1 What Makes a Product Cool? Consumers’ Perceptions of Product Coolness Across Three Cultures Gratiana Pol CEO and Co-Founder Hyperthesis, LLC 15233 Ventura Blvd, Suite 500, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403, United States Email: gp@hyperthesis.ai Eden Yin Associate Professor Judge Business School University of Cambridge Trumpington St Cambridge, UK CB2 1AG Tel: +44 (1223) 339617 Email: e.yin@jbs.cam.ac.uk Gerard Tellis Jerry and Nancy Neely Chair in American Enterprise Professor in Marketing Marshall School of Business University of Southern California 3670 Trousdale Pkwy Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States Tel: +1 (213) 740 5031 Email: tellis@marshall.usc.edu Table of Contents 1. Web Appendix A: Summary of previous research on coolness; 2. Web Appendix B: Pilot study 1A – Full methodology and results; 3. Web Appendix C: Study 1B – Full methodology and results; 4. Web Appendix D: Study 3 – Demographic distribution of the sample; 5. Web Appendix E: Study 3 – Scale items used for measuring cultural values/dimensions These materials have been supplied by the authors to aid in the understanding of their paper. The AMA is sharing these materials at the request of the authors. 2 Web Appendix A Summary of Previous Research on Coolness Authors Type of Coolness Type of Research Research Focus Key Findings Dimensions of / Attributes Linked to Coolness No. of Countries Cultural Values Current article Product coolness Empirical -Structure of coolness - Product attributes and outcomes linked to coolness -Cultural variations in perceived coolness -Coolness has a two-factor structure, i.e., PIC and SIC -This structure remains stable across cultures, but the weights vary across cultures Aesthetics, usability, exclusivity 3 (US, Germany, China) Achievement vs. Aspiration, Individualism vs. Collectivism Southgate (2003) Brand coolness/ people coolness Conceptual Practice of coolhunting Coolness stems from a brand’s ability to express target customers’ virtues Authentic, autonomous, aesthetics NA NA Nancarrow et al. (2001) Brand coolness Conceptual Concept of cool Cultural intermediates such as style leaders define coolness Authentic, ritual, exclusivity, understated marketing NA NA Bird and Tapp (2008) Coolness Conceptual The use of coolness in social marketing Use coolness in moderation in social marketing Rebellious, illicit NA NA Belk et al. (2010) Coolness Conceptual Meaning of cool in different cultures Coolness has multi-elements and its appeal varies by cultures Attitude, performance, uniqueness, style, being streetwise 2 (US and Finland) NA Ferguson (2011) Product coolness Conceptual Perception of cool in different cultures Consumption of bungy jumping is considered cool but a global consensus on coolness is lacking NA 3 (US, Ireland, UK) NA Holtzblatt (2011) Product coolness Conceptual Factors driving cool experience Accomplishment and connection are the most important factors NA NA NA Dar-Nimrod et al. (2012) Brand coolness Empirical Dimensions of coolness Coolness has a two-factor structure: cachet cool and contrarian cool Active, status-promoting, rebellious, rough, emotionally controlled 1 NA Runyan et al. (2012) Brand coolness Empirical Dimensions of coolness Coolness has two-factor structure: hedonic and utilitarian cool Singular, personal, aesthetic, quality and functional cool 1 NA Gerber and Geiman (2012) People cool Empirical Measuring the existence of coolness perception of other people in social networks Cool is a distributed property of a network NA 1 NA Rahman (2013) Brand coolness Empirical Dimensions of coolness Coolness has multi-elements Fashionable, amazing, sophisticated, unique, entertaining, eye-catching 1 NA 3 Sundar et al. (2014) Product coolness Empirical Dimensions of coolness Coolness has a three-factor structure Originality, attractiveness, subcultural appeal 3 (US, South Korea, China) NA Warren and Campbell (2014) Brand coolness Empirical /Experiment Factors driving coolness perception Bounded autonomy increases coolness perception Bounded autonomy 1 NA Kim, Shin and Park (2015) Brand coolness Empirical Impact of coolness on adoption Coolness increases the acceptance of technology Attractiveness, originality, subcultural appeal 1 NA Im et al. (2015) Product coolness Empirical Mediating effect of coolness Novelty affects consumers’ attitude towards product via coolness Trendy, hip, appealing, fascinating, attractive 1 NA Bruun et al. (2016) Product coolness Empirical Dimensions of inner coolness Inner coolness has three component characteristics Desirability, rebelliousness, usability 1 NA Mohiuddin et al. (2016) Coolness Conceptual Dimensions of coolness Coolness has seven dimensions Deviating from norm, self- expression, indicative of maturity, subversion, pro-social, evasive, attractive 1 NA Raptis et al. (2017) Product coolness Empirical Relationship between coolness and user experience A large group of cool and user experience factors converges into five Rebellious, usability, desirability, hedonic quality, aesthetics 1 NA Warren et al. (2019) Brand coolness Empirical Dimensions of coolness Coolness contains nine themes/components Extraordinary/useful, aesthetic, energetic, high status, rebellious, original, authentic, subcultural, iconic, popular 4 (US, UK, Slovakia, Portugal) NA Kim and Park (2019) Product coolness Empirical Effect of coolness on technology adoption Coolness leads to positive consumer assessment Utility, attractiveness, originality, subcultural appeal 1 NA Loureiro et al. (2020) Brand coolness Empirical Antecedents and consequences of brand coolness Luxury values positively influence brand coolness, which in terns increases passionate desire Useful, high status, popular, subcultural 1 NA Lu et al. (2021) Brand coolness Empirical /Experiment Impact of coolness on willingness to buy Coolness increases customers’ wiliness to buy green products Autonomous, rebellious 1 NA Tiwari et al. (2021) Product coolness Empirical Relationship between coolness and brand love Coolness increases brand love Rebelliousness, desirability, innovativeness, reliability, attractiveness, usability 1 NA Li et al. (2021) Product coolness Empirical Relationship between coolness and intention to buy Impact of coolness on tension to buy varies across different segments Subcultural appeal, attractiveness, originality, utility 1 NA Jimenez-Barreto et al. (2022) Brand coolness Empirical Impact of coolness on communal brand connection and loyalty Coolness increases brand connection and loyalty Aesthetic, authentic, exciting, extraordinary, high status, iconic, original, popular, rebellious, subcultural 1 NA Aleem et al. (2022) Brand coolness Empirical Moderating role of coolness for product type and high-status perceptions Brand coolness positively moderates the type of product and high-status perception Iconic, popular, high status 1 NA 4 Suzuki and Kanno (2022) Brand coolness Empirical Effect of brand coolness on the purchase intention Brand coolness of mass brand increase attitude towards the co- branded products and its purchase intention Trendy, hip, appealing, fascinating, attractive 1 NA Bagozzi and Khoshnevis (2022) Brand coolness Empirical Mediating effect of brand coolness Brand coolness positively mediates the effects of product quality on WOM Subcultural, iconic, popular, high status, rebellious, positive autonomy, desirability 1 NA Attiq et al. (2022) Brand coolness Empirical Impact of brand coolness on brand love and brand engagement Brand coolness increases brand love and brand engagement Usability, reliability, originality, high status, personal cool 1 NA Nan et al. (2022) Brand coolness Empirical Impact of coolness on satisfaction Brand coolness’s attractiveness and uniqueness increase satisfaction but not subculture Attractiveness, subculture, uniqueness 1 NA Amenuvor et al. (2023) Brand coolness Empirical Effect of coolness on brand connection and commitment Brand coolness increases brand connection and commitment Rebellious, usability, desirability, hedonic quality, aesthetics 1 NA Koskie and Locander (2023) Brand coolness Empirical Effect of brand coolness on willingness to pay Brand coolness increases customers’ willingness to pay Subcultural, popular 1 NA Lv et al. (2024) Product coolness Empirical Effect of coolness on purchase intention Product coolness increases purchase intention Utility, attractiveness, originality, subcultural appeal 1 NA Feng et al. (2024) Brand coolness Empirical /Experiment Effect of brand coolness on consumers’ preferences Brand coolness increases consumers’ preferences Authenticity, rebelliousness, autonomy 1 NA Bagozzi and Batra (2025) Brand coolness Empirical Shorter but psychometrically sound scale for brand coolness 20-item scale fits well with 10- factor confirmatory factor analysis model by Warren et al. (2019) Positive autonomy, rebellious, desirability, iconic, subcultural, popular, high status 1 NA 5 Web Appendix B Pilot Study 1A– Full Methodology and Results Method Participants. The study uses two online panels: a panel of 207 respondents from the U.S. and a panel of 177 respondents from the U.K. The U.S. panel consists of undergraduate students from a large university, who participate in the survey in exchange for course credit. The U.K. panel consists of graduate students (68% females, median age group 31-35), who participate in the survey in exchange for being entered into a sweepstakes. The use of respondent samples from two different English-speaking countries and different demographics ensures some robustness of the preliminary findings about product coolness. Instrument. All the questions in the survey have an open-ended format. The survey first asks participants to indicate the top three products they consider to be cool (i.e., “What do you see as the top 3 coolest products? Why?”). Consistent with prior literature, this question is meant to help respondents recall concrete instances of cool products, to activate their perceptions of coolness (e.g., Warren and Campbell 2014). We subsequently ask them to report how they interpret the meaning of product coolness. Since the idea of interpreting the meaning of a construct may be too abstract for respondents, we use two differently-worded questions to tap into respondents’ interpretations. Specifically, we ask them to 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?”). We purposefully worded these questions in a way that allowed respondents to think about coolness both in terms of its personal meaning to them, and in terms of the more generally defining characteristics that separate coolness from a lack of coolness. The instrument also collects some additional measures that are not reported here for brevity, and not used in further analyses. Following the data collection, two trained coders 6 manually coded the responses to these open-ended questions and assigned them to a set of categories that emerged based on the participants’ answers. Inter-coder reliability was high, indicating strong agreement (Cohen’s Kappa = .82); differences in scores were resolved by averaging coders’ responses. Results The Definition of Product Coolness. When asked to define product coolness, the vast majority of respondents in either sample do not provide an actual definition. Instead, they generally indicate one or more attributes, which, if present in a product, would make the product appear cool. Seventy percent of US and 85% of UK respondents indicated at least one product attribute when attempting to define product coolness. We coded the open ended-responses into categories of attributes, with the most frequently mentioned product attributes shown in Table 1 below. We observe a strong similarity between the distribution of responses across the U.S. and the U.K. samples, whereby the ranking of the five most frequently noted product attributes is identical across the two samples (see Table 1)1.. For theoretical grounding, we mapped the highest-ranking items against the list of product features developed by Pollay (1983) for cross-cultural research. This list has been employed in various cross-cultural studies that associate product appeals (i.e., features that make a product appear ‘good’) with specific cultural values (e.g., Belk, Bryce, and Pollay 1985; Emery and Tian 2009). With the exception of ‘high-quality,’ which can be mapped against multiple product features, all final items were successfully mapped against this list. They are also largely consistent with several product attributes used in other research on product coolness, particularly in Sundar et al. (2014) and Warren et al. (2019). 1 Several remaining attributes—such as delivering a fun experience, being affordable or accessible, or being environmentally friendly—are mentioned by less than 10% of respondents in either group, and were not included in further analyses. 7 Table 1 Pilot Study 1A - Responses to the Open-Ended Questions Coolness-Related Product Attributes (derived from question “How do you define product coolness?”) U.S. (N = 208) U.K. (N = 177) Product Attribute Corresponding Product Appeal from Pollay (1983) Design/style/visual attractiveness/sleekness Ornate (pretty) 44% 43% Uniqueness/novelty/creativity/interestingness Distinctive (rare) 33% 30% Features/usefulness/functionality/practicality Effective (practical) 30% 29% Aspirational image/exclusivity Dear (expensive) 22% 24% Ease-of-use Convenient (handy) 20% 25% Trendiness/fashionable/contemporary/popular Modern (new)/Popular 13% 7% High quality/performance [Multiple Appeals] 6% 10% Interpretations of Coolness (derived from question “When do products start to be cool?”) U.S. U.K. Coolness as determined by a product’s intrinsic value 28% 25% Coolness as determined by a product’s social value ● Popularity/trendiness/the social approval of others ● Association with an influential reference group ● Ownership enhances one’s social image 41% 11% 5% 21% 17% 8% Coolness as determined by a product’s subjective value ● Likeability/satisfies needs or dreams/pleasant to use 22% 29% Coolness as determined by a product’s marketing/branding-induced value 6% 7% The Interpretation of Product Coolness. While the question related to the definition of coolness produced responses that were heavily focused on the product attributes that drive coolness, the second open-ended question (“When do products start being cool?”) produced a wider range of responses. Respondents listed several determinants (both product- and non-product related) that were seen as triggering the emergence of coolness in a product2. 2 Eighteen respondents in the U.S. sample and 15 respondents in the U.K. sample interpreted the question used here (“When do products start being cool?”) to refer to the temporal point at which coolness emerges (e.g., upon product launch), rather than what it is that determines coolness. As a result, those responses were eliminated from that analysis, bringing the total of usable responses down to 192 for the U.S. sample and 165 for the U.K. sample. 8 The coding of the open-ended responses revealed four sets of such determinants, which are fairly consistent across the two samples. The determinants are discussed based on the frequency of mentions. The first determinant pertains to coolness stemming from the presence of desirable product merits that add an intrinsic, universally-recognized value to the product. It includes statements such as “when they revolutionize the way the world works” or “when they go beyond fulfilling a need and they add extra benefits or features […].” The second pertains to coolness stemming from the social validation associated with the product. Specifically, participants mention that a product is cool when it is embraced by other consumers and becomes popular (e.g., “when the majority thinks it is cool,” “when they become part of a trend”), bestows a social benefit on the user (e.g., “owning a cool product makes a person think that he or she is special,“ “having it makes a positive statement about the consumer”), or is associated with an influential social group (e.g., “the "cool" kids in school have them,” “when all the teenagers want them”). The third pertains to coolness stemming from the subjectively perceived value offered by a product. It suggests that the extent to which a product can fulfill or satisfy a consumer need or want determines its coolness. It indicates that a product is cool “when I want one,” “(when) you can identify your taste, interest, etc. with it,” “when I find it hard to live without them.” The fourth pertains to coolness stemming from the value of a product as bestowed through marketing or branding activities (e.g., “after a good advertisement which presents the product in a cool way,” “cars can be cool well before they are available because there are pictures of them in magazines and on the internet,” “when the brand is perceived as cool,”). Cross-Sample Comparison. A series of ANOVAs indicates that mentions of the coolness- related product attributes shown in Table 1 do not differ between the two samples, with the exception of trendiness/fashionable/contemporary/popular, which scored marginally higher in the 9 US compared to the UK sample (F(1, 383) = 3.27, p = .071, partial eta-squared = .008). Similarly, mentions of the interpretations of coolness do not differ, with the exception of popularity, which scored significantly higher in the US compared to the UK sample (F(1, 344) = 6.51, p = .011, partial eta-squared = .019). Overall, in both the US and the UK, consumers interpret a product’s coolness as emerging when the product provides some form of intrinsic, social, subjective, and/or marketing-driven value. In general, the four categories appear to map onto the two interpretations of coolness discussed in the paper’s theory section: a social, identity-signaling based interpretation (comprised of the social and the marketing-related value), and the more personally constructed interpretation that occurs independently of the social context (comprised of the intrinsic and the subjectively perceived value). The different coolness-related attributes and coolness interpretations show substantial consistency across the samples from the two cultures. 10 Web Appendix C Study 1B– Full Results Interpretations of Product Coolness. An EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation on the pool of items reflecting the potential interpretations of coolness reveals a two-factor solution that is robust across the two samples. The solution contains 10 items (out of the original set of 23 items), each with a factor loading of at least .7 and a cross-factor loading below .3, see Table 2 below. Table 2 Study 1B: Loadings of the Final Set of Items for Measuring Product Coolness Interpretations Items General Population Sample (Mturk) (N = 248) Student Sample (N = 136) Social Interpretation (SIC) Personal Interpretation (PIC) Social Interpretation (PIC) Personal Interpretation (SIC) A product is cool when … cool people buy it. .89 -.00 .85 -.05 it is perceived as cool by most people. .89 .04 .85 .00 it is endorsed by people who are trendsetters. .88 -.08 .85 -.08 it starts a popular trend. .86 .03 .79 .15 it is associated with a cool brand. .85 .11 .78 .18 it is used or endorsed by celebrities. .82 -.10 .83 -.14 it makes me happy when I use it. -.10 .76 -.09 .81 I find it exciting or fun to use. .04 .83 -.06 .80 it possesses outstanding attributes. .04 .80 .14 .77 it has one or more admirable qualities. .01 .78 .04 .77 The solution explains 69% of the total variance in the student population sample and 71% of the total variance in the general population sample, indicating that the proposed two factors cover a substantial amount of variability in the original set of items. The two factors map very clearly onto the Personal versus the Social Interpretation of product coolness. The Personal Interpretation of Coolness (PIC) represents a combination of the subjective and intrinsic value identified in the Pilot Study 1A. It includes two items that refer to the product being endowed with 11 superior characteristics that elicit admiration (i.e., “it possesses outstanding attributes” and “it has one or more admirable qualities”), and two that refer to the emotional rewards one experiences through product usage, with an emphasis on excitement (i.e., “it makes me happy when I use it” and “I find it exciting or fun to use”); α’s = .80. The Social Interpretation of Coolness (SIC) represents a broad combination of the social and the marketing-driven value identified in Study 1A. It contains items referring to the product being popularly accepted as cool (i.e., “it starts a popular trend,” “it is perceived as cool by most people”) or being associated with a cool/aspirational reference group (“cool people buy it,” “it is endorsed by people who are trendsetters,” “it is used or endorsed by celebrities”) or brand (“it is associated with a cool brand”); α’s =.91 and .93. Across both interpretations, the items are phrased in such a way that each item by itself can theoretically function as a sufficient condition for a product to be considered cool. There is no correlation between PIC and SIC in the general population sample (r = -.05, p = .248), though there is a weak one in the student sample (r = .26, p = .002). Overall, these results suggest that the two interpretations represent statistically distinct factors. Next, we investigate the reliability of the developed scale. Based on the results obtained in the Pilot Study, we expect PIC to be rated higher than SIC. That is indeed what we find. In each sample, respondents agree with PIC significantly more than with SIC (general population sample: MPersonal = 5.83 (.95), MSocial = 4.35 (1.74); F(1, 247) = 131.48, p < .001, partial eta-squared = .347; student sample: MPersonal = 5.92 (.86), MSocial = 5.43 (1.30); (F(1, 135) = 17.28, p < .001, partial eta- squared = .114), demonstrating that the developed scale provides robust results across different samples. Differences between the Two Product Coolness Interpretations. We next examine whether the different interpretations of coolness have downstream implications in terms of the attributes 12 associated with product coolness and coolness-related outcomes. Intuitively, one would expect PIC to be more closely associated with functional attributes (such as usability and usefulness) and SIC to be more closely associated with symbolic ones (such as aesthetics or exclusivity) and with negative stereotypes. No particular prediction can be made regarding the desirability of cool products or the directionality of the relationship between the coolness interpretation and specific coolness-related attributes. Since PIC and SIC reflect what coolness means to consumers, a consumer’s tendency towards one versus the other could subsequently inform which product attributes are more closely linked to coolness in that consumer’s mind. This latter approach would be consistent with previous research on brand coolness, which employs a reflective model of coolness (see Warren et al., 2019). Alternatively, since respondents in the Pilot Study 1A overwhelmingly define coolness on the basis of product attributes, and since the product coolness interpretations operate at a somewhat higher level of abstraction than product attributes, it is conceivable that the product attribute(s) that a consumers most closely associates with coolness could determine which product coolness interpretation is favored (though other, non-product- related bases for those interpretations likely exist, too). Since it is difficult to assert whether the coolness interpretations causally precede the coolness-related attributes or vice versa, we elect to represent the relationship between these two types of elements as a pattern of correlations rather than causation. To test our predictions regarding the various associations, for each respondent we compute their tendency towards PIC versus SIC (i.e., the difference score between their PIC and SIC ratings, whereby a positive score indicates a tendency towards PIC a negative score indicates a tendency towards SIC, and a score of 0 indicates that PIC and SIC are equally preferred). A series of correlation analyses between tendency towards PIC versus SIC, the product attributes associated 13 with coolness, and consumers’ beliefs about cool products reveal a fairly robust pattern across the two samples. In both samples, tendency towards PIC versus SIC is negatively associated with aesthetics (student sample: r = -.19, p = .021; general population sample: r = -.12, p = .046) and exclusivity (student sample: r = -.30, p < .001; general population sample: r = -.42, p < .001), and —at least marginally significantly—positively associated with usefulness/usability (student sample: r = .15, p = .066; general population sample: r = .46, p < .001). Additionally, it is negatively associated with negative stereotypes (student sample: r = -.24, p = .005; general population sample: r = -.44, p < .001). Overall, these findings are consistent with our expectation about tendency towards PIC versus SIC being able to reliably distinguish between groups of consumers that differ in how closely they associate coolness with certain attributes (i.e., a tendency towards SIC correlates with higher ratings for exclusivity and aesthetics and lower ratings for usefulness/usability), and with negative stereotypes (i.e., a tendency towards SIC correlates with stronger negative stereotypes against cool products). 14 Web Appendix D Study 3 – Demographic Distribution of the Sample The table below shows the demographic distribution of the Study 3 sample, along with the corresponding national census data for each country (obtained from www.census.gov and www.statista.com). We aimed to have samples that are representative of each country’s population on gender and age. To ensure that the samples are adequate representations of the three cultures we are investigating, for Germany and China we included only respondents whose ethnicity matched our specified cultures (i.e., only German respondents in the Germany sample, and only Han Chinese respondents in the China sample). For the US, we focused on matching the percentage of Caucasian respondents (71.9%) against that of the general population (72%), and did not include Asian/Pacific Islanders in the sample, so as not to create an overlap with the China sample. Table 3 Demographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 US Germany China Current Sample (N = 32) 2019 Census Current Sample (N = 33) 2019 Census Current Sample (N = 35) 2019 Census Female 56.3% 51.5% 51.5% 51% 48.6% 48.91% Median age 35-44 38.1 35-44 47.8 35-44 37 Ethnicity White/Caucasian, non-Hispanic 71.9% 72% German Han Chinese Black, non- Hispanic 9.4% 13% Hispanic/Latino, 3.1% 18% American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.1% 1% Mixed 6.3% 1% 15 Web Appendix E Study 3 – Scale items Used for Measuring Cultural Values/Dimensions Measure Source Items Individualism vs. Collectivism Yoo et al. (2011) - CVSCALE • Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties. • The wellbeing of the group is more important than individual rewards. • The success of the group is more important than individuals’ successes.st • Individuals should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group. • Group loyalty should be encouraged even if individual goals suffer. Achievement vs. Ascription Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) • The most important thing in life is to think and act in the ways that best suit the way you really are, even if you don't get things done. • The respect a person gets is highly dependent on the family out of which they come. • When someone is born, the success they are going to have is already in the cards, so they might as well accept it and not fight against it. • A child should be taught from infancy to be more gentle with women than with men. • It is important for managers to be older than most of their subordinates. • Older people should be more respected than younger people. Indulgence vs. Restraint Hofstede and Minkov (2013) - Value Survey Module (first 5 items); Ein-Gar and Sajiv (2014) - Dispositional Self-Control Scale (remaining items) • In my private life, is it important for me to keep time free for fun. • In life, it is important to do things in moderation, not in excess. • In life I value having few desires, rather than many. • I often feel that other people or circumstances prevent me from doing what I really want to do. • I generally consider myself a happy person. • Even when something exciting happens to me, I do not get carried away by my feelings or act without thinking. • Even when I am stressed, most of the decisions I make are considered and calculated. • I rarely act impulsively. • Usually, when something tempts me, I manage to hold out. • I usually succeed in overcoming temptations. Short vs. Long-Term Orientation Hofstede and Minkov (2013) - Value Survey Module (first 4 items); Yoo et al. (2011) – CVSCALE (remaining items) • In life I place high value on doing acts of service for my friends. • In life I value being thrifty (i.e., not spending more than needed). • I consider myself proud to be a citizen of my country. • I believe that persistent efforts are the surest way to results. • I place high value on the careful management of money. • In life I value long-term planning. • In life I value personal steadiness and stability. • I believe it’s worth giving up today’s fun for the sake of achieving success in the future. • It’s important to work hard in order to achieve success in life. Association of Coolness with the US • When I hear the word 'cool,' it makes me think about American people, places, or things. • I strongly associate the notion of 'cool' products with things that come from the U.S. • If 'coolness' is best embodied by a particular country, that country is the United States. • For me, the concept of 'coolness' is not tied to any specific country or culture. Note: All items measure agreement on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) What Makes a Product Cool? Consumers’ Perceptions of Product Coolness Across Three Cultures Table of Contents 1. Web Appendix A: Summary of previous research on coolness; 2. Web Appendix B: Pilot study 1A – Full methodology and results; 3. Web Appendix C: Study 1B – Full methodology and results; 4. Web Appendix D: Study 3 – Demographic distribution of the sample; 5. Web Appendix E: Study 3 – Scale items used for measuring cultural values/dimensions These materials have been supplied by the authors to aid in the understanding of their paper. The AMA is sharing these materials at the request of the authors. Web Appendix A Web Appendix B Pilot Study 1A– Full Methodology and Results Method Table 1 Study 1B– Full Results Table 2 Web Appendix D Study 3 – Demographic Distribution of the Sample Web Appendix E Study 3 – Scale items Used for Measuring Cultural Values/Dimensions