Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral response in business

schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes?
Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi a,, Philip J. Kitchen b
a
Brunel Business School, Brunel University London, UK
b
ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper considers corporate brand image, focusing on cognitive and affective brand attributes in the context of
Received 1 February 2014 business schools. While previous research on university or institutional branding has studied these elements sep-
Received in revised form 1 April 2014 arately via cognitive (e.g., service or educational quality attributes) or affective criteria (personality traits of the
Accepted 1 May 2014
corporate brand), this study investigates them jointly through behavioral responses (leading to positive recom-
Available online 2 July 2014
mendations about the corporate brand). This is important because brand equity such as positive word-of-mouth
Keywords:
(or mouse) is derived from both attitudinal components, rather than being based on only one component. Draw-
Business school brand ing on an empirical survey of postgraduate (MBA) students from four business schools, the ndings reveal that
Corporate brand image both cognitive and affective attitudinal components appear equally important in shaping corporate brand
Word-of-mouth image. Further, when the mediating effect is investigated, interestingly, students' positive recommendations to
Consumer loyalty attitudinal criteria schools depended largely on the affective (prestigious, adventurous, empathy and competence) rather than
Higher education upon the cognitive brand attributes. This paper contributes theoretically to the corporate brand and consumer
behavior 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 implica-
tions lie in the context of dening strategy in relation to positioning business schools in an increasingly compet-
itive higher education market.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Goonawardana, 2007). By having a reputable image a business school

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 (Antunes & Thomas, 2007; Curtis, Abratt, & Minor,
2009; Davies & Chun, 2008). However, such growth underpins competi-
tive 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 &
The authors thank TC Melewar, Middlesex University London, for the comments, in-
sights and input. The authors are grateful to the University Malaya Research Grant
(UMRG), Malaysia for the research grant awarded for this project under grant no. FS126/
2007C. We 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.
Corresponding author at: Brunel Business School, Brunel University London, UB8 3PH
Uxbridge, UK.
E-mail addresses: sharifah.alwi@brunel.ac.uk (S.F. Syed Alwi),
philip.kitchen@esc-rennes.fr, philipkitchen@hotmail.com (P.J. Kitchen).
will benet in many ways including rank, increased enrollment of excel-
lent students, attracting funding opportunities, top employer recruitment,
and alumni donations (Curtis et al., 2009; Davies & Chun, 2008; Gioia &
Corley, 2002). In addition, several researchers have proposed that busi-
ness schools or higher educational institutions (HEIs) can effectively posi-
tion their corporate or institutional brands by using corporate brand
image (Balmer & Liao, 2007; Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Curtis
et al., 2009; Davies & Chun, 2008; Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana,
2007; Melewar & Akel, 2005).
However, despite the above, to-date, only few scholars focus upon
the corporate brand image in the business school context when model-
ling consumer behavioral response (e.g., Curtis et al., 2009; Davies &
Chun, 2008; Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007; Hemsley-Brown
& Oplatka, 2006; Melewar & Akel, 2005). 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 incor-
porating a singular component of attitude such as service, product or ed-
ucational quality. For example, past studies have attempted to understand
how HEIs or business schools position themselves by understanding
choice factors of studentconsumers using elements such as service and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.020
0148-2963/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
product or educational quality (school facilities, program quality and
course choice, learning environment, university accommodation, teach-
ing methods, and the people element academics or administration)
(see C-L-Ng & Forbes, 2009; Holdford & Reinders, 2001; Maringe, 2006;
Petruzzellis, D'Uggento, & Romanazzi, 2006; Price, Matzdorf, Smith, &
Agahi, 2003; Voss, Gruber, & Szmigin, 2007).
While 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) and thus can
only partially explain the impact of the corporate brand (Anisimova,
2007). Perceived 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). Since attitude is not only about cognitive but also
about affective evaluation and behavioral/conative responses (Chiu,
2002; Edwards, 1990), incorporating both attitude components might
be more useful and provide a more comprehensive meaning when try-
ing 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). Further-
more, previous studies indicate that in the service-related setting, cus-
tomer purchase decisions relied upon external cues of the corporate
brand such as image and positive word-of-mouth (Cronin & Taylor,
1992; Grnroos, 1984).
This paper considers attitudinal components associated with busi-
ness schools namely cognitive and affective attributes when analyzing
business schools' corporate brand images and students' behavioral
responses (providing positive recommendations about the schools
based on their experiences). This research thus extends the corporate
brand theoretical framework by integrating both attitudinal compo-
nents (cognitive and affective) and investigates their effects jointly on
business school corporate brand image and consumer behavioral re-
sponse. Incorporating both 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 lead to better explanations of consumers' be-
havioral responses (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Oliver, 1997).
The objective here is to develop a studentconsumer behavioral re-
sponse 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) precede 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 re-
view of cognitive and affective brand attributes with regards to HEIs
in general and in particular within business schools is carried out. A sys-
tematic review of past studies on what forms business schools' corpo-
rate brand images and their effect on behavioral responses is then
discussed. This is followed by the research methodology. Third, the re-
sults of the study are presented and analyzed, followed by discussion,
conclusions and research implications. Finally, limitations and sugges-
tions for further research are highlighted.
2325
2. Literature review
This study investigates what drives corporate brand image of busi-
ness schools through the cognitive and affective brand attributes jointly
and explores their direct and indirect effects on satisfaction and loyalty.
The following denes the study constructs and develops the research
hypotheses.
2.1. Corporate brand image An attitude overall evaluation
The terms 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, & Maclnnis, 1986; Patterson, 1999; Spector, 1961; Stern,
Zinkhan, & Jaju, 2001). A review of previous studies reveals that un-
derstanding of corporate brand image remains a challenge due to termi-
nology having been used inconsistently in the past resulting in the
confusion and difculties in denition (Davies, 2013; Franzen &
Bouwman, 2001; Patterson, 1999; Stern et al., 2001). For example,
brand, image, association, attributes and personality that, while differ-
ent 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 liter-
atures namely psychology, consumer behavior (consumer psychology)
and corporate branding (when the corporation is viewed as brand).
The next paragraph deals with the rst issue, denition of corporate
brand image while the following paragraph discusses its drivers.
In consumer psychology, understanding of how consumers respond
to a brand (positive, favorable perception and willing to commit to pos-
itive word-of-mouth) begins from attitudes (Franzen & Bouwman,
2001). Image is about an attitude to a given brand (Reynolds, 1965). A
classic but very useful attitude model tri-component implies that
attitudes consist of the interaction between three components,
namely, cognitive, affective and conative (Rosenberg & Hovland,
1960; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2007). Cognitive concerns 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 behavioral response. The previous debate
among psychologists has concerned whether an attitude should have
one, two or three components (Chiu, 2002; Zanna & Rempel, 1988).
For example, (1) attitude can refer to the overall judgments 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 judgment of an object (the
business school or corporate brand) and this overall attitude judgment
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 atti-
tude, 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 orga-
nization that are retrieved from memory and transformed into an over-
all mental map (Yuille & Catchpole, 1977). Institutional refers to the
overall impression in the minds of the public, stakeholders and
2326 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
constituencies about an organization (Barich & Kotler, 1991; Nguyen &
LeBlanc, 2001). Thus, both brand and corporate image can be dened
in similar ways (they both belong to an attitude concept) which is (1)
seen as overall attitude or judgment about the brand; and (2) driven
by both cognitive and affective brand attributes. Notably the main dif-
ferences between the two are that brand image has a greater product
and consumer focus (Balmer & Gray, 2003), whereas corporate image
focuses more on the corporation as a brand and its stakeholders includ-
ing consumers (Balmer & Gray, 2003).
Thus, in line with previous denitions, 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 judgment (corporate brand image) of
business schools are likely to be based upon cognitive and affective
brand attributes. Overall attitude judgment is about any brand attribute
linked to memory (Aaker, 1991) and there are related cognitive and af-
fective brand attributes about corporations. For example, Brown (1998,
p.217) dened corporate association as
cognition, affect evaluations (that consumers attach to specic
cognitions or affects) summary evaluations and patterns of associa-
tions (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, observa-
tions from other, and more importantly, in the service setting such as in
business schools, from normative belief (other peoples beliefs beliefs/
judgments that are made up based on these people's experiences e.g., par-
ents, spouse, friends, teachers) (Peter & Olsen, 2008). Similarly, scholars
have stressed the importance of both the cognitive and affective aspects
in consumer behavior and branding preferences (Agarwal & Malhotra,
2005; Da Silva & Syed Alwi, 2008; 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) (Davies, Chun,
Da Silva, & Roper, 2004; Opoku et al., 2006). Linking products and ser-
vices to emotional attributes (corporate characteristics such as sincerity,
trustworthiness), also known in several studies as the sum of values
representing the organization, is vital to enhance a brand's corporate
image (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Davies et al., 2004; Patterson,
1999). Likewise, Davies, Chun, Da Silva, and Roper (2003) and Keller
and Richey (2006) point out that a 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 rm and is derived from a
particular corporate identity at one point in time through corporate
brand values which are a synthesis of key values inherent within the
identity. Additionally, institution image is also a reection 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 toward
an institution (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001). Measuring corporate brand
image by using only product and service quality is more cognitively ori-
ented and omits affective and emotional attributes (Brady & Cronin,
2001; Edvardsson, 2005; Grnroos, 1984; Johnson & Grayson, 2005;
Oliver, 1997). 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 dif-
cult 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,
McEnally and de Chernatony (1999) point out that the 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). Abratt
and Kleyn (2012) argue that strong brands and reputations need to be
rare and difcult 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 dened based on the service quality
of business schools (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Chiu, 2002) due to the fact
that most literature in this context focuses on the services aspect of
HEIs (see C-L-Ng & Forbes, 2009; Holdford & Reinders, 2001; Maringe,
2006; Petruzzellis et al., 2006; Price et al., 2003; Voss et al., 2007). Affec-
tive brand attribute on the other hand is dened based on intangible
and emotional criteria such as the personality attributes/traits of a cor-
poration (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Davies, 2013; Davies et al., 2004;
Keller & Richey, 2006; Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse, & Mohr, 2004).
Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) explain that personality traits concept is
coined from the psychology area and is clearly different from cognitive
aspects and 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 repre-
sent a sum of various corporate attributes which can be grouped into
cognitive brand attributes (the service and perceived educational qual-
ity) and the sum of values or personality representing the organization
(represent a more emotional and affective concept) (Davies, 2013;
Davies et al., 2004; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Opoku et al., 2006).
Thus, a potential student or parent may evaluate their decisions
from normative belief (i.e. other people's belief - a form of external
cue). That is, from experienced students of the business school who
would possibly will be maximizing their recommendations after having
been satised with the school's services both cognitively and emotion-
ally, and may positively recommend it to prospective students', rela-
tives, families or friends (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009). Previous
research has clearly identied that in a service-related setting, cus-
tomers rely on external cues of corporate brands such as image and pos-
itive word-of-mouth (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Davies & Chun, 2008;
Grnroos, 1984).
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 at-
tached to the name or any related corporate brand activities based on
their experiences as well as others (Anisimova, 2007; Curtis et al.,
2009; Davies & Chun, 2008; Davies et al., 2004). Hence, cognitive and af-
fective brand attributes (jointly) drive corporate brand image. In line
with Goldsmith, Lafferty, and 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 denitions and derived from the extant theory, the hypotheses
are:
H1a. Cognitive brand attributes drive corporate brand image.
 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
H1b. Affective brand attributes drive corporate brand image.
2.3. The causality effect of cognitive brand attribute on affective brand
attributes
Several studies have attempted to understand the interaction be-
tween the cognitive and affective aspects of brands in the past, how-
ever, the hierarchical structure or causality between both elements
remains unresolved and debatable (Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005; Da
Silva & Syed Alwi, 2008; Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Lin, 2004;
Malhotra, 2005). According to Oliver (1997) and Franzen and
Bouwman (2001), and in consumption and satisfaction studies,
there could be several possibilities of sequence between cognition
and emotion. For example, emotion can appear rst and cognition
second or vice-versa. In other words, there could be dual processing. But
most past discussion of corporate branding, consumer behavior and psy-
chology infer that the affective and emotional elements usually stem from
cognitive evaluation (Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Oliver, 1997). In other
words, cognitive process could have taken place rst which then leads
to emotional or affect reaction. This in turn may lead to an overall evalu-
ation 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 with the
rational values rst, then proceed to a higher level the emotional
values. This progression represents a hierarchical structure in a
consumer's brand knowledge (Anisimova, 2007; Da Silva & Syed Alwi,
2008; 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.
Similarly, in the service related domain, Grnroos (1990) sug-
gests there are three groups of quality dimensions: technical quali-
ty; functional quality and corporate image when evaluating brands
in a service-related context such as business schools. The sequence
of 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)
(Fjortoft & Lee, 1994; Holdford & Reinders, 2001). Explicitly, in
corporate brand image studies the functional attributes might be
appropriately seen as causes of affective reactions (Keller, 2003)
and the product/service-related characteristics (cognitive elements)
could be the 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 may not be the best mea-
sure in a higher education context and (2) students cannot be treated
directly as customer equivalents (Argenti, 2000; Davies & Chun, 2008;
Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). 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 compati-
bility between student and school, students tend to select a more pres-
tigious HEI (with strong corporate brand image) if they can (Belanger
et al., 2002). Additionally, image and reputation of the school is
2327
important as the award of a degree offers a life-long association with a
university and may provide a sense of identication with corporate
brand, a means of dening self (Balmer & Liao, 2007; Curtis et al.,
2009). In the long term, students may develop a 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 (over-
all attitude evaluation-corporate brand image) (Bennett & Ali-
Choudhury, 2009; Palacio, Meneses, & Prez, 2002). This is followed
by satisfaction (feelings such as afnity, happiness or pleased to be
associated with the school), (Chun & Davies, 2006; Davies et al.,
2004) 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 afnity, happy
or pleased with the school), (Davies et al., 2003; Roper, 2004).
(2) Loyalty (for example, engaging in favorable word-of-mouth re-
garding the school or maximize recommendations where the
university or school is concerned (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury,
2009)), remembering that not all business schools have a natural
association with an umbrella institution (i.e., the French grande
ecoles).
Consistently, satisfaction as the affective outcome (Oliver, 1997), is
viewed as a pleasurable level of consumption related fulllment
(Oliver, 1997), and is a result of consumer reactions evaluated through
their experience over time (Davies et al., 2003; Roper, 2004). Loyalty re-
fers 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).
2.4.1. Cognitive brand attribute, satisfaction and loyalty
In the past, customer satisfaction or service quality has been demon-
strated to affect or drive store loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, or repur-
chase intention (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Davies et al., 2003) across a
range of consumer products (LaBarbera & Mazursky, 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 corpo-
rate 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 that corporate brand attri-
bute or (product) performance quality had an effect on loyalty via satis-
faction (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 satis-
faction (indirect effect).
H2b. Cognitive brand attribute will have a direct effect on satisfaction.
H2c. Cognitive brand attribute will have a direct effect on loyalty.
2328 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
2.4.2. Affective brand attribute, satisfaction and loyalty
Batra, Donald, and 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 and 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 stu-
dents due expectations (student-congruent effect) of the business
school (Belanger et al., 2002). Davies and Chun (2008) also explain
that students have a more direct and powerful inuence on school's cul-
ture and identity. Thus, measuring the students' perspectives (through
corporate brand image) will enhance studentconsumer congruence af-
fect (Belanger et al., 2002).
Selnes (1993) nds that when an institutional brand reputation is
controlled, it has a strong positive direct effect on brand loyalty and
this nding is consistent throughout the four companies investigated
in that study. Davies and Chun (2008) nd that loyalty and corporate
personality (an affective-dened construct) appear to have an indirect
positive effect via satisfaction (when personality traits are used to por-
tray company image in department retail stores (Davies & Chun,
2002)) and Selnes (1993) conrms this mediating role in a College set-
ting. Thus, the relationships between affective brand attribute, satisfac-
tion and loyalty are hypothesized as follows:
H3a. Affective brand attribute will have an effect on loyalty via satisfac-
tion (indirect effect).
H3b. Affective brand attribute will have a direct effect on satisfaction.
H3c. Affective brand attribute will have a direct effect on loyalty.
2.4.3. Corporate brand image, satisfaction and loyalty
Souiden, Kassim, and Hong (2006) nd that positive evaluation of
corporate image inuences consumer patronage in the automobile con-
text. Evidently corporate image exerts a positive inuence on consumer
satisfaction and loyalty (Anisimova, 2007; Davies et al., 2004) particu-
larly in educational institutions (Curtis et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2004;
Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001). By seeking a strong corporate image and rep-
utation 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 dif-
cult long-term student retention in the educational context (as repur-
chase 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 consid-
erable amount of money on advertising MBA and other offerings in rep-
utable 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). Stu-
dents 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 responses and
evaluations (good experience and positive image) that inuence nal
decision choices. During these events, students will also share their cog-
nitive and affective experiences relating to the school, which could thus
help to maximize recommendation to the prospective students/parents.
Corporate brand image is likely to impact on student willingness to
apply or enroll with the school or university (Bennett & Ali-
Choudhury, 2009), so establishing these images in the eyes of the stake-
holders is important (Ivy, 2001). Thus branding in HEIs/schools aids stu-
dents and parents to identify particular services offered and 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 be-
coming more critical and analytical when choosing educational institu-
tions (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003, p. 320).
Similarly, in related studies, Davies and Chun (2002) discover
that corporate brand image mediates between customer satisfaction
and brand loyalty; Merrilees and Fry (2002) demonstrate in con-
trast, that corporate brand image has a direct effect on brand loyalty
when brand attributes are used in an online setting. Selnes (1993)
conrms that when the experiences of consumers are studied cus-
tomer satisfaction directly affected brand loyalty. Therefore, the cor-
porate brand equity of a business school from a student perspective
appears to rest upon cognitive, affective brand attributes and behav-
ioral outcome corporate brand image (overall attitude evaluation),
satisfaction (e.g., happy, pleased and afnity with the school) and
loyalty (e.g., recommending the school to others). Hence, we hy-
pothesize that:
H4a. Corporate brand image will have an effect on loyalty via satisfac-
tion (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 Fig. 1) diagrammatically explains the theo-
retical propositions for the current study:
3. Methodology
3.1. The study's context and data collection
The study's context is public sector business schools or public uni-
versities that have a business and/or management school/faculty in
Malaysia and were 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) (Gray, Fam, & Llanes, 2003; Hawawini, 2005). For example,
the Malaysian higher education sector has recently undergone substan-
tial growth as a result of efforts taken by the Ministry of Higher Educa-
tion (MOHE) to expand the education industry. It is the government's
long-term goal to make Malaysia a regional center of excellence in edu-
cation. The growth of higher education in Malaysia can be seen in sever-
al areas: increase in student enrollments, increase in number of higher
education institutions (HEIs), additional government policies in pro-
moting education and the country's continuous need for human re-
sources. Besides, research from a different context is needed as most
prior business school researches are skewed toward Western schools
(Antunes & Thomas, 2007). As Balmer and 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 rst
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 question-
naire from four public universities or business schools in the country. To
maintain anonymity of the schools, they are labelled as Schools A, B, C
and D respectively. Permission was granted from both the MOHE and
the deans of the business schools/faculties to administer the survey to
MBA students during class sessions. Students were briefed and ques-
tionnaires distributed during break time or shortly after class com-
mencement. 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
 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
Cognive brand
aribute
Aecve brand
aribute
Fig. 1. Proposed theoretical model.
these schools offered similar programs. Data was collected over a
3-month period.
The total samples for all four schools are 558. This includes 261 male
and 292 female respondents (plus ve other missing answers to the
gender question), which comprised 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: 3034 years
(29%) and 2529 years old (36%) and 35% outside those parameters.
Respondents were mainly 2534, and this tends to be a requirement
before they can enroll on an MBA program and just short of 50% of the
sample had between 3 and 5 years of working experience, while more
than half held or had held a middle or senior management position. Fi-
nally, almost 80% of the respondents were in either the second semester
of their rst 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. The Appendix provides further
detail on the sample frame.
3.2. The survey measures
There are ve 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 and Reinders (2001) and VidaverCohen
(2007). Affective brand attribute was dened as an affective and emo-
tional construct, representing the outcome of service processes (techni-
cal quality) according to Grnroos (1990). This was consistent with
those other 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 as-
pects. 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).
2329
Corporate brand
image
Sasfacon
Loyalty
Behavioral response represents two concepts (1) Satisfaction and
(2) Loyalty. Satisfaction concerns affective/emotional response to expe-
riences provided by, or associated with particular products or services
purchased (Davies & Chun, 2002; Oliver, 1997). Because the study's in-
tention concerns maximizing positive recommendations, the experi-
ences 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 (Davies et al., 2003; Goldsmith et al.,
2000). Roper (2004) suggests that assessment over time will ensure a
truer representation and more accurate reection of satisfaction with
an organization. Thus, respondents were at least 3 months into their
courses in their rst 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 and Chun (2002), and
another 2 items from Oliver (1997). Finally, loyalty is concerned with fa-
vorable attitude toward a brand resulting in consistent purchase of the
brand over time (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009, p. 90; Zeithaml et al.,
1996) and involves a 6-item measure developed from Zeithaml et al.
(1996). Zeithaml et al. (1996) capture previous conceptualizations of be-
havioral 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 ve-point Likert scales.
4. Data analysis and hypotheses testing
The study followed a measure validation procedure through a two-
step SEM approach namely the measurement model and structural
model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The analysis was run using AMOS
18 using the default method Maximum Likelihood (ML). Step one
deals with the measurement model's validity and reliability and step
two deals with nomological validity (hypotheses testing) of the pro-
posed theoretical model. Cognitive and affective brand attributes follow
the rst and second order of conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Byrne,
2001) in order to identify which dimensions represent both constructs.
Since the underlying factor structure of both cognitive brands attributes
(educational and service quality) and affective brand attributes (corpo-
rate character scale) have been specied a priori (e.g., Holdford &
Reinders, 2001; Vidaver-Cohen, 2007; Davies et al., 2004 respectively),
CFA is more appropriate than EFA (Byrne, 2001). Using a rst and sec-
ond order model can also determine which dimensions make up the
second order constructs, namely cognitive and affective brand attribute
through the structural relationships between the dimensions (Byrne,
2001; Garver & Mentzer, 1999; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
The analysis then proceeds to Step Two Approach known as the struc-
tural full model.
2330 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
4.1. Step-one: The measurement model
Before step-one is performed, both rst and second order models
were rened in order to establish which dimensions represent the la-
tent constructs for both cognitive and affective brand attributes. Mists
in the models involving items that were cross-loaded on more than one
dimension were relaxed one at a time as proposed by Long (1983) and
non-signicant parameters were excluded from the study. Besides
relaxing parameters, removing or adding parameters from one dimen-
sion to another, where there was high cross-loading was also per-
formed based on theoretical, statistical and practical considerations
(Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). For example leading item, was original-
ly from a drive facet in the Competence dimension however heavily
cross-loaded in the Chic dimension (with prestigious). Removing it indi-
cates a wrong move with a poor t and theoretically, leading and presti-
gious 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
nding.
The nal result indicates ve dimensions representing cognitive brand
attribute: (1) the school/administration, (2) innovative method (3) com-
munication (4) lecturer and (5) the physical facility. Both models achieve
good statistics, viz rst order: (2(199) = 528.69, 2/df = 2.6; GFI = .923;
TLI = .936; CFI = .945; RMSEA = .055) and second order: (2(204) =
571.17, 2/df = 2.8); GFI = .916; TLI = .931; CFI = .938; RMSEA =
.057.
Affective brand attributes on the other hand are represented by four
dimensions: (1) empathy, part of agreeableness dimension, (2) adven-
turous, part of an enterprise, (3) competence and (4) prestigious
(known as chic in other study). Goodness-of-t statistics show that
both rst and second order model (2(145) = 430.44, 2/df = 2.8);
(GFI = .922; TLI = .951; CFI = .958; RMSEA = .058) and (2(147) =
444.07, 2/df = 2.9); (GFI = .919; TLI = .950; CFI = .957; RMSEA =
.059) respectively t the data well.
When comparing both the rst-order and second-order model re-
sults, both perform similarly where the second-order model produced
near identical results to the rst-order model. However, a decision
was made to select second order for further analysis (hypotheses test-
ing) for both constructs based on (1) the a priori status of both scales
theoretically (Davies et al., 2003; Holdford & Reinders, 2001); (2) statis-
tically (construct validity), that is when models are acceptable, both
could be used for further analysis (Wolnbarger & 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 Fig. 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 ve constructs were then tested in step-one
measurement model. The full measurement model ts the data well
(2(1060) = 2396, 2/df = 2.2); (GFI = .842; CFI = .921; TLI: .921;
RMSEA = .048) (Fig. 2).
4.2. Step-two: The full model
The concern in the step-two approach is to test the study's theoret-
ical models (as presented in Fig. 1) as well as the objectives and hypoth-
eses. The summary of the full model result with all direct and indirect
effects is reported in Fig. 3 below. The step-two model indicates an ac-
ceptable t (2(1107) = 2445.37, 2/df = 2.2; GFI = .841; TLI = .924;
CFI = .923; RMSEA = .047), with no deletion of items. Convergent va-
lidity was all supported in this study with all parameter estimates N .5,
(Kline, 1998), and all items were statistically signicant at p b .001
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Constructs reliability was tested using
both composite and Cronbach's alpha and they were all above the rec-
ommended level, as shown in Table 1. The correlation (covariance)
among the constructs is also acceptably low ranging from .59 to .78,
and AVE = N.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), except for two constructs
(see Table 1), the lecturer and administration/school that have an AVE
of .46 and .49 respectively (see Table 1). A further test to ensure the ad-
equacy 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 that discriminant va-
lidity is conrmed for all latent constructs since the square root of each
construct's AVE's are all greater than the bivariate correlations (coef-
cients ranges from .45 to .66, p b .001). Cross loadings between both
measured and error terms also do not suffer from a substantial cross-
loadings with standardized residuals all b .258 (Garver & Mentzer,
1999; Steenkamp & van Trijp, 1991). Thus, the assessment results sup-
port the adequacy of discriminant validity of the measurement model.
All direct effects were tested and provide signicant positive effects
(H1aH4d) 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 affec-
tive brand attributes however were statistically signicant explaining
the corporate brand image with affective brand attribute having the
most effect ( = .56, p = .000 and = .38, p = .000, respectively). Cor-
porate brand image interestingly does not directly affect loyalty ( =
.04, p = .56), but is mediated through satisfaction ( = .53, p =
.000). Cognitive brand attribute, although found to be nonsignicant
on loyalty ( = .06, p = .204) does explains affective brand attribute, cor-
porate brand image and satisfaction ( = .76, p = .000, = .38, p =
.000; = .22, p = .001 respectively).
To establish the mediation effects (H2a, H3a and H4a) as conceptual-
ized earlier, all signicant 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 sat-
isfaction) as only the indirect paths were signicant (Zhao et al., 2010).
For example cognitive brand attribute affective brand attribute sat-
isfaction loyalty ( = .76, p = .000 and = .14, p = .001), while in-
signicant, was found on the direct path between cognitive brand
attribute loyalty ( = .06, p = .296). A similar situation was found
on corporate brand image loyalty (with = .04, p = .592), while sig-
nicant on the direct path between affective brand attribute loyalty
( = .14, p = .001) and corporate brand image satisfaction loyalty
( = .53, p = .000 and = .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 effects, 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 signicant (i.e., a b is signicant and
c being nonsignicant) and a full mediation occurs when the beta coef-
cient is nearing zero or nonsignicant concerning the direct effect be-
tween X and Y when m (mediation) is introduced. Second, the
magnitude of the indirect effect is given by the product of the standard-
ized coefcients of the paths linking the two variables (Bentler, 1995).
Table 2 summarizes the hypotheses results, the direct and indirect pa-
rameter estimates.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implication
Theoretically, the study contributes to the existing literature in ve
different ways. First, the study claries which attitude components are
 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336 2331

Note: * indicates all loadings are significant at p<.001

Fig. 2. SEM: The measurement model. Note: * indicates all loadings are signicant at p b .001.

signicant (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 schools' corporate brand im-
ages and consumer behavioral responses. While the previous single
dimension approach only explains the partial impact (Anisimova,
2007), examining both constructs here helps to clarify a school's corpo-
rate brand promises (Anisimova, 2007; Curtis et al., 2009), which can
lead to clearer strategic corporate brand positioning (Abratt & Kleyn,
2012; Opoku et al., 2006). A key nding in this paper is that both
2332 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336

Note: * indicates all loadings are significant at p<.001; N.S. indicates Not Significant

Fig. 3. SEM: The structural model. Note: * indicates all loadings are signicant at p b .001; N.S. indicates not signicant.

Table 1 attitude components appear to be equally important in shaping corpo-

Composite reliability, Cronbach's alpha and AVE. rate brand image, however, and most interestingly, the affective brand
Constructs Composite reliability Cronbach's alpha AVE attribute appears to explain more. So, although cognitive brand attribute
Corporate brand attribute:
is important for the service process, it is not a necessary condition for
Physical facility 0.89 0.93 0.66 behavioral responses due to the insignicant relationship found. The af-
Communication 0.81 0.84 0.52 fective construct on the other hand, which represents the school's charac-
School/administration 0.82 0.81 0.49 ter and associated with corporate brand values has the most effect ( =
Lecturer 0.82 0.80 0.46
.56, p b .001) compared to cognitive brand attribute ( = .38, p b .001)
Innovative method 0.86 0.84 0.67
and it is also directly related to behavioral response. Davies (2013)
Corporate brand image: explains that personality traits are useful evaluative criteria when
Adventurous 0.77 0.76 0.53
predicting brand, image, personality or reputation of a rm. Likewise, as
Empathy 0.90 0.90 0.65
Competence 0.82 0.80 0.53 Davies et al. (2003) explains, using an organisation's character (through
Prestigious 0.86 0.85 0.55 these personality values) is one of the main sources of differentiation
Overall corporate image 0.84 0.83 0.63 and brand strength.
Satisfaction 0.86 0.85 0.61 Second, this study identies specic dimensions that can be impor-
Loyalty 0.92 0.91 0.79
tant for business schools' strategic positioning from both elements
 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336 2333

Table 2
Hypotheses summary.

Constructs/hypotheses Direct path P Indirect path estimates Hypothesis result

(Testing direct and indirect effects) estimates

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 satisfaction loyalty .06 .296 Path 1: = .22, p = .000 and Path 2: Support H2a,
H2c cognitive brand attribute loyalty = .76, p = .000 reject H2c
Note: Full mediation as only indirect path is signicant (Zhao et al., 2010)
H2b Cognitive brand attribute satisfaction .22 .001 Supported
H3a affective brand attribute satisfaction loyalty (indirect effect) .76 .000 Path 1: = .18, p = .000 vs. Path 2: Supported
Note: Complimentary (or partially) mediated occurs as both direct and indirect paths are = .76, p = .000
signicant (Zhao et al., 2010)
H3b Affective brand attribute satisfaction .18 .000 Supported
H3c Affective brand attribute loyalty .14 .002 Supported
H4a corporate brand image satisfaction loyalty (indirect effect) .04 .592 Path 1: = .53, p = .000 vs. Path 2: Support H4a,
H4b corporate brand image loyalty = .76, p = .000 reject 4b
Note: Full mediation occur as only indirect path is signicant (Zhao et al., 2010)
H4c corporate brand image satisfaction 0.53 .000 Supported
H4d Satisfaction loyalty 0.76 .000 Supported

cognitive and affective brand attributes. Cognitive brand attributes
represent a mixture of service and educational quality dimensions
such as: (1) the school/administration attribute, with most variance
explained (.95). The school/administration is rst 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) (variance explained .88) in corporate brand
attributes; third communication (.85) (items such as consistent grading
practises, adequate feedback or explanation to students are understood);
fourth faculty (.77), and fth the physical facility (.72). Consistently,
Gray et al. (2003) explain that when new students evaluate their choice
decisions especially in the Asia context (i.e., Malaysia, Singapore), the
university learning environment, excellent faculty, excellent facilities, ac-
cess to research resources and overall reputation are among the vital
factors.
Perhaps the most signicant nding of this study is related to the in-
novativeness dimension. This dimension is added in the current study
to represent the service process and is found to be useful in explaining
the cognitive brand attributes of a business school. Innovativeness con-
cerns 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 and Thomas
(2007) stress that the main competitive advantage of European busi-
ness schools over their US counterparts are they have developed a rep-
utation for innovation (innovatory capabilities and learning styles).
Although US business schools are the fast rst-movers in management
education through product standardization 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 pro-
jects 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 busi-
ness schools particularly those of the UK due to Malaysia's close associ-
ation with that country and collaborative activities via research and
curricula.
Third, affective brand attribute is another aspect of the study's con-
tribution represented by four values/dimensions, that is: (1) empathy,
part of the agreeableness dimension, (2) adventurous, part of enter-
prise, (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, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001; Davies et al.,
2003)), the differences were apparent between the current and previ-
ous research. While Davies et al. (2003) found that the agreeableness
and competence dimensions are common traits in most organisations;
this study found that enterprise (which is only about adventurous),
competence and chic (named as prestigious here) apparently seem
important in explaining the school's corporate brand image. There
are but limited known examinations in the business school context
(except Opoku et al., 2006; Davies & Chun, 2008) and this nding
gives new insights into which affective brand attribute is considered
to be more important in an institutional context to both academics
and practitioners, and simultaneously helps to address the issue
concerning which emotional component to emphasis when designing
marketing strategies for business schools. Adventurous represents the
creative aspect of an organization, with an image of talented, inge-
nious, quick-witted and resourceful suggested as being common in
companies leading to development of leadership (Davies et al.,
2003). Opoku et al. (2006) stress that business schools are often asso-
ciated with elitist or prestigious attributes since graduated students
tend to occupy top positions of prominence within government and
business. Thus, the inclusion of affective brand attribute measured
through intangible values (personality traits) is useful in this study's
context. Keller (2000) explains:
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]
Fourth, the current study integrates the dimensions cognitive and
affect in a model and tests in two different ways namely (1) both affect
corporate brand image and (2) there is a hierarchical/sequence effect
between cognitive and affect brand attributes. The study's framework
of hierarchical effect has been drawn from consumer behavior/
brand psychology theories (Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005; Franzen &
Bouwman, 2001; Fridja, 1986; Lazarus, 1991) and from antecedents
and outcomes of corporate branding (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012;
Anisimova, 2007; Curtis et al., 2009; Da Silva & Syed Alwi, 2008;
Davies et al., 2003; De Chernatony, 2002; Keller, 2003). Although the
past scholars stress the need to investigate the hierarchical effect on
corporate brands (e.g., Davies et al., 2003; De Chernatony, 2002), the
empirical results of testing these theoretical relationships in corporate
brand area have been limited with most of the works remaining as
2334 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
conceptual or theoretical discussions (Curtis et al., 2009;
Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). One key nding is that affec-
tive brand attribute is in fact the outcome of cognitive brand attributes
(De Chernatony, 2002; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). For example, clear com-
munication and adequate feedback provided (communication) may
possibly explain the why the empathy image emerges (trustworthy,
concerned and supportive), while clear vision and having the right pro-
cedure (school/administration) may possibly explain how reliable and
competent the school is (Davies et al., 2003; Vidaver-Cohen, 2007). Sim-
ilarly, using innovative teaching methods (innovative) and providing up-
to-date facility/equipment (physical facility) may explain how students
arrive at the corporate brand image as adventurous and prestigious be-
cause being innovative is seen in part as being modern and up to date
(Keller, 2000).
Finally, the theoretical model identies that affective brand attri-
bute and satisfaction are two important mediators in explaining behav-
ioral 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, inter-
estingly, students' behavioral responses (positive word-of-mouth) to
schools depended largely on the affective component and their happi-
ness (satisfaction) rather than upon the cognitive element as the direct
effect to loyalty was surprisingly insignicant. The direct effect be-
tween overall attitude (corporate brand image) to loyalty was also in-
signicant in this study suggesting that affective brand attribute is an
important part of corporate brand image and plays signicant role in
explaining satisfaction before favorable responses could be offered.
Thus, both affective brand attributes and satisfaction of students are
vital to ensure favorable responses and investing resources in building
image and reputation for business schools is worthwhile (Bennett &
Ali-Choudhury, 2009). Similarly, Anisimova (2007) explains that
there is no direct link between corporate activities and corporate
image association in the consumer's memory but rather an indirect ef-
fect was found through corporate image (i.e., enhancing consumer per-
sonal representation such as designing the brand to look more
sophisticated) explaining consumer loyalty in the context of automo-
bile in Australia. Corporate values (e.g., innovation, respect) and corpo-
rate personality (e.g., sporty, trustworthy) have also been found to be
important in explaining consumer loyalty (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury,
2009).
5.2. Managerial implications
The managerial contributions of the paper lie in the context of de-
ning strategy in relation to positioning business schools in an increas-
ingly 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 marketing strategy, the brand value-
innovativeness of the school could be enhanced in its message appeal
to potential students. The current study shows that these criteria are
important in designing corporate brand image and thus ways need to
be found to concretize these attributes. There is, thus, a call for imagina-
tive ways to stimulate student interest and consequently improve
brand reputation. Since brand personality is heavily built by advertising
(McEnally & de Chernatony, 1999), the design of institutional images
for business schools may seek to address or emphasize symbolic
value (i.e., being creative (adventurous), displaying competence and
maintaining a prestigious strategy) more in this context. The way a stu-
dent draws an inference about a business school's brand is different
from other corporate brand contexts. While the theoretical implica-
tions of this study are evident as different brand image dimensions
were found in the context of higher education and the effect of the me-
diating variables corporate brand image and student satisfaction play
important roles in ensuring students recommend the business schools
in the future. Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009) explain that favorable
opinions of a university's brand is translated into positive affective, rep-
utational, and conative consequences thus resources allocated to brand
building are worthwhile. 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 identied:
(1) The specic corporate brand image attributes of business schools
(cognitively and affectively) and claries corporate brand differ-
entiation and positioning;
(2) The theoretical relationships of cognitive and affective brand
attribute relative to corporate brand image;
(3) The mediator role of affective brand attributes, corporate brand
image and satisfaction on consumer behavioral response (loyalty);
and
(4) The hierarchical effect between cognitive brand attributes on
affective brand attributes.
Arguably, corporate brand promise is seen through this effect
(point 4) (De Chernatony, 2002) which in turn aids the formation of
corporate identity (Davies & Chun, 2008). Thus, from a conceptual per-
spective, the notion of cognition/emotion sequence conrms 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 position-
ing of HEIs 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, 2002) but also on 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 be-
ginning process of a service, however it is the affective brand attributes
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.
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.
The study has identied attributes of business schools that are
seen or interpreted as latent for both cognitive and affective attri-
butes due to the reective nature of the construct and higher
order rather than at individual levels. Further research is needed
to analyze these dimensions using, for example, a formative ap-
proach to allow a stricter role for individual dimensions of both cog-
nitive and affective brand attributes as well as overall attitude
(corporate brand image).
The study is focused in one Asian country namely Malaysia, given
the growth of its higher education sector. 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 theo-
retical framework due to the participating samples in this study are
also being multi-ethnic groups and partially international. Incorpo-
rating cultural dimensions in the future may be useful in explaining
brand perceptions, and possible needed adaptation and positioning
elements.
 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336 2335

Appendix. Respondents characteristics Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. -N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand
personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143155.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted
Variable N (Percent) personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modelling,
1(1), 3567.
University/school Balmer, J. M. T. (2009). Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany.
School A 261 46.7 Management Decision, 47(4), 544572.
School B 137 24.6 Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?
School C 85 15.2 European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972997.
School D 75 13.4 Balmer, J. M. T., & Liao, Mei-Na (2007). Student corporate brand identication: An explor-
atory case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(4), 356375.
Gender Barich, H., & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan
Male 261 46.8 Manage Review, 32(2), 94104.
Female 292 52.3 Batra, R., Donald, R. L., & Dipinder, S. (1993). The brand personality component of brand
Missing 5 0.8 goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. In D. A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand
equity and advertising (pp. 8395). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ethnic Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary
Malay 263 47.1 Education and Management, 8(3), 217230.
Chinese 168 30.1 Bennett, R., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective students' perceptions of university
Indian 68 12.1 brands: An empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85107.
Others/international 59 10.6 Bentler, P.M. (1995). On the t of models to covariances and methodology. Psychological
Bulletin, 112(3), 400404.
Age Biel, A. (1991). The brandscape: Converting brand image into equity. ADMAP, 26(10),
2024 50 9.0 4146.
2529 201 36.0 Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research
on the students' perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence &
3034 167 29.9
Planning, 21(5), 318327.
3539 83 14.9
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
4044 44 7.9
service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 3449.
45 and above 7 1.3 Brown, T. J. (1998). Corporate associations in marketing: Antecedents and consequences.
Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3), 215233.
Working experience*
Byrne, M. B. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
Less than 1 year 39 7.0
and programming. NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13 years 109 19.5
Chiu, H. -C. (2002). A study on the cognitive and affective components of service quality.
35 years 125 22.4 Total Quality Management, 13(2), 265274.
More than 5 years 267 47.3 Chun, R., & Davies, G. (2006). The inuence of corporate character on customers and
No experience 16 2.8 employees: Exploring similarities and differences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 138146.
Occupation* C-L-Ng, I., & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university expe-
Top management 36 6.5 rience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1),
Middle management 251 44.9 3864.
Skilled professional 61 10.9 Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2000). The rankings game: managing business school reputation.
Own business 81 14.5 Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4), 319333.
Retired/not working 18 3.2 Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and exten-
Student 89 15.9 sion. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 5568.
Others 14 2.5 Curtis, T., Abratt, R., & Minor, W. (2009). Corporate brand management in higher education:
The case of ERAU. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(6), 404413.
Current status at school* Da Silva, R. V., & Syed Alwi, S. F. (2008). Online brand attributes and ofine corporate
1st Year Sem1 148 26.5 brand images: Do they differ? Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 217244.
1st Year Sem2 151 27.0 Davies, G. (2013). In support of personality as a measure of reputation: A rejoinder to
2nd Year 165 29.6 Clardy's Organizational reputation: Issues in conceptualization and measurement
3rd Year 76 13.6 (2012). Corporate Reputation Review, 16(2), 168173.
4th Year 11 2.0 Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2002). Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the
5th Year 3 0.5 corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 144158.
Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2008). Projecting corporate character in the branding of business
Sponsors* school. In T. C. Melewar (Ed.), Facets of corporate identity, communication and reputation
Government 80 14.3 (pp. 163177). UK: Routledge.
Private companies 71 12.7 Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness.
Self-funded 404 72.4 London, UK: Routledge.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R., & Roper, S. (2004). Corporate character scale to assess
The variables that are marked asterisk (*) above consist of missing answers from respondents. employee and customer views of organisation reputation. Corporate Reputation
Thus, the total responses may not necessarily round up to 558 to all above variables. Review, 7(2), 125146.
De Chernatony, L. (2002). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?
Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 114132.
De Chernatony, L., & Christodoulides, G. (2004). Taking the brand promise online: Chal-
References lenges and opportunities. Interactive Marketing, 5(3), 238251.
De Chernatony, L., & Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Dening a brand: Beyond the literature
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press. with experts' interpretation. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(4-5), 417443.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. London, UK: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX, USA:
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of Hartcourt Brace Jovanonich College Publishers.
culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Edvardsson, B. (2005). Service quality: Beyond cognitive assessment. Managing Service
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492508. Quality, 15(2), 127131.
Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and
reputations: Reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 202216.
10481063. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
Agarwal, J., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). An integrated model of attitude and affect: Theoret- theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ical foundation and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), Fjortoft, N. F., & Lee, M. W. (1994). Developing and testing a model of professional com-
483493. mitment. American journal Pharmacies of Education, 58(4), 370378.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A re- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
view and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423. unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
Anisimova, T. A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and 18(1), 3950.
behavioral consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395405. Franzen, G., & Bouwman, M. (2001). The mental world of brands. Oxfordshire, UK: World
Antunes, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). The competitive (dis)advantages of European business Advertising Research (WARC).
schools. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 382404. Fridja, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Argenti, P. (2000). Branding b-schools: Reputation management for MBA programs. Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review,
Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 171178. 33(2), 3339.
2336 S.F. Syed Alwi, P.J. Kitchen / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 23242336
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),
3357.
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), 107120.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B.A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The inuence of corporate credibility
on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4),
304318.
Gray, B., Fam, K., & Llanes, V. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 12(2), 108120.
Grimm, P. E. (2005). A components' impact on brand preference. Journal of Business
Research, 58(4), 508517.
Grnroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European
Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 3644.
Grnroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketing
and organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 311.
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), 770782.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international
higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 942948.
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), 316338.
Holdford, D., & Reinders, P. T. (2001). Development of an instrument to assess student
perception of the quality of pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Pharma-
ceutical Education, 65(1), 125131.
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), 276282.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships.
Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500507.
Keller, K. L. (2000). Building and managing corporate brand equity. In M. J. Hatch Schultz,
& M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the
corporate brand (pp. 115137). New York: Oxford University Press.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595600.
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), 7481.
Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modelling in perspective. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 16(3), 215224.
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), 105115.
LaBarbera, P. A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfac-
tion/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of
Marketing Research, 20(4), 393404.
Lambin, J. -L. (1997). Strategic marketing management. Maidenhead: UK McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lin, I. Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: The effect of cognition and emotion.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(2), 163178.
Long, S. J. (1983). Conrmatory factor analysis: A preface to LISREL. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review
and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473491.
Malhotra, N. K. (2005). Attitude and affect: New frontier of research in the 21st century.
Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 477482.
Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment
and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466479.
Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review, 36(1),
1755.
McEnally, M. R., & de Chernatony, L. (1999). The evolving nature of branding: Consumer
and managerial considerations. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1999(2), 124.
Melewar, T. C., & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sec-
tor: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 4157.
Merrilees, B., & Fry, L. M. (2002). Corporate branding: A framework for e-Retailers.
Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 213225.
Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in
students' retention decision. The International Journal of Educational Management,
15(6), 303311.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the consumer. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Omar, M., Williams, R. L., & Lingelbach, D. (2009). Global brand market-entry to manage
corporate reputation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(3), 177187.
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), 2039.
Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G. D., & Prez, P. J. P. (2002). The conguration of the university
image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(5), 486505.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image man-
agement. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135145.
Patterson, M. (1999). Re-appraising the concept of brand image. Journal of Brand
Management, 6(6), 409426.
Peter, P. J., & Olsen, C. J. (2008). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Boston MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Petruzzellis, P., D'Uggento, A.M., & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality
of service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality, 16(4), 349364.
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), 165175.
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)
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student
choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212222.
Reynolds, W. H. (1965). The role of the consumer in image building. California
Management Review, 7(3), 6976.
Roper, S. (2004). Corporate Branding: A Reputational Perspective in Business-to-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 C. I. Hovland, & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and
change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 114). New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2007). Consumer behaviour (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand
reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 27(9),
1935.
Shaffer, T., & Sherrell, L. (1997). Customer satisfaction with health-care services: The
inuence of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 14(3), 261285.
Slaughter, E. J., Zickar, J. M., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, C. D. (2004). Personality trait infer-
ences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of construct
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 85103.
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), 825845.
Spector, A. J. (1961). Basic dimensions of the corporate image. Journal of Marketing, 25(6),
4751.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating
marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4),
283299.
Stern, B., Zinkhan, M. G., & Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images construct denition, mea-
surement issues, and theory development. Marketing Theory, 1(2), 201224.
Supphellen, M., & Nysveen, H. (2001). Drivers of intention to revisit the websites of well-
known companies. International Journal of Market Research, 43(3), 341352.
Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007). Beyond the rankings: A conceptual framework for business
school research. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 278304.
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of
student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949959.
Wolnbarger, M., & Gilly, C. M. (2003). eTailQ: dimensionalising, measuring and
predicting eTail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183198.
Yuille, J. C., & Catchpole, M. J. (1977). The role of imagery in models of cognition. Journal of
Mental Imagery, 1(1), 171180.
Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal, &
A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315334). 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), 3146.
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), 197206.