Search

Consumers learn about products through different ways, such as advertising, word-of-mouth, online review, and product display. Because of my personal interests in consumer research, as well as the important roles that information processing and product evaluation play in the daily businesses of my company, in this research, I examine whether the types of product information (i.e., hedonic-focused information vs. utilitarian-focused information) and displaying methods (i.e., using traditional displaying method vs. using 3D simulation displaying method) influence product evaluations. Two main studies, including two field experiments and three lab experiments, demonstrate that 1) promotion-focused individuals prefer hedonic-focused information and give higher evaluations to products featuring hedonic-focused ad information; prevention-focused individuals prefer utilitarian-focused information and give higher evaluations for products featuring utilitarian-focused ad information; 2) promotion-focused individuals prefer simulation presentations and give higher evaluations to products that are presented in 3D simulations; whereas, prevention-focused individuals prefer booklet presentations and give higher evaluations to products that are presented through booklets. Theoretically, this research contributes to product presentation literature and regulatory focus literature by demonstrating that people with different regulatory focus have different preferences for various types of product information and different ways of product display. From the perspective of sensory marketing and experience marketing, I find that regulatory focus moderates the effect of information type and product presentations on product evaluations. From a managerial standpoint, marketers are utilizing 3D technology to enhance consumers' experience in real market. However, the current study found that not all consumers prefer 3D simulations when they are presented with products. Marketers should identify the different preferences of different types of consumers. This constitutes a pragmatic innovation for the home furnishing product market. More importantly, these research results can be utilized in our O2O platform, which was released in September 2015.

Abstract: Background: Individuals with childhood stroke often experience neurological injury that manifests as lifelong cognitive and behavioural impairment; however, research is scarce regarding the neurobehavioural outcomes of children with perinatal stroke. One important aspect of neurobehavioural functioning and cognitive development is executive functioning (EF). EF is predictive of functional life outcomes across many domains, of which include social and cognitive development, and behavioural, emotional, and mental health. EF is poorly understood in the childhood stroke population, and particularly in those with perinatal stroke (which occurs during pregnancy or within the first month after birth). Goals: The objectives of this research project were to: 1) elucidate the EF profiles of children with perinatal stroke from a cool and hot EF model, and 2) describe the association between demographic and clinical factors associated with EF outcomes following stroke. Participants: Eighteen children aged 6-16 with a diagnosis of perinatal stroke were recruited through the Alberta Perinatal Stroke Project (APSP) in Edmonton, Alberta. Participants were identified through the IRB-approved APSP stroke registry or by patient care clinics of pediatric neurologists. Method: Children underwent a neurobehavioural assessment, which was a measure of cool EF outcomes. Parents/guardians completed behavioural rating measures regarding their child’s EF in real-life situations, which was a measure of hot EF outcomes. Additionally, parents/guardians also filled out questionnaires that captured the child’s demographic background (age, sex, ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status) as well as medical characteristics (lesion size, lesion location, epilepsy presence). Results: On measures of cool EF, children with perinatal stroke were more impaired than the normative sample on almost all measures, including Animal Sorting, Response Set, Design Fluency, and Inhibition-Naming, Inhibition-Inhibition, and Inhibition-Switching (all p < 0.05). Auditory Attention was not significantly impaired in the perinatal stroke group. With regards to measures of hot EF, children with perinatal stroke were rated as significantly more impaired than the normative sample on domains of Shift, Working Memory, Task-Monitoring, Organization/Planning, and the Cognitive Regulation Index (all p < 0.05). Male children and children with a history of epilepsy demonstrated worse performance on several cool EF measures; age did not have a significant impact. At the group level, children with perinatal stroke performed within the low-average range on measures of global intellectual functioning (IQ), which was significantly lower than the normative population. Additionally, children with perinatal stroke who had a global IQ score in the below-average range had significantly worse EF outcomes than those with global IQ scores in the average range. Conclusions: Children with perinatal stroke demonstrated significantly more deficits than the normative population on measures of cool and hot EF. Additionally, children who were male and/or had comorbid epilepsy had more impairments in cool EF domains.

Cardiovascular absolute risk (CVAR) assessment, which involves estimation of the probability of developing a cardiovascular event over time based on assessment of multiple risk factors, has been recommended by many clinical guidelines to improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention. However, a lack of implementation strategies has hindered widespread translation of the guidelines into practice and little research has been conducted on developing and testing implementation strategies. The aim of this research was to develop an implementation model of CVAR assessment and management in Australian general practice. It consisted of development and feasibility studies, which were carried out in three phases. In Phase 1, I conducted focus groups and interviews to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs), patients and key informants on how the CVAR assessment and management should be implemented. My themes were based on a literature review, research done in preparation for this study, and relevant theoretical models. Key findings were used to develop a multi-strategy CVAR implementation model encompassing appropriate patient selection and preparation as well as the conduct of appropriate CVAR assessment and management. In Phase 2, using mixed methods research, I explored the application of the model and its impact on GPs and patients. This confirmed that appropriate patient selection, use of a patient self-assessment (SA) form, electronic CVAR calculator and management guideline, length of consultation, and training of GPs to develop skills in communicating CVAR results and in shared decision making (SDM) were important in improving CVAR assessment and management, and supporting patient involvement and active self-management. In Phase 3, using mixed methods research (including consultation recording analysis), I focused on the detailed process and content of CVAR consultations. This showed that at least 15 minutes’ consultation may be necessary. Quantifying the CVAR score using an electronic calculator was important to help motivate patients. Greater emphasis was needed in GP training on use of the patient SA form, SDM and intensification of medications and referrals in response to patient's high CVAR. Barriers to referral also need to be addressed. This research demonstrated that the proposed implementation model was feasible in promoting the better use of CVAR assessment and management. This has important implications for future research, practice and policy. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed model in reducing CVD risk and improving clinical outcomes and its applicability in other cultures and contexts.