Introduction

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).

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 ItalyFootnote 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 2022Footnote 2, with the revenue of the Chinese urban museum creative market nearing 40 billion by the end of 2021Footnote 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 timesFootnote 4. Regarding statisticsFootnote 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 2021Footnote 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 creativityFootnote 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.

Literature review

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.

Table 1 The comparison of three models.
Full size table

Attribute of aesthetics (including affect)

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.

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.

Attribute of creativity

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).

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).

Attribute of culture

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).

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).

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.

Dimensions and hypotheses of museum product creativity

Dimension and hypotheses of cultural values

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Based on this, we propose two hypotheses regarding Cultural Values:

  1. (1)

    H1: Cultural Values have a significant and positive impact on Creativity.

  2. (2)

    H2: Cultural Values have a significant and positive impact on Importance.

Dimension and hypothesis of novelty

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).

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.

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:

  1. (3)

    H3: Novelty has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.

Dimension and hypothesis of resolution

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.

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.

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:

  1. (4)

    H4: Resolution has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.

Dimension and hypotheses of importance

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.

(5) H5: Importance has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.

(6) H6: Importance has a significant and positive impact on Resolution.

Dimension and hypothesis of affect

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:

(7) H7: Affect has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.

Dimension and hypotheses of aesthetics

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).

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).

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:

(8) H8: Aesthetics has a significant and positive impact on Creativity.

(9) H9: Aesthetics has a significant and positive impact on Affect.

Potential moderators and hypothesis of museum product

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:

(10) H10: Educational Level moderates the relationship between Cultural Values and Creativity.

Hypotheses summary

The hypotheses to be verified are summarised in Table 2, and the proposed conceptual model is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Table 2 The proposed hypotheses.
Full size table
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

Proposed conceptual model.

Method

Participants and procedure

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.

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.

Table 3 depicts the descriptive statistics and variable correlations of sample data.

Table 3 Means, SD, and correlations (N = 708).
Full size table

Testing sample

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).

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Full size image

Typical Chinese museum products in urban museums.

Measurement indicators

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.

Indicators of novelty

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.

Indicators of resolution

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.

Indicators of affect

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.

Indicators of importance

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.

Indicators of aesthetics

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).

Indicators of cultural values

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.

The indicators used for this research are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 Measurement indicators for the survey questionnaire.
Full size table

Result

Controlled variables

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).

Basic analysis

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.

Table 5 Construct reliability and validity.
Full size table

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.

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.

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.

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. 3Footnote 8.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Full size image

Revised conceptual model.

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).

Evaluating outer model

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).

Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Full size image

Convergence validity of formative indicators.

Afterwards, we tested the validity of the reflective aspects of the conceptual model. The validity of the measurement model is summarised in Table 6.

Table 6 Convergence validity of measurement model.
Full size table

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.

Table 7 Discriminant validity report (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
Full size table

Evaluating inner model

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”.

Table 8 VIF values of inner model.
Full size table

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).

Table 9 Path coefficients, significance and effects.
Full size table

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 criteriaFootnote 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.

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.

Mediating effects

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).

Table 10 Mediating effects.
Full size table

Moderating effects

Following the analysis of mediating effects, we continued to analyse the moderating effects. From Table 11, we confirmed that H10 was valid.

Table 11 Moderating effects.
Full size table

This result led us to conclude that educational level is the only significant and negative moderator affecting the relationship between Cultural Values and Creativity.

Summary

The proposed hypotheses’ decisions are as follows (see Table 12).

Table 12 Hypotheses decisions.
Full size table

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.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Full size image

Final conceptual model.

Discussion

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.

Table 13 The measurement indicators of each dimension.
Full size table

Discussion on conceptual model

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

Dimension of affect

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.

Dimension of usefulness

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.

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).

Dimension of aesthetics

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.

Dimension of cultural values

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.

Dimension of novelty

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.

Discussion on mediating effects

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.

Discussion on moderating effects

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.

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.

Conclusion, limitation and future study

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.

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.

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.

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.