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, UK
sharifah.alwi@brunel.ac.uk
Philip J. Kitchen, ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes, France
philip.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 & AliChoudhry, 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-ofmouth (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
2.3
H1a
Cognitive brand attributes drives corporate brand image
H1b
Affective brand attributes drives corporate brand image
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
2.4
Cognitive brand attribute will have an effect on affective brand attribute
Behavioral outcome of corporate brand image: Satisfaction and loyalty (positive wordof-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 (studentcongruent 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 explaincorporate 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 VidaverCohen (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 (199)
= 528.69, p<.001); GFI = .923; TLI= .936; CFI = .945; RMSEA = .055; ²/df= 2.6) and second
order: (² ( 204) = 571.17, p<.001); GFI = .916; TLI= .931; CFI = .938; RMSEA = .057; ²/df=
2.8).
23
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 (145) = 430.44, p<.001); GFI = .922; TLI= .951; CFI = .958;
RMSEA = .058; ²/df= 2.8) and (² (147) = 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 (1060) = 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
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 (1107) = 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
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 & AliChoudhury, 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), 356375.
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), 4146.
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), 3864.
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), 417443.
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), 1755.
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 eRetailers. 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
Cognitive brand
attribute
Corporate brand
image
Satisfaction
Affective brand
attribute
Loyalty
51
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
Communication
School/Administration
Lecturer
Innovative method
0.89
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.86
0.93
0.84
0.81
0.80
0.84
0.66
0.52
0.49
0.46
0.67
Corporate brand image:
Adventurous
Empathy
Competence
Prestigious
0.77
0.90
0.82
0.86
0.76
0.90
0.80
0.85
0.53
0.65
0.53
0.55
Overall corporate image
Satisfaction
Loyalty
0.84
0.86
0.92
0.83
0.85
0.91
0.63
0.61
0.79
54
Table 2 Hypotheses summary
Constructs/Hypotheses
(Testing direct and indirect effects)
H1a Cognitive brand attribute corporate
brand image
H1b Affective brand attribute corporate
brand image
H1c Cognitive brand attribute  affective
brand attribute
H2a Cognitive brand attribute 
satisfactionloyalty
H2c Cognitive brand attribute  loyalty
Note: Full mediation as only indirect path is
significant (Zhao et. al., 2010)
H2b Cognitive brand attribute  satisfaction
H3a 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)
H3b Affective brand attribute  satisfaction
H3c Affective brand attribute loyalty
H4a Corporate brand image satisfaction 
loyalty (indirect effect)
H4b Corporate brand image  loyalty
Note: Full mediation occur as only indirect
path is significant (Zhao et. al., 2010)
H4c Corporate brand image  satisfaction
H4d Satisfaction loyalty
Direct
Path
Estimates
P
.38
.000
.56
.000
.76
.000
.06
.296
.22
.001
.76
.000
.18
.14
.000
.002
.04
.592
0.53
.000
0.76
.000
Indirect path
estimates
Hypothesis
Result
Supported
Supported
Supported
Path 1: β = .22, p =
.000 and Path 2: β
= .76, p = .000
Support H2a,
reject H2c
Supported
Supported
Path 1: β = .18, p =
.000 vs. Path 2: β =
.76, p = .000
Supported
Supported
Path 1: β = .53, p =
.000 vs. Path 2: β =
.76, p = .000
Support H4a,
reject 4b
Supported
Supported
55
Appendix A. Respondents characteristics
Variable
University/School
School A
School B
School C
School D
N
(percent)
261
137
85
75
46.7
24.6
15.2
13.4
Gender
Male
Female
Missing
261
292
5
46.8
52.3
0.8
Ethnic
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Others/International
263
168
68
59
47.1
30.1
12.1
10.6
Age
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 – 34
35 – 39
40 – 44
45 and above
50
201
167
83
44
7
9.0
36.0
29.9
14.9
7.9
1.3
Working experience*
Less than 1 Year
1 - 3 Year
3 - 5 Year
More than 5 Year
No experience
39
109
125
267
16
7.0
19.5
22.4
47.3
2.8
Occupation*
Top Management
Middle Management
Skilled Professional
Own Business
Retired/Not working
Student
Others
36
251
61
81
18
89
14
6.5
44.9
10.9
14.5
3.2
15.9
2.5
Current status at school*
1st Year Sem1
1st Year Sem2
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
148
151
165
76
11
3
26.5
27.0
29.6
13.6
2.0
0.5
Sponsors*
Government
Private companies
Self-funded
80
71
404
14.3
12.7
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