Public Acceptance Mechanisms of Han Dynasty Cultural Symbols in Landscape Design: An Empirical Study Based on the Cognition–Attitude–Behavior Model

Abstract

As traditional culture finds increasingly widespread application in visual communication and public landscapes, the public’s acceptance mechanisms for cultural symbols have emerged as a critical issue affecting cultural sustainability. In the context of globalization and digitalization, balancing cultural authenticity with dissemination efficiency has become a core issue in driving cultural innovation and sustainable utilization. Grounded in the Cognition–Attitude–Behavior model, this study examines how cognition, attitude, and behavior interact in shaping public responses to Han Dynasty cultural symbols in contemporary landscape design. The research adopts a three-stage framework—comprising theoretical construction, data collection, and analytical validation—and uses the Han Yangling National Archaeological Site Park as a representative Han cultural context. A total of 172 valid questionnaires were analyzed to reveal the cognitive and emotional mechanisms through which the public engages with Han cultural symbols in modern landscapes. Results indicate that cognition not only exerts a direct positive influence on behavioral intention but also plays a significant mediating role through affective attitudes, validating the pivotal mediating function of attitudes in the cultural symbol acceptance process. These findings provide empirical evidence and practical strategies for the contemporary dissemination of traditional cultural symbols and the sustainable utilization of cultural heritage.

1. Introduction

The protection and transmission of intangible cultural heritage worldwide has become a shared commitment and key agenda item for the international community. Since the entry into force of the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, over 180 States Parties have jointly dedicated themselves to preserving cultural diversity [1]. In the Chinese context, cultural prosperity and national development are deeply intertwined. The report of the 20th CPC National Congress emphasized the need to advance cultural confidence and self-strengthening, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of China’s fine traditional culture. As a significant representative of Chinese civilization, Han Dynasty culture—with its profound cultural heritage, diverse values, and highly refined artistic symbols—not only bears witness to the developmental journey of Chinese civilization but also provides a rich source of inspiration for contemporary design, art, and cultural innovation. Researching and revitalizing Han Dynasty cultural symbols holds significant importance for promoting Chinese civilization, strengthening national identity, and driving cultural innovation in modern design. In the new era, the preservation and utilization of cultural heritage have shifted from traditional “static safeguarding” to a revitalization path of “creative regeneration [2].” The core challenge of this shift lies in how to ensure that Han Dynasty cultural symbols in landscape design maintain their historical authenticity while effectively resonating with contemporary audiences, thereby achieving both the profound transmission of cultural values and their innovative expression. Taking the Han Yangling National Archaeological Site Park in Shaanxi, China as an example, its “invisible” design maximizes the preservation of the site’s original appearance. While safeguarding the authenticity of the site itself to the greatest extent possible, advanced exhibition techniques and immersive experience design vividly present the historical scenes buried deep underground to the public. The “Yangling Model” practiced at Han Yangling successfully establishes a dynamic equilibrium among heritage conservation, academic research, and public engagement, offering a compelling empirical case for integrating historical authenticity with public emotional resonance. This exploration not only provides practical experience for the creative utilization of traditional cultural resources but also offers significant insights for achieving the living transmission and sustainable development of culture in the contemporary era.

As the concept of cultural heritage preservation continues to deepen, cultural symbols have gradually emerged as vital mediators connecting traditional culture with contemporary contexts. Within the fields of landscape design and public art, they demonstrate dual value in conveying cultural identity and shaping aesthetic experiences. Current research primarily focuses on two aspects: First, from cultural studies and semiotics perspectives, it centers on the origins, semantic structures, and cultural connotations of cultural symbols, emphasizing their symbolic significance and heritage value within traditional contexts [3,4]. Second, from a design or artistic perspective, research explores the application pathways of cultural symbols in visual expression, formal aesthetics, and their symbolization processes [5,6]. However, most studies focus on the artistic reproduction of symbolic forms and formal aesthetics, with limited in-depth examination of the emotional resonance and behavioral responses triggered when cultural symbols enter public spaces—particularly within specific historical and cultural contexts—from the angle of public reception and cognitive mechanisms. To further clarify the public acceptance mechanisms of traditional cultural symbols in contemporary expressions, this study introduces the “Cognition-Attitude-Behavior” model. Starting from the public’s cognitive level of Han Dynasty cultural symbols, it explores the relationship pathways between their attitude orientation and behavioral intentions. This model has been validated across multiple domains including consumer behavior [7], health behavior [8], and sustainable tourism behavior [9], effectively revealing the process mechanisms through which cultural information influences behavior. Semiotic theory provides semantic-level support for understanding how cultural symbols convey and transmit meaning, whereas the Cognition-Attitude-Behavior model empirically reveals how these meanings are cognitively decoded, affectively internalized, and behaviorally manifested by the public. Guided by this theoretical framework, the study investigates the communicative efficacy and public response mechanisms of Han cultural symbols in contemporary landscape contexts, offering both theoretical and empirical insights for the modern transformation of traditional cultural symbols.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Cultural Communication from a Semiotic Perspective

In the context of cultural transmission and identity construction, cultural symbols, as the tangible carriers of national culture, play a central role in conveying cultural meanings, strengthening identity, and promoting cultural continuity. The development of semiotic theory provides theoretical support for the study of cultural symbols. In the 20th century, Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, in his Course in General Linguistics, proposed the binary structure of the “signifier–signified,” which laid the foundation for the linguistic system of signs [10]. Subsequently, American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce developed the triadic model of “sign–object–interpretant,” extending the concept of the sign into the realms of cognition and communication [11]. Building on this, Lotman introduced the concept of the “cultural sign system,” arguing that culture is essentially a dynamic structure composed of signs, and that the symbolic systems within different cultural contexts reflect the cognitive schemas and value orientations of their respective groups [12]. This evolution has shifted semiotic studies from static analysis toward dynamic communication, giving rise to interdisciplinary perspectives across fields such as art studies [13], philosophy [14], and management [15].

With the rise of cultural consumption and the advancement of the national strategy of cultural confidence, the modern reinterpretation of traditional cultural symbols has become increasingly active. As representatives of the golden age of Chinese civilization, Han dynasty cultural symbols, with their profound historical connotations and distinctive visual expressiveness, have become typical objects of design transformation. In the field of design, these symbols undergo a process of “re-semantization”—by deconstructing core elements such as traditional totems and artifact forms, and reconstructing their formal language through modern visual grammar, they preserve cultural genes while carrying contemporary aesthetic narratives and identity functions [16]. Relevant research has largely focused on the application of Han cultural elements in cultural and creative products, fashion design, landscape construction, and urban image building, gradually forming a “symbol–culture–design” triadic transformation pathway. For instance, Huang Yingqiu and Huang Yan [17], drawing on Charles Morris’s three dimensions of semiotics—syntax, semantics, and pragmatics—systematically analyzed the symbolic structure and cultural context of Han dynasty lacquerware cloud patterns, and further explored their path of visual re-semantization in modern silk scarf design. They emphasized the need to avoid “formal grafting” and to preserve the cultural prototypes and emotional meanings of symbols. Du Yuling and colleagues [18], taking the “New Han Style” scenic area in Xuzhou as their case study, examined reconstruction strategies of Han elements in modern landscape architecture from symbolic dimensions such as space, form, and color. They proposed that historical connotations should be expressed through modern design language to achieve an integration of cultural awakening and aesthetic transformation. Wei Xinhong [19] focused on the development of cultural and creative products at the Hepu Han Dynasty Cultural Museum, pointing out that Han symbols possess high recognizability and symbolic tension in visual communication. Their effective transformation, he argued, should be integrated with narrative logic and usage scenarios to evoke emotional identification and cultural resonance. From the perspective of jewelry design, Duan Simeng [20] analyzed the reshaping of Han cultural imagery in contemporary symbolic language, stressing that design should not be confined to superficial retro reproduction of symbols, but rather should probe their spiritual core and endow them with a contemporary expressive context. Other studies have further noted that in the digital era, Han cultural symbols, through technical approaches such as 3D modeling and interactive visualization, achieve innovative reinterpretation under the “technology–culture” coupling, thereby expanding the boundaries and dimensions of symbolic communication [21].

Current research predominantly focuses on the designer’s perspective, emphasising the encoding strategies of cultural symbols within formal reconstruction, media convergence, and technological intervention, while paying scant attention to the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural mechanisms at play during the public’s reception process. How does the public comprehend the semantic connotations of cultural symbols? How are attitudes formed and how do they influence willingness to accept? These critical questions remain under-explored in existing research. This producer-centric research orientation risks overlooking the audience’s active participation and meaning-making within the symbolic transmission process. Consequently, cultural translation and design transformation face cognitive gaps concerning dissemination pathways and efficacy mechanisms. By integrating the semantic interpretation of semiotics with the psychological process analysis of the Cognition–Attitude–Behavior model, this study extends the theoretical boundary of symbolic communication and establishes a conceptual and procedural linkage for subsequent empirical research.

2.2. Cognitive–Attitudinal–Behavioural Model

Kurt Lewin’s pioneering “field theory” defined behavior as a function of the individual and the environment (B = f(P, E)), revealing how the interaction between psychological variables and situational factors shapes behavior [22]. Thurstone [23] and Likert systematically developed paradigms for measuring attitudes, operationalizing them into quantifiable variables through scale techniques, and thereby establishing attitudes as a cornerstone for predicting behavior. The “Yale Communication Research Program,” led by Carl Hovland, was the first to empirically validate the causal chain linking cognitive input to attitude change, demonstrating how message content, source credibility, and audience characteristics interact to drive attitude shifts [24]. The rise of cognitive consistency theories propelled the model toward a bidirectional interactive framework. Festinger’s “cognitive dissonance theory” [25] broke through the unidirectional causal model, arguing that when attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are in conflict, individuals adjust their cognitions or behaviors to restore psychological balance—providing critical evidence for the reverse pathway from “behavior → attitude.” Similarly, Heider’s balance theory [26] and Newcomb’s symmetry theory [27] further emphasized the need for internal consistency within attitude systems, jointly catalyzing the theoretical prototype of “cognition–attitude–behavior” as a dynamic system. The model was formally structured in the 1960s: Lavidge and Steiner, in their hierarchy-of-effects theory of advertising communication, proposed a linear three-stage model—cognition (awareness), attitude (preference), and behavior (purchase)—which for the first time established CAB as a verifiable progressive pathway [28]. Building on this, Fishbein and Ajzen’s [29] Theory of Reasoned Action introduced the variable of subjective norms, clarifying that behavioral intention (rather than attitude itself) is the direct antecedent of behavior. Subsequently, the Theory of Planned Behavior expanded the model by adding the dimension of perceived behavioral control, significantly enhancing its explanatory power for resource-dependent and complex behaviors. This marked the development of the CAB model from a linear framework into a multivariable interactive system Figure 1.

Cognition represents the initial stage of an individual’s reception and comprehension of external information, often regarded as a prerequisite for behavioural responses. Early communication theories posited that cognition encompasses dimensions such as an individual’s knowledge reserves concerning a given object, symbolic understanding, and functional cognition. Within research on cultural transmission and product design, cognition extends beyond mere physical recognition to embody the process of apprehending and decoding the cultural meanings embedded within. For instance, within contexts such as intangible cultural heritage, traditional patterns, and regional cultures, researchers generally acknowledge that cognitive effects influence subsequent emotional attitudes and willingness to accept [30]. The cognitive semantic process involves not only the perceptual identification of symbolic forms but also the construction of their underlying cultural meanings. This understanding is frequently achieved through experiential metaphors and cultural contexts, facilitating the generation and comprehension of meaning [31]. This dimension plays a foundational role in fostering cultural identification and communication acceptance. Clarifying the role of cultural cognition within the cognition–attitude–behavior model helps to reveal both the obstacles and the potential for the dissemination of Han dynasty cultural symbols in contemporary contexts.

Attitude is generally defined as an individual’s relatively stable psychological tendency toward a specific object, and within the cognition–attitude–behavior model, it functions as the key mediating variable that links cognition and behavior [32]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the positive or negative orientation of attitudes directly influences behavioral motivation and actual choice [33,34]. In the fields of cultural and creative products, landscape design, and tourism souvenirs, cultural attitudes are often regarded as the psychological driving force that stimulates purchasing intention, participatory behavior, or social dissemination [35]. Therefore, examining public responses to Han dynasty cultural symbols at the attitudinal level can help reveal critical issues such as whether “meaning translation” in cultural communication is effective, and whether symbolic “emotional attachment” has been successfully established.

Behavior, in turn, represents the externalized response arising from the joint effects of cognition and attitude, typically manifesting as willingness to accept, actions of dissemination, or acts of consumption. Behavior is not only an important indicator for researchers to observe the effectiveness of cultural reception but also a common measure of whether the transformation of cultural products through design has been successful. In applied fields such as tourism, art design, and digital communication, the behavioral dimension is often quantified through intention-measurement tools, including purchase intention, recommendation willingness, and frequency of use [36,37,38]. Studies on traditional cultural symbols suggest that individuals’ adoption and dissemination of traditional design elements are jointly influenced by cognitive understanding and affective attitude. Cultural consumption is often emotion-driven: once emotional resonance is established, people tend to transform recognition into concrete actions such as purchasing, sharing, or participating in related experiences [39]. In the context of Han cultural symbols, such behaviors are manifested in actions such as choosing products featuring Han motifs, participating in Han-related cultural activities, or recommending Han symbols to others. These observable actions not only signify the completion of cultural acceptance but also constitute the foundation for the sustainable transmission and renewal of traditional culture.

The Cognition–Attitude–Behavior theoretical model provides a universal framework for analyzing the acceptance mechanisms of cultural symbols. Building on this framework, the present study explores the intrinsic mechanisms through which the public perceives and internalizes Han dynasty cultural symbols within contemporary landscape environments. The model’s validity and explanatory power require empirical verification within specific contexts of cultural communication. Within this framework, cultural heritage sites are regarded not only as material carriers of Han cultural symbols but also as dynamic contexts in which symbolic meanings are activated and reinterpreted through public interaction. As a representative Western Han imperial mausoleum, the Han Yangling site provides a contextual reference for analyzing public cognition and experience of Han cultural imagery. Through the concept of an “entirely underground site museum,” complemented by immersive exhibitions and interactive archaeological experiences, it transforms static relics into tangible, narrative, and participatory settings for cultural communication. The resulting “activated cultural context” not only significantly enhances the public’s perceptual cognition and affective attitudes toward traditional symbols but also aligns closely with the observable dimensions of the cognition–attitude–behavior model. Consequently, Hanyangling offers a concrete, controllable, and ecologically valid research environment for empirically analyzing the pathways of Han cultural symbol reception in contemporary landscapes. Structuring this representative site into the analytical framework allows the study to draw on its empirical foundations to systematically test the applicability and boundary conditions of the cognition–attitude–behavior model in research on the reception of specific historical cultural symbols Figure 2.

2.3. Research Hypothesis

Through literature review and research design, this study constructs a hierarchical system of hypotheses to test the reception mechanism of Han dynasty cultural symbols. To ensure the scientific rigor and consistency of variable measurement, each dimension was clearly defined and designed as follows: The cognition dimension refers to the public’s perceptual, semantic, and applied understanding of cultural symbols (e.g., recognition of typical features and comprehension of their historical and cultural meanings); The attitude dimension encompasses both affective and evaluative responses (e.g., cultural identification, aesthetic experience, and value perception); The behavioral intention dimension reflects the public’s actual or potential actions, such as participation, recommendation, and cultural consumption. The detailed measurement items for each dimension are provided in the Section 3.

H1. 

Public cognition of Han dynasty cultural symbols has a positive impact on their attitudes toward the application of these symbols in modern landscapes.

H2. 

Public attitudes toward the application of Han dynasty cultural symbols in modern landscapes have a positive impact on their behavioral intentions to accept such applications.

H3. 

The public’s level of cognition of Han dynasty cultural symbols not only has a direct positive effect on their behavioral intentions to accept such applications, but also exerts an indirect positive effect through attitudes; attitudes serve as a mediating variable between cognition and behavioral intention.

Beyond the path relationships between variables, existing research indicates that interest serves as an intrinsic motivator capable of enhancing an individual’s engagement and depth of immersion within cultural experiences, thereby facilitating knowledge acquisition and fostering positive attitudinal shifts [40]. When individuals maintain a high level of interest in a particular cultural theme, they not only demonstrate greater willingness to proactively seek relevant information but also exhibit heightened stability and identification during the attitudinal formation process. Based on the foregoing analysis, the study further proposes the following hypotheses:

H4a. 

Public interest in Han dynasty cultural symbols has a significant positive impact on their cognition of the application of these symbols in modern landscapes.

H4b. 

Public interest in Han dynasty cultural symbols has a significant positive impact on their attitudes toward the application of these symbols in modern landscapes.

H4c. 

Public interest in Han dynasty cultural symbols has a significant positive impact on their behavioral intentions regarding the application of these symbols in modern landscapes.

This hypothesis system constructs a two-layer reception model, with the “cognition–attitude–behavior” pathway as the core mechanism and interest-driven variation as the outer mechanism, providing a reference for the targeted communication of Han dynasty cultural symbols.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Research Methodology Overview

This research deconstructs the communicative efficacy of traditional cultural symbols from a public perspective, aiming to reveal the key psychological pathways and constraining factors influencing their acceptance. In doing so, it seeks to provide both a theoretical anchor and a practical paradigm for the contemporary expression and visual design of cultural symbols. Employing a three-stage framework of “theoretical construction–data collection–analytical validation”, the study offers theoretical and practical references for the modern application of cultural symbols. In defining the research object, “Han Dynasty cultural symbols” encompass a wide range of forms, including decorative patterns, artifacts, written characters, and architectural components, each with distinct visual expressions and symbolic meanings. Considering that this study focuses on examining the overall mechanisms of public cognition, attitude, and behavior toward cultural symbols—rather than comparing specific symbol types—the concept of “Han cultural symbols” is treated as an integrated whole in the questionnaire design and empirical analysis. This integrative perspective helps maintain consistency across measurement dimensions and provides a reference for future studies exploring the differential effects of various symbol types.

The research design will include the following elements:

1.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework:

By systematically reviewing relevant research findings in cultural semiotics, cognitive psychology, and cognitive attitude-behaviour pathway models, this section provides foundational evidence for constructing variables and proposing hypotheses.

2.

Questionnaire Design and Data Collection:

Based on preliminary interviews and pre-survey findings, a structured questionnaire was designed. It was distributed online with supplementary offline collection to ensure broad sample coverage and representativeness.

3.

Quantitative Analysis:

Through statistical analysis and path modelling, this study examines the relationship between cognition, attitude, and behavioural intention within the reception mechanism of Han Dynasty cultural symbols. It identifies influencing factors to provide data-driven support for the effective translation and dissemination pathways of traditional cultural symbols in landscape design.

4.

Design Recommendations:

Based on empirical research findings, this study proposes optimised pathways for the design transformation of traditional cultural symbols alongside public communication strategies. These offer actionable communication paradigms for cultural heritage revitalisation, the construction of public cultural identity, and visual communication practices.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

To enhance the contextual authenticity and cultural orientation of the questionnaire design, the Hanyangling National Archaeological Site Park was selected as a representative reference for Han Dynasty cultural symbols. Located in the northern part of Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, the site serves as the joint mausoleum of Emperor Jing of the Western Han Dynasty and Empress Wang. The park follows the design philosophy of “balancing preservation and display,” focusing on presenting the historical layout and cultural connotations of the Hanyangling complex. It comprehensively showcases the material culture, political institutions, and spiritual life of the Han Dynasty, representing a highly distinctive and culturally typical heritage site. Accordingly, Hanyangling was used in the questionnaire as a typical cultural context of Han symbols, allowing respondents to better understand and evaluate related questions within a familiar historical setting. The questionnaire was designed based on the theoretical framework of the Cognition–Attitude–Behavior model, integrating validated measurement scales from the fields of sustainable tourism and cultural consumption, and adapted to the contextual application of Han dynasty cultural symbols at the Hanyangling Mausoleum Site Park (with key reference elements such as terracotta figurines, pottery jars, and eave tiles) Figure 3. The selection of indicators combined theoretical relevance with practical applicability: theoretically, the measurement dimensions comprehensively covered cognitive processing, affective response, and behavioral intention related to cultural information; practically, drawing on the semiotic “signifier–signified” framework, the formal features of Han cultural symbols (signifiers) and their embedded cultural meanings (signifieds) were systematically incorporated into the item design to capture the public’s semantic construction process in symbol interpretation. An expert review was subsequently conducted to refine the linguistic precision, content validity, and dimensional alignment of the items, resulting in the final version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two sections: the first collected respondents’ demographic characteristics (including gender, age, education level, occupation type, and place of residence); the second covered the core measurement dimensions, with all items rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”)

Table 1. Research Measurement Indicators.

Dimension	Sub-Dimension	Indicator Definition	References
Cognition	Perceptual cognition	Ability to recognize and differentiate typical visual features of Han Dynasty cultural symbols.	[41]
	Semantic understanding	Understanding of the historical background and cultural meanings embedded in Han Dynasty symbols.
	Applied knowledge	Awareness of modern design cases and the ability to apply Han symbols in contemporary contexts.
Attitude	Affective attitude	Feelings of cultural pride, belonging, and aesthetic pleasure derived from Han symbols.	[42]
	Value identification	Agreement with the historical, artistic, and cultural significance of Han symbols, and support for their contemporary value.
Behavior	Communication tendency	The willingness and behavioral tendency to recommend, share, and disseminate cultural symbols and related design content to others.	[35]
	Participation tendency	The willingness and actual behavior to actively participate in activities related to Han Dynasty culture.
	Consumption tendency	The intention and behavior of purchasing or collecting products or creative works related to cultural symbols.

.

3.3. Data Analysis Methods

1.

Descriptive Statistical Analysis:

Frequency and mean distribution analyses were conducted on the demographic characteristics of the sample (such as gender, age, educational background, and occupation type) as well as the main variables (cognition, attitude, and behavior) to gain an initial understanding of the sample structure and variable status.

$$\overline{X}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{n}}}\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}$$

(1)

where $\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ is the mean of the sample, n is the total number of observations, and ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ represents each individual data point in the sample.

2.

Reliability and Validity Testing:

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used to test the internal consistency reliability of each dimension of the questionnaire scale. KMO and Bartlett’s spherical test were used to evaluate the adequacy of the data, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to test the structural validity of the measurement tool.

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as:

$$\mathsf{\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}-1}}\left(1-{\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{K}}{\mathsf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{i}}^2}{{\mathsf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}^2}}\right)$$

(2)

where $\mathrm{K}$ is the number of items, ${\mathsf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{i}}^2$ is the variance of item $\mathrm{i}$, and ${\mathsf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}^2$ is the variance of the total score.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was expressed as:

$$\mathrm{K}\mathrm{M}\mathrm{O}={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{\mathrm{i}\ne \mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{r}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}^2}{\sum _{\mathrm{i}\ne \mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{r}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}^2+\sum _{\mathrm{i}\ne \mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}^2}}$$

(3)

where ${\mathrm{r}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$ is the correlation coefficient between items $\mathrm{i}$ and $\mathrm{j}$, and ${\mathrm{p}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$ is the corresponding partial correlation.

3.

Correlation and Regression Analysis:

Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationships between the three variables: cognition, attitude, and behavior. Subsequently, a linear regression model was employed to test the significance and explanatory power of the “Cognition → Attitude → Behavior” path effect.

Pearson Correlation Coefficient Formula:

$$\mathrm{r}={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\overline{\mathrm{X}}\right)\left({\mathrm{Y}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\overline{\mathrm{Y}}\right)}{\sqrt{{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\overline{\mathrm{X}}\right)}^2{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{Y}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\overline{\mathrm{Y}}\right)}^2}}}$$

(4)

$\mathrm{r}$ is the Pearson correlation coefficient, measuring the linear relationship between two variables, ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ ${\mathrm{Y}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ are the individual data points for variables X and Y, $\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ $\overline{\mathrm{Y}}$ are the means of variables X and Y, respectively.

Used to validate the causal relationships and predictive capabilities between variables. The basic form of the regression model is as follows:

$$\mathrm{Y}={\mathsf{\beta }}_0+{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathrm{X}}_1+{\mathsf{\beta }}_2{\mathrm{X}}_2+\cdots +{\mathsf{\beta }}_{\mathrm{k}}{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}}$$

(5)

Y is the dependent variable, ${\mathsf{\beta }}_0$ is the intercept, ${\mathsf{\beta }}_1,{\mathsf{\beta }}_2,$ …, ${\mathsf{\beta }}_{\mathrm{k}}$ are the regression coefficients corresponding to the independent variables ${\mathrm{X}}_1$, ${\mathrm{X}}_2$, …, ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}}$.

Based on this, a mediation effect model is further constructed to examine the role of attitude in the relationship between cognition and behavior. The mediation effect is tested using the classical three-step regression equation model, combined with the Bootstrap method to test the significance of the indirect effect. The basic form is as follows:

$$\mathrm{Y}=\mathrm{c}\mathrm{X}+{\mathrm{e}}_1$$

(6)

$$\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{a}\mathrm{X}+{\mathrm{e}}_2$$

(7)

$$\mathrm{Y}={\mathrm{c}}^{\prime }\mathrm{X}+\mathrm{b}\mathrm{M}+{\mathrm{e}}_3$$

(8)

$\mathrm{c}$ represents the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable; c′ is the direct effect after controlling for the mediator; a b is the indirect effect.

4. Research Findings and Analysis

A total of 202 questionnaires were collected, of which 172 were valid (valid response rate: 85.1%). Although the overall sample size was limited, its structure exhibited clear diversity, providing a reliable analytical basis for the core research questions. The sample covered Shaanxi Province and 11 other provinces, demonstrating a wide geographical distribution. Demographically, the respondents were mainly aged 18–34 and predominantly urban residents—a group that is generally most active in cultural consumption and online communication—closely aligning with the study’s focus. At the same time, the sample also included participants aged 35 and above as well as respondents from county-level, township, and other non-metropolitan areas, ensuring diversity within the population. In terms of occupation and education, fewer than half of the participants were engaged in art- or design-related professions, indicating that the sample combined both professional and general characteristics, thereby providing a comprehensive foundation for subsequent analysis

Table 2. Demographic data.

Category		Number of People	Proportion	Category		Number of People	Category
Gender	Male	75	43.6%	Educational Background	Below high school	55	32.0%
	Female	97	56.4%		College	44	25.6%
Age Group	18–24	45	26.2%		Undergraduate	46	26.7%
	25–34	54	31.4%		Graduate student and above	27	15.7%
	35–44	37	21.5%	Residence	Urban	69	40.1%
	45–54	24	14.0%		County	44	25.6%
	55 years and above	12	7.0%		Township	37	21.5%
Monthly Entertainment Spending	0	30	17.4%		Rural	22	12.8%
	1–100 RMB	58	33.7%	Related to profession/education	Yes	76	44.2%
	101–300 RMB	50	29.1%		No	96	55.8%
	301 RMB and above	34	19.8%

.

The reliability and validity testing results of the scale show that the overall Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is 0.932, indicating that the scale has high internal consistency and stability, with a small standard error, ensuring the reliability of the measurement results. Meanwhile, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy value is 0.921, and Bartlett’s spherical test yielded χ² = 1621.760, df = 153, p < 0.001, indicating that the data is suitable for factor analysis. Based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1, three factors were extracted, and the cumulative variance explained was 61.753%, confirming the scale’s good structural validity

Table 3. Questionnaire Validity and Reliability.

Dimension	Cronbach $\mathsf{\alpha }$	Number of Items	KMO
Cognitive	0.837	4	0.921
Attitudinal	0.888	6
Behavioural	0.887	7
Overall Scale	0.932	17

.

After testing the reliability and validity of the scale, and preparing for subsequent correlation and regression analyses, the study processed the dimensions of each variable: the 3 dimensions and 4 items of cognition, the 3 dimensions and 6 items of attitude, and the 2 dimensions and 7 items of behavior. The mean values of these items were calculated as composite scores, and the interest variable was included for statistical analysis. Pearson correlation coefficients were then used to test the relationships between cognition, attitude, behavior, and interest. The results show significant correlations between each pair of indicators (p < 0.05), indicating strong linear relationships among the variables

Table 4. Correlation between value types.

	Cognition	Attitude	Behaviour	Level of Interest
Cognition	1
Attitude	0.343 **	1
Behaviour	0.454 **	0.785 **	1
Level of Interest	0.477 **	0.530 **	0.503 **	1

** At the 0.01 level (two-tailed), the correlation is significant.

. H1 and H2 were preliminarily validated.

After confirming the significant correlations between the variables, regression analysis was further conducted to examine the causal relationships and paths among the dimensions. The PROCESS macro plugin in SPSS Statistics 26.0 was used to test whether attitude has a significant mediating effect between cognition and behavior. The results show that cognition has a significant positive effect on attitude (β = 0.343, t = 4.755, p < 0.001), indicating that the higher an individual’s cognitive level, the more positive their attitude, which validates Hypothesis H1. Attitude has a significant positive effect on behavior, and attitude is an important predictor of behavior, validating Hypothesis H2. Cognition has a significant positive predictive effect on behavior (β = 0.393, t = 44.219, p < 0.001). After both cognition and attitude were included in the model, both still had significant positive predictive effects on behavior (β = 0.182, t = 4.369, p < 0.001) (β = 0.649, t = 14.852, p < 0.001). These results indicate that the relationships between the variables meet the prerequisites for the mediation effect test

Table 5. Regression Analysis and Mediation Effect Test Between Cognition, Attitude, and Behavior.

Outcome Variable	Predictor Variable	R	R2	F	β	t	Bootstrap Lower Bound	Bootstrap Upper Bound
Behaviour	Cognition	0.454	0.206	44.219 ***	0.393	6.650 ***	0.276	0.510
Attitude	Cognition	0.343	0.117	22.609 ***	0.326	4.755 ***	0.190	0.461
Behaviour	Cognition	0.810	0.656	160.949 ***	0.182	4.369 ***	0.100	0.264
	Attitude				0.649	14.852 ***	0.563	0.736

*** p < 0.001.

.

The mediation effect was tested using the Bootstrap method. The results show that the total effect of cognition on behavior is 0.393, and the 95% confidence interval does not contain 0, indicating that the total effect is significant. The direct effect of cognition on behavior is 0.182, accounting for 46.31% of the total effect, and the 95% confidence interval also does not contain 0, indicating that the direct effect is significant. The indirect effect through attitude is 0.211, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.111, 0.321], which does not contain 0, suggesting that attitude plays a significant partial mediating role in the relationship between cognition and behavior, thus validating Hypothesis H3

Table 6. Analysis of the Mediating Effect of Attitude Between Cognition and Behaviour.

Response Type	Effect Value	Bootstrap SE	95% CI		Percentage of Effect
			LLCI	ULCI
Total Effect	0.393	0.059	0.276	0.510	-
Direct Effect	0.182	0.042	0.100	0.264	46.31%
Indirect Effect	0.211	0.054	0.111	0.321	53.69%

.

To further reveal the internal structure of the cognition–attitude–behavior mechanism, correlation analyses were conducted among the sub-dimensions within each main construct. The results showed that all sub-dimensions were significantly and positively correlated, although the strength of these correlations varied. This indicates a strong internal coherence within each dimension, while maintaining appropriate differentiation across dimensions

Table 7. Results of Pearson Correlation Analysis among Subdimensions.

	Perceptual Cognition	Semantic Understanding	Applied Knowledge	Affective Attitude	Value Identification	Communication Tendency	Participation Tendency	Consumption Tendency
Perceptual cognition	1
Semantic understanding	0.615 **	1
Applied knowledge	0.660 **	0.539 **	1
Affective attitude	0.326 **	0.251 **	0.181 *	1
Value identification	0.344 **	0.292 **	0.252 **	0.844 **	1
Communication tendency	0.369 **	0.292 **	0.308 **	0.637 **	0.646 **	1
Participation tendency	0.402 **	0.314 **	0.337 **	0.697 **	0.668 **	0.668 **	1
Consumption tendency	0.382 **	0.315 **	0.332 **	0.694 **	0.661 **	0.645 **	0.708 **	1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

.

Separate multiple regression models were established for the three types of behavioral tendencies—communication, participation, and consumption

Table 8. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Subdimensions on Three Types of Behavioral Tendencies.

Model	Non-Standardisation Coefficient		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	VIF
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	0.419	0.242		1.732	0.085
Perceptual cognition	0.036	0.075	0.038	0.475	0.636	2.242
Semantic understanding	0.030	0.065	0.031	0.456	0.649	1.711
Applied knowledge	0.124	0.058	0.155	2.129	0.035	1.897
Affective attitude	0.515	0.106	0.485	4.877	0.000	3.553
Value identification	0.199	0.105	0.190	1.897	0.060	3.612
${\mathrm{R}}^2$				0.538
F				38.639
P				<0.001
Dependent variable				Consumption tendency
Model	Non-Standardisation Coefficient		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	VIF
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	0.649	0.254		2.559	0.011
Perceptual cognition	0.064	0.079	0.069	0.818	0.414	2.242
Semantic understanding	0.013	0.068	0.014	0.186	0.853	1.711
Applied knowledge	0.092	0.061	0.117	1.515	0.132	1.897
Affective attitude	0.339	0.111	0.325	3.066	0.003	3.553
Value identification	0.323	0.110	0.315	2.946	0.004	3.612
${\mathrm{R}}^2$				0.476
F				30.129
P				<0.001
Dependent variable				Communication tendency
Model	Non-Standardisation Coefficient		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	VIF
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	0.789	0.207		3.816	0.000
Perceptual cognition	0.062	0.064	0.076	0.970	0.334	2.242
Semantic understanding	0.010	0.055	0.012	0.179	0.858	1.711
Applied knowledge	0.099	0.050	0.144	1.999	0.047	1.897
Affective attitude	0.431	0.090	0.471	4.785	0.000	3.553
Value identification	0.185	0.089	0.205	2.064	0.041	3.612
${\mathrm{R}}^2$				0.548
F				40.211
P				<0.001
Dependent variable				Participation tendency

. The results indicate that all models are statistically significant (p < 0.001). Emotional attitude and value identification show significant positive effects on all three behavioral tendencies, with emotional attitude having the highest standardized coefficients (communication: β = 0.325, t = 3.066, p < 0.01; participation: β = 0.471, t = 4.785, p < 0.001; consumption: β = 0.485, t = 4.877, p < 0.001), demonstrating the central role of affective factors in behavioral transformation. In contrast, within the cognitive dimension, only applied knowledge exerts a significant positive effect on participation (β = 0.144, t = 1.999, p < 0.05) and consumption (β = 0.155, t = 2.129, p < 0.05), while perceptual cognition and semantic understanding show no significant effects. These results suggest that when engaging with cultural symbols, individuals can effectively translate cognition into behavioral intention only when cognitive understanding is combined with practical experience and emotional resonance.

The regression analysis results indicate that interest has a significant positive effect on cognition, attitude, and behavior (Cognition: β = 0.477, t = 7.702; Attitude: β = 0.530, t = 8.155; Behavior: β = 0.503, t = 7.583; all p < 0.001). These findings suggest that interest not only enhances individuals’ cognitive levels but also promotes the positivity of their attitudes, further driving their behavioral performance. Hypotheses H3a, H3b, and H3c are all validated

Table 9. Regression analysis results for interest on cognition, attitude, and behaviour.

Model	Non-Standardisation Coefficient		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	VIF
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	1.642	0.211		7.788	0.000
Interest	0.402	0.057	0.477	7.702	0.000	1.000
${\mathrm{R}}^2$				0.227
F				50.013
P				<0.001
Dependent variable				Cognition
Model	Non-Standardisation Coefficient		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	VIF
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.147	0.193		11.107	0.000
Interest	0.425	0.052	0.530	8.155	0.000	1.000
${\mathrm{R}}^2$				0.281
F				66.506
P				<0.001
Dependent variable				Attitude
Model	Non-Standardisation Coefficient		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	VIF
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.289	0.179		12.756	0.000
Interest	0.367	0.048	0.503	7.583	0.000	1.000
${\mathrm{R}}^2$				0.253
F				57.497
P				<0.001
Dependent variable				Behaviour

.

5. Discussion

Han dynasty cultural symbols are not merely reproductions of historical relics, but serve as a bridge connecting cultural heritage with contemporary societal needs. Within the context of accelerating globalisation and digitalisation, how cultural symbols are understood, accepted, and disseminated through modern means not only concerns the shaping of cultural soft power and the preservation of cultural diversity, but also directly impacts their sustainable transmission within contemporary society [43]. The empirical results show that the depth of public cognition and emotional identification with cultural symbols significantly influences behavioral intentions. This indicates that the sustainable transmission of culture is not a static process of preservation, but a dynamic cycle grounded in cognitive enhancement, attitudinal transformation, and behavioral practice. In other words, the continuous renewal of public understanding and active participation in cultural symbols constitute the core driving forces for the sustainable revitalization of cultural heritage. This intrinsic mechanism, as a universal psychological pathway in cultural acceptance, has been vividly manifested and profoundly revealed across various contemporary communication practices.

In the context of mass media communication, the case of a provincial Spring Festival Gala in China exemplifies how traditional culture can be contemporarily expressed by integrating local cultural symbols with modern visual narratives. After the program’s broadcast, the online view count exceeded 3 billion, and the proportion of respondents expressing a sense of “provincial cultural pride” increased from 55% to 95%, while 79% of the audience engaged in interactive behaviors such as liking and commenting [44]. At the level of physical space, the urban regeneration of Yongqingfang in Guangzhou serves as another vivid illustration. Its cultural revitalization goes beyond mere historical replication; through an “old–new collage” design strategy, the project preserves historical cognitive cues while incorporating modern materials and spatial forms, and uses media narratives and the commercial atmosphere to evoke emotional resonance and foster a sense of place. By participating in local markets, sharing photos at popular landmarks, and purchasing creative cultural products, the public contributes to the reinterpretation and reproduction of cultural symbols [45]. This demonstrates that the communication of cultural symbols occurs not only through media content but also within urban spaces, offering a tangible example of contextualized and multidimensional cultural dissemination.

The survey revealed that despite the profound historical and aesthetic value of Han dynasty cultural symbols, significant public awareness gaps persist. Data indicates that 37.21% of respondents expressed a lack of understanding regarding Han dynasty culture (Figure 4). Further analysis reveals this cognitive gap primarily stems from multiple discontinuities within educational dissemination and communication mechanisms: insufficient provision of relevant knowledge, limited channels for daily exposure, and weak public perception of its relevance to contemporary life. This cognitive deficiency not only hinders the effective transmission of cultural significance but also undermines the sustainable utilisation of cultural symbols within the modern landscape. To promote the continuous enhancement of cognition, it is essential to advance interdisciplinary integration and educational translation within the knowledge system. By introducing cultural symbol literacy modules in basic education, implementing interdisciplinary teaching within universities and design curricula, and incorporating interactive experiences into study tours and public education programs, the academic knowledge of Han Dynasty cultural symbols can be understood, perceived, and re-created across different levels of learning contexts—thereby achieving the sustainable deepening of cultural cognition.

At the level of symbolic understanding, 58.14% of respondents called for a more popularized interpretation of the historical background of the symbols, reflecting the persistent cognitive barrier in current cultural communication whereby symbols are “visible but not readable.” From a semiotic perspective, this phenomenon reveals a rupture between the processes of symbolic production and decoding. When traditional cultural symbols are detached from their original contexts and embedded into modern landscapes, their signifiers are retained while the signified meanings are often weakened or misinterpreted. To prevent Han dynasty symbols from degenerating into hollow decorative elements in public spaces, it is essential to promote a narrative transformation in knowledge transmission: namely, reconstructing professional interpretations with everyday language to situate abstract cultural concepts within concrete spatiotemporal contexts; adopting hierarchical exhibition strategies that allow audiences to grasp core information within a short time while preserving the possibility of deeper exploration; building multimodal interpretation systems that integrate images, infographics, and short videos to reduce the cognitive load caused by text alone [46]; and employing localized narratives to transform grand historical contexts into stories connected to local memory, thereby enhancing public emotional resonance and comprehension effectiveness [47]. This narrative transformation not only enhances the readability of cultural symbols but also provides a structural mechanism for the sustainable renewal of cultural communication, enabling Han Dynasty symbols to maintain their semantic vitality and social relevance across generations. Popularization does not imply a reduction of connotation but rather improves the efficiency of communication, fundamentally enhancing the public’s cognitive quality and memory stickiness of cultural symbols.

At the behavioral level, although historical sites and museums remain the primary venues through which the public encounters Han dynasty symbols

Table 10. Channels for the Transmission of Han Dynasty Cultural Elements.

	Response
Item	Number of Cases	Percentage	Percentage of Cases
Historical sites or museum exhibitions	102	23.3%	59.3%
Urban public landscapes or architectural decoration	54	12.4%	31.4%
Film or television productions or documentaries	86	19.7%	50.0%
Books, magazines	54	12.4%	31.4%
Articles or social media content	91	20.8%	52.9%
Cultural and creative products	48	11.2%	28.5%
Never noticed/Never seen	1	0.2%	0.6%

., a single and passive mode of dissemination is insufficient to foster sustained cultural participation and practice. Therefore, Han dynasty symbols need to be organically embedded into the multidimensional spaces and daily rhythms of urban life: establishing stable symbolic visibility in high-frequency scenarios such as commuting, consumption, and leisure through public art, signage systems, and practical objects [48]; promoting the dissemination of lightweight, shareable visual content on digital platforms to create a virtuous cycle of “viewing–interest–sharing–recreation”; and strengthening participatory and curatorial activity designs in cultural tourism contexts to guide audiences from passive reception to active construction [49], thereby transforming momentary emotional arousal into sustainable behavioral habits. This process of public participation and creative reinterpretation signifies the social reproduction and re-coding of cultural symbols. Rather than remaining static relics, symbols become dynamic carriers of social meaning, continuously renewed and extended through communication and interaction.

The positive effects of interest on cognition, attitude, and behavior were confirmed in the study, while respondents’ preferences for symbolic interactive experiences (51.74%), design intuitiveness (45.35%), and integrative innovation (41.86%) further indicate that aesthetic appeal and playability are key to stimulating sustained participation. The contemporary dissemination of Han dynasty cultural symbols should thus achieve a transformation from static display to dynamic experience: in terms of narrative, introducing immersive and contextualized strategies, and enhancing public engagement through mechanisms such as tasks, exploration, and role-playing [50]; in terms of visual expression, integrating modern design language on the basis of preserving the authenticity of the symbols, thereby strengthening their recognizability and expressive power [51]; and in terms of style, pursuing organic integration with contemporary aesthetics, youth culture, and technological media to revitalize traditional culture through innovative expression [52]. When “intelligible narratives, immersive experiences, shareable visuals, and participatory spaces” collectively constitute a complete chain of meaning, interest will no longer remain a fleeting emotional response but will transform into a stable intrinsic motivation, thereby systematically stimulating public responses throughout the entire process from cognition to behavior and ensuring the virtuous dissemination and intergenerational transmission of Han dynasty cultural symbols in contemporary society. This sustained, interest-driven mechanism also provides intrinsic momentum for the sustainable utilization and innovative expression of cultural heritage.

Although this study, through questionnaire-based analysis, reveals the relationships among public cognition, attitude, and behavioral intention toward Han Dynasty cultural symbols, certain limitations remain in both methodological design and theoretical application. On the one hand, the study has a limited sample size and mainly relies on quantitative data analysis, lacking supplementary qualitative approaches such as in-depth interviews and field observations, which makes it difficult to fully uncover the psychological mechanisms and contextual factors that shape the transformation process between cognition, attitude, and behavior. On the other hand, while the empirical model effectively captures general trends, it offers limited insight into the emotional complexity and contextual variability of cultural experience. Future studies may adopt mixed-method approaches—such as focus group discussions, semantic analysis, or behavioral experiments—to more comprehensively validate the applicability of the model and deepen understanding of the mechanisms underlying public cultural acceptance.

6. Conclusions

The study integrates the Cognition–Attitude–Behavior model with the semiotic framework of “signifier–signified” to construct and empirically validate a public acceptance model for Han Dynasty cultural symbols. The empirical results indicate that public cognition influences behavioral intentions indirectly through attitudes, thereby confirming the overall validity of the model. Furthermore, the extended analysis reveals differentiated interaction mechanisms among sub-dimensions, deepening the understanding of how cognition and behavior interrelate in the process of cultural communication. The findings demonstrate that public cultural behavior follows a hierarchical “foundation–catalyst–driver” structure: perceptual cognition and semantic understanding form the cognitive foundation of cultural acceptance. Although they do not directly affect behavioral intentions, they indirectly promote behavioral transformation by strengthening emotional attitudes and value identification. In contrast, applied knowledge and emotional attitudes serve as the dual engines of behavioral activation—the former bridging abstract cognition and practical engagement, and the latter functioning as the primary emotional force driving sustained participation and dissemination.

At the practical level, these findings provide meaningful insights for the sustainable communication of cultural heritage. Cultural transmission should evolve from one-way information delivery toward an interactive process centered on experience and emotion. Through educational initiatives, visual design, digital dissemination, and public engagement, it is possible to enhance both cognitive depth and emotional resonance, thereby facilitating the revitalization and reuse of cultural heritage. The enduring vitality of cultural heritage lies not only in the visibility of its symbols but also in their understanding, perception, and integration into everyday life. When cultural symbols establish a cyclical resonance among cognition, emotion, and behavior, the public transitions from passive observers to active cultural practitioners—realizing the contemporary inheritance and creative transformation of culture.