Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education.pdf

Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education.pdf

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wmhe20
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
ISSN: 0884-1241 (Print) 1540-7144 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20
Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher
education
Marcelo Gattermann Perin , Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio , Cláudia Simões &
Rosiane Pólvora de Pólvora
To cite this article: Marcelo Gattermann Perin , Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio , Cláudia Simões &
Rosiane Pólvora de Pólvora (2012) Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education,
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22:1, 101-116, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2012.705797
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797
Published online: 28 Aug 2012.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 680View related articles Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

2. Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education
Marcelo Gattermann Perin
a∗
, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio
a
,Cla´udia Simo˜es
b
and
Rosiane Po´lvora de Po´lvora
a
a
Programa de Po´s-Graduac¸a˜o em Administrac¸a˜o, Pontifı´cia Universidade Cato´lica do Rio
Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil;
b
The Open University Business School, Open
University, Milton Keynes, UK
The purpose of this investigation is to understand the antecedents of student
loyalty in the Brazilian context. In particular we address the impact of
student trust, commitment and quality perception on loyalty. A
quantitative study was conducted among business management student
majors from two private Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs),
yielding a global sample of 696 cases. Our findings suggest that students’
trust in their HEI has a positive impact on their commitment and loyalty;
students’ commitment to their HEI has a positive impact on their loyalty;
and students’ perception of service quality has a positive impact on their
commitment and trust. Findings also suggest that student loyalty to the
HEI is indirectly influenced by perceived quality.
Keywords:student loyalty; student commitment; student trust; perceived
quality; higher education institutions
Introduction
There has been increasing competition among HEIs reflected in the globaliza-
tion of educational services (Simo˜es & Soares, 2010) and the general prolifer-
ation of educational organizations (Carvalho & Mota, 2010; Mavondo,
Tsarenko & Gabbott, 2004). Such a competitive context determines an increas-
ingly differentiated market offer (Elliot & Healy, 2001). HEIs are more con-
cerned with being market-oriented (Mavondo et al., 2004; Schertzer &
Schertzer, 2004), understanding and fulfilling their students’ expectations
(Elliott & Healy, 2001), implementing quality programs (Bay & Daniel,
2001), and considering student loyalty as core to the organization’s success
(Carvalho & Mota, 2010; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). In particular, the study
of student loyalty and its antecedents is relevant for establishing management
strategies (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007).
The purpose of this investigation is to understand the antecedents of student
loyalty in the Brazilian context. In Brazil, since the early 2000s, the number of
ISSN 0884-1241 print/ISSN 1540-7144 online
#2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797
http://www.tandfonline.com
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Marketing For Higher Education
Vol. 22, No. 1, January–June 2012, 101–116

3. students admitted into higher education programs has increased, yet at a lower
rate when compared to the increase in the available offers. As a result, there is a
higher number of academic institutions (from 9147 in 2002 to 19,599 in 2009)
that are short of over 1.6 million students (INEP, 2010). This makes the higher
education sector increasingly competitive. In order to face such circumstances,
Brazilian HEIs are adopting new ways to address the student market. In particu-
lar, some institutions are fostering the development of closer relationships with
current students.
Previous studies highlighted HEIs’ trend to develop long lasting relation-
ships with students and the pursuit of student loyalty. For example, Schertzer
and Schertzer (2004) advocate that HEIs need to adopt a relationship marketing
perspective to retain students by continuously seeking their satisfaction with the
services offered (Mavondo et al., 2004). McAlexander and Koenig (2001)
found that universities have been undertaking market-oriented actions in
order to establish relationships with their students. Shah (2009) investigated
whether the findings from the corporate world can also be found in higher
education. His results showed that HEIs have been seeking to improve their
services so as to increase students’ perception of their HEI quality and,
consequently, to improve satisfaction and revenue. As a result, in the field of
education, and notably influenced by studies deriving from other fields, there
has been a proliferation of research to understand the antecedents of student
loyalty.
Several antecedents have been considered to foster long-lasting student
relationships, in particular to promote student loyalty. Hennig-Thurau,
Langer and Hansen (2001) addressed the relationship between perception of
service quality, commitment and trust, and student loyalty towards their aca-
demic institution. Carvalho and Mota (2010) looked into the role of trust in
creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges between HEIs and
their students. Schertzer and Schertzer (2004) proposed a model for student
retention considering student values’ congruence with the university and
faculty as a significant component of academic fit and, ultimately, student sat-
isfaction and retention. A parallel stream of research analysed student satisfac-
tion (Elliott & Healy, 2001; Elliott & Shin, 2002) as core for the development
of customer relationships. Paswan and Ganesh (2009) studied the relationship
between satisfaction with educational augmented services and consumer
loyalty within the context of the international student market. Studies also con-
sidered the relationship between student satisfaction and the HEI’s reputation
(Helgesen & Nesset, 2007) and between the HEI’s image and reputation
(Nguyen & Le Blanc, 2001). The underlying idea is that overall, student satis-
faction may lead to student motivation, student retention, recruitment success,
fundraising (Schertzer & Schertzer, 2004), positive word of mouth, and re-pur-
chase behavior (e.g., returning to do postgraduate studies). Yet, satisfaction,
although necessary, is not sufficient to develop long-term relationships
(Oliver, 1999). Customer loyalty also depends on other factors, such as,
102M.G. Perinet al.

4. purchasing behavior, emotional attachment, and social influences (Gounaris &
Stathakopoulos, 2004).
Despite such widespread contributions to the understanding of loyalty in
the education context, studies are still warranted to gain a deeper understand-
ing of relational exchanges at HEIs (Carvalho & Mota, 2010). For example,
while several authors state that trust is an antecedent of loyalty (Berry,
1995; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Moorman, Deshpande´, & Zaltman, 1993;
Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh, Singh & Sabol, 2002), in the context
of higher education the results are conflicting. The impact of trust on
student loyalty has presented non-significant results (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2001), including in research conducted in Brazil (Marques, 2008; Neto &
Moura, 2004). Indeed, there is a need for studies that thoroughly examine
the relationships between students and academic institutions. Based on this
call, and building on the work from Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), we endeavor
to understand the antecedents of student loyalty in the Brazilian context. We
conducted a quantitative study among business management student majors
from two private Brazilian HEIs in order to see how perception of service
quality, commitment and trust impact on loyalty. By understanding these
relationships, we intend to give relevant insights into student loyalty and its
drivers.
Theoretical background
Our study is based on the model developed by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001)
focusing on the connections between relationship quality and student loyalty.
Relationship qualitycomprises the variables of trust, commitment and per-
ceived quality (see also Hennig-Thurau & Klee, 1997). Overall, the authors
contend that the dimensions of relationship quality are antecedents of loyalty.
We now see in more detail the main constructs of the study.
Relationship quality comprises three constructs: overall service quality, trust,
and commitment by both parties. The concept oftrustis usually presented under
two aspects: as a belief, feeling or expectation about an exchange partner, and as a
behavioral choice (Moorman et al., 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh
et al., 2002). Trust has been established as deriving from two different dimen-
sions: (i) the behavior of frontline employees (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001);
and, (ii) the management practices and policies adopted by a company
(Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). The trust construct became vitally important to
organizations due to the perception of risk and uncertainty for customers, and
is seen as an essential ingredient for successful long-term relationships (Berry,
1995; Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Moorman et al., 1993; Morgan & Hunt,
1994).
Commitmentis a key variable in the relationship model (Morgan & Hunt,
1994) and is seen as a central construct in relational behavior with consumers
(Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Morgan and Hunt (1994) address commitment
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education103

5. as the desire to maintain a valid relationship, i.e., a partner believes in the relation-
ship’s importance up to the point of making maximum efforts for its maintenance.
Dwyer et al. (1987) define commitment as an implicit or explicit pledge of rela-
tional continuity between exchange partners. The commitment construct splits
into two components: (i) continuance or cognitive commitment; and, (ii) affec-
tive commitment. The former emerges from the idea of the organizational com-
mitment of employees towards the organization. This notion was translated into
relationship marketing as the idea of dependence, switching costs, and consu-
mers’ lack of choice. Affective commitment arises when feelings of identification
and attachment to a brand or company prevail (Fullerton, 2003).
Service quality is core for the development of successful relationships
(Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, & Gremler, 2002; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman,
1996). Quality is the assessment made by the consumer immediately after the
product is consumed and affects overall satisfaction (Fornell, Johnson,
Anderson, Cha, & Bryant, 1996).Perceived qualityin the field of higher edu-
cation services was pointed by Rowley and Dawes (2000) as an overall judg-
ment made by the student, considering the satisfaction related to a specific
transaction.
It should be noted, however, that previous research refers to relationship
quality as being manifested in satisfaction (Crosby, Evans & Cowles, 1990),
rather than perceived quality. However, for Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), refer-
ring to Hennig-Thurau and Klee’s (1997) conceptual model, perception of
service or product-related quality is ‘a stable attitude-like construct mainly
resulting from the customer’s previous ephemeral feelings of satisfaction’
(p. 334). Such definition suggests the connection between both constructs. In
this study we include the perceived quality construct in our model to maintain
the original approach from Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001).
1
Loyaltywas initially understood as repeated purchases (Oliver, 1999).
However, the idea of repeated purchases does not capture the whole domain
of the construct (Newman & Werbel, 1973). Oliver (1999) defines consumer
loyalty as a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronise a preferred
product/service brand consistently in the future, despite situational influences
and/or marketing efforts that may act as a cause to switch behavior.
Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002, p. 20) state that ‘consumer loyalty is indicated by
an intention to perform a diverse set of behaviors that signal a motivation to
maintain a relationship with the focal firm, including allocating a higher
share of the category wallet to the specific service provider, engaging in positive
word of mouth, and repeat purchasing.’
Research model and hypotheses
The underlying rationale of this study is that, overall, quality perception, trust
and commitment are interrelated and capable of directly or indirectly influence
customer loyalty, i.e., loyalty is preceded by the perceived relationship quality
104M.G. Perinet al.

6. (Hennig-Thurau & Klee, 1997; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001). Based on the
original model proposed by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), the model adapted
to this study is presented in Figure 1. The model, proposes trust as creating
benefits and security for customers which, in turn, are conducive to commit-
ment and loyalty in the relationship (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan &
Hunt, 1994).
Although difficult to manage, trust is seen as considerably important in the
process of building and maintaining relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994;
Oakes, 1990). In particular, in services where perceptions of risk may be
higher, the development of trust is closely related to the duration of the relation-
ship (Swan & Nolan, 1985).
Consumer trust has a fairly recent application to studies of relational
exchanges involving HEIs (Carvalho & Mota, 2010). Universities can build
trust by treating students in a consistent and equitable way, meeting their expec-
tations, and handling their complaints in a caring manner (Elliott & Healy,
2001). Relationships characterised by trust are highly valuable and show the
parties’ desire to commit to the relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) found a positive relationship between trust in front-
line employees and emotional commitment. Therefore, trust and commitment
are related.
Figure 1. Quality relationship based on the student loyalty model.
Source: Adapted from Hennig-Thurau, Langer and Hansen (2001).
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education105

7. In addition, in some instances, trust performs a prevalent role over loyalty,
and is more influential than satisfaction (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Hennig-
Thurau et al. (2001) analysed trust in frontline employees and found a positive
relationship between trust in frontline employees and student loyalty. Ghosh,
Whipple, and Bryan (2001) propose that student trust is a long-term solution
that HEIs can adopt in today’s competitive environment. The authors suggest
that trust can positively impact on enrolment, retention rates, quality percep-
tions and positive word of mouth. Ultimately, alumni involvement with HEIs
can reduce sensitivity to increase in tuition fees. Hence, we propose that:
H1: Students’ trust in the HEI has a positive impact on their commitment to the
institution.
H2: Students’ trust in the HEI has a positive impact on their loyalty to the
institution.
Commitment has been established as affecting loyalty (Fournier, 1998;
Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995) as there are significant interactions between continu-
ance and effective commitment and consumer loyalty (Fullerton, 2003). Such
an idea has been applied to academic institutions. Student commitment to
HEIs is established by means of curricular interactions with mentors, faculty
and upperclassmen, and through extracurricular activities, the student union
and peer association (Schertzer & Schertzer, 2004; see also Drew, 1990;
Nora & Cabrera, 1993). For Schertzer and Schertzer (2004), institutional com-
mitment is positively associated with student retention and persistence, and
negatively correlated to dropout or transfer to other institutions. According to
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), students’ emotional or affective commitment to
their academic institution is positively influenced by academic and social inte-
grations, and negatively influenced by commitments to their work, family, and
non-academic activities. Hence:
H3: Students’ commitment to the HEI has a positive impact on student loyalty.
An institution aiming at developing a quality-based strategy to increase its
students’ loyalty rate needs to understand which aspects of service quality
are the most important (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001) – hence the importance
of its connection with constructs, such as trust and commitment. Studies have
related the relationship quality model entailing perceived quality, trust, and
commitment to loyalty (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001), suggesting that higher
quality services have a positive effect on trust and commitment (Hennig-
Thurau & Klee, 1997). Studies (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002) have also
pointed out the significance and impact of the related construct of satisfaction
on customer loyalty. In Brazil, Marques (2008) confirmed the influence of per-
ceived quality and emotional commitment on student loyalty. In this sense, we
suggest that:
106M.G. Perinet al.

8. H4: Students’ perception of the HEI’s service quality has a positive impact on
their commitment.
H5: Students’ perception of the HEI’s service quality has a positive impact on
their trust.
H6: Students’ perception of the HEI’s service quality has a positive impact on
their loyalty.
Method
The methodological procedure chosen for this study was the cross-sectional
survey method. In the questionnaire development we adopted previously devel-
oped scales. We used Sirdeshmukh et al.’s (2002) loyalty scale, and their break-
down of trust into trust in management practices and policies and trust in
frontline employees. Such an approach is similar to that taken in studies
carried out in Brazil in the field of education (Basso, Schwab, Po´lvora,
Marques, Pereira & Slongo, 2008; Espartel, Sampaio, & Perin, 2008;
Marques, 2008; Perin, Sampaio, Brei, & Porto, 2004; Porto, 2004; Souza,
Oliveira, & Rezende, 2006). Additionally, we applied Fullerton’s (2003)
scale on commitment, as entailing both continuance and affection features (pre-
viously applied to Brazilian students by Freire, 2005). Appendix 1 provides the
scales used.
The research instrument was pre-tested among 60 students at a Brazilian
HEI (Malhotra, 2006). The pre-test showed students understood the measure-
ments evenly. The students taking part in the pre-test were not included in
the main survey. The research instrument was applied to business management
student majors from two private Brazilian HEIs: a large - HEI A - and a small -
HEI B. The questionnaire was administered during classes, generating a con-
venience sample of a total of 696 cases - 436 from the large HEI A and 260
from the small HEI B.
Considering the yielded sample sizes in both institutions, and in order to
further validate our findings, all data analysis was performed separately for
each sample, i.e., students from HEI A (436 cases) and students from HEI B
(260 cases). We conducted a preliminary stage of data analysis including data
editing, coding, and statistical adjustment (Malhotra, 2006). Further checks
entailed missing values and outliers, data normality, checks for multicollinear-
ity, and homoscedasticity. The main analysis included confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) to assess constructs’ validity and structural equation modeling
(SEM) to test the main model. SPSS 15.0wand AMOS 7.0w(Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1998) were used as statistical packages.
Results
CFA was used to assess the unidimensionality of the constructs, namely their
convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education107

9. evidenced in HEI A and HEI B samples by constructs’ composite reliability
(.0.70) and variance extracted (.0.50) (Hair et al., 1998) and by the statistical
significance of the estimated parameters based on their t-values (p,0.05).
Additionally, we checked each variable’s adjustment rates and found them to
be adequate. Discriminant validity was also revealed as all constructs presented
squared extracted variances higher than shared variances (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Table 1 summarises these results.
The measurement models considered perceived quality and loyalty as first
order constructs. Trust was defined as a second order construct composed of
the two first order constructs – trust in management practices and policies,
and trust in frontline employees. Similarly, a second order construct for commit-
ment was composed of continuance and affection features. Following the
approach of Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), all constructs were considered reflex-
ive indicators. For both samples, our results suggest a reasonable fit of the
second-order specification for the trust and commitment measures. All fit
indexes obtained (GFI, CFI, NNFI, and IFI) exceed the recommended threshold
of 0.90 level suggested in the literature (Garver & Mentzer, 1999; Hair et al.,
1998).
To check the research model’s significance, we aggregated the measurement
model to decrease its complexity and increase the relationship between esti-
mated parameters and sample cases. We also applied a bootstrapping estimation
to correct standard errors. Given the previously tested internal consistency, we
used summated scales and calculated each construct’s indicator average
(Churchill, 1999). The summation procedure maintains the logical equivalence
between the original and summated models. The summated model considered
the hypothesised relationships based on the adjustment rates and estimated par-
ameters for each relationship (Garver & Mentzer, 1999; Hair et al., 1998). The
Table 1. Correlation, average variance extracted and composite reliability matrix.
HEI Construct CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1. Management Practices and Policies 0,89 0,660,81
2. Frontline Employees 0,94 0,80 0,68 0,89
3. Perceived Quality 0,85 0,50 0,57 0,61 0,71
4. Affective Commitment 0,92 0,75 0,44 0,46 0,57 0,87
5. Continuance Commitment 0,84 0,57 0,23 0,20 0,22 0,39 0,76
6. Loyalty 0,89 0,67 0,47 0,43 0,49 0,52 0,31 0,82
B 1. Management Practices and Policies 0,89 0,660,81
2. Frontline Employees 0,93 0,78 0,59 0,88
3. Perceived Quality 0,85 0,50 0,56 0,50 0,71
4. Affective Commitment 0,89 0,68 0,57 0,34 0,56 0,82
5. Continuance Commitment 0,83 0,55 0,40 0,21 0,33 0,42 0,74
6. Loyalty 0,89 0,66 0,61 0,40 0,57 0,61 0,41 0,82
Note: All correlations are significant (p,0.01). Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of the average
variance extracted (AVE). CR - composite reliability.
108M.G. Perinet al.

10. model shows satisfactory adjustment for HEI A (x2¼63.130; DF¼22; GFI¼
0.967; RMSEA¼0.068; AGFI¼0.932; TLI¼0.965; TLI¼0.978) and HEI
B(
x2¼23.743; DF¼22; GFI¼0.979; RMSEA¼0.018; AGFI¼0.958;
TLI¼0.998; TLI¼0.998).
To test the hypotheses, we checked the structural pathways proposed by the
models for HEI A and HEI B (figure 2), their respective standardised factor
loadings, t-values, and significance coefficients.
Based on the analysis of factor loadings, t-values, and significance of the
hypothesised relationships, hypothesis test results are provided in Table 2.
Discussion and conclusions
Overall, findings confirm the model developed by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001)
in the Brazilian educational context. Although the relationship between per-
ceived quality and loyalty was not directly confirmed in this study, we verified
Figure 2. Structural Paths.
Note: Standardized loadings (t-value). Group A - large HEI; Group B – small HEI.
∗
p,0.05;
∗∗
p,0.01.
Table 2. Hypotheses confirmation (sample HEI A and sample HEI B).
Hypothesis Result
H1 Students’ trust in their HEI has a positive impact on their commitment Confirmed
H2 Students’ trust in their HEI has a positive impact on their loyalty Confirmed
H3 Students’ commitment to their HEI has a positive impact on their loyalty Confirmed
H4 Students’ perception of the HEI’s service quality has a positive impact on their
commitment
Confirmed
H5 Students’ perception of the HEI’s service quality has a positive impact on their
trust
Confirmed
H6 Students’ perception of the HEI’s service quality has a positive impact on their
loyalty
Not Confirmed
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education109

11. its influence through trust and commitment. The finding related to the non-sig-
nificance of the direct relationship between perceived quality and loyalty is con-
trary to previous studies that attempted to validate the model by Hennig-Thurau
et al. (2001) in Brazil, (e.g., Basso et al., 2008; Marques, 2008; Neto & Moura,
2004). A possible explanation could be that in our study, in contrast to previous
studies, we exposed the mediating role of trust and commitment in the quality–
loyalty relationship. Probably, without such controls the direct effect of per-
ceived quality on loyalty is overestimated.
The fact that the relationship between perceived quality and student loyalty
is indirect, suggests that the relationship between perceived quality and loyalty
takes place by means of students’ trust and commitment to their HEI. In line
with these results, Al-Alak (2006) studied the marketing actions (antecedents)
and performance (consequences) of relationship quality in a higher education
setting. The results pointed out that greater employees’ relational and student
orientation resulted in higher relationship quality; better education providers’
(employees’) attributes resulted in higher relationship quality; higher relation-
ship quality resulted in better relationship continuity; and committed student
relationships resulted in student satisfaction, loyalty, positive word of mouth,
and promotion.
The proposition that trust is an antecedent of loyalty in the higher education
context has not been proven in previous studies (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001),
including in Brazil (Basso et al., 2008; Marques, 2008; Neto & Moura,
2004). Such results are contrary to the prevailing theory in the field of market-
ing. In this study we analysed the impact of trust on loyalty by breaking trust
down into the dimensions of: (i) trust in management policies and practices;
and (ii) trust in frontline employees. We found a strong, significant relationship
between the constructs. Hence, in our findings, students’ trust in their HEI influ-
ences their loyalty (H2). Similarly, Carvalho and Mota (2010) looked into the
relational exchange process taking place between HEIs and students, and con-
cluded that students’ trust in frontline employees (faculty and administrative
staff) and in the HEI management policies and practices, directly affects their
perception of value and, ultimately, their loyalty.
Findings revealed that commitment is influenced by students’ perceived
quality and trust regarding their HEI. This result is in line with the findings
of Garbarino and Johnson (1999), by showing that commitment is an antecedent
of loyalty. However, previous studies yielded the dominant role of affective
commitment on student loyalty. For example, in Hennig-Thurau et al.’s
(2001) findings, affective commitment was the second most influential factor
on student loyalty, while the continuance commitment shows a small, negative
impact on loyalty. Similarly, Marques (2008) found in Brazil that affective com-
mitment is a strong determinant of loyalty, whereas continuance commitment
influence proved to be frail.
The only relationship not confirmed in our study concerns the link between
perceived quality and loyalty. Yet, as discussed earlier, trust and commitment
110M.G. Perinet al.

12. act as mediating variables. In both samples, findings suggest that perceived
quality has an indirect influence on loyalty. In HEI A, trust was the most influ-
ential variable regarding loyalty, while in HEI B, commitment obtained the
highest standardised factor loading. The finding that commitment is amongst
the most significant antecedents of loyalty was also verified in the Brazilian
education environment by Matos and Henrique (2006).
Overall, findings suggest that student loyalty to the HEI is influenced by
trust (in management policies and practices and in frontline employees) and
(affective and continuance) commitment, and is also indirectly influenced by
perceived quality.
Academic and management-related implications
The main contribution from the study stems from the confirmation of the exist-
ing relationships between HEIs’ trust, commitment, perceived quality (albeit
indirectly), and student loyalty in the Brazilian context. Such relationships
had already been addressed and confirmed in other settings. In the education
sector, the attempts carried out in Brazil thus far had found some difficulties
in testing the model of Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001). It seems that the measure-
ments used were not the most adequate. In our study, the application of scales
previously validated in the Brazilian education context, combined with the con-
structs examined in the model by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), confirmed the
influence of trust on loyalty. Another important consideration concerns the
fact that we tested our model in two samples yielding similar results. The
hypothesised relationships obtained the same outcome in both the small and
big HEIs, thereby consolidating the results.
This study also seems to corroborate Al-Alak’s findings (2006) that market-
ing actions and performances of relationship quality in the higher education
sector create an ‘added value’ for students, leading to student satisfaction, con-
tinued relationships, and positive word of mouth. Hence, relationship marketing
represents an opportunity for offering value to students, which improves the
HEI’s image and consequently makes it easier to attract and retain students.
Students have been taking on a more consumer-like stance regarding their
choices of HEIs (Maringe, 2006). In this regard, Mavondo et al. (2004),
notably influenced by the concept of market orientation (Narver & Slater,
1990), suggest that HEIs adopt a ‘student orientation’, i.e. turn their organiz-
ational culture more towards the market and students’ needs by placing students
at the centre of the operation. Education managers ought to actively design
actions meant to create and maintain more stable, long-lasting relationships.
This study has found that trust and commitment are the most effective ways
to build student loyalty to the HEI. Student commitment should be encouraged,
as students who are loyal to their educational institutions can positively influ-
ence education quality through their active participation. Motivated students
also contribute to research activities by adding innovative topics as they
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education111

13. write their papers or by helping to collect data for research projects. Overall,
loyal relationships with graduated students ought to be instilled. Loyal students
keep supporting their academic institution by means of word of mouth and
returning to study for higher degrees.
Study limitations and suggestions for future research
One limitation of this study is related to the adopted cross-sectional survey
design. Such a method does not encompass the changes in constructs that
occur over time. Additionally, the convenience sampling procedure and the
fact that both samples are from private HEIs located in the capital of a southern
Brazilian State may create some bias in the results. Despite such limitations,
however, the way the questionnaire was applied made it possible for students
at HEIs featuring different characteristics (small and large) to answer the
survey questionnaire.
Considering the study’s findings, we recommend conducting a survey to
assess the relationships between the perceived quality, trust, commitment,
and student loyalty constructs to public HEIs. According to Hennig-Thurau
et al. (2001), in public universities the fact that students do not pay fees may
influence the level of student commitment and expected quality. Future research
focusing on a comparison between public and private HEIs would be important.
Cultural and organizational characteristics may also affect the intensity of
the relationship between quality dimensions and their impact on student
loyalty. Although we did not find a difference between the findings based on
the small HEI sample and the big HEI sample, it is possible that such a result
derives from the fact that both institutions have similar corporate cultures. It
seems that HEI A, having a regional reference, may be considered as a manage-
ment model for HEI B. In addition, considering the fact that professionals from
both institutions received their education from the same HEI, their behaviors are
likely to be similar. Future research ought to look at this implication in more
detail.
Perceptions of relationship quality and its impact on loyalty may vary
among different groups of students. For example, students’ personal character-
istics (e.g., undergraduate vs. post-graduate student; area of study; Grade Point
Average; age) may imply distinct views on commitment, trust, perceptions of
quality, and loyalty. Future research ought to consider these differences and
detect its implication for HEIs’ management as, for example, segmenting the
student market. We also suggest conducting a similar study among former stu-
dents, following the line developed by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), which
included the participation of graduates and drop-outs.
Finally, we suggest that the direct relationship between perceived quality
and loyalty requires further examination. Our results have pointed out that
such a relationship takes place indirectly via trust and commitment. Consider-
ing the importance of this relationship (quality–loyalty), (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
112M.G. Perinet al.

14. 2001; Rowley, 1997), we suggest looking more closely at the education quality
aspects deemed important by the students, examining the reasons that have led
to the relationship between perceived quality and loyalty to be non-significant.
Note
1. We further acknowledge that the notions of satisfaction and (perceived) quality are con-
nected and their boundaries are sometimes blurred in the literature, yet such debate goes
beyond the scope of this paper. For more information on this discussion see Oliver
(1999), and Anderson and Fornell (1994).
References
Al-Alak, B.A.M. (2006). The impact of marketing actions on relationship quality in the higher
education sector in Jordan.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,16(2), 1–23.
Anderson, E.W., & Fornell, C. (1994). A customer satisfaction research prospectus. In R.T. Rust
& R.L. Oliver (Eds.).Service quality(pp. 241–268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Basso, K., Schwab, E.A., Po´lvora, R.P., Marques, L.T., Pereira, M.C., & Slongo, L.A. (2008,
May).Relac¸o˜es de interdependeˆncia entre confianc¸a, comprometimento, qualidade perce-
bida e lealdade em estudantes do ensino superior.Paper presented at the Encontro de
Marketing da ANPAD, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Bay, D., & Daniel, H. (2001). The student is not the customer – An alternative perspective.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,11(1), 1–19.
Berry, L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services: Growing interest, emerging perspectives.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,23,236–245.
Carvalho, S.W., & Mota, M.O. (2010). The role of trust in creating value and student loyalty in
relational exchanges between higher education institutions and their students.Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education,20(1), 145–165.
Churchill, Jr., G.A. (1999).Marketing research: Methodological foundations. Orlando: The
Dryden Press.
Crosby, L., Evans, K., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: An inter-
personal influence perspective.Journal of Marketing,54,68–81.
Drew, C.P. (1990). We can no longer love ‘em and leave ‘em: A paper on freshman retention.
Community College Review,17(4), 54–71.
Dwyer, R., Schurr, P.H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Marketing,2,11–27.
Elliott, K.M., & Healy, M.A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to
recruitment and retention.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,10(4), 1–11.
Elliott, K.M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this
important concept.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,24(2), 197–209.
Espartel, L.B., Sampaio, C.H, & Perin, M.G. (2008). O impacto do envolvimento nas relac¸o˜es
entre confianc¸a, valor percebido e lealdade: Um estudo em uma IES privada.Revista de
Nego´cios,13,11–25.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B.E. (1996). The American
Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, purpose, and findings.Journal of Marketing,60(4),
7–12.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing,18(1), 39–50.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research.Journal of Consumer Research
,24,343–373.
Freire, K.M. (2005).A influeˆncia do envolvimento com o produto e do comprometimento com a
marca na lealdade a`marca(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty?Journal of Service Research,5(4),
333–344.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education113

15. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment
for relational and transactional consumers.Journal of Marketing,63,70–87.
Garver, M.S., & Mentzer, J.T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural
equation modeling to test for construct validity.Journal of Business Logistics,20(1), 33–57.
Ghosh, A.K., Whipple, T.W., & Bryan, G.A. (2001). Student trust and its antecedents in higher
education.The Journal of Higher Education,72(3), 322–340.
Gounaris, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: An
empirical study.Journal of Brand Management,11(4), 283–306.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998).Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Helgesen, Ø., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evi-
dence.International Journal of Educational Management,21(2), 126–143.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., & Gremler, D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing
outcomes.Journal of Service Research,4,230–247.
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Klee, A. (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship
quality on customer retention – A critical reassessment and model development.
Psychology & Marketing,14,737–765.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student
loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality.Journal of Service
Research,3(4), 331–344.
INEP (2011, August 15). Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anı´sio
Teixeira. Censo da Educac¸a˜o Superior 2009. Retrieved from http://www.educacaosuperior.
inep.gov.br.
Malhotra, N. (2006).Pesquisa de Marketing: Uma orientac¸a˜o aplicada. Porto Alegre: Editora
Bookman.
Maringe, F. (2006). Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing.International
Journal of Educational Management,20(6), 466–479.
Marques, L.T. (2008).Validac¸a˜o de um modelo de lealdade do estudante com base na qualidade
do relacionamento(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Pontifı´cia Universidade Cato´lica do Rio
Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Matos, C.A.M., & Henrique, J.L. (2006, September).Balanc¸o do conhecimento em marketing:
uma meta-ana´lise dos resultados empı´ricos dos antecedentes e consequ¨entes da satisfac¸a˜oe
lealdade., Paper presented at the Encontro da ANPAD, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
Mavondo, F.T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student satisfaction:
Resources and capabilities perspective.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,14(1),
41–60.
McAlexander, J.H., & Koenig, H.F. (2001). University experiences, the student-college relation-
ship, and alumni support.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,110(3), 21–43.
Moorman, C., Deshpande´, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships.Journal of Marketing,57,81–101.
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing,58,20–38.
Narver, J.C., & Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of market orientation on business profitability.
Journal of Marketing,54(4), 20–35.
Neto, M.R.A., & Moura, A.I. (2004, September).Construc¸a˜o e teste de um modelo teo´rico de
marketing de relacionamento para o setor de educac¸a˜o.ENANPAD, Curitiba (PR), 2004.
Paper presented at the Encontro da ANPAD, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Newman, J.W., & Werbel, R.A. (1973). Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for major house-
hold appliances.Journal of Marketing Research,10(4), 404–409.
Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in stu-
dents’ retention decisions.International Journal of Educational Management,15(6),
303–311.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A.F. (1993). The construct validity of institutional commitment: A confir-
matory factor analysis.Research in Higher Education,34(2), 243–251.
Oakes, G. (1990). The sales process and the paradoxes of trust.Journal of Business Ethics,9,
671–687.
Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty.Journal of Marketing,63,33–34.
114M.G. Perinet al.

16. Paswan, A.K., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutions: Satisfaction and loyalty
among international students.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,19,65–84.
Perin, M.G., Sampaio, C.H., Brei, V.A., & Porto, C.A. (2004, September).As Relac¸o˜es entre
Confianc¸a, Valor e Lealdade: Um Estudo Intersetorial. Paper presented at the Encontro
da ANPAD, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Porto, C.A. (2004).As relac¸o˜es entre confiabilidade, confianc¸a, valor e lealdade no contexto de
educac¸a˜o a distaˆncia(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Pontifı´cia Universidade Cato´lica do
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Rowley, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service
contract.Quality Assurance in Education,5(1), 7–14.
Rowley, J., & Dawes, J. (2000). Disloyalty: A closer look at non-loyals.Journal of Consumer
Marketing,17,538–549.
Schertzer, C.B., & Schertzer, S.M.B. (2004). Student satisfaction and retention: A conceptual
model.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,14(1), 79–91.
Shah, A. (2009). The impact of quality on satisfaction, revenue, and cost as perceived by pro-
viders of higher education.Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,19,125–141.
Sheth, J., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in consumer markets: Antecedents
and consequences.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,23(4), 246–251.
Simo˜es, C., & Soares, A. (2010). Applying to higher education: Information sources and choice
factors.Studies in Higher Education,35(4), 371–378.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges.Journal of Marketing,66,15–37.
Souza, D., Oliveira, L.H., & Rezende, D.C. (2006, September).As relac¸o˜es entre confianc¸a,
valor e lealdade no contexto da educac¸a˜o a distaˆncia: um estudo de caso em uma
Universidade Federal.Paper presented at the Encontro da ANPAD, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
Swan, J.E., & Nolan, J.K. (1985). Gaining customer trust: A conceptual guide for the salesper-
son.Journal of Selling and Sales Management,5,39–38.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality.Journal of Marketing,60(2), 31–46.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education115

17. Appendix 1. Constructs scales
Construct
Loyalty(Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002)
(ten-point scale – very unlikely/very likely).
†Do most of your future courses at this institution.
†Recommend this institution to friends, neighbours, and relatives.
†Use this HEI the very next time you need a course.
†Spend more than 50% of your clothing budget at this store.
Perceived Quality(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001)
Which is your opinion about...(six-point scale – very bad/very good).
†Academic staff.
†Infrastructure.
†Teaching on offer.
†Student care.
†Examinations/tests.
†Administrative services.
Commitment(Fullerton, 2003)
Continuance
(six-point scale).
†It would be very hard for me to switch away from this institution right now even if I wanted to.
†My life would be disrupted if I switched away from this institution.
†It would be too costly for me to switch from this institution right now.
†Right now, staying in this institution is as much a matter of necessity as it is of choice.
Affection features
(six-point scale).
†I feel like a member of the students’ community of this institution.
†I feel emotionally attached to this institution.
†This institution has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
†I feel a strong sense of identification with this institution.
Trust(Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002)
Trust in frontline employees
I feel that the professors and employee of this institution are...(ten-point scale).
†Very undependable/very dependable.
†Very incompetent/very competent.
†Of very low integrity/of very high integrity.
†Very unresponsive to customers/very responsive to customers.
Management practices and policies
I feel that this institution is...(ten-point scale).
†Very undependable/very dependable.
†Very incompetent/very competent.
†Of very low integrity/of very high integrity.
†Very unresponsive to customers/very responsive to customers.
116M.G. Perinet al.