Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral response in business

schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes?

Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Brunel Business School, Brunel University London, UKsharifah.alwi@brunel.ac.uk

Philip J. Kitchen, ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes, Francephilip.kitchen@esc-rennes.fr; philipkitchen@hotmail.com

March 2014

The authors are grateful to University Malaya Research Grant (UMRG), Malaysia for the

research grant awarded for this project under grant no. FS126/2007C. We would also like to

express our deepest appreciation to the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MOHE) and

Deans for the permission granted to collect data on all four state business schools involved in

this study. Send correspondence to Sharifah Alwi, Brunel Business School, Brunel University

London, UB8 3PH, Uxbridge, UK. (sharifah.alwi@brunel.ac.uk)

1

PROJECTING CORPORATE BRAND IMAGE AND BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS: COGNITIVE OR AFFECTIVE

BRAND ATTRIBUTES?

ABSTRACT

This paper considers corporate brand image, focusing on cognitive and affective brand

attributes in the context of business schools. While previous research on university or

institutional branding has studied these elements separately via cognitive (e.g., service or

educational quality attributes) or affective criteria (personality traits of the corporate brand),

this study investigates them jointly through behavioral responses (leading to positive

recommendations about the corporate brand). This is important because brand equity such as

positive word-of- mouth (or mouse) is derived from both attitudinal components, rather than

being based on only one component. Drawing on an empirical survey of postgraduate (MBA)

students from four business schools, findings reveal that both cognitive and affective

attitudinal components appear equally important in shaping corporate brand image. Further,

when the mediating effect is investigated, interestingly, students’ positive recommendations

to schools depended largely on the affective (prestigious, adventurous, empathy and

competence) rather than upon the cognitive brand attributes. This paper contributes

theoretically to the corporate brand, consumer behavior and marketing higher education

institution (HEI) literature by investigating both attitudinal components at a corporate brand

level and investigates their effects on behavioral/conative response. The practical

contribution of the paper and its managerial implications lie in the context of defining

strategy in relation to positioning business schools in an increasingly competitive higher

education market.

Keywords: Business school brand, corporate brand image, word-of-mouth, consumer loyalty

attitudinal criteria, higher education

Paper type – Research paper

2

1. Introduction

The increased demand for business education worldwide (Hawawini, 2005) has led the

business school industry to become one of the fastest-growing segments in higher education and it

continues to grow steadily around the globe (Davies & Chun, 2008; Antunes & Thomas, 2007;

Curtis, Abratt & Minor, 2009). However, such growth underpins competitive pressures among

schools to be seen as prestigious locally as well as globally. This has resulted in the burgeoning

importance of branding within educational institutions and business schools (Hemsley-Brown &

Goonawardana, 2007). By having a reputable image a business school will benefit in many ways

including rank, increased enrolment of excellent students, attracting funding opportunities , top

employer recruitment, and alumni donations (Gioia & Corley, 2002; Davies & Chun, 2008; Curtis

et al., 2009). In addition, several researchers have proposed that business schools or higher

educational institutions (HEI’s) can effectively position their corporate or institutional brands by

using corporate brand image (Melewar & Akel, 2005; Balmer & Liao, 2007; Davies & Chun,

2008; Hemsley-Brown & Goonwardana, 2007; Curtis et al., 2009; Bennett & Ali-Choudhury,

2009).

However, despite the above, to-date, few scholars focus upon the corporate brand image in the

business school context when modelling consumer behavioral response (e.g., Melewar & Akel,

2005; Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006; Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007; Davies &

Chun, 2008; Curtis et al., 2009). Most extant works in this context either tend to be theoretical in

nature (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007) or focus on the services aspect of HEIs by

incorporating a singular component of attitude such as service, product or educational quality. For

example, past studies have attempted to understand how HEI’s or business schools position

themselves by understanding choice factors of student-consumers using elements such as service

and product or educational quality (school facilities, program quality and course choice, learning

environment, university accommodation, teaching methods, and the ‘people’ element - academics

3

or administration) (see Petruzzellis, D’Uggento & Romanazzi, 2006; Holdford & Reinders, 2001;

Price, Matzdorf, Smith & Agahi, 2003; Voss, Gruber & Szmigin, 2007; Maringe, 2006; C-L- Ng

& Forbes, 2009).

Whilst the above studies provide useful initial understanding of how corporate brand image

could be perceived in this sector, they represent only a single attitude component of the corporate

brand image such as cognitive or functional attributes (Balmer & Gray 2003) thus, can only

explain the partial impact of the corporate brand (Anisimova, 2007). Service quality is only a form

of cognitive evaluation (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Chiu, 2002) and researchers should go beyond

this in identifying the emotional or intangible brand aspect of a service (Edvardsson, 2005).

Moreover, since attitude is not only about cognitive but also about affective evaluation and

behavioral/conative responses (Edwards, 1990; Chiu, 2002), incorporating both attitude

components might be more useful and provide a more comprehensive meaning when trying to

understand corporate brand image particularly in the business school context. This is because new

students rely on corporate brand image built not only through service or product quality but also

through more symbolic or affective and emotional type of brand attributes (Franzen & Bouwman,

2001) such as the personality of the corporate brand (or corporate brand character) (Davies &

Chun, 2008). Furthermore, previous studies indicate that in the service-related setting, customer

purchase decisions relied upon external cues of the corporate brand such as image and positive

word-of-mouth (Grönroos, 1984; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).

This paper thus, considers attitudinal components associated with business schools namely

cognitive and affective attributes when analyzing business school’s corporate brand image and

students’ behavioral responses (provide positive recommendations about the school based on their

experiences). This research thus, extends the corporate brand theoretical framework by integrating

both attitudinal components (cognitive and affective) and investigates their effects jointly on

business school corporate brand image and consumer behavioural response. Incorporating both

4

affective and cognitive brand attributes in an attempt to understand the business school’s

corporate brand image may shed light upon clearer strategic corporate brand positioning in this

competitive market (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Opoku, Abratt & Pitt, 2006) and subsequently to

better explanations of consumers behavioral responses (Oliver, 1997; Bennett & Ali-Choudhury,

2009).The objective here is to develop a student-consumer behavioral response model based on

their experiences with business schools. This leads to three overarching research questions:

(1) What drives the business schools’ corporate brand image (cognitive or/and affective

brand attributes)?

(2) Given the nature of the service process – outcome relationship discussed in the past as

well as the debate surrounding cognition/affect hierarchical relationship, do cognitive

brand attributes (educational quality here) precedes affective brand attributes (the

school’s character or personality)?

(3) Do the two attitude components (cognitive and affective) have a direct or mediating

effect on behavioral response (via corporate brand image and satisfaction)?

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: First, a brief review of cognitive and

affective brand attributes with regards to HEI’s in general and in particular within business

schools is carried out. A systematic review of past studies on what forms business school’s

corporate brand image and their effect on behavioral response is then discussed. This is

followed by the research methodology. Third, the results of the study are presented and

analyzed, followed by discussion, conclusions and research implications. Finally, limitations

and suggestions for further research are highlighted.

5

2. Literature Review

This study investigates what drives corporate brand image of business schools through the

cognitive and affective brand attributes jointly and explores their direct and indirect effects on

satisfaction and loyalty. The following defines the study constructs and develops the research

hypotheses therein.

2.1 Corporate brand image – an attitude overall evaluation

The term ‘image about a brand (brand image) and ‘image about the corporation’

(corporate brand image) have received great attention from as early as 1955 (Gardner &

Levy, 1955; Martineau, 1958; Park, Jaworski & MacInnis, 1986; Spector, 1961; Patterson,

1999; Stern, Zinkhan & Jaju, 2001). A review of previous studies reveals that understanding

of corporate brand image - remains a challenge due to the terminology that used

inconsistently in the past resulting in the confusion and difficulties in definition (Patterson,

1999; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Stern et al., 2001; Davies, 2013). For example, brand,

image, association, attributes and personality which while different conceptually have been

used to describe the same thing (Franzen & Bouwman, 2001). In an attempt to clarify

corporate brand image and its drivers, this study has sought meaning from three different

literatures namely psychology, consumer behavior (consumer psychology) and corporate

branding (when the corporation is viewed as brand). The next paragraph deals with the first

issue, definition of corporate brand image while the following paragraph discusses its drivers.

In consumer psychology, understanding on how consumers respond to a brand

(positive, favourable perception and willing to commit to positive word-of-mouth) begins

from attitudes (Franzen & Bouwman, 2001). Image is about an attitude of a given brand

(Reynolds, 1965). A classic but very useful attitude model – tri-component - implies that

6

attitudes consist of the interaction between three components, namely, cognitive, affective

and conative (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2007; Rosenberg & Hoveland 1960). Cognitive is about

‘what’ we know about an object; affective refers to ‘how’ we feel, and conative is ‘how

likely’ we are to act on it upon our knowledge and feelings (Chiu, 2002), also known as

behavioural response. The previous debate among psychologists has concerned whether an

attitude should have one, two or three components (Zanna & Rempel, 1988; Chiu, 2002). For

example, (1) attitude can refer to the overall judgements of an object, (2) attitude consists of

cognitive and affective responses to an object and (3) attitude is viewed as more effective if it

is based on cognition (Chiu, 2002; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The most common approach

adopted in consumer brand research was the three component model (Zanna & Rempel,

1988). In line with this, the current study approaches corporate brand image as an overall

attitude judgement of an object (the business school or corporate brand) and this overall

attitude judgement is based/formed through dual attitudinal components (cognitive and

affective brand attributes).

Similarly, in a corporation, institution or company, Stern et al. (2001) explain that

image about a corporation refers to (1) external world perceptions (or impressions that reside

in stakeholder minds), which represent ‘gestalt’ or overall impressions of a brand. Although

brand image can mean many different things: brand association, brand attitude, global total

impression of memory and symbolic meaning of a brand (such as using human/personality

traits), it has been commonly associated with the global total impression related to the brand

is stored in memory and which is shared by members of a culture or subculture (Franzen &

Bouwman, 2001). Therefore, construing an overall image of an organization is a result of a

process which entails understanding of a mental map (MacInnis & Price, 1987) and such a

map is shaped in several ways via ideas, feelings, and previous experience with an

organization that are retrieved from memory and transformed into an overall mental map

7

(Yuille & Catchpole, 1977). Moreover, institutional refers to the overall impression in the

minds of publics, stakeholders and constituencies about an organization (Barich & Kotler,

1991; Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). Thus, both brand and corporate image can be defined in

similar ways (they both belong to an attitude concept) which is (1) seen as overall attitude or

judgement about the brand; and (2) driven by both cognitive and affective brand attributes.

Notably the main differences between the two are, on the one hand, brand image has a greater

product and consumer focus (Balmer & Gray, 2003), whereas the latter focuses more on the

corporation as a brand and its stakeholders including consumers (Balmer & Gray, 2003).

Thus, in line with previous definitions, corporate brand image in this study refers to

consumer/student overall attitudes and impressions from their experiences with the business

school. For example, overall attitude evaluation could be in terms of judging a business

school to have good image, having a good impression and/or a better image than competitors.

2.2 Drivers of corporate brand image: Cognitive and affective brand attributes

The drivers of overall attitude judgement (corporate brand image) of business schools

are likely to be based upon cognitive and affective brand attributes. Overall attitude

judgement is about any brand attribute linked to memory Aaker (1991) and there are related

cognitive and affective brand attributes about corporations. For example, Brown (1998,

p.217) defined corporate association as

“…cognition, affect evaluations (that consumers attach to specific cognitions or

affects) summary evaluations and patterns of associations (e.g., schemata, scripts)

with respect to a particular company”.

These attributes could be derived from several sources - namely direct brand experience,

exposure to marketing stimuli/advertising, observations from other, and more importantly, in

the service setting such as in business schools, from normative belief (other peoples beliefs –

8

beliefs/judgments that are made up based on these people’s experiences e.g., parents, spouse,

friends, teachers) (Peter & Olsen, 2008). Similarly, scholars have stressed the importance of

both the cognitive and affective aspects in consumer behaviour and branding preferences (da

Silva & Syed Alwi, 2008; Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005; Grimm, 2005). However, the use of

both attitudinal components to facilitate understanding at the corporate brand level is limited

(Anisimova, 2007).

A review of the literature reveals that a cognitive-type evaluation (using service or

educational quality) is commonly used in educational brand image studies rather than a more

affective and emotional basis (such as using corporate brand character/personality) (Opoku et

al., 2006; Davies, Chun, Roper & Da Silva, 2004). Linking products and services to

emotional attributes (corporate characteristics such as sincerity, trustworthiness) also known

as the sum of values representing the organization in several studies is vital to enhance a

brand’s corporate image (Patterson, 1999; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Davies, et al., 2004).

Likewise, Davies et al. (2003) and Keller & Richey (2006) point out that corporation can be

branded, represented by a sum of values and has its own character and corporate personality.

Balmer (2009) explains that corporate brand refers to stakeholder’s image and reputation of

the firm and is derived from a particular corporate identity at one point in time through

corporate brand values which a synthesis of key values inherent within the identity.

Additionally, institution image is also a reflection of identity (Argenti, 2000).

Although product and educational quality is an important type of functional quality

and is a ‘must’ have brand attribute for every business school or university (see Price et al.,

2003; Voss et al., 2007), an institution’s image is about both two components: functional,

related to tangibles such as product or service offered; and emotional, which is the

psychological dimension manifest in feelings and attitudes towards an institution (Nguyen &

LeBlanc, 2001). Measuring corporate brand image by using only product and service quality

9

is more cognitively oriented and omits affective and emotional attributes (Grönroos, 1984;

Oliver, 1997; Brady & Cronin, 2001; Edvardsson, 2005; Johnson & Grayson, 2005). In order

to increase brand differentiation and image, Pitman (2000) stressed that in higher education;

customer service should move beyond mere “service transactions” and take on a wider focus.

Biel (1991) explains that consumers are faced with many brands, all of which make

functional promises. Lambin (1997) adds that it is difficult to sustain functional advantages

with the advances in technology, a fact which, according to de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo

Riley (1998), is due to most brands competing in the same category having become more

functionally similar. Thus, in order to differentiate brands, Mc Enally & de Chernatony

(1999) point out that marketer should focus on incorporating emotional values into their

brands, portraying these through the use of metaphor in creating brand personality. The

resource-based view (RBV) further states that sustainable competitive advantage is created

primarily from intangible capabilities, including brands and reputation (Omar, Williams &

Lingelbach, 2009). Moreover, Abratt & Kleyn (2012) argue that strong brands and

reputations need to be rare and difficult if not impossible to imitate and consumers are also

evaluating organizational values, not just their products or services (Balmer & Gray, 2003).

Cognitive brand attribute here is defined based on the service quality of business

schools (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Chiu, 2002) due to the fact that most literature in this context

focus on the services aspect of HEIs (see Petruzzellis, D’Uggento & Romanazzi, 2006;

Holdford & Reinders, 2001; Price et al., 2003; Voss et al., 2007; Maringe, 2006; C-L- Ng &

Forbes, 2009). Affective brand attribute on the other hand is defined based on intangible and

emotional criteria such as the personality attributes/traits of a corporation (Davies et al, 2004;

Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse &Mohr, 2004; Davies, 2013; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003 and

Keller & Richey, 2006). Azoulay & Kapferer (2003) explain that personality traits concept is

coined from the psychology area and are clearly different from cognitive aspects and

10

measured by human traits. Opoku et al. (2006), Davies et al. (2004) and Davies (2013)

further argue that personality scales are largely affective and attitude type of measures.

Jointly, they both represent a sum of various corporate attributes which can be grouped into

cognitive brand attributes (the service and perceived educational quality) and the sum of

values or personality representing the organization (represent a more emotional and affective

concept) (Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Opoku et al., 2006; Davies et al., 2004; Davies, 2013).

Thus, a potential student or parent may evaluate their decisions from normative belief

(other’s people belief- a form of an external cue). That is, from experienced students of the

business school who would possibly will be maximizing their recommendations after having

been satisfied with the school’s services both cognitively and emotionally, and will or may

positively recommend to prospective students’ relatives, families and friends (Bennet & Ali-

Choudhry, 2009). Previous research has clearly identified that in service-related setting,

customers rely on external cues of corporate brands such as image and positive word-of-

mouth (Davies & Chun, 2008; Grönroos, 1984; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).

The current study regards business schools as a type of service. That is, consumers

may evaluate and make positive recommendations about a school (corporate brand image)

through the sum of brand values attached to the name or any related corporate brand activities

based on their experiences as well as others (Curtis et al., 2009; Davies & Chun, 2008;

Anisimova, 2007; Davies et al., 2004). Hence, cognitive and affective brand attributes

(jointly) drive corporate brand image. In line with Goldsmith, Lafferty & Newell (2000) and

Davies et al. (2003), these brand attributes are perceptions held by stakeholders based on

accumulated experiences with an organization. Therefore, based on these definitions and

derived from the extant theory, the hypotheses are:

11

H1a Cognitive brand attributes drives corporate brand image

H1b Affective brand attributes drives corporate brand image

2.3 The causality effect of cognitive brand attribute on affective brand attributes

Several studies have attempted to understand the interaction between the cognitive

and affective aspects of brands in the past, however, the hierarchical structure or causality

between both elements remains unresolved and debateable (Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005;

Malhotra, 2005; Lin, 2004; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; da Silva & Syed Alwi, 2008).

According to Oliver (1997) and Franzen & Bouwman (2001), and in consumption and

satisfaction studies, there could be several possibilities of sequence between cognition and

emotion. For example, emotion can appear first and cognition second or vice-versa. In other

words, there could be dual processing. But most past discussion of corporate branding,

consumer behavior and psychology infer that the affective and emotional elements usually

stem from cognitive evaluation (Oliver, 1997; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001). In other words,

cognitive process could have taken place first which then leads to emotional or affect

reaction. This in turn may lead to an overall evaluation and thus lead to behavior intention

(loyalty) and subsequently, actual behavior.

Likewise, De Chernatony (2002) explained that “brand is a cluster of rational and

emotional values that enable stakeholders to recognize a promise about a unique and

welcome experience” and consumers will generally assess a corporate brand in a hierarchical

sequence the rational values first, then proceed to a higher level - the emotional values. This

progression represents a hierarchical structure in a consumer’s brand knowledge (Da Silva &

Syed Alwi, 2008; Anismova, 2007; de Chernatony & Christodoulides, 2004). Additionally,

Ind (2001) and de Chernatony (2002) explain that, when choosing a brand, consumers

initially are concerned with the functional values of the product or company.

12

Similarly, in the service related domain, Grönroos (1990) suggests there are three groups

of quality dimensions: Technical quality; functional quality and corporate image when

evaluating brands in the service-related context such as business schools. The sequence of the

attributes can be seen as an attitude resulting from student perceptions of school performance

regarding the service process (functional quality) and service outcome (technical quality)

(Holdford & Reinders, 2001; Fjortoft & Lee, 1994). Explicitly, in corporate brand image

studies the functional attributes might be appropriately seen as ‘causes’ of affective reactions

itself (Keller, 2003) and the product/service-related characteristics (cognitive elements)

could be primary drivers of brand personality (Aaker, 1996). Thus, the study posits that:

H1c Cognitive brand attribute will have an effect on affective brand attribute

2.4 Behavioral outcome of corporate brand image: Satisfaction and loyalty (positive word-

of-mouth)

Building corporate brand image and reputation in business schools is imperative

because (1) repurchase intention is not and may not be the best measure in a higher education

context and (2) students cannot be treated directly as customer equivalents (Argenti, 2000;

Hemsley & Goonwardana, 2007; Davies & Chun, 2008). In this context, students are rigorous

in selecting business schools due to the desire to meet their own expectation (student-

congruent effect) of the business school, (Belanger, Mount & Wilson, 2002; Davies & Chun,

2008). Students have their own expectation and personality, hence to ensure compatibility

between student and school, students tend to select a more prestigious HEI (with strong

corporate brand image) if they can (Belanger et al., 2002). Additionally, image and reputation

of the school is important as the award of a degree offers a life-long association with a

university and may provide a sense of identification with corporate brand, a means of defining

13

self (Balmer & Liao, 2007; Curtis et al., 2009). In the long-term, students may develop sense

of belonging to their university, seen as their alma mater and be proud to be associated with

the corporate brand (Curtis et al., 2009). They should then offer positive word-of-mouth to

colleagues, prospective students’ parents, subordinates or whoever may seek advice when

pursuing their studies. Ultimately, graduands should evaluate their university as a good,

respected and admired institution (overall attitude evaluation-corporate brand image), (Bennet

& Ali-Choudhry, 2009; Palacio, Meneses & Perez, 2002). This is followed by satisfaction

(feelings such as affinity, happiness or pleased to be associated with the school), (Davies et al.,

2004; Chun & Davies, 2006) and loyalty (e.g., positive word-of-mouth about the school).

Thus, behavioral outcome of experienced students in the business schools can be

represented by:

(1) satisfaction (the affective response such as feeling affinity, happy or pleased with the

school), (Davies et al., 2003; Roper, 2004)

(2) loyalty (for example, engaging in favorable word-of-mouth of the school or maximize

recommendation where the university or school is concerned (Bennet & Ali-Choudhry,

2009), remembering that not all business schools have a natural association with an

umbrella institution (i.e., the French grande ecoles).

Consistently, satisfaction is the affective outcome (Oliver, 1997) and is viewed as

pleasurable level of consumption related fulfillment (Oliver, 1997), and is a result of consumer

reactions evaluated through their experience over time, (Roper, 2004; Davies et al., 2003).

Loyalty refers to behavioral intention of students as the dependent variable can produce higher

validity, as this is more related to the actual behaviors and has richer diagnostic value than

overall service quality (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman 1996).

14

2.4.1 Cognitive brand attribute, satisfaction and loyalty

In the past, customer satisfaction or service quality has been demonstrated to affect or

drives store loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, or repurchase intention (Cronin & Taylor, 1992;

Davies et al., 2003) across a range of consumer products (LaBarbera & Marzursky, 1983).

Product/service performance was found to directly affect satisfaction and loyalty (Shaffer &

Sherrell, 1997) and Martineau (1958) stated that if an individual has a favorable image of, for

an example a retail store, they will probably develop a degree of loyalty corresponding to

image favorability.

Grimm (2005) investigates the relative importance and interaction effect within

attitude components (i.e., cognitive, affective and conative-behavior intention) in relation to

the ability of each to predict brand preferences and found that cognitive brand attributes had

the most impact on brand preference. Recent empirical research on corporate or institutional

brands suggest that institutional brand loyalty (or students’ intention to pursue or say positive

things about the school) also depends on not only the functional brand aspect of the school

(such as the service or educational quality), but also the emotional aspect of the institutions

(Supphellen & Nysveen, 2001). Likewise, Anisimova (2007) and Selnes (1993) found

corporate brand attribute or (product) performance quality had an effect on loyalty via

satisfaction (in Anisimova, 2007’s study) and brand reputation (in Selnes 1993’s study). Thus,

H2a Cognitive brand attribute will have an effect on loyalty via satisfaction (indirect

effect)

H2b Cognitive brand attribute will have a direct effect on satisfaction

H2c Cognitive brand attribute will have a direct effect on loyalty

15

2.4.2 Affective brand attribute, satisfaction and loyalty

Batra, Donald & Dipinder, (1993) explain that personality traits are normally

associated with a brand in an indirect way, for instance, through product-related attributes,

product category association, brand name, symbol or logo, advertising style, price and

distribution channels. Davies & Chun (2002) discover that when personality traits are used to

portray corporate brand image, it has an effect on loyalty via satisfaction. Prestigious

universities report that higher retention rates of students are partly due to a more rigorous

selection process by the students due expectations (student-congruent effect) of the business

school, (Belanger et al., 2002). Besides, Davies & Chun (2008) also explain that students have

a more direct and powerful influence on school’s culture and identity thus, by measuring

student’s perspective (through corporate brand image) will enhance the student-consumer

congruent affect with organization (Belanger et al., 2002).

Selnes (1993) found that when an institutional brand reputation is controlled, it has a

strong positive direct effect on brand loyalty and this finding has been consistent throughout

the four companies investigated in that study. Davies & Chun (2008) suggest that loyalty and

corporate personality (an affective defined construct) appear to have an indirect positive effect

via student satisfaction and confirmed this finding empirically, admittedly when personality

traits are used to portray company image in department retail stores (Davies & Chun, 2002)

and Selnes (1993) confirm this mediating role in a College setting. Thus, the relationships

between affective brand attribute, satisfaction and loyalty are hypothesized as follows:

H3a Affective brand attribute will have an effect on loyalty via satisfaction (indirect

effect)

H3b Affective brand attribute will have a direct effect on satisfaction

H3c Affective brand attribute will have a direct effect on loyalty

16

2.4.3 Corporate brand image, satisfaction and loyalty

Souiden, Kassim & Hong (2006) found that positive evaluation of corporate image

influences consumer patronage in the automobile context. Evidently corporate image exerts a

positive influence on consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Anismova, 2007; Davies et al., 2004)

particularly in educational institutions (Curtis et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2004; Nguyen &

LeBlanc, 2001). By seeking a strong corporate image and reputation across different

stakeholders it is necessary to foster and handle expectations not only from students but also

parents or educational agencies and government (Curtis et al., 2009). For example, due to

difficult long-term student retention in the educational context (as repurchase is not the case

in this setting), marketing efforts should not only be directed to students but also to the entire

range of stakeholders (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003). Besides, business schools spend a

considerable amount of money on advertising MBA and other offerings in reputable media

such as The Economist or Financial Times (Opoku et al., 2006) because of the belief that a

sound brand can be communicated well to target markets, differentiated in order to charge a

premium price, attract customers and sustain loyalty (Opoku et al., 2006). Students and

parents spend a great deal of time evaluating HEIs or business schools before making entry

decisions. This has led many business schools to communicate their offerings via additional

activities such as Open Days and boot camps in seeking to elicit positive response and

evaluation (good experience and positive image) that influence final decision choices. During

these events, experience students will also share their cognitive and affective experiences

relating to the school thus could help to maximize recommendation to the prospective

students/parents. Moreover, corporate brand image is likely to impact on student willingness

to apply or enroll with the school or university (Bennet & Ali-Choudhry, 2009), so

establishing these images in the eyes of the stakeholders is important (Ivy, 2001). Thus

branding in HEIs/Schools aids students and parents to identify particular services offered and

17

encourages purchase (Curtis et al., 2009). Knox (2004) stresses the need to build more values

because consumers buy due to the perceived values of the brand and organizational values

and in particular, students are becoming more critical and analytical when choosing

educational institutions (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003, p. 320).

Similarly, in other but related studies, Davies & Chun (2002) discover that corporate

brand image mediates between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty; Merrilees & Fry

(2002) demonstrate in contrast, that corporate brand image has a direct effect on brand

loyalty when brand attributes are used in an online setting. Moreover, Selnes (1993) confirms

that when the experiences of consumers were studied customer satisfaction directly affected

brand loyalty. Therefore, the corporate brand equity of a business school from a student

perspective appears to rest upon cognitive, affective brand attributes and behavioral outcome

– corporate brand image (overall attitude evaluation), satisfaction (e.g., happy, pleased and

affinity with the school) and loyalty (e.g., recommending the school to others). Hence, we

hypothesize that:

H4a Corporate brand image will have an effect on loyalty via satisfaction (indirect effect)

H4b Corporate brand image will have a direct effect on loyalty

H4c Corporate brand image will have a direct effect on satisfaction

H4d Satisfaction will have a direct effect on loyalty

The following model (in Figure 1) diagrammatically explains the theoretical propositions for

the current study:

Figure 1 here.

18

3. Methodology

3.1 The study’s context and data collection

The study’s context is public sector business schools or public universities that have a

business and/or management school/faculty in Malaysia and was selected for several reasons.

First, the business schools are growing in high-growth economies in developing markets from

the Middle-east to the Asian region (i.e., China, Hong Kong and Malaysia) (Hawawini, 2005;

Gray, Fam & Llanes, 2003). For example, the Malaysian higher education sector has recently

undergone substantial growth as a result of efforts taken by the Ministry of Education

(MOHE) to expand the education industry. Moreover, it is the government’s long-term goal

to make Malaysia a regional centre of excellence in education. The growth of higher

education in Malaysia can be seen in several areas: increase in student enrolments, increase in

number of higher education institutions (HEIs), additional government policies in promoting

education and the country’s continuous need for human resources. Besides, research from a

different context is needed as most prior business school researches are skewed toward

Western schools (Antunes & Thomas, 2007). As Balmer & Liao, (2007) further explain-

corporate brand differs geographically, as the degree of importance attached to corporate

branding varies as much between countries as it does between institutions.

In order to test the study’s conceptual model, a pilot study was first conducted to test the

appropriateness, validity and freedom from error of the measures developed. After the pilot

or validation process, the main data set was then collected through a self-administered

questionnaire from four public universities or business schools in the country. To maintain

anonymity of the schools, they are labelled as School A, B, C and D respectively. Permission

is granted from both the ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and the deans of involved

business schools/faculties to administer the survey to MBA students during class sessions.

19

Students were briefed and questionnaires distributed during break time or shortly after class

commencement. As an MBA is generally associated with business schools (Antunes &

Thomas, 2007), core MBA modules were targeted in the four schools to maximize

participation and response since most of these schools offered similar programs. Data was

collected over a three month period.

The total samples for all four schools are 558. This includes 261 male and 292 female

respondents (with 5 other were missing answers), comprise of 261 from School A; 137 from

School B, 85 from School C and 75 from School D. The distributions are in line with the

MBA population of each school. The distribution according to ethnic group was 48% Malay,

30.1% Chinese, 11.3% Indian, and 10.6% others. This correlates approximately with the

proportion of Malaysian ethnic groups (Population & Housing Census, Malaysia, 2010). The

average age of sample respondents was: 30-34 years (29%) and 25-29 years old (36%) and

35% lay outside these parameters. Respondents were mainly 25-34, and this tends to be a

requirement before they can enrol on an MBA program and just short of 50% of the sample

had between 3-5 years of working experience, while more than half held or had held a middle

or senior management position. Finally, almost 80% of the respondents were in either the

second semester of their first year, or in the second year of their MBA when data was

collected which corresponds to the program duration – 2 years. The remaining 20% are

possibly part-time students as they are allowed up to the fourth year to complete research

projects. Finally, more than 65% of these students were self-funded. Appendix A provides

further detail on the sample frame.

20

3.2 The survey measures

There are five main constructs under study here: (1) Cognitive brand attribute, (2)

Affective brand attribute, (3) Corporate brand image, (4) Satisfaction; and (5) Loyalty. The

literature was extensively consulted for the purpose of generating the items measured for

these constructs. Cognitive brand attribute was conceptualized earlier as comprising

functional/quality attributes from processes of the schools’ service aspects such as

administration and general factors, teaching staff, communication, physical facilities and

innovativeness. Measures were developed from Holdford & Reinders (2001) and Vidaver-

Cohen (2007). Affective brand attribute was defined as an affective and emotional construct,

representing the outcome of service processes (technical quality) according to Grönroos,

(1990). This was consistent with those others academics (i.e., Davies et al., 2003; Franzen &

Bouwman, 2001) that saw the institutional, company or corporate brand image or brand

personality variable as more about the intangible or affective and emotional side of the brand

rather than its functional or tangible aspects. Measures were adopted from Davies et al.

(2003) namely the ‘Corporate Character Scale’. Corporate brand image represents overall

attitude judgment (Franzen & Bouwman, 2001) and consists of three items based on previous

conceptualizations, in particular Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001).

Behavioral response represents two concepts (1) Satisfaction and (2) Loyalty.

Satisfaction concerns ‘affective/emotional response to experiences provided by, or associated

with particular products or services purchased’ (Oliver, 1997; Davies & Chun 2002). Because

the study’s intention is to maximizing positive recommendations, the experiences of existing

students are utilized. This approach is common in previous brand image studies because

brand attributes (cognitive and affective) are perceptions held by stakeholders based on

accumulated experiences with an organization (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Davies et al., 2003).

21

Roper (2004) suggests that assessment over time will ensure a truer representation and more

accurate reflection of satisfaction with an organization. Thus, respondents here were at least

three months after their first enrolment in their first year. In particular, two different studies

were accessed to help determine the multi-item satisfaction measures. A 4-item measure has

been adopted from Davies & Chun (2002), and another 2 items from Oliver (1997). Finally,

loyalty is concerned with ‘favorable attitude toward a brand resulting in consistent purchase

of the brand over time’ (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Bennet & Ali-Choudhry, 2009, p. 90) involves

a 6-item measure was developed from Zeithaml et al., (1996). Zeithaml et al. (1996) captures

previous conceptualizations of behavioral intention such as: students expressing a preference

for their school over others; recommending the store or its services; and loyalty concerning

their school with regard to fees/price. All respondents were asked to indicate their level of

agreement using five-point Likert scales.

4. Data analysis and hypotheses testing

The study follows measure validation procedure through a two-step SEM approach

namely the measurement model and structural model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1998). The

analysis was run using AMOS 18 by the default method – Maximum Likelihood (ML). Step

one deals with measurement model’s validity and reliability and step-two deals with

nomological validity (hypotheses testing) of the proposed theoretical model. Cognitive and

affective brand attributes follow the first and second order of confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) (Byrne, 2001) in order to identify which dimensions represent both constructs. Since

the underlying factor structure of both cognitive brands attribute (educational and service

quality) and affective brand attribute (corporate character scale) have been specified in priori

(e.g., Holdford & Reinders, 2001; Vidaver-Cohen 2007 and Davies et al., 2004 respectively),

CFA appears to be more appropriate than EFA (Byrne, 2001). Using first and second order

22

model would also determine which dimensions make up the latent (second order) constructs,

namely cognitive and affective brand attribute through the structural relationships between the

dimensions (Byrne, 2001; Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010; Garver & Mentzer, 1999).

The analysis then proceeds to ‘Step Two Approach’ known as the structural full model.

4.1 Step-one: The measurement model

Before step-one is performed, both first and second order models were refined first to

establish which dimensions represent the latent construct for both cognitive and affective

brand attributes. Misfits in the models involves items that are cross-loaded in more than one

dimension were relaxed one at a time as proposed by Long (1983) and insignificant

parameters were excluded from the study. Besides relaxing parameters, removing or adding

parameters from one dimension to another, which is highly cross-loaded, was also performed

based on theoretical, statistical and practical considerations (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994).

For example ‘leading item’, was originally from a ‘drive’ facet in Competence dimension

however heavily cross-loaded in the Chic (with prestigious). Removing it indicate a wrong

move with a poor fit and theoretically, leading and prestigious have been frequently

associated as brand values or brand identity in education institutions (Opoku et al., 2006).

Thus, leading was moved to Chic which is named as prestigious dimension based on the

current finding.

The final result indicates five dimensions represent cognitive brand attribute: (1) the

school/administration, (2) innovative method (3) communication (4) lecturer and (5) the

physical facility with both models achieve goodness-of-fit statistics that is first order: (²

= 528.69, p<.001); GFI = .923; TLI= .936; CFI = .945; RMSEA = .055; ²/df= 2.6) and second

order: (² = 571.17, p<.001); GFI = .916; TLI= .931; CFI = .938; RMSEA = .057; ²/df=

2.8).

23

)199(

)204(

Affective brand attribute on the other hand represents four dimensions: (1) empathy,

part of agreeableness dimension, (2) adventurous part of an enterprise, (3) competence and

(4) prestigious (known as chic in other study). Goodness-of-fit statistics show that both first

and second order model (² = 430.44, p<.001); GFI = .922; TLI= .951; CFI = .958;

RMSEA = .058; ²/df= 2.8) and (² = 444.07, p<.001); GFI = .919; TLI= .950; CFI = .957;

RMSEA = .059; ²/df= 2.9) respectively fit the data well.

When comparing both the first-order and second-order model results, both perform

similarly where the second-order model produced near identical results to the first-order

model. However, a decision was made to select second order for further analysis (hypotheses

testing) for both constructs based on (1) the priori status of both scales theoretically (Davies

et al., 2003; Holdford & Reinders, 2001); (2) statistically (construct validity), that is when

models are acceptable, both could be used for further analysis (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003)

and (3) second order would allow a stronger statement: “while there may be some overlap

between the dimensions of corporate brand image and corporate brand attribute, the

dimensions are to some extent distinct from each other (Hair et al., 2010). As indicated in

Figures 2, the structural relationships (or factor loadings) covary from one dimension to

another when they were tested in a higher/second order form. Finally, all items that represent

the five constructs were then tested in step-one measurement model. The result of the full

measurement model is (² = 2396, p<.001); GFI = .842; CFI = .921; TLI: .921; RMSEA

= .048; ²/df=2.2) fit the data well as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 here.

4.2 Step-Two: The full model

24

)145(

)147(

)1060(

The concern in the step-two approach is to test the study’s theoretical models (as

presented in Figure 1) as well as the objectives and hypotheses. The summary of the full

model result with all direct and indirect effects is reported in Figure 3 below. The step-two

model indicates an acceptable fit at (² = 2445.37, p<.001; ²/df=2.2; GFI=.841;

TLI=.924; CFI=.923; RMSEA=.047), with no deletion of items. Convergent validity were all

supported in this study with all parameter estimates >.5, (Kline, 1998), and all items were

statistically significant at p<.001, (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Constructs reliability was

tested using both composite and cronbach’s alpha and they were all above the recommended

level, as shown in Table 1. The correlation (the covariance) among the constructs is also

acceptably low ranging from .59 -.78, and AVE = >.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), except for

two construct, (see Table 1). It is worth noting that two constructs namely the lecturer and

administration/school have an AVE of .46 and .49 respectively (see Table 1). A further test to

ensure the adequacy of discriminant validity was performed by comparing all the AVE

estimates with the square pairwise correlation between factors and cross-loadings

examinations among the measured variables and error terms (Hair et al., 2010). The result

indicates discriminant validity is confirmed for all latent constructs since the square root of

each construct’s AVE’s are all greater than the bivariate correlation (coefficients ranges

from .45 – .66, p <.001). Cross loadings between both measured and error terms also do not

suffer from a substantial cross-loadings with standardized residuals all <.258 (Steenkamp &

Van Trijp, 1991; Garver & Mentzer, 1999). Thus, the assessment results support the

adequacy of discriminant validity of the measurement model.

All direct effects were tested and provide significant positive effects (H1a-H4d) except

two parameters - H4b (the effect of corporate brand image on loyalty) and H2c (the effect of

cognitive brand attribute on loyalty) thus, both H2c and H4b were rejected. Both cognitive

and affective brand attribute however found to be statistically significant explaining the

25

)1107(

corporate brand image with affective brand attribute having the most effect (β = .56, p = .000

and β = .38, p = .000, respectively). Corporate brand image interestingly does not directly

effects loyalty (β = .04, p=.56), but is mediated through satisfaction ((β = .53, p=.000).

Cognitive brand attribute, although found to be insignificant on loyalty (β = .06, p = .204)

does explains affective brand attribute, corporate brand image and satisfaction (β = .76, p

= .000, β = .38, p = .000; β = .22, p = .001 respectively).

Table 1 and Figure 3 here.

To establish the mediation effects (H2a, H3a and H4a) as conceptualized earlier, all

significant parameters were tested using guidelines from: (1) Kelloway, 1995 for partial or

full mediation conditions; (2) Zhao, Lynch and Chen (2010) for indirect or direct effect

conditions; and (3) SEM’s standardized indirect effect output. First, cognitive brand attribute

showed a full mediation on loyalty (via affective brand attribute and satisfaction) as only the

indirect paths were significant (Zhao et al., 2010). For example cognitive brand attribute

affective brand attribute satisfaction loyalty (β = .76, p = .000 and β = .14, p = .001),

while insignificant, was found on the direct path between cognitive brand attribute loyalty

(β = .06, p = .296). A similar situation was found on corporate brand image loyalty (with β

= .04, p = .592), while significant on the direct path between affective brand attribute

loyalty (β = .14, p = .001) and corporate brand image satisfaction loyalty (β = .53, p

= .000 and β = .76, p = .000).

Full mediation thus occurred on two parameters namely, cognitive brand attribute and

corporate brand image. That is, (1) cognitive brand attribute will affect loyalty only via

affective brand attribute and satisfaction and (2) corporate brand image will affect loyalty

only via satisfaction. On the other hand, affective brand attribute could have both effect,

26

direct and indirect (via corporate brand image and satisfaction) on loyalty. Additionally, Zhao

et al. (2010) emphasized that to determine the mediation, whether via regression or SEM,

only the indirect effects need to be significant (i.e., a × b is significant and c being

insignificant) and a full mediation occurs when the beta coefficient is nearing zero or

insignificant concerning the direct effect between X and Y when m (mediation) is introduced.

Second, the magnitude of the indirect effect is given by the product of the standardized

coefficients of the paths linking the two variables (Bentler, 1995). Table 2 below summarises

the hypotheses results, the direct and indirect parameter estimates.

Table 2 here.

5. Discussion

5.1 Theoretical implication

Theoretically, the study contributes to the existing literature in five different ways. First,

the study clarifies which attitude component s are significant (cognitive or affective) when

describing corporate brand image. The research extends the corporate brand theoretical

framework by integrating two important attitude elements and has investigated their effects

simultaneously on business school’s corporate brand image and consumer behavioural

response. Whilst the previous single dimension approach only explain the partial impact

(Anisimova, 2007), examining both constructs here help to clarify a school’s corporate brand

promises (Anisimova, 2007, Curtin et al., 2009) and lead to clearer strategic corporate brand

positioning (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Opoku et al., 2006). A key finding in this paper is that

both attitude components appear to be equally important in shaping corporate brand image,

however, and most interestingly, the affective brand attribute appears to explain more. So,

although cognitive brand attribute is important for the service process, it is not a necessary

27

condition for behavioural response due to the insignificant relationship found herein. The

affective construct on the other hand, which represents the school’s character and associated

with corporate brand values has the most effect (β = .56, p<.001) compared to cognitive

brand attribute (β =.38, p<.001) and it is also directly related to behavioural response. Davies

(2013) explains that personality traits are useful evaluative criteria when predicting brand,

image, personality or reputation of a firm. Likewise, as Davies et al. (2003) explained, using

organisation’s character (through these personality values) is among the main source of

differentiation and brand strength.

Secondly, this study identifies specific dimensions that can be important for business

school’s strategic positioning from both elements – cognitive and affective brand attributes.

Cognitive brand attribute represents a mixture of service and educational quality dimensions

such as: (1) the school/administration attribute, with most variance explained (.95). The

school/administration is first associated with developing the vision of the school/university,

ensuring accessibility, indicating the latest developments and possessing the appropriate

procedure. This is followed by the second criteria innovative method (teaching and

curriculum) with (.88) variance explained in corporate brand attribute; third communication

(.85) (items such as consistent grading practises, adequate feedback or explanation to students

are understood); fourth - faculty (.77), and fifth the physical facility (.72). Consistently, Gray

et al., 2003) explain that when new students evaluate their choice decision especially in the

Asia context (i.e., Malaysia, Singapore), the university learning environment, excellent

faculty, excellent facilities, access to research resources and overall reputation are among the

vital factors.

Perhaps the most significant finding of this study is related to the innovativeness

dimension. This dimension is added in the current study to represent the service process and

is found to be useful in explaining cognitive brand attribute of business school.

28

Innovativeness concerns delivery methods and the curriculum offered by the school and

occurs when schools are able to adapt swiftly to change and implement latest developments

in the areas of expertise. Antunes & Thomas (2007) stress that the main competitive

advantage of European business schools over their US counterparts are they have developed a

reputation for innovation (innovatory capabilities and learning styles). Although US business

schools are the fast first-movers in management education through product standardisation –

MBA; European business schools, although smaller in size, are successful because they have

a more innovative curriculum for example, carry out real-life projects and assignments that

link theory with practical insights either via projects or problem based learning (Antunes &

Thomas, 2007). Arguably, this is the case in the four public business schools selected here.

Most of these schools parallel the structures or curriculum of European business schools

particularly the UK due to Malaysia’s close association with that country and collaborative

activities via research and curricula.

Thirdly, affective brand attribute is another aspect of the study’s contribution represented

by four values/dimensions, that is: (1) empathy, part of agreeableness dimension, (2)

adventurous, part of an enterprise, (3) competence, and (4) prestigious (known as chic in

other studies). Although not all of the seven dimensions appeared in this context, as different

study environments may result in different dimensions (Aaker et al., 2000; Davies et al.,

2003), the differences were apparent between current and previous research. While Davies et

al., (2003) found agreeableness and competent dimensions are common traits in most

organisations; this study found that enterprising (which is only about ‘adventurous’),

competence and chic (named as prestigious here) apparently seem important in explaining the

school’s corporate brand image. Although limited known examinations in the business

school’s context (except Opoku et al., 2006; Davies & Chun, 2008), yet, this finding perhaps

gives some insight into which affective brand attribute is considered to be more important in

29

an institutional context to both academics and practitioners, and simultaneously helps address

the issue concerning which emotional component to emphasis when designing marketing

strategies for business schools. Adventurous represents the creative aspect of an organisation,

with an image of talented, ingenious, quick witted and resourceful suggested as being

common in companies leading to development of leadership (Davies et al., 2003). Besides,

Opoku et al. (2006) stress that business schools often associated with elitist or prestigious

since graduated students tend to occupy top positions of prominence within government and

business. Thus, the inclusion of affective brand attribute measuring it through intangible

values (personality traits) has appeared to be useful in this study’s context. Keller (2000)

explain,

“the intangible corporate image associations may provide valuable sources of brand

equity and could serve as critical points-of-difference in terms of positioning with respect

to competitive offers” (Keller, 2000, p.124).

Fourthly, not only that the current study integrates these dimensions cognitive and affect

in a model but testing it in two different ways namely (1) both effect on corporate brand

image (which dimensions make up the corporate brand image) and (2) the

hierarchical/sequence effect between cognitive and affect (brand attribute). The study’s

framework on hierarchical effect has been heavily drawn from several scholars that are

coming from consumer behaviour, brand psychologist theories (Franzen & Bowmen, 2001;

Lazarus, 1991; Fridja, 1986; Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005) and antecedents and outcome of

corporate branding (de Chernatony, 2002; Keller, 2003; Davies et al., 2003; Anisimova,

2007; da Silva & Syed Alwi, 2008; Curtin et al., 2009; Abratt & Kleyn, 2012). Although the

past scholars stress on the need to investigate the hierarchical effect on corporate brands

(e.g., de Chernatony, 2002; Davies et al, 2003), however the empirical result on testing these

theoretical relationships in corporate brand area has been limited with most of the works

30

focus remains at conceptual nature or theoretical discussions (Hemsley-Brown &

Goonawardana, 2007; Curtis et al., 2009). One of the key finding is that affective brand

attribute is in fact the ‘outcome’ of cognitive brand attributes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; de

Chernatony, 2002). For example, with clear communication and adequate feedback provided

(communication) may possibly explain the why empathy image emerges (trustworthy,

concerned and supportive), while clear vision and having the right procedure

(school/administration) may possibly explain how reliable and competent the school is

(Vidaver-Cohen, 2007; Davies et al., 2003) and having using innovative teaching method

(innovative) and providing up-to-date facility/equipment (physical facility) will probably

explain how students arrive at the corporate brand image ‘adventurous’ and ‘prestigious’ as

being innovative is seen in part as being as modern and up to date” (Keller, 2000).

Finally, the theoretical model identifies that affective brand attribute and satisfaction are

two very important mediators when explaining behavioural response (loyalty). While

affective brand attribute is highly explained by cognitive brand attributes (the outcomes of

educational and service quality), when the mediating effect is investigated, interestingly,

students’ behavioural responses (positive word-of-mouth) to schools depended largely on the

affective component and their happiness (satisfaction) rather than upon the cognitive element

as the direct effect to loyalty was surprisingly insignificant. The direct effect between overall

attitude (corporate brand image) to loyalty was also insignificant in this study suggesting that

affective brand attribute is an important part of corporate brand image and plays significant

role in explaining satisfaction before favourable responses could be offered. Thus, both

affective brand attribute and satisfaction of students are vital to ensure favourable response

and investing resources building image and reputation for business schools are worthwhile

(Bennet & Ali-Choudhury, 2009). Similarly, Anisimova (2007) explains that there is no

direct link between corporate activities and corporate image association in the consumer’s

31

memory, rather an indirect effect was found through corporate image (i.e., enhancing

consumer personal representation such as design the brand to be looking more sophisticated)

will explain consumer loyalty in the context of automobile in Australia. Furthermore,

corporate values (e.g., innovation, respect) and corporate personality (e.g., sporty,

trustworthy) also found to be importantly explaining consumer loyalty (Bennet & Ali-

Choudhury, 2009).

5.2 Managerial implication

The managerial contributions of the paper lie in the context of defining strategy in

relation to positioning business schools in an increasingly competitive higher education

market. Business school leaders should not only be devoted to ranking but also give attention

and focus to academic quality issues such as innovation aspect and building corporate brand

image. In the marketing strategy, the brand value-innovativeness of the school could be

enhanced in its message appeal to potential students. The current study shows these criteria

are important in forming corporate brand image and thus ways need to be found to concretize

these attributes. There is, thus, a call for imaginative ways to stimulate student interest and

consequently improve brand reputation. Since brand personality is heavily built by

advertising (McEnally & de Chernatony, 1999), the development of institutional images for

business schools may seek to address or emphasise symbolic value (i.e., being creative

(adventurous), displaying competence and maintaining a prestigious strategy) more in this

context. The way a student draws an inference about a business school’s brand is different

from other corporate brand contexts. While the theoretical implication of this study are

evident as different brand image dimensions were found in the context of higher education

and that the effect of mediating variable corporate brand image and student satisfaction play

very important role in ensuring student recommends the business schools in the future.

32

Bennet & Ali-Choudhury (2009) explain that favourable opinions of a university’s brand is

translated into positive affective, reputational, and conative consequences thus resources

allocated to brand building are worthwhile. Moreover, the growing universality of business

ranking in many countries ensures that students can easily access information relating to

quality and prestige factors. Thus, whatever business schools can do to raise their brand

image and reputation becomes inexorably more important year-by-year. It is not just a matter

of communication or promotion, but developing the brand so that it delivers on its promise(s).

6. Conclusions and future research

The study has identified:

(1) the specific corporate brand image attributes of business schools (cognitively and

affectively) and clarifies corporate brand differentiation and positioning;

(2) the theoretical relationships of cognitive and affective brand attribute relative to corporate

brand image;

(3) the mediator role of affective brand attribute, corporate brand image and satisfaction on

consumer behavioral response (loyalty);

(4) the hierarchical effect between cognitive brand attributes on affective brand attribute

Arguably, corporate brand promise is seen through this effect (bullet 4) (de

Chernatony, 2002) which in turn aids the formation of corporate identity (Davies & Chun,

2008). Thus, from a conceptual perspective, the notion of cognition/ emotion sequence

confirms that when consumers evaluate a business school’s corporate brand, a rational

thought process followed by the affective component is then taken into account, resulting in

the brand promise and loyalty. Brand positioning of HEI or business schools may not only be

based upon ranking (Corley & Gioia, 2000; Gioia & Corley, 2002) or product, service quality

or educational quality (which represent the cognitive elements of the brand) (de Chernatony,

33

2002) but also through affective elements such as corporate brand values and personality

(Davies & Chun, 2002; 2008). Finally, while cognitive brand attribute is an important

construct when designing business school strategy as it helps to explain the beginning process

of a service, however it is the affective brand attribute that are more related to both corporate

brand image and loyalty. Finally, both constructs corporate brand image and satisfaction are

important constructs in business schools as they directly and indirectly link with loyalty.

Yet, this study is not without limitations. It was conducted in four state-owned

business schools/universities, and future research could replicate this in private

schools/institutions. Cross-validation to other private institutions lies outside the scope of this

study. Furthermore, although the study has identified specific attributes of business schools,

they are rather seen or interpreted as latent for both cognitive and affective attributes due to

the reflective nature of the construct and seen as higher order rather than at individual levels.

Further research is needed to analyze these dimensions using formative approach to allow a

stricter role for individual dimension for the formation of both cognitive and affective brand

attributes as well as on overall attitude (corporate brand image). The study is focused in one

Asian country namely Malaysia, given the growth of its higher education sector. Thus, the

empirical work could be replicated in other countries in order to generalize the results.

Finally, cultural related factors are not included in the current theoretical framework due to

participating samples in this study also being multi-ethnic groups and partially international.

Incorporating cultural dimensions in future may be useful to explaining brand perceptions,

and possible needed adaptation and positioning elements.

34

7. References

Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press

Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building strong brands. London, UK: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd.

Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3),

342-352.

Aaker, J.L, Benet-Martinez,V. & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of

culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 81 (3), 492-508.

Abratt, R. & Kleyn, N. (2012).Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate

reputations: Reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1048 –

1063.

Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review

and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Anisimova, T.A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and

behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395 – 405.

Antunes, D. & Thomas, H. (2007). The competitive (dis) advantages of European

business schools. Long Range Planning, 40 (3), 382 – 404.

35

Agarwal, J. & Malhotra, N.K. (2005). An integrated model of attitude and affect: Theoretical

foundation and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 483-493.

Argenti, P. (2000). Branding b-schools: Reputation management for MBA programs.

Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 171-178.

Azoulay, A. & Kapferer, Jean-Noël (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand

personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143-155.

Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F. & Schweizer, T. (2000). Making and measuring reputations:

the research ranking of European business schools. Long Range Planning, 33(5), 621–650.

Bagozzi, R.P. & Heatherton, T.F. (1994). A general approach to representing

multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation

Modelling, 1(1), 35-67.

Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E.R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?

European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972 - 997.

Balmer, J.M.T. & Liao, Mei-Na (2007). Student corporate brand identification: An

exploratory: Case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(4), 356-

375.

Balmer, J.M.T (2009). Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany. Management

Decision, 47(4), 544-572.

36

Batra, R., Donald, R.L. & Dipinder, S. (1993).The brand personality component of

brand goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. D. A. Aaker & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand

Equity and Advertising (pp.83-95). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barich, H. & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan

Manage Review, 32(2), 94-104.

Brady, M.K. & Cronin J.J. Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived

service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), pp. 34-49.

Belanger, C., Mount, J. & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary

Education and Management, 8(3), 217-230.

Bennett, R. & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective students' perceptions of university

brands: An empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85-107.

Bentler, P.M. (1995). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology. Psychological

Bulletin, 112(3), 400-404.

Biel, A. (1991). The brandscape: Converting brand image into equity. ADMAP, 26(10), 41-

46.

37

Binsardi, A. & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research

on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence &

Planning, 21(5), 318 – 327.

Brown, T.J. (1998). Corporate associations in marketing: Antecedents and consequences.

Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3), 215-233.

Byrne, M. B. (2001). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications and programming. NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chiu, Hung-Chang. (2002). A study on the cognitive and affective components of service

quality. Total Quality Management, 13(2), 265-274.

Chun, R. & Davies, G. (2006). The influence of corporate character on customers and

employees: Exploring similarities and differences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science 34(2), 138-146.

C-L-Ng, I. & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university

experience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 38-

64.

Corley, K & Gioia, D. (2000). The rankings game: managing business school reputation.

Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4), 319-333.

Cronin, J.J. & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and

38

Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

Cronin, J.J. & Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling

performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality.

Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 125-131.

Curtis, T., Abratt, R. & Minor, W. (2009). Corporate brand management in higher education:

The case of ERAU. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(6), 404 – 413.

Dacin, P.A. & Brown, T.J. (2006). Corporate branding, identity, and customer response.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 95-98.

Da Silva, R.V., & Syed Alwi, S.F. (2008). Online brand attributes and offline corporate brand

images: Do they differ? Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 217-244.

Davies, G. & Chun, R. (2002). Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the

corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 144-158.

Davies, G. & Chun. R, Da Silva, R. & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and

competitiveness. London, UK: Routledge

Davies, G., Chun. R, Da Silva, R. & Roper, S. (2004). Corporate character scale to

assess employee and customer views of organisation reputation’, Corporate Reputation

Review, 7(2), 125-146

39

Davies, G. & Chun, R. (2008). Projecting corporate character in the branding of business

school In Melewar, T.C. (Eds), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Reputation

(pp. 163-177). UK: Routledge

De Chernatony, L. & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Defining a brand: Beyond

the literature with experts’ interpretation. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(4-5), 417-

443.

De Chernatony, L. & Harris, F. (2000). Developing corporate brands through considering

internal and external stakeholders. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(3), 268-274.

De Chernatony, L. (2002). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name? Corporate

Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 114-132.

De Chernatony, L. & Christodoulides, G. (2004).Taking the brand promise

online: Challenges and opportunities. Interactive Marketing, 5(3), 238-251.

Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX, USA:

Hartcourt Brace Jovanonich College Publishers.

Edvardsson, B. (2005). Service quality: Beyond cognitive assessment. Managing Service

Quality, 15(2), 127–131.

Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change.

40

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 202-216.

Fishbein, M & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Franzen, G. & Bouwman, M. (2001). The mental world of brands. Oxfordshire, UK: World

Advertising Research (WARC).

Fridja, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fjortoft, N.F. & Lee, M.W. (1994). Developing and testing a model of professional

commitment. American journal Pharmacies of Education, 58(4), 370-378.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Gardner, B. B. & Levy, S.J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review

33(2), 33-39.

Garver, M. S. & Mentzer, J.T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural

equation modelling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33-57.

Gioia, D.A. & Corley, K.G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school

rankings and the circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management

Learning and Education, 1(1), 107-120

41

Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A. & Newell, SJ. (2000). The influence of

corporate credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation

Review, 3(4), 304-318.

Gray, B., Fam, K. & Llanes, V. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 12(2), 108-20.

Grimm, P.E. (2005). A components’ impact on brand preference. Journal of Business

Research, 58(4), 508-517.

Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European

Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36 – 44.

Grönroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: the marketing

and organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 3-11.

Grönroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in

service competition, USA: Lexington Books.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.

Hawawini, G. (2005). The future of business schools. Journal of Management Development,

24(9), 770 - 782

42

Hemsley-Brown, J. & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international

higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60 (9), 942–948.

Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A

systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338.

Holdford, D. & Reinders, P. T. (2001). Development of an instrument to assess student

perception of the quality of pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical

Education, 65(1), 125-131.

Ind, N. (2001). Living the brand. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis

approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 276–282.

Johnson, D. & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships.

Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500–507.

Keller, K.L. (2000). Building and Managing Corporate Brand Equity. In Schultz, M.J. Hatch

& M.H. Larsen, (Eds.) The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the

corporate brand (pp.115-137), New York: Oxford University Press.

43

Keller, K.L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal

of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595-600.

Keller, K.L. &Richey, K. (2006). The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a

successful 21st century business. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1/2), 74–81.

Kelloway, E.K. (1995).Structural equation modelling in perspective. Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 16(3), 215-224.

Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York:

The Guildford Press.

Knox, S. (2004). Positioning and branding your organization. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 13(2), 105 – 115.

LaBarbera, P.A. & D. Mazursky (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer

satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of

Marketing Research, 20(4), 393-404.

Lambin, J-L (1997). Strategic Marketing Management, Maidenhead: UK McGraw-Hill.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation, New York: Oxford University Press.

Long, S.J. (1983). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Preface to Lisrel, Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

44

MacInnis, D.J. & Price, L.L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review

and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491.

Malhotra, N.K. (2005). Attitude and affect: new frontier of research in the 21st century.

Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 477-482.

Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment

and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466 – 479.

Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review, 36(1), 17-

55.

Mazzarol, T. & Soutar, G.N. (1999). Sustainable competitive advantage for educational

institutions: A suggested model. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(6),

287 – 300.

McEnally, M.R. & de Chernatony, L. (1999). The evolving nature of branding: Consumer

and managerial considerations. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1999(2), 1-24.

Melewar, T.C. & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education

sector: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 41-57.

Merrilees, B. & Fry, L. M. (2002). Corporate branding: A framework for e-

Retailers. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 213- 225.

45

Nguyen, Ha. & Leblance, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in

students’ retention decision. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6),

303-311

Omar, M., Williams, R.L. & Lingelbach, D. (2009). Global brand market-entry to manage

corporate reputation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(3), 177-87.

Opoku, R., Abratt, R. & Pitt, L. F. (2006). Communicating brand personality: Are the

websites doing the talking for the top South African Business Schools? Journal of Brand

Management, 14(1/2), 20–39.

Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G.D. & Pérez, P.J.P (2002).The configuration of the university

image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational

Administration, 40(5), 486 – 505.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B.J. & Maclnnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image

management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.

Patterson, M. (1999). Re-appraising the concept of brand image. Journal of Brand

Management, 6(6), 409-426.

Peter, P.J. & Olsen, C.J. (2008). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Boston MA:

McGraw-Hill.

46

Petruzzellis, P., D'Uggento, A.M. & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of

service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality, 16(4), 349 – 364.

Pitman, T. (2000). Perceptions of academics and students as customers: A survey of

administrative staff in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management, 22(2), 165-175.

Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student

choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212-222.

Population & Housing Census, Malaysia, 2010, available at:

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=1215&lang=en (accessed 27 August 2013)

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the consumer. Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill.

Reynolds, W. H. (1965).The role of the consumer in image building. California management

review, 7(3), 69-76.

Rojas-Mendez, I.J. Podlech, E.I. & Olave, S.E. (2004). The Ford brand personality in Chile.

Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 232-251.

Roper, S. (2004). Corporate Branding: A Reputational Perspective in Business-to-

47

Business Market. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Manchester Business School, University of

Manchester.

Rosenberg, M. J. & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components

of attitudes. In Hovland, C.I. & Rosenberg, M.J. (Eds), Attitude Organization and Change:

An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components (pp.1-14). New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Rowley, J. (2004). Online branding. Online Information Review, 28(2), 131 – 138.

Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand

reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), 19-35.

Schiffman, L.G. & Kanuk L.L. (2007). Consumer Behaviour (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Segev, A.,Raveh, A. & Farjoun, M. (1999). Conceptual maps of the leading MBA programs

in the United States: core courses, concentration areas, and the ranking of the school.

Strategic Management Journal, 20(6) 549–565.

Shaffer, T. & Sherrell, L. (1997). Customer satisfaction with health-care services: The

influence of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 14(3), 261-285.

48

Slaughter, E. J., Zickar, J.M., Highhouse, S. & Mohr, C. D. (2004). Personality Trait

Inferences About Organizations: Development of a Measure and Assessment of Construct

Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 85-103.

Souiden, N., Kassim, N.M. & Hong, Heung-Ja. (2006). The effect of corporate branding dimensions

on consumers' product evaluation: A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Marketing,

40(7/8), 825 – 845.

Spector, A.J. (1961). Basic dimensions of the corporate image. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 47-51.

Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing

constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283–299.

Stern, B. Zinkhan, M.G. & Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images Construct definition, measurement

issues, and theory development. Marketing Theory, 1(2), 201–224.

Supphellen, M. & Nysveen, H. (2001). Drivers of intention to revisit the websites of well-known

companies. International Journal of Market Research, 43(3), 341-352.

Vidaver –Cohen, D. (2007). Beyond the rankings: A conceptual framework for business

school research. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 278-304.

Voss, R., Gruberb, T. & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of

student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949–959.

49

Wolfinbarger, M. & Gilly, C.M. (2003). eTailQ: dimensionalising, measuring and

predicting eTail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198.

Yuille, J.C. & Catchpole, M.J. (1977). The role of imagery in models of cognition. Journal of

Mental Imagery, 1(1), 171–180.

Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In Bar-Tal,

D. & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.) The social psychology of knowledge (pp.315-334).

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioural consequences of

service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.

Zhao, X., Lynch J.G. Jr. & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and

Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.

50

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model

51

Affective brand attribute

Corporate brand image

Satisfaction

Loyalty

Cognitive brand attribute

Figure 2. SEM: The Measurement model

Note: * indicates all loadings are significant at p<.001

52

Figure 3. SEM: The Structural Model

Note: * indicates all loadings are significant at p<.001; N.S. indicates Not Significant

53

Table 1 Composite reliability, cronbach alpha and AVE

Constructs Composite reliability

Cronbach alpha

AVE

Corporate brand attribute:Physical facility 0.89 0.93 0.66Communication 0.81 0.84 0.52School/Administration 0.82 0.81 0.49Lecturer 0.82 0.80 0.46Innovative method 0.86 0.84 0.67

Corporate brand image:Adventurous 0.77 0.76 0.53Empathy 0.90 0.90 0.65Competence 0.82 0.80 0.53Prestigious 0.86 0.85 0.55

Overall corporate image 0.84 0.83 0.63Satisfaction 0.86 0.85 0.61Loyalty 0.92 0.91 0.79

54

Table 2 Hypotheses summary

Constructs/Hypotheses(Testing direct and indirect effects)

Direct Path

EstimatesP

Indirect path estimates

Hypothesis Result

H1a Cognitive brand attribute corporate brand image .38 .000 Supported

H1b Affective brand attribute corporate brand image .56 .000 Supported

H1c Cognitive brand attribute affective brand attribute .76 .000 Supported

H2a Cognitive brand attribute satisfactionloyaltyH2c Cognitive brand attribute loyaltyNote: Full mediation as only indirect path is significant (Zhao et. al., 2010)

.06 .296Path 1: β = .22, p = .000 and Path 2: β = .76, p = .000

Support H2a, reject H2c

H2b Cognitive brand attribute satisfaction .22 .001 SupportedH3a Affective brand attribute satisfaction loyalty (indirect effect)Note: Complimentary (or partially) mediated occurs as both direct and indirect paths are significant (Zhao et. al., 2010)

.76 .000Path 1: β = .18, p = .000 vs. Path 2: β = .76, p = .000

Supported

H3b Affective brand attribute satisfaction .18 .000 SupportedH3c Affective brand attribute loyalty .14 .002 Supported

H4a Corporate brand image satisfaction loyalty (indirect effect)H4b Corporate brand image loyaltyNote: Full mediation occur as only indirect path is significant (Zhao et. al., 2010)

.04 .592Path 1: β = .53, p = .000 vs. Path 2: β = .76, p = .000

Support H4a, reject 4b

H4c Corporate brand image satisfaction 0.53 .000 Supported

H4d Satisfaction loyalty 0.76 .000 Supported

55

Appendix A. Respondents characteristicsVariable N (percent)University/SchoolSchool ASchool BSchool CSchool D

GenderMaleFemaleMissing

EthnicMalayChineseIndianOthers/International

Age20 - 2425 - 2930 – 3435 – 3940 – 4445 and above

Working experience*Less than 1 Year1 - 3 Year3 - 5 YearMore than 5 YearNo experience

Occupation*Top ManagementMiddle ManagementSkilled ProfessionalOwn BusinessRetired/Not workingStudentOthers

Current status at school*1st Year Sem11st Year Sem22nd Year3rd Year4th Year5th Year

Sponsors*GovernmentPrivate companiesSelf-funded

261 46.7137 24.685 15.275 13.4

261 46.8292 52.3

5 0.8

263 47.1 168 30.1 68 12.1 59 10.6

50 9.0201 36.0167 29.983 14.944 7.97 1.3

39 7.0109 19.5125 22.4267 47.316 2.8

36 6.5251 44.961 10.981 14.518 3.289 15.914 2.5

148 26.5151 27.0165 29.676 13.611 2.03 0.5

80 14.371 12.7

404 72.4

The variables that are marked asterisk (*) above consist of missing answers from respondents. Thus, the total responses may not necessarily round up to 558 to all above variables.

56

57