See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225084122

The influence of university image on

student behaviour
Article in International Journal of Educational Management January 2010
DOI: 10.1108/09513541011013060

CITATIONS

READS

47

643

2 authors:
Helena Alves

Mario Raposo

Universidade da Beira Interior

Universidade da Beira Interior

94 PUBLICATIONS 576 CITATIONS

115 PUBLICATIONS 1,115 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SCIENT: A European University-Business Alliance aiming to foster young

SCIEntists ENTrepreneurial spirit View project
Entrepreneurial Universities Book View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Helena Alves

Retrieved on: 02 November 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

The influence of university image

on student behaviour

The influence
of university
image

Helena Alves and Mario Raposo

Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior,
Covilha, Portugal

73

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the influence of image on student satisfaction and
loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach In order to accomplish the objectives proposed, a model
reflecting the influence of image on student satisfaction and loyalty is applied. The model is tested
through use of structural equations and the final sample is of 2,687 students.
Findings The model shows that image is the construct that most influences student satisfaction.
The influence of image is also relevant on student loyalty.
Research limitations/implications In this paper, the constructs of image resulted in a reliability
level of 0.846; future research is needed in order to find more reliable image measurement indicators.
Practical implications If higher education institutions have to compete through image, the first
step to take is to measure the university image held by its students. It is proven by this paper that the
construct which most influences student satisfaction in higher education is the image construct, with a
total effect of 0.86. Thus, if the institutional image rises or falls by a unit in terms of valorisation,
satisfaction increases or diminishes by a proportion of 0.86 and loyalty by a proportion of 0.73.
Originality/value Several studies have shown that, in general, corporate image is important to
attract and retain customers. This paper depicts the specific influences of image specifically on student
satisfaction and student loyalty and also the respective level of influence.
Keywords Universities, Corporate image, Students, Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty, Portugal
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In the last two decades, the higher education sector in Portugal, similar to as happened
in the USA and other European countries, has experienced quite profound changes. As
a result, higher education in Portugal faces more competitive market structures that
threaten the survival of some existing institutions with the latter now forced into an
increasingly fierce competition for scarce resources with a greater number of potential
candidates.
In the future, it is expected that this scenario of competition will become even more
intense deriving from the implementation of the Bologna convention and the resulting
harmonization of academic degrees across the European Union. With the harmonization
of the different academic degrees, the mobility and employability of students,
professors, researchers and technicians will be greater and hence less-competitive
universities may come to lose a significant part of their students and their human
capital. Given the present per capita and per knowledge areas financing system (Santos,
1995), many universities may not survive. In this sense, higher education institutions
need to find ways to compete and survive. According to Landrum et al. (1998),
university image may represent a valuable asset in this competitive arena.

International Journal of Educational

Management
Vol. 24 No. 1, 2010
pp. 73-85
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
DOI 10.1108/09513541011013060

IJEM
24,1

74

According to Kotler and Fox (1995), an institutions current image and reputation is
often more important than quality because it is the perceived image that actually
influences choices made by prospective students. It influences who applies (Landrum
et al., 1998; Fielder et al., 1993; James et al., 1999), student satisfaction (Clow et al., 1997;
Eskildsen et al., 1999; Cassel and Eklof, 2001) and student loyalty (Eskildsen et al.,
1999). Accordingly, several universities have already increased their investments in
order to distinguish themselves from their competitors (McPherson and Shapiro, 1998).
In this sense, appropriate management strategies should include efforts to determine
both the institutional image and how it can be modified. To Fellers (1982), this effort
should include assessments not only by external entities but also by students, faculty
and staff.
Effective management of image can help colleges to:
.
formulate results-oriented communications to constituencies, particularly
prospective students;
.
acquire a more competitive market position; and
.
enhance its competitive stature (Wilson, 1999).
In their studies of university image, Yavas and Shemwell (1996), Landrum et al. (1998)
and Parameswaran and Glowacka (1995) found that higher education institutions need
to maintain or develop a distinct image to create a competitive advantage in an
increasingly competitive market. To these authors, image is one of the main influences
on student willingness to apply for enrolment. University image is also important when
donors are considering endowments or companies selecting an institution to undertake
contracted research and development. As Dowling (1988) refers, corporations do not
have just one image but multiple images.
However, literature on university image as perceived by its students and how this
image affects their behaviour remains scarce. In this sense, this study focuses on
gathering information as to the importance of image to students and its influence on
student satisfaction and loyalty levels.
Image and its influence
Image concept
The influence of corporate image has been studied by many researchers. Kennedy
(1977) summarizes these influences in several categories, namely, general promotion
value, favourable behaviour towards the company, effect on product sales, product
differentiation, shareholder and employee attraction, the relationship with community
and government, influence on attitudes, familiarity and favourability, etc.
According to Arpan et al. (2003), previous research on organizational image
included three categories:
(1) research examining the source of an organizations image;
(2) research addressing the possibility of varying images across stakeholder
groups; and
(3) research identifying elements of a multidimensional image construct.
A further line of research has attracted the interest of researchers: the influence of
image on customer behaviour. The work of Palacio et al. (2002) and Helgesen and

Nesset (2007) adopt this line of research in universities and is also adopted in this
research.
For Kotler and Fox (1995), an image is an overall impression that a person has about
an object. It may be based on incomplete information and it may differ for the various
publics of an institution. Since organizations have several different publics, a company
does not have one message but multiple images (Dowling, 1988). Image assessment
reveals to the institution what strengths to emphasize and what to communicate. In
this sense, university image can be defined as the sum of all the beliefs an individual
has towards the university (Landrum et al., 1998; Arpan et al., 2003).
Furthermore, according to Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) image is a cognition and/or
effect, which is inferred, either from a set of ongoing perceptions and/or memory inputs
attached to a phenomenon and which represents what that phenomenon signifies to the
individual. In addition, multiple images and image attributes can be held and even
differ. Singular images can be interpreted as positive, neutral or negative toward the
organization (Kazoleas et al., 2001).
From the perspective of Kennedy (1977), image has two distinguishing components:
functional, related to intangible stimuli and that can be easily measured and emotional,
associated with psychological conditions that become apparent in feeling and
attitudes. According to Mazursky and Jacoby (1986), functional qualities referred, for
example, to store layout, range of prices and goods, whilst emotional components
referred to the consumers sense of belonging and sensations of good or bad. Palacio
et al. (2002) in their study about university image, support Kennedys position and
proved that university image is formed through the cognitive and affective component,
although affective components were more influential on global image formation. These
researchers also proved that the cognitive component of university image influenced
the affective component of that image.
In turn, Wilson (1999) in a study of college and university images suggests that image
is both a cognitive and a communicative process, as well as a product perception.
Correspondingly, institutional image is a perceptual view of an organization, influenced
by tangible and intangible organizational elements, communication, personal and social
values. Usually, a target audience perceives an institution across a number of
dimensions, usually called components. These components may include academic
reputation, campus appearance, cost, personal attention, location, distance from home,
graduate and professional preparation, career placement, among others (Huddleston
and Karr, 1982).
The study of Kazoleas et al. (2001) points to organizational infrastructure being the
most basic and critical factor for images, although personal connections and
environmental factors also have considerable influence.
According to Fram (1982), university image is usually seen as a Gestalt (organized
whole) therefore university image is often composed of ideas about faculty, the
curriculum, the teaching quality and the tuition-quality relationship. In order to truly
understand its image, a university should survey current students, alumni and the
local community. In this way, Arpan et al. (2003) found three stable factors influence
university image: academic attributes, athletic attributes and news media coverage but
only academic attributes were consistent across groups.
Weissman (1990), in her study about institutional image assessment and
modification in colleges and universities, refers to how several techniques can be

The influence
of university
image
75

IJEM
24,1

76

used to make this assessment, in particular, unstructured interviews,

familiarity-favorability measurement, item lists, semantic differential, object scoring
and multidimensional scaling. These techniques are grouped by Dowling (1988) in
nonattribute-based scaling procedures and attribute-based scaling procedures.
To Klooster et al. (2008), the utilisation of Likert attitude questionnaires is more
adequate to measure an institutional image if an overall impression of the image is to
be obtained. Though this instrument, we obtain one composite average score and
information about specific items or image dimensions.
Influence of image
Some studies have found that university institutional image and reputation strongly
affect retention and loyalty (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001; Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998;
Helgesen and Nesset, 2007). According to Eskildsen et al. (1999), this variable is really
the one that has the most influence on student loyalty in higher education. Furthermore,
loyalty is a concept that has been insufficiently applied in higher education.
To Oliver (1997, p. 392), customer loyalty is a:
[. . .] deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product or service
consistently in the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the
potential to cause switching behaviour.

For Webb and Jagun (1997), this concept measures student willingness to recommend
the institution to others students, the wish to tell positive things about the institution
and the will to return later to continue his/her studies.
After graduating, a loyal student may continue to support his/her academic
institution, whether financially and/or though word of mouth to other prospective,
current or former students or even through some form of cooperation (Henning-Thurau
et al., 2001). In this sense, loyalty can be measured through: intention to continue to use
education, conferences, etc. at the higher education institution in the future; intention to
recommend the higher education institution; intention to recommend study
programmes at the higher education institution; choosing that higher education
institution were the student to have to choose today; choosing the study programme
were the student to have to choose today (Martensen et al., 1999).
In the Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) study, loyalty was measured by student intention
to: consider the business school as his/her first choice for education, to continue his/her
program at the business school and intention to encourage friends to study at the
business school as well as the intention to recommend it as the best in its area.
In the same way, for Athiyaman (1997), loyalty is the combination between student
willingness to talk positively about the institution and to provide information to new
candidates.
However, these results are not supported by all studies (Bloemer et al., 1998). For
instance, Clow et al. (1997) suggest that the influence of image is more on customer
satisfaction.
In general terms, satisfaction can be viewed as a process or a result. As a process,
satisfaction is analysed in the light of its nature: whether cognitive or emotional (Howard
and Sheth, 1969; Oliver, 1981; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983; Ngobo, 1997). As a result,
satisfaction is analysed as the main cause of that satisfaction (Hunt, 1977; Oliver, 1980;
Bearden and Teel, 1983; Day, 1984; Tse and Wilton, 1988; Anderson, 1993).

Student satisfaction as a process is the view that allows institutions to analyse the
influence image has on satisfaction.
The relationship between corporate image and satisfaction does not appear
particularly consensual. In some studies, results point to the influence that satisfaction
has on corporate image while in some other studies the contrary was proven.
According to the results found by Nguyen and Leblanc (1998), satisfaction has no
significant effect on corporate image. In turn, the results reached in the studies of
Oliver and Linda (1981), Bolton and Drew (1991) and Fornell (1992) suggest that image
has a powerful effect on customer satisfaction. This latter view has greater empirical
consistency.
The study of Palacio et al. (2002) concluded that the overall image influences student
satisfaction and that this affective and cognitive component also has separate effects
on satisfaction. In studies carried out using the European Customer Satisfaction Index
as a basis (Kristensen et al., 1999; Cassel and Eklof, 2001), image always appears as one
of the variables with the greatest influence in the formation of satisfaction with its
direct influence through expectations proving superior to its indirect influence. On the
contrary, in the research of Helgesen and Nesset (2007) results showed student
satisfaction to have a positive impact on student perception of the university image.
The model proposed by Clow et al. (1997) (Figure 1) proposes that company image is
formed by tangibles such as price, advertising and worth of mouth and that this image
influences satisfaction directly and indirectly through perceived quality. The research
of Clow et al. (1997) on various service industries concluded that the influence on
satisfaction only appears in some industries.
Andreassen and Lindestad (1998) verified that corporate image influences customer
satisfaction especially if the customer has little knowledge about the service.
In this way, given the lack of studies on this area of higher education, the following
hypotheses have been established with the objective of trying to contribute towards the
development of knowledge on this aspect of higher education:

The influence
of university
image
77

Tangibles

Price
Advertising

Company
image

Word-of-mouth
Expectations

Service technical
quality
Service functional
quality
Source: Clow et al. (1997: 235)

Satisfaction

Figure 1.
Model of combined
expectations

IJEM
24,1

H1a. University image has a direct and significant influence in the satisfaction
formation process.
H1b. University image has a direct and significant influence in student loyalty.

78

Methodology
In order to accomplish the objectives proposed, the National Satisfaction Index
methodology was adopted in accordance with literature (Fornell, 1992) suggesting that
in order to measure satisfaction and loyalty it is necessary to taking into consideration
their antecedents and consequences. Correspondingly, the model applied was that
shown in Figure 2.
Sample definition
Given the technical impossibility of including all institutions of higher education in
Portugal, an option was made to restrict the study to the public university education.
Thus, the target population considered was all students at public universities
belonging to the Conselho de Reitores das Universidades Portuguesas (CRUP; The
Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities) with the exception of Universidade
Aberta (the Open University) due to the particularities of the education it provides.
The sample was selected at random with the purpose of constituting fixed
sub-samples of 250 students that would include students from the different academic
areas taught at the universities. In the end, the sample did not correspond exactly to the
250 students per university, reaching a total of 2,687 students. Concerning the samples
gender composition, the sample is characterized by 62.6 per cent of female students and
only 37.4 per cent male students.
Method of data collection
Given the intended objectives of this research, a survey using questionnaires was the
chosen means of data collection. The scales used in part result from scales already
tested in various studies despite the verbal context often being adapted to the realities
of higher education.

Image

Student
loyalty
Student
expectations

Technical
quality
perceived

Figure 2.
Conceptual model
to be tested

Functional quality
perceived

Perceived
value

Students global
satisfaction in
higher education
Word of mouth
actions

Hence, throughout the questionnaire, multiple item scales were used to bring about the
reduction of the standard error and the size of the required sample (Ryan et al., 1995), as
well as measuring constructs with greater validity (Hayes, 1998; Anderson and Fornell,
2000). The scales used intervals of 1-10 as raising the number of points on the scale
further reduces bias in answers (Fornell, 1992).
To measure the construct image, the same type of scales and attributes used in the
studies conducted by Yavas and Shemwell (1996), Landrum et al. (1998) and from the
National Customer Satisfaction Indexes were applied. To measure the consequences of
satisfaction the attributes used by Webb and Jagun (1997) and Martensen et al. (1999)
were adopted. In the measurement of the satisfaction construct scales already tested by
several researchers were used (Oliver, 1977, 1980; Oliver and Bearden, 1983; Westbrook
and Oliver, 1981). As Hausknecht (1990) points out, researchers have little need to
develop more scales given those existing have already proven their worth. The scales
used include a measurement of satisfaction, one of correspondence with expectations
and one of correspondence to an ideal university.
In order to reduce eventual questionnaire errors, and according to Lakatos and
Marconi (1996) recommendations, a pre-test of the questionnaire was organized with 25
University of Beira Interior students. The pre-test results showed that the
questionnaire vocabulary as well as its structure were both easily understood by
students and its filling out time was approximately ten minutes.
In order to test the hypotheses established, it became necessary to analyse and
interpret the data. Thus, data analysis was carried out through structural equations
using analysis of moment structures Version 4.0 statistical software.

The influence
of university
image
79

Analysis of results
Following the two stage modelling strategy and after confirming the acceptability of
the measurement model, there then proceeded an estimation of the structural model.
The estimated model is that shown in Figure 3. This figure details the standardised
regression weights.
Word of
mouth

0.23

Image
0.45

0.15
0.00

0.57
0.85

Expectations

0.56
0.118
0.08

0.65

Satisfaction
0.40

Value

0.57
0.23

0.11

0.22
Quality

0.15
Loyalty
Key:
Theoretical relations supported
Empirical relations encountered
Non-supported theoretical relations

Figure 3.
Final model

IJEM
24,1

80

Estimated coefficients are all statistically significant to a 0.05 level of significance

(Table I), thus one can say that all indicators are significantly related to their specific
constructs. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value gives us the data variance percentage
which is explained by the model (Garcia and Martinez, 2000). Thus, for this study, it
may be stated that the model explains a quite elevated percentage of data variance:
about 94 per cent (GFI 0.941) indicating that its acceptability can be considered quite
good.
Since all the model coefficients are statistically significant and the model presents a
very good extracted variance, henceforth we refer only to the constructs that constitute
the focus of this paper, namely, image, satisfaction and loyalty. Table II presents the
composed reliability of each of these constructs, that is, the level of internal consistency
for each construct, as well as the variance explained by each construct.
As can be observed, all constructs exceed the minimum reliability level of 0.7
recommended by Hair et al. (1998) and Garcia and Martinez (2000) pointing to the
specified indicators being sufficient in their representation of inherent constructs.

Regression weights

Table I.
Measurement model
standardized regression
weights

EXP1 Expectations
EXP2 Expectations
IM1 Image
IM2 Image
IM4 Image
Q1 quality
Q2 quality
Q5 quality
V1 value
V2 value
V4 value
S1 satisfaction
S2 satisfaction
S3 satisfaction
L1 loyalty
L2 loyalty
P1 word of mouth
P2 word of mouth

t-values

p*

0.818
0.887
0.857
0.750
0.869
0.910
0.740
0.754
0.867
0.850
0.821
0.911
0.903
0.896
0.878
0.802
0.892
0.848

44.605
48.782
54.535
44.621
55.695
59.350
43.594
44.802
55.045
53.287
50.522
60.741
59.918
59.054
54.752
48.257
53.485
57.745

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Note: *For a probability level of 0.05

Construct
Satisfaction
Image
Table II.
Construct reliability and
extracted variance

Estimate

Loyalty

Indicator
S1
S2
S3
IM1
IM2
IM4
L1
L2

Reliability

Explained variance

0.930

0.816

0.866

0.685

0.828

0.707

One can still see that the construct with the highest internal reliability is that of
satisfaction (90 per cent), measured by the level of global satisfaction (S1), by the level
of correspondence to expectations (S2) and by the level of correspondence to students
current wishes/needs (S3).
The construct of image showed a reliability level of 87 per cent, measured through
the perception of: a good university to study at (IM1); an innovative university focused
on the future (IM2); and a university which provides good preparation to its students
(IM4).
The construct expectations attain 84 per cent of reliability. This construct was
measured through the variables: expectations related to the global education quality
(EXP1) and by expectations concerning the universitys capacity to supply good career
preparation (EXP2). As regards the variance explained by the constructs, the
constructs always explain more than 50 per cent, the minimum value recommended by
Hair et al. (1998) and Garcia and Martinez (2000).
In turn, Table III presents the various structural equations, as well as the
determination coefficient (R 2) for each equation. From analysis of the determination
coefficients of the various structural equations present in Table III, it was found that
the satisfaction construct presents quite a high level of variance (87 per cent) explained
by its antecedents and that image was the greatest direct influence on satisfaction
(0.452) while also bearing a considerable influence on loyalty (0.233).
As can be seen in Table IV, the influence of image is greater when we analyse the
direct and indirect effects of the model. For satisfaction, the total effect of image jumps
to 0.86 and to 0.73 for loyalty.

The influence
of university
image
81

Conclusions and implications

This study demonstrated that the construct that most influences student satisfaction in
higher education is that of image as this has a direct effect of 0.45 and further indirect
effects. Hence, the total influence of perceived image over student satisfaction is of 0.86.
In other words, in terms of total effects, if the image of the institution rises or falls by a
unit in terms of valorisation, satisfaction increases or decreases in a proportion of 0.86.

Structural
equations

Endogenous
Image

Customer
expectations

Student
satisfaction
Student
loyalty

0.452

2 0.118

Satisfaction
Loyalty

Constructs
Exogenous
Quality
Value
Student
Student
perceived perceived satisfaction loyalty
0.153

0.405

R2
0.795

0.233

0.578

0.620

Direct

Image
Indirect

Total

0.45
0.23

0.40
0.50

0.86
0.73

Table III.
Model structural
equations

Table IV.
Direct, indirect and total
effects of image on
student expectations,
satisfaction and loyalty

IJEM
24,1

82

Its direct influence is less, but also significant, in the formation of loyalty (0.23), an
influence that becomes greater through indirect effects (0.73).
The results encountered illustrate that from all the antecedents, the image variable
is the one which has the most influence in the satisfaction formation process, similar to
the results encountered by Kristensen et al. (1999) and Cassel and Eklof (2001). Thus,
H1a is upheld, suggesting a direct and significant influence of image on satisfaction.
In relation to the direct influence of image on student loyalty, it was proven that it
was significant, despite its influence not being as important as that found by Eskildsen
et al. (1999). Correspondingly, evidence was encountered allowing the validity of H1b
to be supported.
This investigation sheds light on the higher education student satisfaction
formation process, showing that image can influence student satisfaction and loyalty.
It is possible to say that to measure and understand university image is very important
because of its influence over the student satisfaction and loyalty formation process. If
higher education institutions have to compete through image, the first step to take is to
measure the university image held by students. The second step should be to ascertain
how the constructed image is formed and how it can be modified in order to better
reflect the intended image.
In this way, this research contributes towards deepening the knowledge about
university image and its importance for higher education institutions in retaining
current students and attracting new students.
Future research
In this study, the constructs of image, satisfaction and loyalty were analysed. However,
the constructs of image, and loyalty presented a reliability level lower than
satisfactory, 0.846 and 0.828, respectively. Hence, a future area of research is to repeat
this study, trying to find alternative indicators to measure the constructs, specifically
indicators that present lower individual reliability as for example the image indicator
Innovative university focused on the future in order to succeed in obtaining levels of
reliability above 90 per cent across all constructs.
References
Anderson, E. (1993), Firm, industry and national indices of customer satisfaction: implications
for services, in Swartz, T., Bowen, D. and Brown, S. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing
and Management, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Hampton Hill, pp. 87-108.
Anderson, E. and Fornell, C. (2000), Foundations of the American Customer Satisfaction Index,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. S869-82.
Andreassen, T. and Lindestad, B. (1998), The impact of corporate image in the formation of
customer loyalty, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92.
Arpan, L., Raney, A. and Zivnuska, S. (2003), A cognitive approach to understanding university
image, Corporate Communications, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Athiyaman, A. (1997), Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of
university education, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 528-40.
Bearden, W. and Teel, J. (1983), Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint
reports, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, pp. 21-8.
Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1998), On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction
and store loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-513.

Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K. and Peeters, P. (1998), Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: the
complex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 276-86.
Bolton, R. and Drew, J. (1991), A multistage model of customers assessments of service quality
and value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 375-84.
Cassel, C. and Eklof, J. (2001), Modelling customer satisfaction and loyalty on aggregate levels
experience from the ECSI pilot study, Proceedings of the 6th TQM World Congress, Saint
Petersbourg, pp. 307-14.
Clow, K., Kurtz, D., Ozment, J. and Ong, B. (1997), The antecedents of consumer expectations of
services: an empirical study across four industries, The Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 230-48.
Day, R.L. (1984), Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction, in Kinnear,
T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ACR, Provo, UT, pp. 496-9.
Dowling, G. (1988), Measuring corporate images: a review of alternative approaches, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 17, pp. 27-34.
Eskildsen, J., Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L. and Kristensen, K. (1999), Benchmarking student
satisfaction in higher education based on the ECSI methodology, Proceedings of the TQM
for Higher Education Institutions Conference: Higher Education Institutions and the Issue
of Total Quality, 30-31 August, Verona, pp. 385-402.
Fellers, J. (1982), Current trends in image assessment, ERIC Reports, ED 246 812, National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Boulder, CO.
Fielder, J., Hilton, C. and Motes, W. (1993), Educational services marketing: a proposed system
for enhanced recruitment of students, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 8,
pp. 191-205.
Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 6-21.
Fram, E. (1982), Maintaining and enhancing a college or a university, paper presented at
Twenty-Second Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, ERIC
Reports, ED 220 044, 16-19 May, Denver, CO.
Garcia, S. and Martinez, T. (2000), Analisis de ecuaciones estructurales, in Martinez, T.L. (Cor.),
Tecnicas de Analisis de Datos en Investigacion de Mercados, Piramide, Madrid.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hausknecht, D. (1990), Measurement scales in consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 1-11.
Hayes, B. (1998), Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Survey Design, Use, and Statistical Analysis
Methods, 2nd ed., ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E. (2007), Images, satisfaction and antecedents: drivers of student
loyalty? A case study of Norwegian University College, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-59.
Henning-Thurau, T., Langer, M. and Hansen, U. (2001), Modelling and managing student
loyalty: an approach based on the concept of relationship quality, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 331-44.
Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, Wiley, New York, NY.
Huddleston, T. Jr and Karr, M. (1982), Assessing college image, College and University, Vol. 57
No. 4, pp. 364-70.

The influence
of university
image
83

IJEM
24,1

Hunt, K. (1977), CS/D overview and future research directions, in Hunt, K. (Ed.),
Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 455-88.
James, R., Baldwin, G. and Mcinnis, C. (1999), Which University? Factors Influencing the Choices
of Prospective Undergraduate, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of
Melbourne, Melbourne.

84

Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y. and Moffit, M. (2001), Institutional image: a case study, Corporate
Communications, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 205-16.
Kennedy, S. (1977), Nurturing corporate images, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 120-64.
Klooster, P., Visser, M. and Jong, M. (2008), Comparing two image research instruments: the
Q-Sort method versus the Likert attitude questionnaire, Food Quality and Preference,
Vol. 19, pp. 511-8.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K. (1995), Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, 2nd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kristensen, K., Martensen, A. and Gronhold, L. (1999), Measuring the impact of buying behaviour
on customer satisfaction, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. S602-14.
Lakatos, E. and Marconi, M. (1996), Fundamentos de metodologia cientfica, 3rd ed., Editora
Atlas, Sao Paulo.
Landrum, R., Turrisi, R. and Harless, C. (1998), University image: the benefits of assessment and
modeling, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
McPherson, M. and Shapiro, M. (1988), The Student Aid Game, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Martensen, A., Grnholdt, L., Eskildsen, J. and Kristensen, K. (1999), Measuring student oriented
quality in higher education: application of the ECSI methodology, Proceedings from the
TQM for Higher Education Conference Higher Education institutions and the Issue of
Total Quality, 30-31 August, Verona, pp. 371-83.
Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), Exploring the development of store image, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 145-65.
Ngobo, P. (1997), Qualite percue et satisfaction des consommateurs: un etat des recherches,
Revue Francaise du Marketing, No. 163, pp. 67-79.
Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (1998), The mediating role of corporate image on customer retention
decisions: an investigation in financial services, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 52-65.
Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (2001), Image and reputation of higher education institutions in
students retention decisions, The International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 303-11.
Oliver, R. (1977), Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on post exposure product
evaluations: an alternative interpretation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 480-6.
Oliver, R. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9.
Oliver, R. (1981), Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail setting, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 57, pp. 25-48.
Oliver, R. (1997), Satisfaction A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, Irwin, New York, NY.

Oliver, R. and Bearden, W. (1983), The role of involvement in satisfaction processes, in Tybout,
A. and Bagozzi, R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ACR, Provo, UT,
pp. 250-5.
Oliver, R. and Linda, G. (1981), Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on consumer preference
and intention, in Monrie, K.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ACR,
Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 88-93.
Palacio, A., Meneses, G. and Perez, P. (2002), The configuration of the university image and its
relationship with the satisfaction of students, Journal of Educational Administration,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 486-505.
Parameswaran, R. and Glowacka, A. (1995), University image: an information processing
perspective, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 41-56.
Ryan, M., Buzas, T. and Ramaswamy, V. (1995), Making CSM a power tool: composite indices
boost the value of satisfaction measures for decision making, Marketing Research,
Summer, pp. 11-16.
Santos, S. (1995), Tendencias do ensino universitario em Portugal, Seminario Internacional Os
Estudos Superiores em Macau, Janeiro, Macau.
Tse, D. and Wilton, P. (1988), Models of consumer satisfaction formation: an extension, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 204-12.
Webb, D. and Jagun, A. (1997), Customer care, customer satisfaction, value, loyalty and
complaining behavior: validation in a UK university setting, Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 139-51.
Weissman, J. (1990), Institutional image assessment and modification in colleges and
universities, Journal of Higher Education Management, Vol. 6, pp. 65-75.
Westbrook, R. and Oliver, R. (1981), Developing better measures of consumer satisfaction: some
preliminary results, in Monrie, K.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ACR,
Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 94-9.
Westbrook, R. and Reilly, M. (1983), Value-percept disparity: an alternative to the
disconfirmation of expectations theory of consumer satisfaction, in Tybout, A. and
Bagozzi, R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ACR, Provo, UT, pp. 256-61.
Wilson, A. (1999), Strategic imaging in academe: a study of college and university images as
perceived by prospective college students, dissertation submitted as partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, IL.
Yavas, U. and Shemwell, D. (1996), Graphical representation of university image: a
correspondence analysis, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Corresponding author
Helena Alves can be contacted at: halves@ubi.pt

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The influence
of university
image
85