Abstract
Coolness can be a significant product success factor in today's global markets. Yet the field lacks a systematic understanding of consumers’ interpretations of product coolness across cultures and of the factors that drive possible cultural variations. The authors conduct two studies (with Anglophone consumers) to conceptualize product coolness, followed by two cross-cultural surveys (in cultures that use the English word “cool” in everyday language) that test an integrative framework for product coolness. The framework replicates across the sampled cultures, which include U.S., German, and Chinese consumers. Major findings are as follows: (1) Consumers universally interpret coolness in two largely distinct ways: A product is cool if it generates excitement or admiration (personal interpretation of coolness) or if its appeal is socially validated (social interpretation of coolness), with the former interpretation being generally more pronounced. (2) These interpretations universally correlate with distinct product attributes often associated with coolness and with desirable and undesirable coolness-related outcomes. (3) Robust cross-cultural variations emerge, linked to specific cultural values. Chinese consumers subscribe to the social interpretation, rely on exclusivity as a driver of coolness, and desire cool products to a larger extent than U.S. and German consumers. This finding can be primarily explained by Chinese consumers’ stronger orientation toward ascription (vs. achievement).
Deeply rooted in U.S. history and culture, the concept of “coolness” has become highly relevant to global consumer culture (Bagozzi and Batra 2025; Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Warren et al. 2019). Being cool can be a key driver for new products’ success in global markets. As a result, marketers around the world often strive to make their product offerings stand out by creating and selling “the next cool thing” (Bird and Tapp 2008; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014). But what do global consumers find “cool” in a product? To what extent does coolness represent a universally shared concept and how do cultural factors impact what consumers mean by “cool”? These questions are critical both theoretically and managerially (Warren et al. 2019). Their answers have important implications for better understanding product coolness as a global phenomenon and for designing and commercializing products whose coolness appeal is enhanced by local cultural values.
Marketing research on coolness has been steadily advancing and offers preliminary insights into those questions. However, an integrative understanding of product coolness in a cross-cultural context is lacking. Researchers generally agree that coolness represents a complex and, to a certain extent, difficult-to-define construct (Holtzblatt, Rondeau, and Holtzblatt 2010; Southgate 2003; Warren et al. 2019). As a result, coolness research has primarily focused on the conceptualization and operationalization of coolness (e.g., Bagozzi and Batra 2025; Im, Bhat, and Lee 2015; Loureiro, Jimenez-Barreto, and Romero 2020; Rahman 2013; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014; Warren and Campbell 2014; Warren et al. 2019), with an emphasis on identifying the collection of attributes that make a brand or product cool. A comparatively smaller subset of studies has investigated the market outcomes of coolness (e.g., Bagozzi and Khoshnevis 2022; Feng, Xu, and Wang 2024; Kim and Park 2019; Suzuki and Kanno 2022).
Several characteristics of this research stand out. First, most studies examine coolness as a brand-level phenomenon (e.g., Bagozzi and Batra 2025; Nancarrow, Nancarrow, and Page 2002; Warren and Campbell 2014; Warren et al. 2019), as opposed to a more general, product-level phenomenon (e.g., Im, Bhat, and Lee 2015; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014). Second, despite the global applicability of the coolness construct, the vast majority of coolness research is conducted in a monocultural context, with only four studies employing a multicultural context (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Ferguson 2011; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014; Warren et al. 2019; see Table 1 and Web Appendix A for an overview).
How the Current Research Advances Prior Research on Product Coolness.
Warren and Campbell (2014) and Warren et al. (2019) examine brand coolness instead of product coolness. They are still listed here due to the importance of these articles in conceptualizing the coolness construct.
Representing two continents.
Existing multicultural research suggests that perceptions of coolness are most likely a combination of universal and cultural influences (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Ferguson 2011; Warren et al. 2019). In this context, the focus is largely on exploring the universal aspect of coolness, using qualitative research methods. Ferguson’s (2011) qualitative inquiry finds that young consumers in Anglophone countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland) universally consider bungee jumping cool, but disagree on what makes an experience cool. Warren et al. (2019), in an exploratory study, uncover nine stable themes that reflect the component characteristics of brand coolness among North American and European consumers (e.g., extraordinary/useful, aesthetic, energetic, high status, rebellious, original). Sundar, Tamul, and Wu (2014) demonstrate that a three-factorial structure of product coolness, comprising attractiveness, originality, and subcultural appeal, is culturally invariant across U.S., Korean, and Chinese consumers. Only Belk, Tian, and Paavola (2010) investigate both universal and culturally specific aspects of coolness, by qualitatively examining what types of products and activities young American versus Finnish consumers consider cool.
Overall, the multicultural studies on coolness provide insights into some of the commonalities and variations related to coolness. However, the role of culture is not formally tested or linked back to consumers’ fundamental conceptualizations of coolness and to the different product attributes and outcomes associated with coolness. The present research aims to fill those gaps in the literature. To our best knowledge, this represents the first and only study that examines product coolness in a cross-cultural context by empirically assessing the impact of cultural values on customers’ perceptions of coolness. Specifically, we address the following questions: (1) How do Anglophone consumers interpret the meaning of product coolness, and how do those interpretations correlate with product attributes typically associated with coolness and with desirable and undesirable coolness-related outcomes? (2) To what extent are the multiple interpretations of product coolness and their associated product attributes and coolness-related outcomes universal versus culturally dependent? (3) What cultural factors may account for any observed cross-cultural variations?
Our research builds on the assumption that the meaning of coolness is universal, though its manifestations are culturally dependent. We postulate that there is a universal duality at the center of the coolness construct (e.g., Ferguson 2011). One facet of this duality is what we refer to as the personal interpretation of coolness (PIC), which posits that certain products are cool primarily because of their intrinsic benefits. Robotic vacuums or AI-based assistants, which have delighted consumers worldwide with an unprecedented sense of convenience and wonder, provide notable PIC-based examples. The other facet is the social interpretation of coolness (SIC), which posits that certain products are cool primarily because of their socially validated benefits. Viral products such as fidget spinners or aspirational products such as designer heritage bags serve as SIC-based examples.
This universal PIC versus SIC duality can explain why coolness is invariably linked to certain product attributes (e.g., aesthetics, exclusivity; Jimenez-Barreto et al. 2022; Runyan, Noh, and Mosier 2013) and to positive, but also negative, outcomes (i.e., cool products are seen as desirable, but also subject to stereotypes; Klein 2000; Nancarrow, Nancarrow, and Page 2002). We formalize these links as part of an integrative framework for product coolness, in which the various relationships between elements are universal, but their weights are culturally dependent.
To derive and test this framework, we use two surveys (Studies 1a and 1b) to first conceptualize product coolness among U.S.- and U.K.-based respondents (representing Anglophone cultures). We then conduct two cross-cultural surveys (quasi-experiments Study 2 and Study 3) to test the extent to which the Anglophone conceptualization of coolness (and its linkages to other constructs) replicates in a multicultural setting. For that, we collect data from three major cultures that use the English word “cool” in everyday language: the United States, Germany, and China. We find robust commonalities, as well as differences, in the three cultures’ interpretations of coolness (and their linkages to other constructs), and attempt to explain those differences via theoretically derived cultural variables. Specifically, we show how certain differences observed between cultures (i.e., perceptions of exclusivity being more closely associated with coolness in China than in the United States or Germany) can be linked back to specific cultural values (i.e., a higher emphasis on ascription in China) and to cross-cultural variations in consumers’ preferences for the social versus personal interpretation of product coolness.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. In the next section, we elaborate on the theoretical background and derive the research propositions and hypotheses. We then present the research design, empirical analyses, and findings for the four empirical studies. Finally, we discuss the findings, theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Theory Development
Product Coolness
Our research focuses on coolness in the context of a product, as opposed to a brand, the latter of which has been extensively examined in previous studies (see Web Appendix A). By “product,” we refer to a physical object or nonphysical service. Perceptions of brand coolness are directly tied to a brand's perceived image or personality (Warren and Campbell 2014; Warren et al. 2019). In contrast, perceptions of product coolness typically stem from a product's intrinsic and extrinsic attributes or value, which are frequently observable.
We focus on product coolness for two main reasons. First, coolness is clearly a category-related construct. Common sense suggests that certain product categories are intrinsically cooler than others (e.g., electric cars and AI-based software vs. kitchen or toilet products). Attaching a brand considered “cool” to certain “uncool” product categories (e.g., Apple-branded toilet paper) does not necessarily turn such products into something cool. In other words, brand coolness represents only a subset of the coolness phenomenon that can be investigated through the lens of product coolness. Second, studying product coolness provides firms with better insights into how to create winning products. Since brands are symbolic constructs built on consumers’ inferences, focusing on the personality-like trait of brand coolness (Feng, Xu, and Wang 2024; Warren et al. 2019) inevitably shifts a firm's strategic focus from product innovation to communication. However, products can more easily achieve sustained success by possessing compelling new benefits instead of relying solely on effective communications. The quick global adoption of “smart” products or technologies serves to illustrate this point. For example, adding wireless connectivity to devices (focused on convenience) or integrating red light therapy into skin care products (focused on health benefits) can increase the coolness factor of a product regardless of its brand. Given these reasons, we focus on product instead of brand coolness in this study.
Dual-Route Interpretation of Product Coolness
Coolness represents a complex and versatile phenomenon (Dar-Nimrod et al. 2012; Ferguson 2011; Pountain and Robins 2000), whose actual manifestation is best conceptualized on a multiattribute basis (Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014; Warren et al. 2019). Perhaps the most specific, evidence-based definition of coolness comes from Warren and Campbell (2014, p. 544), who define coolness as being “a subjective and dynamic, socially constructed positive trait attributed to objects inferred to be appropriately autonomous.” Consistent with Warren et al. (2019), we adopt this definition as our working definition of coolness.
This definition places the concept of “bounded autonomy” at the core, implying that a cool product needs to be different and stand out, but do so in a way that is positive and socially appropriate. Importantly, the definition juxtaposes the socially constructed nature of coolness perceptions (i.e., coolness requires a social validation mechanism) against the individual subjectivity involved in such perceptions (i.e., something is deemed as cool only if an individual sees it as such; Pountain and Robins 2000).
Building on this definition, which suggests an inherent duality in the coolness concept, we propose that product coolness can be interpreted via dual routes: social versus personal. Each offers a distinct pathway through which a product can positively differentiate itself from others, as further described subsequently. This distinction is also consistent with Ferguson (2011), who identifies two motivations tied to the consumption of a specific “cool” activity: an intrinsic (personal) and an extrinsic (social) one, which can sometimes operate at odds with each other.
Social interpretation of coolness
The socially focused interpretation suggests that a product's coolness is an externally bestowed or validated benefit requiring the consensus and participation of an audience. In other words, coolness perceptions are communal, such that what one person thinks is cool is partially based on what other people think is cool (Gerber and Geiman 2012; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014). Coolness hence operates similarly to other socially constructed traits that are highly desirable and require social validation, such as status or popularity (Hollander 1958). Similar arguments suggest that coolness arises from a product's association with a group of cool or trendsetting people, which creates subcultural appeal (e.g., Kim, Shin, and Park 2015; Li et al. 2021; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014). Once the coolest consumers—that is, the cultural intermediaries (Bourdieu 1984)—adopt a particular product, others will imitate such behavior, validating the product's coolness and further enhancing its social desirability (Nancarrow, Nancarrow, and Page 2002). This social validation process is often bound by time: As soon as a product becomes mainstream, it inevitably starts losing some of its cool (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010) or transitions from “niche cool” to “mass cool” (Warren et al. 2019, p. 37). Hence, SIC suggests that the consumption of cool products is driven by extrinsic motivations, centered around projecting a favorable self-image, often via conspicuous and timely consumption practices (Ferguson 2011).
Personal interpretation of coolness
Another perspective on product coolness focuses on an individual's personal judgment of a product, especially in the context of a consumption experience. Consuming is “significantly an autotelic activity in which tastes are formed around the desires for and pleasures gained from particular goods and activities relative to others” (Holt 1998, p. 3). Therefore, coolness perceptions are governed by individuals’ appreciation of a product's inherent value, in the absence of any social cues or external validation (e.g., Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Dar-Nimrod et al. 2012; Ferguson 2011). While social norms can create boundaries around what an individual may or may not consider cool (Warren and Campbell 2014), the consumer is ultimately in charge of making the coolness judgment based on a product's ability to provide valuable features or fill a genuine need (Mourdoukoutas 2013). This interpretation suggests that the consumption of cool products is driven by intrinsic motivations, centered around experiencing a sense of excitement or accomplishment when using or imagining using the product (Holtzblatt 2011). Cool products are therefore enjoyed for the sake of the consumption experience, rather than the image they convey about the consumer (Ferguson 2011).
In summary, our theoretical development points toward two distinct interpretations of product coolness: a socially constructed and validated assessment of a product's image (SIC) and a personal interpretation based on the product's perceived attributes, satisfying individual needs and preferences (PIC). The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive: Personally derived judgments of coolness cannot be completely divorced from social influences, and socially derived perceptions of coolness may sometimes draw from the inherent value of a product's attributes (Ferguson 2011). We translate these insights into a set of propositions, followed by hypotheses. Given the Anglophone origin of the coolness construct and the prevalence of Anglophone research on coolness, we develop the propositions primarily in an Anglophone context. We hence propose:
Research has shown that perceptions of coolness are tied to various product attributes. Several such attributes—such as having an exclusive, high-end image (Nancarrow, Nancarrow, and Page 2002; Pountain and Robins 2000; Warren et al. 2019) or being stylish or aesthetically appealing (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014; Warren et al. 2019)—are largely associated with social cues and external consumption motivations. Those attributes may contribute to coolness perceptions in products due to the social benefits they provide. This favors SIC. By contrast, product attributes such as reliability (Attiq et al. 2022; Tiwari, Chakraborty, and Maity 2021), performance (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010), or usefulness (Kim and Park 2019; Li et al. 2021) provide benefits that are mostly intrinsic to the consumption experience. Hence, consumers may see such products as cool at least partially due to the personal enjoyment, admiration, or value one derives from using those products. This favors PIC. In sum, different types of product attributes may engage different interpretations of coolness. Of course, since certain attributes such as aesthetics provide both intrinsic and extrinsic value to consumers (Wu et al. 2023), one can expect a certain overlap between the types of product attributes related to PIC versus SIC. Within an Anglophone context, we hence propose:
Consistent with the notion that coolness represents a positively valenced evaluation, research has consistently shown that cool brands or products are associated with a host of positive consumer- and market-relevant responses. Examples include positive effects on consumer preferences (Feng, Xu, and Wang 2024), purchase intentions (Feng, Xu, and Wang 2024; Kim and Park 2019; Lu et al. 2021; Suzuki and Kanno 2022), word of mouth (Bagozzi and Batra 2025; Bagozzi and Khoshnevis 2022), satisfaction (Nan et al. 2022), willingness to pay (Koskie and Locander 2023), and brand relationships (Amenuvor, Akasreku, and Mensah 2023; Jimenez-Barreto et al. 2022). We assume that product coolness leads to positive outcomes via either the PIC or the SIC route, depending on the type of benefits consumers associate with a specific cool product.
At the same time, research has also linked coolness to negative consequences. Specifically, one may perceive cool products as being fads and may ascribe superficiality to consumers who opt for such products (Klein 2000; Nancarrow, Nancarrow, and Page 2002). Such negative inferences or stereotypes are most likely to emerge in conspicuous product consumption contexts (Ferguson 2011). They are often driven by the perceived incompatibility between experiences of coolness that are purely internally driven (and hence intrinsically rewarding) and those that are externally driven (and hence dependent on social validation; Ferguson 2011). We therefore assume that coolness is likely to trigger negative stereotypes when the social interpretation route is (hyper)activated. Within an Anglophone context, we propose:
The structure of the proposed integrative framework for product coolness, which builds on P1–P3, is presented in Figure 1.
Integrative Framework for Consumers’ Interpretation of Product Coolness.
The Culturally Universal Aspect of Coolness Interpretations
To probe how culture impacts which interpretation consumers intuitively resort to when forming perceptions of product coolness, we adopt the definition of culture proposed by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) and endorsed by many cultural psychologists (see Morling and Lamoreaux 2008). It describes culture as consisting of “explicit and implicit patterns of historically derived and selected ideas and their embodiment in institutions, practices, and artifacts” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952, p. 357). Since this definition posits that culture can be expressed via artifacts—which necessarily include consumption objects—it is relevant to our research on product coolness.
We acknowledge that somewhat different predictions about the cultural variability of coolness can be made, depending on which perspective one adopts. The first perspective involves interpreting mass consumption through the lens of globalization. As consumption-related symbols and meanings are increasingly shared by users around the world (e.g., Attiq et al. 2022; Bookman and Hall 2019), national and cultural differences have become less important in consumption contexts. The “cool” aspect of consumption arguably follows the same pattern, since what counts as cool in one place can quickly spread to and get adopted in other parts of the world. The findings that consumers in different cultures show substantial commonalities in the types of products or activities they consider cool (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Brown 2021; Ferguson 2011) point toward a culturally shared understanding of “cool.” We expect this understanding to also extend to the relationships between coolness and the other elements in our integrative framework, especially in cultures that have borrowed the literal term “cool” from English. That is to say, the structure of the integrative framework for product coolness universally links PIC and SIC to coolness-related product attributes as well as to desirable and undesirable coolness-related outcomes. We hence propose:
The Impact of Cultural Values and Coolness Interpretations
As a complement to the globalization perspective, existing research suggests that, despite some universal aspects of coolness, culture nevertheless impacts what consumers consider cool (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010). We posit that culture exerts a noticeable influence on consumers’ interpretations of product coolness via different mechanisms, which we translate into a set of hypotheses regarding the influence of specific cultural values.
First, culture is likely to affect coolness perceptions by activating either the social or the personal route to consumers’ coolness interpretations. Cultural values that dictate what roles an individual is expected to play in a society or through what mechanism one may achieve desirable social goals are most likely to influence which interpretation of coolness consumers naturally gravitate toward. For example, consumers from cultures that value a socially driven identity (Hui, Triandis, and Yee 1991; Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier 2002) may gravitate toward SIC more than consumers from individuality-driven cultures.
Second, culture affects how individuals express their cultural capital through the choice and display of certain consumption objects. As sociologists and social anthropologists argue, people acquire particular consumption objects as status markers (Holt 1998; Warner, Meeker, and Eells 1949) and to express their cultural capital, which secures the respect of others (Bourdieu 1984). Cool products, representing a particular form of cultural capital (Thornton 1995), become positional markers to reinforce status boundaries (Warner, Meeker, and Eells 1949). This is especially true in collectivistic cultures such as China (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey 2003), where “face”—the status earned in a social network—is highly valued and products suitable for conspicuous consumption are coveted status markers (Atsmon, Dixit, and Wu 2011). Given that coolness and status-signaling through social display are closely linked for certain consumers (Ferguson 2011), it follows that products with status-signaling qualities (such as exclusivity) are more easily conducive to coolness perceptions in certain cultures than in others. 1
For the hypothesis development, we surveyed existing cross-cultural research to identify a set of values/dimensions that can explain potential cultural differences related to product coolness. We focused largely on elements from Hofstede's cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1980), Schwartz's cultural value theory (Schwartz 2013), and Trompenaars's seven cultural dimensions (Trompenaars and Woolliams 2002), all of which represent widely adopted frameworks for cross-cultural studies in global marketing and management. Among the multitude of cultural values (and their available scales), we selected five values that appear highly likely to impact how consumers from different cultural backgrounds interpret the meaning of product coolness and the product attributes and consequences associated with coolness. Next, we describe the selected values and the rationale for choosing them.
Individualism versus collectivism
The individualism/collectivism cultural dimension reflects a social pattern that gives priority either to one's personal goals over the goals of others or vice versa (Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz 2011). Individualistic cultures orient toward the self (i.e., “I-conscious”), whereas collectivistic cultures orient toward the group (i.e., “we-conscious”; see Nisbett et al. 2001). Specifically, in individualistic cultures, such as the United States or Germany, prevalent cultural norms include independence, self-sufficiency, and individually based self-identity. In collectivistic cultures, such as China, Japan, India, or Mexico, prevalent cultural norms include affiliation, cohesion, interdependence within clans and/or extended families, and socially based identity (Hui, Triandis, and Yee 1991; Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier 2002). Individualism/collectivism is relevant to coolness perceptions because coolness is socially constructed. Additionally, consumers often perceive products as cool when others, especially opinion leaders or “cool” people, also consider them cool (Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014). Hence, the coolness perceptions of individuals living in collectivistic cultures are more likely to be driven by SIC rather than PIC. Additionally, in collectivistic cultures, product attributes closely related to the notion of “we” (such as exclusivity, whose value is intrinsically related to social constructs such as status or peer opinion) likely play an outsized role in driving coolness perceptions. So, we hypothesize:
Intellectual autonomy versus embeddedness
Somewhat similar to individualism/collectivism, the intellectual autonomy versus embeddedness dimension suggests that in cultures that value embeddedness, the focus is on sustaining social order and retaining tradition, by prioritizing security and obedience. In cultures that focus on intellectual autonomy, individuals have control over their choices and are encouraged to independently pursue ideas and thoughts (Schwartz 2013). To the extent that coolness is associated with autonomy and rebellion (Warren and Campbell 2014), consumers from cultures that favor intellectual autonomy are more likely to see product coolness as individually rather than socially determined. Hence, we hypothesize:
Short-term versus long-term orientation
The short-term versus long-term orientation dimension captures the difference between cultures that value a future focus (long-term orientation) and those that value a focus on the past and present (short-term orientation). In long-term-oriented cultures, individuals value virtues such as perseverance, saving, and thrift. In short-term-oriented cultures, they tend to focus on quick results, immediate gratification, and spending (Hofstede 2001; Hofstede and Minkov 2013; Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz 2011). Although it is not immediately clear how this cultural dimension affects whether PIC or SIC is the more pronounced interpretation, we expect it to influence which product attributes are more important in shaping coolness perceptions. Specifically, exclusivity is likely to play a weaker role in shaping coolness perceptions in cultures that value perseverance and thrift. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Indulgence versus restraint
Indulgence/restraint represents a newer dimension in Hofstede's cultural model, somewhat related to short-term/long-term orientation. A culture that favors indulgence allows relatively free gratification of human drives related to enjoying life and having fun; a more restrained culture suppresses such gratification and regulates it by means of strict social norms (Ein-Gar and Sagiv 2014; Hofstede and Minkov 2013). Indulgent cultures tend to focus more on individual happiness and well-being, allow greater freedom and personal control, and place a relatively higher importance on leisure. Since coolness functions as a form of cultural capital and implies positive feelings such as excitement, it likely resonates well with indulgence-oriented cultures. In such cultures, coolness perceptions are more likely to be dominated by PIC but also shaped by symbolic product attributes such as exclusivity. We hence hypothesize:
Ascription versus achievement
The ascription/achievement cultural dimension implies that in achievement-oriented cultures (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany), an individual earns status through so-called “internal” or “intrinsic” qualities such as competence, skill, or performance. In ascription-based cultures (e.g., China, India, Japan), status is bestowed on an individual based on their family background and other nominal, conspicuous characteristics (Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars 1996). In the latter type of culture, people may have a greater tendency to own cool products to gain or express a certain status. In other words, cultural capital is even more valuable in serving as a status marker (Bourdieu 1984). In such a culture, coolness perceptions are more likely to be shaped by SIC and by purely symbolic product attributes such as exclusivity than by functionality-oriented attributes. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Figure 2 illustrates the integrative conceptual framework for our research, including the framework elements for which we expect culture to play a predictor role (H1–H5).
Integrative Framework for Consumers’ Interpretation of Product Coolness and the Hypothesized Impact of Cultural Values.
Empirical Studies
We employ four studies to answer our research questions, as detailed subsequently.
Study 1a (Pilot Study): Exploratory Investigation into the Meaning of Product Coolness
Study 1a is an exploratory inquiry to develop some preliminary insights into our first research question: How do (Anglophone) consumers interpret the meaning of product coolness? We use a survey with open-ended questions, drawing on student samples from two cultures: 208 respondents from the United States and 177 respondents from the United Kingdom. Using consumers from multiple cultures as a starting point for the investigation is consistent with the approach employed by Warren et al. (2019). The purpose is to help develop a conceptualization of product coolness that is robust across Anglophone cultures.
Respondents were first asked to think of examples of cool products and then indicate (1) their definition of product coolness (i.e., “How do you define product ‘coolness’?”) and (2) the determinants that trigger a product's coolness (i.e., “When do products start to be cool?”). Two trained coders manually coded the responses, with high intercoder reliability (Cohen's kappa = .82). Web Appendix B provides full details of the study methodology and results.
Briefly, this preliminary investigation of product coolness reveals a pattern that is robust across the two samples. While respondents across both cultures fail to articulate a clear definition of the meaning of coolness, the vast majority adopt a consistent strategy for defining coolness: using specific product attributes as a basis for the definition of coolness, particularly design/style/visual attractiveness, uniqueness/novelty/creativity, usefulness/practicality, ease of use, and aspirational image/exclusivity. Concerning the more general determinants of coolness (i.e., “When do products start to be cool?”), we again see relatively consistent patterns across the two cultures. Specifically, the responses fall into one of four broad categories. Two categories tap into the personal interpretation of coolness; that is, coolness stems from (1) the presence of intrinsically desirable product characteristics or (2) its ability to fulfill or satisfy a consumer need. The remaining two categories reflect the social interpretation of coolness; that is, coolness stems from (3) the social validation associated with the product or (4) the value bestowed on the product through marketing or branding activities.
We differentiate between these interpretations by labeling them PIC or SIC. The robust findings across the U.S. and U.K. samples in response to the two open-ended questions suggest that our approach for investigating consumers’ interpretation of coolness has good ecological validity. Given the similarity between the U.S. and U.K. samples, the next study focuses solely on the United States as a representative of Anglophone cultures.
Study 1b: Measurement and Cross-Sample Validation for Product Coolness Interpretations
Using the insights generated in Study 1a, in Study 1b we develop scale items for assessing the potential interpretation(s) of product coolness and validate them via a comparison between two respondent samples. We also use the scale items to preliminary explore whether PIC and SIC reflect two fundamentally different perspectives on coolness, associated with different product attributes and marketing-relevant consequences. We include samples from two populations. The first consists of 136 undergraduate students from a large U.S. university (52% female, 48% male; median age group: 18–22 years; median parents’ annual income $100,000–$200,000), who participated in the study for course credit. The second is a general population sample of 248 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (59% female, 41% male; median age group: 31–35 years; median annual income $20,000–$50,000), who participated in exchange for a cash remuneration. 2
To measure coolness interpretations, we first prompted respondents to provide examples of cool products. We then asked them to indicate, on a seven-point scale (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “extremely”), their agreement with the statement “A product is cool when ….” To complete this statement, we used a pool of 23 items generated from the exact phrases that the participants in Study 1a provided when indicating when a product starts being cool. To minimize yay-saying (e.g., Tellis, Yin, and Bell 2009), some of these items were positively framed (e.g., “[A product is cool when] it appeals to my personal taste”), and some were negatively framed (e.g., “[A product is cool when] it does not excel on any of its features”). The items were shown in random order.
Since the results of Study 1a revealed that consumers’ conceptualization of product coolness is intricately linked to a series of product attributes associated with coolness, we also measured several coolness-related attributes that directly build on the product features identified in Study 1a. Based on a confirmatory factor analysis designed to elicit a robust solution across the two samples, the final set of product attributes, which are distinct from each other, includes usefulness/usability (α = .85 and α = .88 in the two samples), exclusivity (α = .78 and α = .71), and aesthetics (α = .76 and α = .79); see Figure 1 for the full list of items. 3 These are not meant to represent an exhaustive list of all the product attributes that can be associated with coolness. Rather, we focus on a subset of attributes that are consistent with the majority of previous research on coolness, conceptually distinct, highly rated in our study, and representative of both functional and symbolic/hedonic product features (e.g., Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015). We aim to show that these attributes form a pattern that is differentially related to PIC versus SIC.
We additionally measure a series of coolness-related outcomes. Since being cool is strongly related to being aspirational and desirable (Dar-Nimrod et al. 2012; Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014), we include a measure for the desirability of cool products (α = .79 and α = .80). Additionally, since consumers sometimes make negative inferences about coolness (Klein 2000; Nancarrow, Nancarrow, and Page 2002), we include a measure for the negative stereotypes most commonly associated with cool products and their users (α = .64 and α = .50); see Figure 1 for the full list of items for each measure.
First, regarding the interpretations of coolness, an exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation on the pool of 23 initial scale items yields a two-factor solution (PIC vs. SIC) that is stable across the two samples. It contains a total of ten final items (four for PIC and six for SIC; see Web Appendix C for factor loadings). Specifically, respondents view a product as cool if it has certain product attributes that trigger admiration or anticipated excitement (i.e., PIC; α = .80 for both) or if it is popularly accepted as cool or associated with a cool/aspirational reference group or brand (i.e., SIC; α = .91 and α = .93). Figure 1 provides a complete list of items used for the PIC and SIC scales in Studies 1b, 2, and 3. The two factors are statistically distinct, and consumers subscribe to PIC more strongly than to SIC across samples (see Web Appendix C).
Second, we obtain preliminary evidence that consumers’ tendency toward PIC versus SIC (which we calculate by subtracting SIC scores from PIC scores) is related to the extent to which consumers associate product coolness with (1) symbolic attributes such as exclusivity or aesthetics, (2) functional attributes (such as usefulness/usability), and (3) negative stereotypes against cool products (see Web Appendix C).
We further validate the results from this study via an additional, experiment-based study, showing the following: First, perceptions of coolness can be successfully distinguished from related constructs such as attitudes/liking or desirability. Second, the items we use to measure PIC map well onto the high-arousal emotions of excitement (see Holtzblatt 2011; Im, Bhat, and Lee 2015) and admiration. This mapping confirms that these two emotions represent key components of PIC. Full details of the study's methods and results are available from the authors.
Study 2 investigates whether the pattern of results from Studies 1a and 1b can combine into an integrative framework of product coolness that replicates across cultures.
Study 2: Cross-Cultural Examination of the Product Coolness Interpretations
The purpose of Study 2 is to test the underlying structure of our integrative framework for product coolness. The framework posits that, in an Anglophone context, coolness has two distinct interpretations (PIC vs. SIC) (P1) that are differentially linked to various coolness-related product attributes (P2) and positive and negative coolness-related outcomes (P3). We then test whether the structure of this framework replicates from the United States (as a representative of Anglophone cultures) to other cultures, namely China and Germany (P4). We also explore potential cross-cultural differences.
The choice of cultures in our research is strategic. First, consumers in both Germany and China extensively use the English word “cool” in everyday language, which suggests that they may subscribe to an Anglophone conceptualization of coolness. In German, “cool” is the most frequently used word for expressing coolness, with a heavier usage than more informal German terms such as “laessig” or “geil” (Schmoll 2022). Similarly, in Chinese, the word “酷” (“kù”) represents the transliteration of “cool” and is largely used in casual conversations. Second, the United States and Germany on the one hand, and China on the other hand, represent distinct sets of cultures, each embodying certain prototypical Western versus Eastern values. They also represent major cultural hubs for each continent: Germany for the Germanic regions (including Austria, Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and parts of Switzerland and Belgium), and China for the Confucian cultural circle (including Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and many Southeast Asian countries). Third, all three cultures represent major world economies, namely the largest in the North American, European, and Asian continents, respectively. The focus on cultures that are key representatives of wide portions of three continents, both economically and culturally, makes the insights derived from the present research broadly applicable to companies aiming to develop winning products at the global level.
Method
Using an online panel administered and quality-controlled by Qualtrics, we collected data from German and Chinese respondents, who participated in the study in exchange for compensation. The German sample included 136 participants (48.5% female, 51.5% male; median age group: 31–35 years; median annual income: $25,000–$100,000) drawn from Germany. The Chinese sample included 141 participants (36.2% female, 63.8% male; median age group: 31–35 years; median annual income: $10,000–$15,000) drawn from China. We compare these two samples with the U.S. sample from Study 1b. To ensure translation accuracy, all measures used for the German and Chinese samples were translated into the respective language by a native speaker (who is not an author of this article) and then back-translated into English by another native speaker.
Results: Dual factorial structure of coolness interpretations
A confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling (IBM SPSS Amos 26) indicates a two-factor structure for the product coolness interpretations, which replicates well across the three samples (χ2/d.f. = 3.04, CFI = .93, GFI = .88, RMSEA = .063). This provides support for P1 (for the United States) and a portion of P4. The relationship between the two factors varies somewhat across cultures. In the United States, PIC and SIC are not correlated (r = −.04, p = .59), whereas in Germany and China they have a moderately strong correlation (r = .35 and r = .65, respectively, p < .001; see Table 2).
Standardized Correlation Coefficients and Standardized Regression Weights in Study 2.
Results: Integrative framework
We use structural equation modeling to test a model that connects each coolness interpretation to the product attributes identified in Study 1b and the coolness-related outcomes. The model provides an excellent fit (χ2/d.f. = 2.05, CFI = .82, GFI = .90, RMSEA = .045). In support of P4, the pattern of relationships between constructs replicates almost perfectly across cultures (with only one effect not replicating in Germany; see Table 2). Specifically, in each culture, PIC is positively associated with aesthetics (βs ranging from .35 to .51, ps < .001) and usefulness/usability (βs ranging from .55 to .69, ps < .001). SIC is positively associated with aesthetics (βs ranging from .35 to .37, ps < .001) and exclusivity (βs ranging from .55 to .69, ps < .001), but negatively with usefulness/usability (βs ranging from −.28 to −.12, ps ranging from .84 to less than .001). This divergent pattern between PIC and SIC provides support for P2 (in the United States), while its cross-cultural replication provides support for P4. Additionally, PIC is positively related to desirability (βs ranging from .38 to .57, ps < .001) and negatively related to negative stereotypes (βs ranging from −.20 to −.24, ps ranging from .031 to less than .001), while SIC is positively related to both desirability and negative stereotypes (βs ranging from .23 to .58, ps < .001); see Table 2 for full results. This divergent pattern between PIC and SIC provides support for P3 (in the United States), while its cross-cultural replication provides support for P4.
Results: Within- and cross-cultural comparisons
We investigate how coolness interpretations vary within and across cultures. A mixed ANOVA with tendency toward PIC versus SIC as a within-subjects factor and culture as a between-subjects factor shows a significant main effect of tendency toward PIC versus SIC (F(1, 522) = 159.17, p < .001, partial η2 = .234) and a significant interaction (F(2, 522) = 12.39, p < .001, partial η2 = .045). Specifically, PIC (MTotal = 5.74) scores higher than SIC (MTotal = 4.60) within each culture (ps < .001; United States: partial η2 = .347; Germany: partial η2 = .240; China: partial η2 = .191). Additionally, a MANOVA with PIC and SIC as dependent variables reveals that culture has only a marginally significant effect on PIC (F(2, 522) = 2.49, p = .083, partial η2 = .009), but a significant effect on SIC (F(2, 522) = 12.13, p < .001, partial η2 = .044), with China (M = 5.19) scoring higher than the United States (M = 4.35, p < .001) and Germany (M = 4.60, p = .003) on SIC. This pattern of results also replicates in Study 3.
In a series of ANOVA-based cross-cultural comparisons of the coolness-related product attributes, usefulness/usability does not differ by culture (F(2, 522) = .39, p = .676, partial η2 = .001). Aesthetics perceptions (F(2, 522) = 6.72, p < .001, partial η2 = .025) are significantly lower in Germany (M = 5.28) than in the United States (M = 5.81, p < .001) and China (M = 5.61, p = .039). Exclusivity perceptions (F(2, 522) = 17.15, p < .001, partial η2 = .062) are significantly higher in China (M = 5.52) than in the United States (M = 5.10, p = .010) and Germany (M = 4.43, p < .05). Except for the findings related to aesthetics, this result pattern also replicates in Study 3 (see Table 3).
Studies 2 and 3: Means and Standard Deviations for the Interpretations of Coolness, Coolness-Related Product Attributes, and Cultural Values/Factors Across Cultures.
Notes: Items with result patterns that are consistent across Studies 2 and 3 are italicized. All mean values are based on seven-point scales (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “extremely”). Superscript letters indicate which mean values for a variable are significantly different from one another. Means that share at least one common letter (e.g., “a” and “a,b”) are not significantly different from one another.
In a cross-cultural comparison of coolness-related outcomes, the perceived desirability of cool products varies by culture (F(2, 522) = 17.04, p < .001, partial η2 = .061), with Chinese consumers rating cool products as significantly more desirable (M = 5.59) than U.S. consumers (M = 4.76, p < .001) or German consumers (M = 4.94, p < .001). Similarly, negative stereotypes against coolness vary by culture (F(2, 522) = 9.13, p < .001, partial η2 = .034), with German consumers indicating stronger stereotypes (M = 4.15) than U.S. consumers (M = 3.49, p < .001) or Chinese consumers (M = 3.53, p < .001; see Table 3).
Conclusions of Study 2
Study 2 investigates the cross-cultural robustness of an integrative framework that centers around consumers’ interpretation of coolness and its links to coolness-related product attributes and outcomes. Using a multicultural approach, we show that this framework is highly robust across cultures. First, PIC and SIC represent two distinct factors, with PIC being the more dominant interpretation. Second, the two coolness interpretations correlate with distinct but overlapping product attributes that consumers often associate with coolness. PIC is positively linked to aesthetics, exclusivity (except for Germany), and usefulness/usability, while SIC is positively linked to aesthetics and exclusivity, but negatively linked to usefulness/usability. We theorize that each attribute can contribute toward coolness perceptions on its own, though combinations are likely to be most impactful. Third, the two interpretations can differentially predict desirable and undesirable coolness-related outcomes: The perceived desirability of cool products is positively predicted by either interpretation, while negative stereotypes against cool products are amplified by SIC but reduced by PIC. Together, these findings provide support for P1–P4, by demonstrating that PIC and SIC exhibit consistently distinct patterns of associations (P1–P3) across the three cultures (P4). This underscores the nuanced nature of the product coolness construct, but also its cultural robustness.
We also observe several cross-cultural differences (subsequently replicated in Study 3) that notably set China apart from the other two cultures. Specifically, Chinese consumers show greater endorsement of SIC, place greater emphasis on exclusivity as a coolness driver, and rate cool products as more desirable than U.S. and German consumers. They also exhibit the largest gap between perceived desirability and negative stereotypes, suggesting that they may be more insulated from the potentially detrimental outcomes of product coolness.
Together, these results suggest that, while the structural relationships in the integrative framework are largely stable across cultures (i.e., consumers across cultures apply similar conceptual processes to assess coolness), the relative importance of specific elements within the framework is shaped by culture. Study 3 explores several cultural values that may help explain the cross-cultural differences found in this study.
Study 3: Cultural Factors as Explanation for the Cross-Cultural Patterns
In Study 3, we aim to (1) replicate the main patterns of results from Study 2, (2) test P1–P4, and (3) uncover which cultural values can account for the cross-cultural differences observed in Study 2 (specifically, the finding that Chinese consumers show a stronger endorsement of SIC and associate coolness more strongly with exclusivity than do U.S. and German consumers).
Method
Using an online panel administered and quality-controlled by Qualtrics, we collected data from 100 respondents (from the United States, Germany, and China), who participated in the study in exchange for compensation. For each culture, the sample was selected to be largely representative of the respective country in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity (see Web Appendix D for the full demographic data). Web Appendix E details all the scale items used for measuring the cultural values/dimensions. Additionally, although the construct of coolness originated in the United States, different cultures may have different mental associations between the United States and coolness, potentially influencing their interpretation of coolness. We therefore included a three-point scale measuring the degree of perceived association between coolness and the United States (α = .93), meant as a control variable. Translation and back-translation procedures were identical to those used in the previous study.
Results: PIC versus SIC
The results largely replicate the pattern from Study 2 (see Table 3). First, we examine which coolness interpretation is more prominent and whether consumers’ tendency toward PIC versus SIC varies by culture. A mixed ANOVA with tendency toward PIC versus SIC as a within-subjects factor and culture (United States vs. Germany vs. China) as a between-subjects factor reveals a significant main effect of tendency (F(1, 97) = 20.92, p < .001, partial η2 = .177). Specifically, PIC is rated significantly higher than SIC across all cultures combined (MPIC = 5.44, MSIC = 4.77) and within each culture (United States: p = .013, partial η2 = .182, Germany: p = .005, partial η2 = .221; China: p = .035, partial η2 = .124), although no interaction with culture emerges in this study (F(2, 97) = .73, p = .483, partial η2 = .015). Next, we investigate how each interpretation varies by culture. Consistent with Study 2, culture has a marginally significant impact on PIC (F(2, 97) = 2.76, p = .068, partial η2 = .054) and a significant effect on SIC (F(2, 97) = 4.66, p = .012, partial η2 = .088). SIC scores are higher in China (M = 5.43) than in the United States (M = 4.50, p = .019) or Germany (M = 4.32, p = .004).
Results: Coolness-related product attributes
In a series of ANOVAs, we find no effect of culture on usefulness/usability perceptions (F(2, 97) = .20, p = .814, partial η2 = .004) or aesthetics perceptions (F(2, 97) = 3.86, p = .140, partial η2 = .040). We find a significant effect on exclusivity perceptions (F(2, 97) = 3.66, p = .029, partial η2 = .070), which are higher in China (M = 5.36) than in Germany (M = 4.32, p = .008). Except for the findings related to aesthetics, these results replicate those obtained in Study 2.
Results: Coolness-related outcomes
Consistent with Study 2, the perceived desirability of cool products varies by culture (F(2, 97) = 6.95, p = .002; partial η2 = .125). Chinese consumers rate cool products as significantly more desirable (M = 5.30) than U.S. consumers (M = 4.28, p = .006) or German consumers (M = 4.03, p < .05). Negative stereotypes also vary by culture, though only marginally (F(2, 97) = 2.96, p = .056, partial η2 = .058). This time, U.S. consumers report more negative stereotypes (M = 3.89) compared with German consumers (M = 3.09, p = .046) or Chinese consumers (M = 3.03, p = .030; see Table 3).
Results: Differences in cultural values
A MANOVA reveals a significant effect of culture on multiple cultural values: individualism/collectivism (F(2, 97) = 4.94, p = .009, partial η2 = .093), indulgence/restraint (F(2, 97) = 5.63, p = .005, partial η2 = .104), and short-term/long-term orientation (F(2, 97) = 5.83, p < .004, partial η2 = .107). There is also a marginally significant effect on achievement/ascription (F(2, 97) = 2.66, p = .075, partial η2 = .052). The pattern of cross-cultural differences is relatively consistent, with Chinese consumers generally scoring higher than U.S. and German consumers on the first three cultural values. This is in line with previous cross-cultural research findings (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars 1996), which provides convergent validity for our results.
We find no effect of culture on intellectual autonomy/embeddedness (F(2, 97) = 1.85, p = .163, partial η2 = .037), which is consistent with Schwartz (2013). Finally, we observe a marginally significant effect of culture on association of coolness with the United States (F(2, 97) = 3.03, p = .053, partial η2 = .059; see Table 3), so we retain it in the remaining analyses. Based on these results, we identify individualism/collectivism, indulgence/restraint, short-term/long-term orientation, and achievement/ascription as likely candidates to explain why Chinese consumers score higher on SIC and associate coolness more strongly with exclusivity.
Results: Cultural values as predictors for the interpretations of coolness
We next examine which cultural value(s) best predict PIC versus SIC. A series of stepwise regression analyses shows that PIC and SIC are influenced by distinct but overlapping sets of cultural predictors. 4 PIC is significantly predicted by intellectual autonomy/embeddedness (β = .39, t = 4.33, p < .001) and short-term/long-term orientation (β = .37, t = 4.12, p < .001; R2 = .48). SIC is significantly predicted by achievement/ascription (β = .35, t = 4.29, p < .001) and short-term/long-term orientation (β = .45, t = 5.50, p < .001; R2 = .48). These findings are consistent with Studies 1 and 2 in supporting the view that PIC and SIC represent correlated but distinct factors (P1). Additionally, the positive relationship between PIC and intellectual autonomy supports H2, while the positive relationship between SIC and ascription supports H5a. However, we find no significant link between individualism/collectivism and SIC (H1a) or between indulgence/restraint and PIC (H4a). Thus, H1a and H4a are not supported.
Results: Cultural values as predictors for coolness-related product attributes
To examine which cultural value(s) best explain the observed cross-cultural patterns in coolness-related product attributes, particularly exclusivity, we conduct another stepwise regression. All cultural values serve as predictors, and exclusivity serves as the dependent variable. Achievement/ascription (β = .38, t = 4.29, p < .001) and intellectual autonomy/embeddedness (β = .30, t = 3.43, p < .05; R2 = .32) emerge as significant predictors. Among these, intellectual autonomy/embeddedness positively predicts all other product attributes (aesthetics: β = .13, t = 2.93, p = .004; usefulness/usability: β = .30, t = 3.06, p = .003), while achievement/ascription predicts only exclusivity (p = .262 and p = .616 for the remaining attributes). This distinction suggests that achievement/ascription plays a unique role in differentiating exclusivity from other product attributes, providing support for H5b. Conversely, we find no support for H1b, H3, and H4b, which posit links between exclusivity and individualism/collectivism, short-term/long-term orientation, and indulgence/restraint, respectively.
Results: Cultural values as predictors for coolness-related outcomes
Lastly, we examine which cultural value(s) best explain the result pattern observed for desirability and negative stereotypes. A stepwise regression reveals intellectual autonomy/embeddedness (β = .46, t = 5.16, p < .001) and achievement/ascription (β = .18, t = 2.05, p = .042; R2 = .31) to be significant predictors for perceived desirability. Significant predictors for negative stereotypes are association with the United States (β = .21, t = 2.11, p = .037) and indulgence/restraint (β = .20, t = 2.03, p = .045; R2 = .11).
Conclusions of Study 3
Study 3 successfully replicates the pattern of cultural differences observed in Study 2 and further identifies several underlying cultural mechanisms that account for the observed differences. While the sample size is modest, the results demonstrate a high degree of consistency across studies and cultures, providing support for the majority of our propositions and hypotheses. The focus on effects that exhibit strong replication patterns across studies further enhances confidence in the validity of our findings.
We test a range of hypotheses regarding the influence of cultural values on product coolness interpretations and find support for the majority. Specifically, intellectual autonomy is positively associated with PIC, and ascription is positively associated with SIC, which sheds lights on the distinct cultural underpinnings of the two coolness interpretations. Additionally, although not originally hypothesized, we find long-term orientation to be positively related to both PIC and SIC, which suggests that it can explain some of the shared features between the two interpretations.
One notable finding is that individualism/collectivism did not emerge as a significant cultural predictor, despite prior research hypothesizing that it may do so (Warren et al. 2019). To further probe the impact of this cultural value, we conduct an alternative stepwise regression, with consumers’ tendency toward PIC versus SIC as the dependent variable. Intellectual autonomy/embeddedness (β = .38, t = 3.96, p < .001) and achievement/ascription (β = −.27, t = −2.36, p = .020) again emerge as significant predictors, alongside individualism/collectivism (β = −.30, t = −2.50, p = .014; R2 = .25). This suggests that individualism/collectivism does play a role, though more as a factor that distinguishes PIC from SIC rather than a driver of SIC alone.
When it comes to the impact of cultural values on coolness-related product attributes, we find support for one of three hypotheses: the relationship between exclusivity and achievement/ascription. Though not hypothesized, we also find intellectual autonomy/embeddedness to be positively linked to all three types of product attributes. Moreover, both achievement/ascription and intellectual autonomy/embeddedness are positively related to desirability, while indulgence/restraint is positively related to negative stereotypes.
Regarding the impact of cultural values on coolness-related outcomes, the results suggest that desirability judgments may primarily be linked to personal value orientations (i.e., intellectual autonomy/embeddedness and achievement/ascription), while negative stereotypes may be shaped more by broader cultural associations (i.e., association of coolness with the United States) and self-regulatory values (i.e., indulgence/restraint).
Overall, the results point toward achievement/ascription as the most effective explanatory factor for why Chinese consumers provide higher ratings for SIC, exclusivity, and desirability relative to their German and U.S. counterparts. Specifically, ascription scores are higher among Chinese consumers in our sample, and ascription also emerges a significant positive predictor for SIC, exclusivity, and desirability (see Figure 2). While intellectual autonomy/embeddedness exhibits the same prediction pattern, it does not show elevated levels among Chinese consumers, which limits its explanatory power in a cross-cultural context. Individualism/collectivism may also play a role particularly in distinguishing PIC from SIC, but its explanatory contribution appears more nuanced and secondary.
We propose the following mechanism to account for the observed cultural effects. In a culture high on ascription, status is conferred based on visible, socially sanctioned markers (Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars 1996). The acquisition of conspicuous products, which signal membership in a wealthy social class, can serve as an effective means for instantaneously attaining social status and validation. Given the importance of “prestige face” (social status) in Chinese culture, Chinese consumers have a heightened aspiration toward luxury and status-enhancing goods (e.g., Atsmon, Dixit, and Wu 2011; Jung and Shen 2011), particularly for signifying cosmopolitan identity (Rambourg 2020; Zhou and Belk 2004). Consequently, China's orientation toward ascription can explain why exclusivity functions as a key driver of product coolness, particularly via the SIC route, and why Chinese consumers view cool products as particularly desirable.
Discussion
Making a product stand out from its competitors by appearing cool to a broad and diverse consumer base is a reliable pathway to global product success. To effectively achieve such success, managers need to first understand what consumers mean when they label a product “cool,” and how such perceptions vary cross-culturally. This represents the focus of the present research.
Summary of Findings
Across three major cultures that use the English term “cool” in everyday language, we uncover a highly robust pattern: Product coolness is not a unitary construct. Rather, it can be interpreted in two distinct, though overlapping, ways. First, a product is cool if it generates excitement and admiration in consumers; we call this the personal interpretation of coolness (PIC). Second, a product is cool if it benefits from or provides social validation; we call this the social interpretation of coolness (SIC). We propose an integrative framework that differentially links the two interpretations to various coolness-related product attributes and outcomes, and illuminates some fundamental differences between PIC and SIC. The framework is highly stable across cultures in terms of the PIC versus SIC distinction, the dominance of PIC over SIC, and the sign of the relationships between the various elements of the framework. However, the strength (or weights) of the relationships varies cross-culturally, which can be partially explained based on differences in specific cultural values.
Theoretical Contributions
This multicultural research makes three theoretical contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to the theoretical development of the product coolness concept, by hypothesizing and measuring two clearly distinct, but related consumer interpretations of product coolness. Across multiple studies we demonstrate that the associations between the two interpretations and other constructs related to coolness are cross-culturally robust. This suggests that the observed dual-factor structure of product coolness reflects genuine and stable facets of coolness as opposed to mere constructs that consumers happen to linguistically group together under the label of “coolness.”
This dual conceptualization formalizes the previous finding that consumers may perceive something as cool due to entirely different—and occasionally even incompatible—motivations (Ferguson 2011). It also extends the previously researched distinction between “mass cool” and “niche cool,” which uses the breadth of a brand's social appeal as the main criterion for classifying types of coolness (Warren et al. 2019). We additionally develop and validate an integrative framework that distinguishes between PIC and SIC and differentially associates each with a set of coolness-related product attributes and outcomes. The framework extends research by Warren and Campbell (2014), Warren et al. (2019), and Bagozzi and Batra (2025), who conceptualize coolness (in the context of brands) as a form of bounded autonomy. We show that cultural objects, such as products, can achieve such autonomy in two largely distinct ways.
The identification of these two distinct routes to coolness provides a compelling explanation for why cool products may simultaneously evoke positive and negative consumer responses (Ferguson 2011). Specifically, such contradictions depend on which interpretation of coolness is activated. Furthermore, by embedding coolness within this integrative framework, we contribute to the broader consumer research literature on functional and symbolic product attributes (e.g., Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015). Notably, we highlight that some attributes traditionally seen as desirable, such as usefulness or usability, may actually inhibit perceptions of coolness when coolness is interpreted primarily through a social lens, revealing potential downsides of otherwise positive product features.
Second, we contribute to the integration of two previously disconnected research streams that address coolness in a multicultural context. One stream examines the cultural invariance of the coolness construct, focusing on the shared characteristics of coolness (Sundar, Tamul, and Wu 2014; Warren et al. 2019) or the universal elements of cool consumption experiences (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010; Ferguson 2011). The other stream explores cross-cultural variations in the content of coolness (Belk, Tian, and Paavola 2010). While these bodies of work offer valuable insights, they have not articulated or empirically tested a theory that clarifies which aspects of coolness are universal versus culturally dependent. Our research proposes and tests such a theory.
With regard to the universality aspect, we find that the structure of the coolness framework remains largely stable across the three examined cultures. This consistency suggests a cross-culturally shared cognitive representation of coolness and its associated product attributes and outcomes. It also helps place earlier findings around coolness in context. Across cultures, product aesthetics emerges as the universally stronger route for achieving coolness, as it positively correlates with both coolness interpretations. This finding can explain why multiple studies have identified aesthetics as one of the strongest predictors of brand or product coolness (see Web Appendix A for a full list). In contrast, product usability/usefulness—another attribute with high coolness ratings in our studies—consistently activates a narrower interpretation of coolness. This helps explain why, even though both aesthetics and usefulness are top-of-mind drivers of coolness perceptions, only aesthetics is able to distinguish cool from uncool brands (Warren et al. 2019).
With regard to the cultural dependence aspect, our findings suggest that some of the weights of the integrative framework elements vary cross-culturally, particularly between China and the two Western cultures. Chinese consumers subscribe more to SIC and rely more on exclusivity as a driver of coolness. They also have an objectively large gap between coolness-related desire and negative stereotypes, meaning that they see cool products in a predominantly favorable light. These findings suggest that coolness—especially when derived from perceptions of product luxury—can function as a powerful form of social and cultural capital among Chinese consumers. This may in turn translate into Chinese consumers assigning relatively higher economic value to cool (vs. uncool) products compared with U.S. or German consumers, which has important implications for global product managers.
Third, extending Belk, Tian, and Paavola’s (2010) approach to a quantitative inquiry, we connect elements of our proposed integrative framework to several well-established cultural dimensions/values (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Schwartz 2013; Trompenaars and Woolliams 2002). By validating those connections, we demonstrate how specific cultural values can account for the cross-cultural variations observed in our previous coolness-related studies. In line with our conceptualization of PIC and SIC as distinct yet related constructs, we find that they are both positively predicted by short-term/long-term orientation but differentially predicted by intellectual autonomy/embeddedness (which favors PIC) and achievement/ascription (which favors SIC). We empirically demonstrate how ascription and, to a lesser extent, individualism can help predict multiple elements in our framework that together differentiate Chinese from Western consumers. To our knowledge, this is the first research to systematically investigate cultural differences in coolness perceptions, using cultural theory to provide insights into the observed cross-cultural patterns. The obtained findings contribute to the global marketing literature by demonstrating the wide-ranging impact of key cultural values on consumers’ understanding of and responses to product coolness.
Managerial Implications
This research provides multiple managerial contributions. First, our integrative framework for product coolness offers a roadmap for what cultural aspects managers should consider when aiming to create cool products globally, and how to address those via culturally targeted product and marketing strategies. It provides managers with two approaches for creating “cool” products. The first builds on PIC and involves triggering excitement and/or admiration, via either symbolic or functional product attributes or, ideally, a combination of both (such as in the case of smartphones or fully electric vehicles). By focusing on a product's intrinsic qualities, this approach reduces vulnerability to negative stereotypes that may arise when coolness is socially derived. The second approach, grounded in SIC, involves socially validating a product's appeal via associations with desirable entities such as trendsetters, celebrities, or cool brands. While the PIC-based approach has broad, cross-cultural appeal, the SIC-based approach is particularly effective in ascription-oriented and collectivistic cultures, such as China. There, consumers are often more skeptical of new products and rely heavily on social endorsements to gain insights into which products to buy. This behavior makes influencer marketing potent, especially for categories such as beauty products or smartwatches, where influencers heavily shape products’ coolness perceptions (Shin and Biocca 2018). Managers should therefore consider using the PIC-based approach as the baseline for creating universally appealing cool products and then layer on SIC-based tactics, such as influencer collaborations, in markets where social validation plays a larger role.
Second, our findings offer robust insights into which product attributes global managers and designers should focus on in order to effectively elicit coolness perceptions. Overall, the different attributes appear equally effective top-of-mind drivers of coolness perceptions (with mean values around or above five on a seven-point scale, across all samples in our studies). Yet a deeper examination reveals distinct underlying patterns. Aesthetic product designs enhance coolness both by generating pleasure or excitement and by signaling social appeal. Functionality-focused attributes (i.e., usefulness/usability) primarily foster appreciation or admiration, but may actually undermine a product's social cachet. Therefore, managers should leverage functionality-focused attributes with caution, as an overemphasis on them may diminish expectations of social value, especially when SIC is highly relevant for coolness perceptions.
Exclusivity, another key coolness driver, also warrants caution, as its effectiveness is culture-bound. It performs well among Chinese consumers, who rank it high alongside aesthetics and usability. However, it is less appreciated among German consumers, who prefer usefulness/usability as a coolness driver. We therefore recommend that managers rely on exclusivity as a basis for coolness primarily in cultures that value ascription (or collectivism), such as China. This insight is further bolstered by our finding that Chinese consumers exhibit a greater tolerance for potential negative stereotypes directed at cool or exclusive products and their owners, showing a generally favorable predisposition toward the concept of “cool.”
Third, our findings highlight how product design strategies can remain globally consistent, while marketing communications should be culturally adapted to optimize coolness perceptions. In China, messaging should focus on evoking a sense of exclusivity, social appeal, or social connection. In Germany, the focus should be on the performance, usability, or efficiency aspects of a product, possibly supplemented with subtle social appeal cues.
Limitations and Directions for Further Research
The current investigation opens several promising avenues for advancing the marketing field's understanding of product coolness in a global context. First, our work focuses on two core interpretations of product coolness, personal versus social, and their links to other elements in the proposed integrative framework for coolness. However, our preliminary findings from Study 1a suggest that those constructs and their relationships can be further unpacked. Once we understand coolness at those foundational levels, future research can explore its expression across different social levels, such as personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup contexts.
Second, researchers may investigate whether specific product attribute combinations are more powerful coolness drivers than individual attributes alone, and how such combinations may activate different coolness pathways or may interact with cultural norms. While activating more than one interpretation of coolness may be mutually reinforcing, there may be limits to this strategy. For example, overloading a product with too many coolness-driving attributes may undermine its authenticity and paradoxically reduce its perceived coolness. Moreover, as coolness is a dynamic and evolving construct (Heath and Potter 2004; Warren et al. 2019), future research may also explore the role of time in shaping the proposed integrative framework.
Third, it is worth exploring what other factors or mechanisms can explain the influence of culture on consumers’ coolness interpretations. Our research focuses on a set of cultural values that are most likely to shape the PIC versus SIC distinction and/or the coolness-related product attributes and outcomes. However, other cultural dimensions may also play a role. Future research may investigate the role of masculinity/femininity (Hofstede 1980) or consumer innovativeness (Tellis, Yin, and Bell 2009), to better understand the cultural roots of coolness. It may also examine what role culture plays in the formation of coolness through specific cultural processes such as rituals, mimicry, identification, or valorization.
Finally, while our research tests the predictive role of cultural values relative to different elements of the proposed framework, future work could aim for larger sample sizes, to also explore mediation effects. By investigating how different cultural values mediate the relationships between product attributes, interpretations of coolness, and consumer responses, such research could enrich our understanding of the mechanisms underlying cultural influences on coolness and offer more granular insights into global product positioning strategies.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X261440313 - Supplemental material for What Makes a Product Cool? Consumer Perceptions of Product Coolness Across Three Cultures
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X261440313 for What Makes a Product Cool? Consumer Perceptions of Product Coolness Across Three Cultures by Gratiana Pol, Eden Yin and Gerard J. Tellis in Journal of International Marketing
Footnotes
Editor
Ayşegül Özsomer
Associate Editor
Matthew Robson
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to funding restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
