Product creativity: conceptual model, measurement and characteristics
产品创造力：概念模型、测量与特征

2.1. Assumptions 2.1. 假设

The following three major assumptions are taken for this study. First, product creativity is a subjective judgement or assessment that a person asserts towards an object. Product creativity is not solely an objective or physical attribute of the product, but is dependent on the judge and context in which the product exists. Therefore, product creativity only exists if there is a judgement of a product (based on a set of criteria) and products cannot be inherently creative (without judgement).
本研究基于以下三个主要假设。首先，产品创意是个人对某一对象的主观判断或评估。产品创意不仅仅是产品的客观或物理属性，而是依赖于评判者及产品所处的环境。因此，产品创意只有在对产品进行判断（基于一套标准）时才存在，产品本身不能固有地具备创意（没有判断）。

Secondly, a universal set of criteria for the judgement of product creativity exists. The overall level of product creativity comes from an assessment of each creativity criterion. Each criterion in the set as well as the overall judgement of product creativity is evaluated on a continuum that is comparable across products. The judgement that a product is not creative occurs if the product does not exhibit one or more of the criteria. A product judged to be highly creative exhibits high levels of each criterion. To maximize product creativity would be to maximize the assessment of all criterion levels. Judgement of the criterion levels is dependent on the judge's experience and societal background, including the judge's understanding and past involvement with the product, the context in which the product is judged and the context in which the product may be used.
其次，存在一套通用的产品创意评判标准。产品创意的整体水平来自对每个创意标准的评估。该标准集中的每个标准以及产品创意的整体判断都是在一个可跨产品比较的连续体上进行评估的。如果产品未能展示一个或多个标准，则判断该产品不具创意。被评判为高度创意的产品在每个标准上都表现出高水平。最大化产品创意就是最大化对所有标准水平的评估。标准水平的判断依赖于评判者的经验和社会背景，包括评判者对产品的理解和过去的参与、评判产品的背景以及产品可能使用的背景。

The set of criteria used to assess product creativity is not assumed to be a required part of the overall product evaluation for all product types. The assessment of product creativity (from the assessment of the creativity criteria) may or may not be part of overall product evaluation and may or may not occur for all product types. However, the assessment of product creativity is assumed to be a possible criterion and is assumed to have a zero to positive influence in overall product evaluation for all product types. In other words, product creativity may or may not be a criterion for product evaluation, but when creativity is considered to be a criterion the assessment has a neutral to positive influence on the overall product evaluation. Therefore, product creativity is assumed to have the potential to be an added value to product evaluation for all product types.
用于评估产品创造力的标准集并不被假定为所有产品类型整体产品评估的必需部分。产品创造力的评估（基于创造力标准的评估）可能是整体产品评估的一部分，也可能不是，并且可能适用于所有产品类型，也可能不适用。然而，产品创造力的评估被假定为一个可能的标准，并被假定对所有产品类型的整体产品评估具有从零到正面的影响。换句话说，产品创造力可能是产品评估的一个标准，也可能不是，但当创造力被视为一个标准时，其评估对整体产品评估具有中性到正面的影响。因此，产品创造力被假定具有为所有产品类型的产品评估增加价值的潜力。

2.2. Constraints 2.2. 约束条件

This study constrains the existence of product creativity to depend on the interactions between products, consumers and society. Using Csikszentmihalyi's (Citation1988, Citation1999) systems theory of creativity, consumer product creativity is said to be a result of the interactions between creators, society (judges of creation) and context (the product and judge domain). The combination of interactions results in judgements of creative products. Based on this theory, product creativity exists through the connection between the producer and consumer, specifically through the interaction between the product and the consumer. The context or domain transmits information (through rules and practices) to the producer and the consumer about the product design. Therefore, the judgement of product creativity is constrained to the interactions between the product, consumer and domain.
本研究将产品创造力的存在限制于产品、消费者和社会之间的互动。根据 Csikszentmihalyi（1988, 1999）的创造力系统理论，消费者产品创造力被认为是创作者、社会（创作的评判者）和背景（产品与评判领域）之间互动的结果。这些互动的结合导致对创造性产品的评判。基于这一理论，产品创造力通过生产者与消费者之间的联系存在，特别是通过产品与消费者之间的互动。背景或领域通过规则和实践向生产者和消费者传递有关产品设计的信息。因此，产品创造力的评判受到产品、消费者和领域之间互动的限制。

This study also constrains the model of product creativity evaluation by limiting the judge's ability to evaluate product creativity. This research is primarily concerned with consumer products, thus product form and function are two major components of the product evaluation. This research specifically addresses the visual inspection of consumer products in relation to the evaluation of product creativity, namely from two-dimensional images, as compared to evaluating three-dimensional products through physical interaction with the product. Thus, the comprehension of product creativity is limited to the judge's experience with the product functions and understanding of the functionality from visual perception of the product. The evaluation of creativity is also limited by the judge's understanding of the product form from visual perception. Therefore, the evaluations of product creativity in this study are constrained to the visual comprehension of product form and function.
本研究还通过限制评审者评估产品创意的能力来约束产品创意评估模型。本研究主要关注消费品，因此产品的形式和功能是产品评估的两个主要组成部分。本研究特别针对消费品的视觉检查，涉及产品创意的评估，即通过二维图像进行评估，而不是通过与产品的物理互动来评估三维产品。因此，产品创意的理解仅限于评审者对产品功能的经验以及通过视觉感知对功能的理解。创意的评估也受到评审者通过视觉感知对产品形式理解的限制。因此，本研究中对产品创意的评估仅限于对产品形式和功能的视觉理解。

In sum, three major assumptions and the explained constraints provide the framework for the conceptual model. The conceptual model will be explained below by first defining the construct of product creativity addressed in this study, then describing the dimensions of the construct and finally illustrating how the dimensions fit into an information processing model of product creativity assessment.
总之，三个主要假设和所解释的约束为概念模型提供了框架。概念模型将在下面进行解释，首先定义本研究中涉及的产品创造力构念，然后描述该构念的维度，最后说明这些维度如何融入产品创造力评估的信息处理模型中。

3.1. Definition of product creativity
3.1. 产品创造力的定义

Based on research involving creativity, product development and consumer behaviour, this study defines product creativity as the subjective judgement of a product to exhibit novelty and appropriateness that elicits arousal and pleasure and is compatible with the judge's preferences. To be a creative product, the product must be judged to exhibit some level of novelty and some degree of appropriateness. To be a creative product, the judge must experience some level of pleasure and arousal from the product interaction. And, finally, to be a creative product, the product must be to some extent compatible with the judge's preferences. From this definition, seven dimensions of product creativity can be explained and supported by literature.
基于涉及创造力、产品开发和消费者行为的研究，本研究将产品创造力定义为对产品表现出新颖性和适宜性的主观判断，这种判断能够引发兴奋和愉悦，并与评判者的偏好相兼容。要成为一个创造性产品，该产品必须被评判为表现出一定程度的新颖性和适宜性。要成为一个创造性产品，评判者必须从产品互动中体验到一定程度的愉悦和兴奋。最后，要成为一个创造性产品，该产品在某种程度上必须与评判者的偏好相兼容。根据这个定义，产品创造力的七个维度可以通过文献进行解释和支持。

3.2. Dimensions of product creativity
3.2. 产品创造力的维度

The definition of product creativity adopted for this study is broken down into seven dimensions, which fall into three major types of dimensions: product attribute dimensions, affect dimension and preference dimensions (see table 1).
本研究采用的产品创意定义分为七个维度，这些维度可归纳为三种主要类型：产品属性维度、情感维度和偏好维度（见表 1）。

The first part of the definition considers product creativity in terms of the novelty and appropriateness of the product attributes. Appropriateness consists of both product resolution (the product's usefulness) and product elaboration and synthesis (the product's style). Thus, the first three dimensions of product creativity are defined as novelty, resolution and elaboration and synthesis. As previously described, the Creative Product Analysis Matrix defines these dimensions as the major three factors of product creativity (Besemer and Treffinger Citation1981). The Creative Product Semantic Scale has been used to validate this model across several types of consumer products by measuring the three dimensions of product creativity with nine associated sub-scales (Besemer and O’Quinn Citation1986, Citation1987, Citation1999). Thus, the novelty, resolution and elaboration and synthesis dimensions are the attribute dimensions of product creativity.
定义的第一部分将产品创造力视为产品属性的新颖性和适宜性。适宜性包括产品的解决方案（产品的实用性）和产品的细化与综合（产品的风格）。因此，产品创造力的前三个维度被定义为新颖性、解决方案和细化与综合。如前所述，创造性产品分析矩阵将这些维度定义为产品创造力的三个主要因素（Besemer 和 Treffinger 1981）。创造性产品语义量表已被用于通过测量与产品创造力相关的九个子量表来验证该模型在几种类型消费品中的适用性（Besemer 和 O’Quinn 1986, 1987, 1999）。因此，新颖性、解决方案和细化与综合维度是产品创造力的属性维度。

Looking at the second part of the product creativity definition, the terms arousal and pleasure pertain to the emotional impact or affect of the product on the consumer. Thus, arousal and pleasure form the next two dimensions of product creativity. The recent study by Christiaans (Citation2002) found that impact on the observer is a critical component in the evaluation of creativity. The researcher defines a creative design to be one that ‘triggers attention and fantasy and acts on our emotions’ (Christiaans Citation2002, p. 48). This notion of emotional impact is also supported by a study investigating dimensions of ad creativity that found valance of feelings to be a significant factor in the measurement of creativity (Ang and Low Citation2000). As mentioned before, the major dimensions of affect towards a product include arousal and pleasure (Gardner Citation1985, Cohen and Areni Citation1991, Liu Citation2003). Therefore, the fourth and fifth dimensions of product creativity are arousal and pleasure, which are the affect dimensions.
观察产品创造力定义的第二部分，唤起和愉悦这两个术语与产品对消费者的情感影响或情感相关。因此，唤起和愉悦构成了产品创造力的下两个维度。Christiaans（2002）的最新研究发现，观察者的影响是评估创造力的一个关键组成部分。研究者将创造性设计定义为“能够引发注意和幻想并影响我们的情感”（Christiaans 2002，第 48 页）。这种情感影响的概念也得到了对广告创造力维度进行研究的支持，该研究发现情感的效价是衡量创造力的重要因素（Ang 和 Low 2000）。如前所述，产品的主要情感维度包括唤起和愉悦（Gardner 1985，Cohen 和 Areni 1991，Liu 2003）。因此，产品创造力的第四和第五维度是唤起和愉悦，这些是情感维度。

The last part of the product creativity definition addresses the judge's or consumer's preferences. Product creativity is related to preference in two ways: the consumer's interest in creativity (centrality) and the importance of creativity to the consumer (applicability). Christiaans' (Citation2002) recent study on product creativity showed a significantly high correlation between creativity and product preference (r = 0.89 at p<0.01), which indicates the need to include preference dimensions to better assess product creativity. A similar type of preference assessment is found in the assessment of the centrality of visual product aesthetics (Bloch et al. Citation2003). This study by Bloch et al. (Citation2003) showed that the personal value of aesthetics is a measure of the centrality of aesthetics. Without measures of preference, the individual differences in the assessment of creativity may not be representative. For example, two consumers may judge the product attributes and general feelings towards the product to be similar, but have differences in the overall assessment of creativity because one consumer did not find the product to be important and interesting. Therefore, the consumers’ preferences for the product play a role in determining product creativity. Thus, the last two dimensions of product creativity (specifically the preference dimensions) are centrality and applicability.
产品创造力定义的最后部分涉及评判者或消费者的偏好。产品创造力与偏好有两种关系：消费者对创造力的兴趣（中心性）和创造力对消费者的重要性（适用性）。Christiaans（2002）关于产品创造力的最新研究显示，创造力与产品偏好之间存在显著的高相关性（r = 0.89，p<0.01），这表明需要纳入偏好维度以更好地评估产品创造力。在视觉产品美学中心性的评估中也发现了类似的偏好评估（Bloch 等，2003）。Bloch 等（2003）的研究表明，美学的个人价值是美学中心性的一个衡量标准。如果没有偏好的测量，个体在创造力评估中的差异可能不具代表性。例如，两个消费者可能会判断产品属性和对产品的总体感觉相似，但在创造力的整体评估上存在差异，因为其中一个消费者并未认为该产品重要且有趣。 因此，消费者对产品的偏好在决定产品创意方面起着重要作用。因此，产品创意的最后两个维度（特别是偏好维度）是中心性和适用性。

In sum, the construct of product creativity is broken down into a total of seven dimensions: novelty, resolution, elaboration and synthesis, arousal, pleasure, centrality and applicability. The seven dimensions group into three types: attribute dimensions, affect dimensions and preference dimensions. The dimensions’ influence or role in product evaluation is better understood by first making a distinction between the perception and the expectation of the dimensions and then discussing the dimensions’ relevancy to consumer attitude and finally illustrating the dimensions’ role in an information processing model of product creativity evaluation.
总之，产品创造力的构建分为七个维度：新颖性、解决能力、详细程度与综合、激发、愉悦、中心性和适用性。这七个维度分为三种类型：属性维度、情感维度和偏好维度。通过首先区分维度的感知与期望，进而讨论维度与消费者态度的相关性，最后阐明维度在产品创造力评估的信息处理模型中的作用，可以更好地理解这些维度在产品评估中的影响或角色。

3.3. Information processing of product creativity assessment
3.3. 产品创意评估的信息处理

The process of assessing and responding to product creativity is best explained with a model of information processing. The elaborated model of the human information processing by Proctor and Van Zandt (Citation1994) provides a structure to develop the information processing model of product creativity assessment. The proposed model of how consumers evaluate product creativity is presented in figure 1. Overall, this model shows the process of how consumers comprehend information about a product and compare that information to a set of creativity criterion in order to determine the level of product creativity and how consumers respond to the product creativity evaluation.
评估和响应产品创意的过程最好用信息处理模型来解释。Proctor 和 Van Zandt（1994）提出的人类信息处理的详细模型为开发产品创意评估的信息处理模型提供了结构。消费者如何评估产品创意的提议模型如图 1 所示。总体而言，该模型展示了消费者如何理解有关产品的信息，并将该信息与一组创意标准进行比较，以确定产品创意的水平以及消费者如何响应产品创意评估。

Figure 1. Standardized LISREL estimates of the product creativity measurement model (χ² = 174.69, df = 137, p = 0.016, RMSEA = 0.037).
图 1. 产品创造力测量模型的标准化 LISREL 估计（χ2 = 174.69，df = 137，p = 0.016，RMSEA = 0.037）。

Display full size 显示完整尺寸

The process of assessing product creativity begins with the interaction between the product, consumer and context. The necessity for this interaction is based on the previously described system's theory that claims product creativity is dependent on the interaction between the judge, product and context (Csikszentmihalyi Citation1988, Citation1999). The information processing process is then broken down into three stages: sensation, perception and cognition and, finally, response. The first stage begins with sensation of the interaction between the product, consumer and context. The consumer senses the interaction with both external sensors (eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin) and internal sensors that measure the state of the blood and other bodily conditions (Bailey Citation1996).
评估产品创造性的过程始于产品、消费者和环境之间的互动。这种互动的必要性基于之前描述的系统理论，该理论认为产品创造性依赖于评判者、产品和环境之间的互动（Csikszentmihalyi 1988, 1999）。信息处理过程被分为三个阶段：感觉、知觉和认知，最后是反应。第一阶段始于产品、消费者和环境之间互动的感觉。消费者通过外部感官（眼睛、耳朵、鼻子、嘴巴和皮肤）以及测量血液和其他身体状况的内部感官感知这种互动（Bailey 1996）。

The second stage is the perception and cognition stage, which involves the understanding and comparison of product information that result from the sensation of information. Continuing with the systems approach, the sensations from the interaction between the context, product and consumer contribute to the understanding of the interaction and the involved components. In other words, the sensation of the interaction between the context, product and person leads the consumer to perceive the status of the context, the product and him or herself. Then the consumer's realization of system components contributes to the consumer's understanding of the system components. More specifically, realizing the status of the context leads to becoming aware of the context; realizing the product status leads to recognition of product attributes; and realizing the consumer status leads to awareness of emotional impact. These understandings of the three components are general assessments from the interaction, not specific to any type of evaluation.
第二阶段是感知和认知阶段，涉及对产品信息的理解和比较，这些信息源于对信息的感知。继续采用系统方法，环境、产品和消费者之间的互动所产生的感知有助于理解这种互动及其相关组件。换句话说，环境、产品和个人之间互动的感知使消费者能够感知环境、产品和自身的状态。然后，消费者对系统组件的认识有助于他们理解这些系统组件。更具体地说，意识到环境的状态使人们对环境产生认知；意识到产品的状态使人们识别产品属性；意识到消费者的状态使人们意识到情感影响。这三种组件的理解是来自互动的一般评估，而不是特定于任何类型的评估。

The specific assessment of product creativity involves making a comparison of this general assessment from the interaction against a set of creativity criteria (the seven dimensions of product creativity). These criteria or dimensions as previously described are a universal set of guidelines stored in memory (indirectly influenced by the consumer's experience and culture). The consumer perceives the level of product creativity (in each dimension) by comparing the general understanding of the context, product attributes and the affect from the interaction with the specific creativity criterion.
产品创造力的具体评估涉及将这种一般评估与一组创造力标准（产品创造力的七个维度）进行比较。这些标准或维度如前所述，是存储在记忆中的一套普遍指导原则（间接受到消费者的经验和文化的影响）。消费者通过将对上下文、产品属性的总体理解与特定创造力标准的影响进行比较，来感知产品创造力的水平（在每个维度上）。

The final stage of the information processing model is the response to the product creativity. The creativity of a product contributes directly to consumer attitudes, but is assumed to be only one of numerous factors that also lead to consumer attitudes, namely purchase intentions and consumer satisfaction. In sum, the information processing model illustrates how the consumer compares general product assessment with a specific set of creativity criteria to assess and respond to the product creativity.
信息处理模型的最后阶段是对产品创意的反应。产品的创意直接影响消费者态度，但被认为只是导致消费者态度的众多因素之一，即购买意图和消费者满意度。总之，信息处理模型说明了消费者如何将一般产品评估与一组特定的创意标准进行比较，以评估和回应产品创意。

An example of assessing the creativity of a glider-chair helps to illustrate this model. The consumer interacts with the chair and senses this interaction. The consumer understands the context or environment in which the chair is used, realizes the specific features of the chair and becomes aware of the affect from the chair. The consumer determines the level of perceived creativity by comparing this general understanding of the chair, context and feelings towards the chair with a list of criteria (novelty, resolution, elaboration and synthesis, arousal, pleasure, centrality, applicability). Finally, the person perceived the level of creativity and determines the overall value added to the product design. This added value then contributes to the consumer's decision to buy the product and also leads to the satisfaction with the product.
一个评估滑翔椅创造力的例子有助于说明这一模型。消费者与椅子互动并感知这种互动。消费者理解椅子使用的背景或环境，意识到椅子的具体特征，并对椅子产生的影响有所觉察。消费者通过将对椅子、背景和对椅子的感受的总体理解与一系列标准（新颖性、解决方案、详细程度和综合、唤起、愉悦、中心性、适用性）进行比较，来确定感知的创造力水平。最后，个人感知创造力的水平，并确定产品设计所增加的整体价值。这一附加值随后影响消费者的购买决策，并导致对产品的满意度。

3.4. Customer attitude 3.4. 客户态度

Each of the seven dimensions of product creativity just described is also important for the prediction of consumer attitudes, as shown in figure 2. Research shows that purchase intentions are influenced by evaluations of product attributes (similar to novelty, resolution and style) (Mower and Minor Citation2001, Mello Citation2002), consumer affect (similar to pleasure and arousal) (Cohen and Areni Citation1991), as well as consumer preference compatibility (similar to centrality and applicability) (Bloch et al. Citation2003). Research also shows that consumer satisfaction is related to evaluations of product attributes (Gise and Cote Citation2000, Yun et al. Citation2003), consumer affect (Cohen and Areni Citation1991, Ang and Low Citation2000) and consumer preference (Mower and Minor Citation2001, Han and Hong Citation2003). A meta-analysis of consumer satisfaction studies revealed that disconfirmation (measured from expectancies and perceptions) exhibits the highest correlation compared to other variables with the prediction of satisfaction (Szymanski and Henard Citation2001).
每个刚刚描述的产品创造力的七个维度对于预测消费者态度也很重要，如图 2 所示。研究表明，购买意图受到产品属性评估（类似于新颖性、分辨率和风格）（Mower 和 Minor 2001，Mello 2002）、消费者情感（类似于愉悦和唤醒）（Cohen 和 Areni 1991）以及消费者偏好兼容性（类似于中心性和适用性）（Bloch 等，2003）的影响。研究还表明，消费者满意度与产品属性评估（Gise 和 Cote 2000，Yun 等，2003）、消费者情感（Cohen 和 Areni 1991，Ang 和 Low 2000）以及消费者偏好（Mower 和 Minor 2001，Han 和 Hong 2003）相关。对消费者满意度研究的元分析显示，失确认（从期望和感知中测量）与满意度预测的其他变量相比，表现出最高的相关性（Szymanski 和 Henard 2001）。

Figure 2. Information processing model of product creativity assessment.
图 2. 产品创意评估的信息处理模型。

Display full size 显示完整尺寸

Therefore, the figure of the perception/expectation assessment of product creativity illustrates how the disconfirmation between the expectations and perceptions for each dimension of product creativity adds value to the product evaluation, which in turn influences consumer satisfaction and purchase intensions. For example, the consumer satisfaction with the product will be greater if the level of product creativity that a consumer perceives exceeds what he or she expected, versus if the perceived product creativity is below the level of creativity expected. The figure shows how product creativity assessment leads to customer satisfaction, but it is important to note that product creativity is not the only contributor to product satisfaction and purchase intentions. The figure only shows the relationship between these customer attitudes and product creativity assessment. Other factors such as price, usability, quality, etc., also contribute to the satisfaction and purchasability of the product. The primary concern of this study is product creativity, thus other factors and the relationship with customer attitudes are not addressed extensively. To further describe how the dimensions of product creativity (perceived and expected) influence product evaluation and customer attitudes, the information processing model is utilized to illustrate the process of assessment and response to creativity.
因此，产品创意的感知/期望评估图示说明了产品创意各维度的期望与感知之间的失真如何为产品评估增值，从而影响消费者满意度和购买意图。例如，如果消费者感知到的产品创意水平超过其预期，则对产品的满意度将更高，而如果感知到的产品创意低于预期的创意水平，则满意度较低。该图展示了产品创意评估如何导致客户满意度，但需要注意的是，产品创意并不是产品满意度和购买意图的唯一因素。该图仅显示了这些客户态度与产品创意评估之间的关系。价格、可用性、质量等其他因素也对产品的满意度和可购买性有所贡献。本研究的主要关注点是产品创意，因此其他因素及其与客户态度的关系未被广泛讨论。 为了进一步描述产品创造力的维度（感知的和预期的）如何影响产品评估和客户态度，采用信息处理模型来说明对创造力的评估和反应过程。

4.1. Participants 4.1. 参与者

No participants are utilized in the first phase of instrument development. For the second phase (initial testing and purification), the data from 205 subjects were collected. Given the instrument size and the number of independent items, 200 subjects is the minimum amount recommended for the application of statistical techniques to test the instrument structure and reduce the instrument items. The subjects were recruited from a consumer science classroom, engineering classroom and psychological classroom. Of the 200 consumer science undergraduate students, 100 engineering undergraduate students and 20 psychological undergraduate students, 205 surveys were completed. Seventy-two per cent of the subjects were male. The average age of the subjects was 23 years old, of which 53% claimed to own a creative product. The two phases of the instrument development are described in more detail in the next section.
在工具开发的第一阶段没有使用参与者。在第二阶段（初步测试和净化）中，收集了 205 名受试者的数据。考虑到工具的规模和独立项目的数量，建议的最低受试者数量为 200，以便应用统计技术测试工具结构并减少工具项目。受试者来自消费者科学课堂、工程课堂和心理学课堂。在 200 名消费者科学本科生、100 名工程本科生和 20 名心理学本科生中，共完成了 205 份问卷。72%的受试者为男性。受试者的平均年龄为 23 岁，其中 53%声称拥有创意产品。工具开发的两个阶段将在下一节中更详细地描述。

4.2. Phase I: generation of the product creativity instrument
4.2. 第一阶段：产品创意工具的生成

4.3. Phase II: testing and purification of the product creativity instrument
4.3. 第二阶段：产品创意工具的测试与纯化

4.4. Instrument validation
4.4. 工具验证

After the product creativity instrument was tested and purified, the instrument's predictive validity was examined. Additional questions regarding consumer attitude towards product creativity were incorporated to test the predictive validity of the product creativity instrument. This attitude towards product creativity was assessed through the measurement of willingness to purchase and consumer satisfaction with the product creativity. The consumer attitudes were measured with item adjective pairs based on associated wording in literature (Cohen and Areni Citation1991, Ang and Low Citation2000, Gise and Cote Citation2000, Szymanski and Henard Citation2001, Bloch et al. Citation2003, Yun et al. Citation2003). Purchase intentions were measured with the following pairs: willing to pay for–not willing to pay for; want to purchase–do not want to purchase; and worth owning–not worth owning. Consumer satisfaction was measured with the following pairs: satisfied–dissatisfied; content–disappointed; and delighted–displeased. The next section presents the results of these analyses.
在对产品创意工具进行测试和净化后，检查了该工具的预测效度。为了测试产品创意工具的预测效度，增加了关于消费者对产品创意态度的额外问题。通过测量购买意愿和消费者对产品创意的满意度来评估对产品创意的态度。消费者态度通过基于文献中相关措辞的形容词对进行测量（Cohen 和 Areni 1991，Ang 和 Low 2000，Gise 和 Cote 2000，Szymanski 和 Henard 2001，Bloch 等 2003，Yun 等 2003）。购买意图通过以下对进行测量：愿意支付–不愿意支付；想购买–不想购买；值得拥有–不值得拥有。消费者满意度通过以下对进行测量：满意–不满意；满足–失望；高兴–不快。下一部分将呈现这些分析的结果。

5.1. Exploratory factor analysis of the product creativity measurement model
5.1. 产品创意测量模型的探索性因素分析

In order to determine the dimensions of product creativity, an exploratory factor analysis of the product creativity measurement items was completed. Initially, 11 factors had eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.00 with the explained variance totaling to 63.0%. However, testing of seven or greater factors resulted in one or more communality estimates to be greater than one indicating an inappropriate number of factors (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996). The six factor structure was confirmed with the scree test (Cattell Citation1978), which showed a smooth decrease in the slope after six factors. Thus, six factors (which accounted for 48.3% of the explained variance before extraneous variables were eliminated) were selected as the appropriate number of product creativity dimensions.
为了确定产品创造力的维度，完成了对产品创造力测量项目的探索性因子分析。最初，11 个因子的特征值等于或大于 1.00，解释的方差总计为 63.0%。然而，测试七个或更多因子时，出现一个或多个共同性估计值大于 1，表明因子数量不合适（Tabachnick 和 Fidell 1996）。通过碎石图检验确认了六因子结构（Cattell 1978），该图显示在六个因子后斜率平滑下降。因此，选择六个因子（在消除外部变量之前占解释方差的 48.3%）作为产品创造力维度的适当数量。

Both orthogonal and oblique rotation methods produced equivalent factor loading patterns. Items with loadings (correlation between each item and each factor) lower than 0.50 were considered not significant and eliminated. Table 3 lists the items that have a loading of 0.50 or higher. The eigenvalues, percentage variance and Chronbach's alphas listed at the bottom of table 3 were calculated after removing the insignificant factor loadings. The total percentage variance explained by the three factors was 64.8%, which, although it is not considered to be high, is comparable to other studies involving factor analysis of creativity. A study by Lapierre and Giroux (Citation2003) that tested a six-dimensional model of creativity work environment explained 66.9% of the total variance. Another study by Aguilar-Alonso (1996) explained 61.2% of the variance with an eight-dimensional model of creative behaviour.
正交旋转和斜旋转方法产生了等效的因子载荷模式。载荷（每个项目与每个因子之间的相关性）低于 0.50 的项目被认为不显著并被剔除。表 3 列出了载荷为 0.50 或更高的项目。表 3 底部列出的特征值、方差百分比和克朗巴赫α是在去除不显著因子载荷后计算得出的。三个因子解释的总方差百分比为 64.8%，尽管这并不算高，但与其他涉及创造力因子分析的研究相当。Lapierre 和 Giroux（2003）的一项研究测试了六维创造力工作环境模型，解释了 66.9%的总方差。Aguilar-Alonso（1996）的一项研究则用八维创造行为模型解释了 61.2%的方差。

As seen in table 3, the items loading on factor one pertain to the product uniqueness, thus is classified as Novelty. In factor two, the loading items address the product's ability to be functional and efficient, thus the factor is labelled Resolution. These two factor labels are consistent with the novelty and resolution dimensions from the Creative Product Semantic Scale (Besemer Citation1998). The third factor contains items that related to the emotional draw to the product, thus was labelled as Emotion. The fourth factor items are consistent with the proposed centrality dimension that addresses the attraction to the product, therefore labelled as Centrality. All of the items that loaded in the fifth and sixth factor (except for desirable-undesirable) were proposed to measure product applicability. These items of the fifth factor pertain more to the importance of the product, whereas the items in the sixth factor relate more to the product desirability, thus factor five is Importance and factor six is Desire.
如表 3 所示，加载在因素一上的项目与产品独特性相关，因此被归类为新颖性。在因素二中，加载的项目涉及产品的功能性和效率，因此该因素被标记为解决方案。这两个因素标签与创意产品语义量表中的新颖性和解决方案维度一致（Besemer 1998）。第三个因素包含与产品情感吸引力相关的项目，因此被标记为情感。第四个因素的项目与提出的中心性维度一致，该维度涉及对产品的吸引力，因此被标记为中心性。加载在第五和第六因素中的所有项目（除了可取-不可取）被提议用于测量产品适用性。第五因素的项目更多地涉及产品的重要性，而第六因素的项目则更多地与产品的可取性相关，因此第五因素为重要性，第六因素为欲望。

5.2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the product creativity measurement model
5.2. 产品创造力测量模型的验证性因素分析

The six-factor model was further tested for stability with a maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.5 (Jöreskog and Sörbom Citation2001). The model's goodness of fit statistics, based on the covariance matrix of the remaining items, were within an acceptable range (goodness of fit index = 0.92, adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.89). Other reduced models were tested by removing lower loading items; however, the model containing the items listed in table 3 proved to be the best model with the lowest χ² = 182.74 (137 degrees of freedom, p = 0.016, not significant at the α = 0.01 level). The model proved acceptable based on other statistical tests including: normed fit index = 0.93; non-normed fit index = 0.98; comparative fit index = 0.98; and root mean square residual = 0.044. The standardized LISREL estimates from the resulting measurement model of product creativity are indicated in figure 1.
六因素模型通过使用 LISREL 8.5（Jöreskog 和 Sörbom 2001）进行最大似然确认性因子分析进一步测试了其稳定性。基于剩余项目的协方差矩阵，该模型的拟合优度统计量在可接受范围内（拟合优度指数 = 0.92，调整拟合优度指数 = 0.89）。通过去除低载荷项目测试了其他简化模型；然而，包含表 3 中列出的项目的模型被证明是最佳模型，具有最低的χ2 = 182.74（137 个自由度，p = 0.016，在α = 0.01 水平上不显著）。该模型根据其他统计测试被证明是可接受的，包括：标准拟合指数 = 0.93；非标准拟合指数 = 0.98；比较拟合指数 = 0.98；均方根残差 = 0.044。图 1 中显示了产品创造力的测量模型的标准化 LISREL 估计值。

5.3. Predictive validity of the product creativity instrument
5.3. 产品创意工具的预测效度

The final analysis of the product creativity instrument involved testing the instrument's ability to predict consumer attitudes. This predictive validity was examined with two forward stepwise regressions. Both regressions used the average variable scores for each of the six factors as the independent variables. The first regression had willingness to purchase as the dependent variable. As seen in table 4, the Centrality, Importance and Desire factors each have a significant change in r ² ( p<0.05), while the Novelty, Resolution and Emotion factors did not cause a significant change r ². The second regression had consumer satisfaction with product creativity as the dependent variable. Table 5 also indicates that the Centrality, Importance and Desire factors each caused significant change in r ² ( p<0.05), while the Novelty, Resolution and Emotion factors did not cause a significant change in r ². In summary, the stepwise regression models support the predictive validity of the product creativity instrument.
产品创造力工具的最终分析涉及测试该工具预测消费者态度的能力。通过两次前向逐步回归检验了这种预测效度。两次回归均使用六个因素的平均变量得分作为自变量。第一次回归以购买意愿作为因变量。如表 4 所示，中心性、重要性和欲望因素均导致 r²的显著变化（p<0.05），而新颖性、解决方案和情感因素未导致 r²的显著变化。第二次回归以消费者对产品创造力的满意度作为因变量。表 5 同样表明，中心性、重要性和欲望因素均导致 r²的显著变化（p<0.05），而新颖性、解决方案和情感因素未导致 r²的显著变化。总之，逐步回归模型支持产品创造力工具的预测效度。