Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTThis article explores the impact of consumers' regulatory goals on their relative focus on hedonic (versus utilitarian) benefits of products. Drawing from extant literature, we argue that promotion‐focused consumers will exhibit more favorable attitude towards a product when its hedonic benefits are highlighted in comparison to its utilitarian benefits. Prevention‐focused consumers on the other hand will exhibit more favorable attitude towards a product when its utilitarian benefits are highlighted in comparison to its hedonic benefits. We further argue that this effect is moderated by contextual factors, such as evaluation mode. In addition, we argue that the posited difference only holds when the hedonic and utilitarian products are evaluated individually. When the two products are evaluated jointly, both promotion and prevention‐focused individuals will exhibit more favorable attitude towards the hedonic product. Two studies were conducted to test the hypotheses and findings supported our predictions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Over the past decade, higher education has undergone drastic changes all over the world because of globalisation and the changing economy. The traditional view of university as a place for one-off training is now considered outdated. Instead, the strong focus on lifelong learning urges teachers, educators and academics to reconceptualise and transform education. In this new era, successful schools adopt outreach strategies and seek support from external agencies such as universities for their development. Institutions of higher education provide consultation or work with partner schools for collaborative sharing, reflection, research and growth. Hence, school–university partnerships have become important for professional development and educational reform. With the growth of school–university collaborations, there is mounting interest in empirical research on the variety and value of these initiatives. This article reviews the school–university partnerships in Hong Kong in light of the trends and development in the international context. The studies reviewed showed that school–university partnerships involving teacher training programmes focus on understanding the views of participants in school–university partnership with an aim to build appropriate teacher training and professional development features into the teacher education programmes. These studies have theoretically contributed to the construction of culturally relevant teacher education programmes. After all, new project initiatives have contributed to substantial changes in school leadership, teachers' professional development and school-based curriculum development which would benefit children's learning. The authors argue that the development of an appropriate mode of collaboration remains a challenge for successful school–university partnerships. They have a vision to move beyond the existing research focus to explore ways to build school–university collaborations. Gaps in the research base and relevant questions that have not been addressed are discussed.

Abstract
Size cues are increasingly common in brand names (e.g., Xiaomi and Mini Cooper), but scant research has investigated whether and how brand name size cues influence consumers' perceptions. This research shows that a brand name size cue can evoke gender associations, which subsequently affect consumers' perceived warmth and competence of the target brand. A series of seven studies provide converging evidence that brands with a size cue of smallness in the name are perceived to be warmer but less competent, while those with a size cue of bigness are perceived to be less warm but more competent. A combination of measurement-of-mediation and moderation-of-process approaches provide support for the role of gender associations underlying the effect of brand name size cues on consumers' brand perceptions. This research also shows that brand name size cues can have diverging effects on the perceived warmth of the brand versus of the product. Finally, this research rules out alternative accounts based on perceived market power and firm size.

Abstract
According to the dual entitlement principle, consumers find it fair for firms to price asymmetrically to cost changes—that is, for firms to increase prices when costs increase but maintain prices when costs decrease. However, a meta-analysis reveals asymmetric pricing is less prevalent in collectivistic (vs. individualistic) countries (study 1). We propose a fairness-based explanation, demonstrating that interdependent consumers in collectivistic cultures perceive asymmetric pricing to be less fair than do independent consumers in individualistic cultures (studies 2, 4, and 5). We attribute this cultural variation to culture-specific relationship norms. Specifically, we argue that while the practice of asymmetric pricing is consistent with the exchange norms among independent consumers that emphasize self-interest pursuit, it is inconsistent with the communal norms among interdependent consumers mandating firm benevolence. Supporting this argument, we find that (a) directly manipulating communal (vs. exchange) norms yields similar differences in fairness perceptions that mimic those due to culture (study 3), (b) the cultural differences are mediated by the communal mandate for firm benevolence (study 4), and (c) the cultural differences are mitigated when a firm frames asymmetric pricing as benevolent (study 5). We conclude by discussing the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is common and underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Longer-term offspring outcomes are also not well documented. This study aimed to determine if NVP, even in milder forms, is associated with adverse pregnancy and childhood growth outcomes. ; Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) ; National Medical Research Council (NMRC) ; National Research Foundation (NRF) ; Published version ; Singapore National Research Foundation (NMRC/TCR/004-NUS/2008; NMRC/ TCR/012-NUHS/2014). Additional funding is provided by the Singapore government-funded Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR).