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
Philip J. Kitchen, ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes, France
;
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. ()
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 attitudinalcomponents 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
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 behavioralresponse (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 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 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.
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.
2.1Corporate 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 conceptuallyhave been used todescribe 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). Thenext paragraph deals with the first issue, definition of corporate brand image while the following paragraph discusses its drivers.
In consumer psychology, understanding on how consumersrespond 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 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 attitudejudgement 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 (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 consumerfocus (Balmer & Gray, 2003), whereas the latter focuses moreon 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.
2.2Drivers 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 thereare 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 couldbe 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 –beliefs/judgments that are made up based on these people’s experiencese.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 assincerity, 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 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 measured by human traits. Opoku et al. (2006), Davies et al. (2004) and Davies (2013) further argue that personality scales are largely affective and attitude type of measures.Jointly, they both represent a sum of various corporate attributes which can be grouped into cognitive brand attributes (the service and perceived educational quality) and the sum of values or personality representing the organization (represent a more emotional and affective concept) (Franzen & Bouwman, 2001; Opoku et al., 2006; Davies et al., 2004; Davies, 2013).
Thus, a potential student or parent may evaluate their decisions from normative belief (other’s people belief- a form of an external cue). That is, from experienced students of the business school who would possibly will be maximizing their recommendations after having been satisfied with the school’s services both cognitively and emotionally,and will or may positively recommend to prospective students’ relatives, families and friends (Bennet & Ali-Choudhry, 2009).Previous research has clearly identified that in service-related setting, customers rely on external cues of corporate brands such as image and positive word-of-mouth (Davies & Chun, 2008; Grönroos, 1984; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).