量模型。第二阶段评估内部（结构）模型，即测试提出的关于方差关系、介导和调节效应的假设。我们使用 SmartPLS（V.4.0.8.7）进行了分析。

Evaluating outer model 评估外部模型

In this research, creativity is considered a formative latent variable. To validate the construct of Creativity, we first examined its formative indicators and conducted a convergence analysis. As illustrated in Fig. 4, the path coefficient is 1.006 (>0.8), indicating that the measurement indicators of Creativity are of high convergence validity (Chin 1998).
在这项研究中，创造力被视为一个形成性潜变量。为了验证创造力的构念，我们首先检查了其形成性指标并进行了汇聚分析。如图 4 所示，路径系数为 1.006 (>0.8)，这表明创造力的测量指标具有较高的汇聚效度 (Chin 1998)。

Convergence validity of formative indicators.
形成性指标的聚合效度。

Full size image

Afterwards, we tested the validity of the reflective aspects of the conceptual model. The validity of the measurement model is summarised in Table 6.
随后，我们测试了概念模型反射方面的有效性。测量模型的有效性总结在表6中。

To test the overall validity of the conceptual model, we utilised the renowned Fornell-Larcker Criterion, a widely accepted approach to validate the contrast (Chen 2018). Table 7 shows that the AVE values of a variance on the diagonal are more significant than the coefficient values of other variables, highlighting that our measurement models have discriminant validity.
为了测试概念模型的整体有效性，我们采用了著名的 Fornell-Larcker 标准，这是一种广泛接受的验证对比的方法（Chen 2018）。表7显示，方差的 AVE 值在对角线上大于其他变量的系数值，突显了我们的测量模型具有区分效度。

Evaluating inner model 评估内部模型

To evaluate the inner model, we first tested the structural model’s collinearity in evaluating the inner model. We tested collinearity twice because we discovered the value of Affect and Creativity was 5.110, slightly above 5 (the threshold). In the second test, we moved the indicators of Importance to Resolution based on two reasons: (1) in some literature, Resolution comprises Importance (Sarkar and Chakrabarti 2008, 2011); (2) In exploratory factor analysis, we found that Resolution and Importance were mixed as Factor #3. After moving Importance to Resolution, we found all the VIF values were smaller than 5 (see Table 8), indicating collinearity of the model is not severe. Therefore, we moved the Importance indicators to the Resolution dimension and renamed them Usefulness. Accordingly, hypothesis H2 was changed to “Cultural Values influence Usefulness significantly and positively”. To avoid confusion, we renamed it “H2b”. In addition, hypothesis H4 was changed to “Usefulness has a significant and positive impact on Creativity”.
为了评估内在模型，我们首先测试了结构模型在评估内在模型时的共线性。我们进行了两次共线性测试，因为我们发现情感和创造力的值为 5.110，略高于 5（阈值）。在第二次测试中，我们基于两个原因将重要性指标移至解决方案：（1）在一些文献中，解决方案包含重要性（Sarkar 和 Chakrabarti 2008, 2011）；（2）在探索性因子分析中，我们发现解决方案和重要性混合为因子#3。将重要性移至解决方案后，我们发现所有的 VIF 值都小于 5（见表8），这表明模型的共线性并不严重。因此，我们将重要性指标移至解决方案维度，并将其重新命名为有用性。因此，假设 H2 被更改为“文化价值观显著且积极地影响有用性”。为了避免混淆，我们将其重新命名为“H2b”。此外，假设 H4 被更改为“有用性对创造力有显著和积极的影响”。

Afterwards, we calculated the path coefficients, tested their significance and effect values, and found all the paths were significant except Novelty → Creativity (see Table 9).
随后，我们计算了路径系数，测试了它们的显著性和效应值，发现除了新颖性 → 创造力之外，所有路径都是显著的（见表 9）。

We tested the Coefficient of Determination (R²) of Creativity (0.893), Affect (0.603) and Usefulness (0.209). Following the test of R², we tested the effect size using f ². According to the criteria
我们测试了创造力的决定系数 (R²) 为 0.893，情感为 0.603，实用性为 0.209。在测试 R² 之后，我们使用 f² 测试了效应大小。根据标准^{Footnote 9}, Affect → Creativity (0.389) and Aesthetics → Affect (1.520) are of significant explanation effects, Usefulness → Creativity (0.199) and Cultural Values → Usefulness (0.263) are of medium explanation effect, Aesthetics → Creativity (0.076) and Cultural Values → Creativity (0.106) are of the low effect of explanation, Novelty → Creativity (0.000) is of no explanation effect.
情感 → 创造力 (0.389) 和美学 → 情感 (1.520) 具有显著的解释效果，实用性 → 创造力 (0.199) 和文化价值 → 实用性 (0.263) 具有中等解释效果，美学 → 创造力 (0.076) 和文化价值 → 创造力 (0.106) 具有低解释效果，新颖性 → 创造力 (0.000) 没有解释效果。

Our tests showed that all variables except for Novelty had explanation effects. Additionally, to ensure the accuracy of our model, we calculated the SRMR value (0.059), much smaller than 0.1, indicating the model is of good fit.
我们的测试显示，除了新颖性之外，所有变量都有解释效应。此外，为了确保我们模型的准确性，我们计算了 SRMR 值（0.059），远小于 0.1，表明模型拟合良好。

Mediating effects 中介效应

After thoroughly analysing the mediating effects in our model, we found some interesting results worth mentioning. Firstly, we discovered that (1) Affect is a partial mediator of Aesthetics and Creativity; (2) Usefulness is a partial mediator of Cultural Values and Creativity (see Table 10).
在对我们模型中的中介效应进行彻底分析后，我们发现了一些值得提及的有趣结果。首先，我们发现 (1) 情感是美学与创造力之间的部分中介；(2) 有用性是文化价值与创造力之间的部分中介（见表 10）。

Moderating effects 调节效应

Following the analysis of mediating effects, we continued to analyse the moderating effects. From Table 11, we confirmed that H10 was valid.
在对中介效应进行分析后，我们继续分析调节效应。从表11中，我们确认 H10 是有效的。

This result led us to conclude that educational level is the only significant and negative moderator affecting the relationship between Cultural Values and Creativity.
这一结果使我们得出结论，教育水平是影响文化价值观与创造力之间关系的唯一显著负向调节变量。

Summary 摘要

The proposed hypotheses’ decisions are as follows (see Table 12).
所提假设的决策如下（见表12）。

Based on the above result, we re-established the model and indicators of each dimension (see Fig. 5). This model is verified as suitable for assessing creativity for the museum product design.
基于上述结果，我们重新建立了每个维度的模型和指标（见图 5）。该模型被验证为适合评估博物馆产品设计的创造力。

Final conceptual model. 最终概念模型。

Full size image

We aim to construct a creativity measurement model for the products sold in museums’ souvenir shops. After the validation, we found all the paths except Novelty-Creativity have been tested valid. The validation indicates that the conceptual model should comprise four dimensions (i.e., Affect, Aesthetics, Usefulness and Cultural Values) and exclude the dimension of Novelty, which is insignificant. Furthermore, their measurement indicators are shown in Table 13.
我们旨在为博物馆纪念品商店销售的产品构建一个创造力测量模型。经过验证，我们发现除了新颖性-创造力之外，所有路径都已被验证有效。验证表明，概念模型应包括四个维度（即情感、美学、实用性和文化价值），并排除新颖性这一不重要的维度。此外，它们的测量指标见表13。

Discussion on conceptual model
概念模型讨论

Compared with the first edition of the PCMI model, Emotion, Attraction and Desire are replaced by the dimension of Affect in our model. Compared with the second edition of the PCMI model, Importance is removed in our model. Other crucial differences between the two editions of the PCMI model are two newly introduced dimensions: Aesthetics and Cultural Values. Figure 5 shows a thick line (the thickest) between Aesthetics and Affect, indicating the strong relationship between these two dimensions. The line linking Affect and Creativity is the second thickest in the chart. Other significant lines, namely the Usefulness and Creativity, Aesthetics and Creativity, and Cultural Values and Creativity, rank third, fourth and fifth in Fig. 5, suggesting their relationship strength is decreasing. Novelty is a dimension that is supposed to be removed due to its low significance. Discussion on Model Dimensions
与 PCMI 模型的第一版相比，我们的模型中情感、吸引力和欲望被替换为情感维度。与 PCMI 模型的第二版相比，我们的模型中移除了重要性。PCMI 模型两个版本之间的其他关键差异是两个新引入的维度：美学和文化价值。图 5 显示了美学和情感之间的粗线（最粗），表明这两个维度之间的强关系。连接情感和创造力的线在图表中是第二粗的。其他重要的线，即实用性与创造力、美学与创造力、文化价值与创造力，在图 5 中分别排名第三、第四和第五，表明它们的关系强度在减弱。新颖性是一个由于其低重要性而应被移除的维度。关于模型维度的讨论

Dimension of affect 情感维度

Among all the dimensions linked directly with Creativity, it has been found that Affect plays a significant role in influencing Creativity. This finding is in line with our previous research that highlights Affect as the dominant factor that impacts overall Creativity (Cheng et al. 2023a, b), which is also corresponding with similar findings on the role of Affect in the product in other design literature (Pavitt 2009). However, it is worth noting that one of the indicators (“appealing”) we used to measure Affect was removed from our analysis due to its insignificance, reducing our overall indicator count from 8 to 7.
在与创造力直接相关的所有维度中，情感在影响创造力方面发挥了重要作用。这个发现与我们之前的研究一致，强调情感是影响整体创造力的主导因素（Cheng et al. 2023a, b），这也与其他设计文献中关于情感在产品中作用的类似发现相符（Pavitt 2009）。然而，值得注意的是，我们用来衡量情感的一个指标（“吸引力”）由于其不显著性而被从分析中移除，使我们的整体指标数量从 8 减少到 7。

Dimension of usefulness 有用性的维度

After analysing the results, we concluded that merging Usefulness and Importance would be the best approach. For the museum product consumers, Usefulness is essential. In the literature on museum creative product research, we often read the disclosure of the functionality of products. In our previous interview, we frequently heard complaints that products were useless. In our current survey, we composed one question regarding the assessment of Usefulness: “Are the museum products wasteful?” (MQ5 in “Example of Questionnaire Sheets”, see the Supplementary Material). The answers to this question are polarised. Many participants rate this question positively, thinking that museum products are a waste of resources.
经过分析结果，我们得出结论，合并有用性和重要性将是最佳方法。对于博物馆产品消费者来说，有用性是至关重要的。在关于博物馆创意产品研究的文献中，我们经常看到产品功能的披露。在我们之前的访谈中，我们经常听到关于产品无用的抱怨。在我们当前的调查中，我们设计了一个关于有用性评估的问题：“博物馆产品是否浪费？”（见“问卷示例”中的 MQ5，参见补充材料）。对此问题的回答呈现两极分化。许多参与者对这个问题给予积极评价，认为博物馆产品是资源的浪费。

Furthermore, interviews with participants who rated positive on this question and random in-depth interviews with creative product consumers showed some participants (e.g., #1, #34, #63, #508 and #877) argued that “the museum products are not a daily necessity” and “they are beautiful in appearance but not much use in functions”. Additionally, we noticed a decrease in Usefulness’s R² value, which declined from 0.703 to 0.209 after the indicators of Importance were merged. This phenomenon suggested that the indicators of Importance and those of Usefulness are distinctive. Since some literature supported this integration (Sarkar and Chakrabarti 2008, 2011), we chose to prioritise the importance of Usefulness, as our previous study had also concluded that Usefulness is a critical factor that cannot be disregarded (Cheng et al. 2023b).
此外，对在这个问题上评分为正面的参与者进行的访谈以及对创意产品消费者的随机深入访谈显示，一些参与者（例如，#1，#34，#63，#508 和 #877）认为“博物馆产品不是日常必需品”和“它们外观美丽但功能不大”。此外，我们注意到有用性 R² 值的下降，从 0.703 降至 0.209，原因是重要性指标被合并。这一现象表明，重要性指标和有用性指标是不同的。由于一些文献支持这种整合（Sarkar 和 Chakrabarti 2008，2011），我们选择优先考虑有用性的重要性，因为我们之前的研究也得出结论，有用性是一个不可忽视的关键因素（Cheng et al. 2023b）。

Dimension of aesthetics 美学的维度

Aesthetics is a crucial component in the CPSS model, also called the dimension of “Elaboration and Synthesis” (Besemer and O’Quin 1986; Besemer and Treffinger 1981). Our field observation found that many customers purchase museum products based on their charming appearance, suggesting that aesthetics can be a significant dimension in the purchase process. Therefore, we included this dimension and used the indicators suggested by the CPSS model. This analysis result supported our observation, and all the indicators we adopted from the CPSS model are proven significant and trustworthy. The thinnest line linking Aesthetics and Affect explained why customers preferred to buy charming products because the beautiful appearance of a product can evoke a kind of emotion, for example, pleasure, even though we could not determine which emotion was elicited in this survey.
美学是 CPSS 模型中的一个关键组成部分，也被称为“阐述与综合”维度（Besemer 和 O’Quin 1986; Besemer 和 Treffinger 1981）。我们的实地观察发现，许多顾客基于产品的迷人外观购买博物馆产品，这表明美学在购买过程中可能是一个重要维度。因此，我们纳入了这一维度，并使用了 CPSS 模型建议的指标。分析结果支持了我们的观察，我们从 CPSS 模型中采用的所有指标都被证明是显著且可信的。美学与情感之间的最细线条解释了为什么顾客更倾向于购买迷人的产品，因为产品的美丽外观可以唤起一种情感，例如愉悦，尽管我们无法确定在这项调查中引发了哪种情感。

Dimension of cultural values
文化价值的维度

Cultural Values are another newly introduced dimension, and the result also supported the inclusion of it as an inseparable dimension. Initially, we identified three indicators—Innovation Encouraging, Cultural Awareness, and Museum Inclusiveness—for this dimension. However, during exploratory factor analysis, we found that Innovation Encouraging did not meet the required factor loading value and was subsequently excluded from our further studies. Therefore, the final indicators for Cultural Values are Cultural Awareness and Museum Inclusiveness. It is important to note that Cultural Values are a vital aspect to consider when evaluating the creativity of museum products.
文化价值是另一个新引入的维度，结果也支持将其作为不可分割的维度纳入。最初，我们为这个维度确定了三个指标——创新鼓励、文化意识和博物馆包容性。然而，在探索性因子分析中，我们发现创新鼓励未达到所需的因子载荷值，因此在后续研究中被排除。因此，文化价值的最终指标是文化意识和博物馆包容性。需要注意的是，文化价值在评估博物馆产品的创造力时是一个重要的方面。

Dimension of novelty 新颖性的维度

Although it may be controversial, the fact is that Novelty is insignificant in our test, indicating that Novelty is not that important to the museum product design. This finding corresponds to our previous research, in which we concluded that the dominant factor influencing museum products’ creativity is Affect rather than Novelty (Cheng et al. 2023a, b). Literature on engineering creativity also revealed similar findings where Novelty is not crucial in evaluating creativity (Cropley and Cropley 2005; Cropley and Kaufman 2012). Since the statistical suggestion of excluding Novelty, our previous findings and evidence from engineering creativity research differ from the consensus of Novelty in creativity literature, we analysed why Novelty was tested insignificant. One reason may lie in the unsuitable indicators we used. Saunders (2002) contended that surprise and novelty are different. Thus, using “surprising” to assess Novelty may not be suitable. In other words, we need to re-compose the indicators of Novelty to fit the attributes of the museum products before making a final decision. The second reason may be the limited number of indicators for Novelty. Although only one indicator is allowed in PLS analysis (Duman and Mattila 2005; Zhang and Li 2022), we hope to re-conduct the experiment with more indicators to validate the significance of Novelty in museum products in our subsequent investigation. The third reason may be because we considered creativity a formative latent variable. Therefore, we may need to change it to a reflective latent variable. We hope we can finally conclude whether Novelty is crucial in the context of the museum product design after making these changes in our following research.
尽管这可能存在争议，但事实是新颖性在我们的测试中并不重要，这表明新颖性对博物馆产品设计并不是那么重要。这个发现与我们之前的研究相符，我们得出结论，影响博物馆产品创造力的主导因素是情感而不是新颖性（Cheng et al. 2023a, b）。关于工程创造力的文献也揭示了类似的发现，即新颖性在评估创造力时并不是关键因素（Cropley and Cropley 2005; Cropley and Kaufman 2012）。由于统计上建议排除新颖性，我们之前的发现和工程创造力研究的证据与创造力文献中对新颖性的共识不同，因此我们分析了为什么新颖性被测试为不重要。一个原因可能在于我们使用的不合适的指标。Saunders (2002) 认为惊讶和新颖性是不同的。因此，使用“令人惊讶”来评估新颖性可能不合适。换句话说，我们需要重新构建新颖性的指标，以适应博物馆产品的属性，然后再做出最终决定。 第二个原因可能是新颖性指标的数量有限。尽管在 PLS 分析中只允许一个指标（Duman 和 Mattila 2005; Zhang 和 Li 2022），我们希望在后续研究中用更多指标重新进行实验，以验证新颖性在博物馆产品中的重要性。第三个原因可能是我们将创造力视为一个形成性潜变量。因此，我们可能需要将其更改为反射性潜变量。我们希望在后续研究中进行这些更改后，最终得出新颖性在博物馆产品设计中的重要性。

Discussion on mediating effects
中介效应的讨论

The result revealed two mediators in the concept model: Aesthetics and Usefulness. To be accurate, Aesthetics partially mediates Affect, and Usefulness partially mediates Cultural Values. Figure 5 shows that the thinnest line links the mediator Aesthetics and Affect, which suggests that Aesthetics strongly impacts Affect. The study suggests that Aesthetics may enhance the level of Affect, meaning that a visually appealing museum product may elicit emotional responses that increase positive Affect. It, in turn, may enhance the perception of creativity in the product. Meanwhile, Usefulness partially mediates Cultural Values, and the line between these two variables is thin. This result conforms with the findings of Li and Li (2022). Although there was a consideration to merge the indicators of Cultural Values to Usefulness (because they are related to value perception) to reduce the model dimensions, it was found that such an action may increase collinearity in the model. Therefore, Cultural Values were confirmed to be indispensable.
结果揭示了概念模型中的两个中介变量：美学和实用性。准确来说，美学部分中介情感，而实用性部分中介文化价值。图 5 显示，最细的线连接了中介变量美学和情感，这表明美学对情感有强烈影响。研究表明，美学可能增强情感的水平，这意味着一个视觉上吸引人的博物馆产品可能引发情感反应，从而增加积极情感。反过来，这可能增强对产品创造力的感知。同时，实用性部分中介文化价值，这两个变量之间的联系较弱。该结果与李和李的研究结果相符 (2022)。尽管考虑将文化价值的指标合并到实用性中（因为它们与价值感知相关）以减少模型维度，但发现这样的做法可能会增加模型中的共线性。因此，文化价值被确认是不可或缺的。

Discussion on moderating effects
讨论调节效应

The study demonstrated that Educational Level plays a crucial role in shaping customers’ perceptions of Cultural Values. It aligns with previous research (Cheng 2023; Spiel et al. 2018). However, we found that educational level negatively influences customers’ perceptions. In other words, the higher a customer’s educational level, the less s/he perceives the notion of Cultural Values of the product. This negative impact could be explained by the fact that although Educational Level helps improve the awareness of Cultural Values, people with high education tended to be more critical about the Cultural Values they read in the products than those with a low educational level since they are good at critical thinking. It implies that in product development, developers should encode specific and down-to-earth symbols of Cultural Values into the product rather than only convey a vague concept of Cultural Values. For instance, if a product aims to promote traditional culture, it should have a visible cultural image that accurately communicates with customers who possess traditional knowledge.
研究表明，教育水平在塑造客户对文化价值观的认知中起着至关重要的作用。这与之前的研究一致（Cheng 2023; Spiel et al. 2018）。然而，我们发现教育水平对客户的认知产生了负面影响。换句话说，客户的教育水平越高，他们对产品文化价值观的认知就越少。这一负面影响可以通过以下事实来解释：尽管教育水平有助于提高对文化价值观的认知，但高学历的人往往对他们在产品中看到的文化价值观持更批判的态度，而低学历的人则不然，因为他们擅长批判性思维。这意味着在产品开发中，开发者应该将具体且切实的文化价值观符号编码到产品中，而不仅仅是传达模糊的文化价值观概念。例如，如果一个产品旨在推广传统文化，它应该具有一个可见的文化形象，能够准确地与拥有传统知识的客户进行沟通。

Similarly, if a product intends to promote museum inclusiveness, it should incorporate lightweight, low-priced, and easily recognisable cultural elements that can be conveniently purchased.
同样，如果一个产品旨在促进博物馆的包容性，它应该融入轻便、低价且易于识别的文化元素，这些元素可以方便地购买。

This study established and validated a conceptual model for the creativity assessment of museum products sold in museums’ souvenir shops, comprising five dimensions: Affect, Usefulness, Aesthetics, Cultural Values and Novelty.
本研究建立并验证了一个概念模型，用于评估博物馆纪念品商店销售的博物馆产品的创造力，包含五个维度：情感、实用性、美学、文化价值和新颖性。

The Affect dimension is measured by seven indicators: Stimulated, Pleased, Delighted, Appealed, Attractive, Favourable and Desirable. Usefulness encompasses five indicators that gauge a product’s efficiency, relevance and functionality. The Aesthetics dimension includes six indicators that assess factors such as craftsmanship, complexity and elegance. Cultural Values encompass two indicators, Museum Inclusiveness and Cultural Awareness, while Novelty is measured by only one indicator—Surprising.
情感维度通过七个指标来衡量：刺激、愉悦、喜悦、吸引、吸引力、积极和渴望。实用性包括五个指标，用于评估产品的效率、相关性和功能性。美学维度包括六个指标，评估工艺、复杂性和优雅等因素。文化价值包括两个指标，博物馆包容性和文化意识，而新颖性仅通过一个指标来衡量——惊喜。

Our findings revealed that the Aesthetics dimension plays a crucial role in triggering the Affect dimension and thus contributes to the overall creativity perception. Additionally, while Cultural Values are similar to Usefulness, they represent distinct dimensions. Our study also suggested that the Educational Level can influence the perception of Cultural Values.
我们的研究发现，美学维度在触发情感维度方面起着关键作用，从而有助于整体创造力的感知。此外，尽管文化价值观与实用性相似，但它们代表着不同的维度。我们的研究还表明，教育水平可以影响对文化价值观的感知。

There are a few limitations of this study. First, although the indicators of Novelty are from literature (Bruner 1962; Horn and Salvendy 2006, 2009), they may not be compatible with measuring the museum products. Therefore, it is essential to re-consider the indicators of the Novelty dimension in our further investigation. Moreover, it may need to consider creativity a reflective latent variable. Second, the study results are based on a statistical analysis of subjective questionnaire responses, which are less reliable than objective data. To overcome this limitation, we will collect objective data using biosensors like Electrodermal Screening (EDS), Electroencephalograph (EEG), and Eye Tracker. It will help to validate our findings further and improve the reliability of the study. Third, it is worth noting that the study lacks a cross-cultural analysis, which could potentially yield different results and implications compared to a monocultural study. If feasible, we intend to conduct such an analysis in future research. Additionally, we believe that more attention should be given to variables such as purchase experience, age, and gender, as these factors have demonstrated their influence on the final creativity based on our observations and design practice. Although we conducted tests using PLS-SEM, their results were found to be insignificant. Consequently, we did not include these findings in the current paper. However, we plan to re-test these factors (i.e., purchase experience, age, and gender) in our next experiment to ascertain their impact on the final creativity. Finally, we also aim to reassess the globally debated concept of sustainability within our model. It could entail emphasising the Usefulness dimension of the creativity assessment model, encompassing elements such as choices in terms of materials, sustainable consumption, and mindful resource management. By doing so, we strive to embrace a more comprehensive and holistic approach, considering our model’s broader implications and relevance.
本研究存在一些局限性。首先，尽管新颖性指标来自文献（Bruner 1962; Horn 和 Salvendy 2006, 2009），但它们可能不适合用于衡量博物馆产品。因此，在我们进一步的研究中，重新考虑新颖性维度的指标是至关重要的。此外，可能需要将创造力视为一个反映性潜变量。其次，研究结果基于对主观问卷反应的统计分析，这比客观数据的可靠性要低。为了克服这一局限性，我们将使用生物传感器（如皮肤电反应筛查（EDS）、脑电图（EEG）和眼动仪）收集客观数据。这将有助于进一步验证我们的发现并提高研究的可靠性。第三，值得注意的是，该研究缺乏跨文化分析，这可能会与单文化研究产生不同的结果和启示。如果可行，我们打算在未来的研究中进行这样的分析。 此外，我们认为应更多关注购买体验、年龄和性别等变量，因为根据我们的观察和设计实践，这些因素已显示出对最终创造力的影响。尽管我们使用 PLS-SEM 进行了测试，但结果被发现不显著。因此，我们没有在当前论文中包含这些发现。然而，我们计划在下一个实验中重新测试这些因素（即购买体验、年龄和性别），以确定它们对最终创造力的影响。最后，我们还旨在重新评估我们模型中全球争论的可持续性概念。这可能涉及强调创造力评估模型的有用性维度，包括材料选择、可持续消费和有意识的资源管理等元素。通过这样做，我们努力采取更全面和整体的方法，考虑我们模型的更广泛影响和相关性。