1253 sarkindaji okey.indd International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015122 International Review of Management and Marketing ISSN: 2146-4405 available at http: www.econjournals.com International Review of Management and Marketing, 2015, 5(3), 122-128. The Moderating Infl uence of Trust on the Relationship between Institutional Image/Reputation, Perceived Value on Student Loyalty in Higher Education Institution Noor Azmi Bin Hashim1, Aliyu Olayemi Abdullateef2, Bashir Danlami Sarkindaji3* 1Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia, 2Faculty of Business and Design, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Malaysia, 3Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia. *Email: bashirsdaji77@yahoo.com. ABSTRACT This survey investigates the moderating infl uence of trust on the relationships between institutional image/reputation, perceived value on student loyalty. The methodology utilises primary data obtained from questionnaire administered to a sample of 304 postgraduate international students in Universiti Utara Malaysia using simple random probability sampling. Multiple regression technique was employed to analyse data via SPSS statistical package. Results established that institutional image and perceived value have signifi cant positive infl uence on student loyalty. Institutional image has signifi cant positive infl uence on perceived value. The infl uence of image on student loyalty is greater followed by image on student perceived value. Furthermore trust was found to insignifi cantly moderate between institutional image and perceived value on student loyalty. It is recommended that to successfully compete in a dynamic and complex world of academic excellence universities must be seen to portray favourable image/reputation in terms of practices and actions that invariably transforms to higher perceived value and student loyalty behaviour. Keywords: Institutional Image, Perceived Value, Student Loyalty JEL Classifi cation: M3 1. INTRODUCTION The concept of student or customer loyalty has been widely researched by scholars and practitioners. With increased competition globally, higher education institutions are continuously advancing and repositioning their strategy in an effort to ensure long term student loyalty. Realising the importance of student loyalty to their continued survival institutions have strived to forecast, understand and satisfy students’ needs and preferences. Since institutions are competing for loyalty using different marketing strategies, students trust to the institution might be infl uenced by favourable image and perceived value of products or services offerings. And that both student perceived value and institutional image/reputation are key determinants of customer loyalty (Tarus and Rabach, 2013), and exceptionally for specialised service fi rms (Zabala et al., 2005). Hence vision about student loyalty as well as the factors responsible for their loyalty behaviour should be of ultimate concern when determining the most suitable organizational strategy (Yap et al., 2012; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007). Prior studies have examined in varying context, the relationships between student (customer) loyalty and constructs such as satisfaction, perceptions of reputation (Helgesen and Nesset, 2007), satisfaction and performance (Helgesen, 2006; Zeithaml, 2000; Kotler and Fox, 1995), satisfaction (Wilkins and Balakrishnan, 2013), service quality (Zeithaml et al., 1996), perceived value (Petruzzellis and Romanazzi, 2010; Yang and Peterson, 2004), service quality, student satisfaction (Agarwal and Teas, 2001; Teas and Agarwal, 2000; Johnston, 1995), perceived service value, service quality and social pressure, customer satisfaction, corporate image (Tarus and Rabach, 2013), customer trust and commitment (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), customer satisfaction (Lai et al., 2009; Chandrashekaran et al., 2007), and corporate image (Gummesson and Gronroos, 1988; Hart and Rosenberger, 2004). To a large extent, researches regarding factors International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015 123 Hashim, et al.: The Moderatıng Infl uence of Trust on the Relatıonshıp between Instıtutıonal Image/Reputatıon, Perceıved Value on Student Loyalty ın Hıgher Educatıon Instıtutıon accountable for student or customer loyalty behaviour unfold. Due to the nature of industry (Jones and Sasser, 1995; De Rutyer et al., 1998; Eskildsen et al., 2004), complexities of customer and the different institutional techniques in delivering quality products or services and its perception by students (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). According to Tarus and Rabach (2013), “the determinants of one industry cannot be generalized in other industries.” The intensity of implementation and measures used varies with organizations (Sarkindaji et al., 2015). Even though studies have examined drivers of customer loyalty, literature on university image as perceived by its students and how this image affects their behaviour remains scarce (Alves and Raposo, 2010). In addition, few studies have comprehensively examined the effect of institutional image on customers’ trust (Lin and Lu, 2010). Empirical studies also suggested that trust is more vital in safeguarding loyalty compared to satisfaction (Caceras and Paparoidamis, 2007; Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003). Furthermore, while researches have focused on investigating the link between loyalty and different relationship constructs the combined effect of institutional image/reputation and perceived value on student loyalty with trust as moderator remains inadequate especially in higher education industry. Loyalty concept has been inadequately applied in higher education (Alves and Raposo, 2010). This paper seeks to investigate the infl uence of institutional image/ reputation and student perceived value on student loyalty. It further examines the moderating infl uence of student trust among the study variables. The paper comprised of the following sub-topics namely; introduction, theoretical background and hypotheses, methodology, discussion of results and concluding remarks. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES As a spread out on relationship marketing literature, studies have developed a complete model of the antecedents of relationship marketing outcomes (Kaur and Soch, 2013). This study proposes a framework that investigates the relationships between institutional image/reputation, perceived value, trust and student loyalty. What differentiates this framework from past researches are; loyalty is measured from composite perspective and is unusual to fi nd empirical studies focusing solely on trust as moderator of relationships between institutional image/reputation, student perceived value, and loyalty. 2.1. Student Loyalty The concept of customer or student loyalty in the marketing literature can be substituted (Ali Dehghan et al., 2014). From the perspective of both a corporate and educational institution their administration requires comparable methods and share common qualities (Hoyt and Howell, 2011). Previous studies have regarded educational institutions as service providers and students as customers (Helgesen and Nesset, 2007; Hennig- Thurau et al., 2001). The competitive nature of higher education institutions globally has resulted in a situation where survival depends on their capability to maintain current and potential students as their primary raw materials. Student loyalty is vital to academicians and has become the subject of strategic concern to higher education institutions (Ali Dehghan et al., 2014). Therefore, this study considers composite perspective of student loyalty comprising of both their behavioural and attitudinal loyalty (Tarus and Rabach, 2013). Focusing on both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty creates truly loyal students (Harsandaldeep and Harmeen, 2013). Behavioural perspective considers student’s consistent and future loyalty behaviour (Sarkindaji et al., 2014a; Bodet, 2008; Rauyruen and Miller, 2007). It provides a rational approach of a brand’s market performance compared to its rivals (O’Malley, 1998) yet the determinants have been unable to differentiate between true and false loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994). Attitudinal perspective measures loyalty in terms of consumers’ psychological process (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978), and his affection strength with respect to a brand (Baloglu, 2002; Petrick, 2004a). In such situation, customers develop love for the business and prefer to constantly be remaining loyal to the business, than to competitors. It focuses on consumer testimonies instead of real buying (Kelvin et al., 2013) and that may not necessarily account for a true picture of reality (Odin et al., 2001). 2.2. Institutional Image and Student Loyalty Institutional image is conceived as the outcome of the interactions among person’s impression, prevailing beliefs, thoughts, and feelings about an entity (Lin and Lu, 2010). In a study to ascertain the degree of students satisfaction with their university in UAE, factors such as lecturers excellence, accessibility and quality of resources, and effective technology in use were to be most infl uential (Wilkins and Balakrishnan, 2013). Several studies have examined the relationship between institutional image and student loyalty in the education sector (Alves and Raposo, 2010; Weiwei, 2007; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007; Eskildsen et al., 1999; Nguyen and Leblanc, 1998). To date, institutional image/reputation has remained the focus and concern of both students and other stakeholders in the choice of an institution instead of internal specifi c-attributes such as excellent infrastructures, quality staff, and sound admission requirements. Corporate image performs a moderating infl uence in student’s behaviour (Tarus and Rabach, 2013). Knowledge of what inform students’ behaviour toward choice of a particular university offers ample opportunity for management to develop effective loyalty strategy. Reputation management is one major factor that accounts for students’ loyalty (Helgesen and Nesset, 2007). Within the higher education context, Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) established that higher tendency of student loyalty exist when perception of institutional image/ reputation are favourable. That the interaction between the two constructs explains more on student loyalty. Tarus and Rabach (2013) emphasised that realizing the benefi ts of customer loyalty depends on a company’s ability to invest in good corporate image. They however, contended that ordinarily fi rms with good corporate image may infl uence the manner customer’s sense their products value. Offering quality products or services and responding more effi ciently to students’ needs and preferences that could result in good image/reputation requires institutions focusing more on innovation (Sarkindaji et al., 2015). Studies have found image to have strong infl uence on higher education student’s loyalty (Weiwei, 2007; Eskildsen et al., 1999). For higher education institutions to compete through image there is need to evaluate the university image held by its students and that image is vital International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015124 Hashim, et al.: The Moderatıng Infl uence of Trust on the Relatıonshıp between Instıtutıonal Image/Reputatıon, Perceıved Value on Student Loyalty ın Hıgher Educatıon Instıtutıon to attract and retain student (Alves and Raposo, 2010). Sequel to these arguments the following hypothesis is offered: H1: Institutional image has signifi cant positive impact on student loyalty. 2.3. Institutional Image and Student Perceived Value The association between institutional image/reputation and perceived value is essential in the determination of student behaviour. Scholars have established that a favourable image will increase in students’ perceived value that ultimately infl uences their loyalty. Institutional existing image/reputation is often more signifi cant than quality since it is the perceived image that actually inspire choices made by potential students (Kotler and Fox, 1995). The signifi cance of image/reputation on satisfaction will ultimately be projected on the basis of their customer-related outcomes i.e. perceived value (Keith and Wiedmann, 2006). Good image are looked upon to be delivering higher value products/services and thus considered as satisfaction-driven. A favourable perception of image/reputation is supposed have signifi cant positive infl uence on student loyalty (MacMillan et al., 2005). Within the Italian higher education context, high dissatisfactions occur due to different methods applied by institutions in the offering of quality services and its perception by students (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). Institutional image was found to have a strong moderating relationship between perceived value and student loyalty (Tarus and Rabach, 2013). Higher education institutions should place more emphasis on the value offered to students and the needs of other stakeholders. H2: Organizational image has signifi cant positive impact on student perceived value. 2.4. Perceived Value and Student Loyalty Several studies have established perceived service value as a strong determinant of customer loyalty (Tarus and Rabach, 2013; Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998). In an effort to offer high value products or services universities could enhance student loyalty (Petruzzellis and Romanazzi, 2010). Within the retailing context, value absolutely facilitates the infl uence of frontline employee trust on loyalty (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). McDougall and Levesque (2000) found perceived value as the most signifi cant driver of customer satisfaction and loyalty. Switching cost only moderates the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty when perceived value is above average (Yang and Peterson, 2004). Although researchers have investigated the association between perceived value and customer loyalty. Yet empirical evidence linking perceived value and student loyalty calls for further research especially that perceived value is seen to be a strongest determinant of stakeholder’s loyalty to institutions. Students tend to build confi dence and prefer to remain loyal as they perceive an institution’s products or services value as high or acceptable. Oftentimes students understanding of high value institutions is based on the capability of the institution to interact with public, offer excellent graduates and facilities, and effective learning atmosphere. This could help build long-term loyalty among students and institution. On the basis of the aforementioned arguments the following hypothesis is proposed: H3: Perceived value has signifi cant positive infl uence on student loyalty. 2.5. Institutional Image, Trust and Student Loyalty Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceive trust as a confi dence built regarding the reliability and integrity of one party by another in an exchange relationship. It is also considered as the consumers’ dependence on organization’s offered service quality and reliability (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). Trust is presumed to moderate the relationship amongst institutional image/reputation and student loyalty. Studies have argued that favourable corporate image helps build trust in an organisation and attract the stakeholders that facilitates success (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Van Riel, 1995). Students have their anticipations that usually direct their loyalty decision. In general, these anticipations depend on the image/ reputation of the institution such that institutions with favourable image/reputation might affect the manner they trust and patronise their products or services. Lin and Lu (2010) established that corporate image has signifi cant positive infl uence on trust and trust infl uence consumer purchase intention. They argued that since different types of corporate image exhibit different levels of infl uence on consumer trust. The infl uence of trust on purchase intention must be considered. Corporate image helps facilitate consumers’ knowledge on products or services offered by a certain company and reduce uncertainty while making buying decisions (Robertson and Gatignon, 1986). Higher education institutions should invest in favourable corporate image/reputation so that they can benefi t from student trust and loyalty behaviour. H4: Trust moderates the relationship between organizational image and student loyalty. 2.6. Perceived Value, Trust and Student Loyalty Student perceived value is believed to infl uence trust and loyalty when institutional image is favourable (Figure 1). Students’ trust and purchase behaviour increases when perceived value is high. To earn trust; the actions of one party must be believed by another party that it will bring about positive results and the party should perceive value or quality as positive (Aydin and Ozer, 2005). So, in building trust, the customer should not only perceive positive outcomes but also believe these positive outcomes will continue in the future (Yap et al., 2012). Nguyen et al. (2014) found trust to have signifi cant moderating infl uence on the relationship between customer perception and their loyalty. They, however, argued that consumers’ unfavourable perception severely decreases Perceived Value Institutional Image Student Trust Student Loyalty H1 H2 H4 H3 H5 Figure 1: Conceptual framework adopted from European Customer Satisfaction Index model revised by Ball et al. (2006) International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015 125 Hashim, et al.: The Moderatıng Infl uence of Trust on the Relatıonshıp between Instıtutıonal Image/Reputatıon, Perceıved Value on Student Loyalty ın Hıgher Educatıon Instıtutıon their loyalty intentions with trust strengthening the relationship. Institutions must identify and manage students’ knowledge effectively in order to satisfy their perceived needs and preferences that could assist in building trust and loyalty behaviour (Sarkindaji et al., 2014b). There is a strong relationship between trust and loyalty when student have greater perceived value than those with very low perceived value. Trust raises loyalty intentions at the expense of unfavourable perceptions (Nguyen et al., 2014). H5: Trust moderates the relationship between perceived value and student loyalty. 3. METHODOLOGY Using simple random probability questionnaires were administered to a sample size of 318 students chosen from a population of 1541 postgraduate students in Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) in accordance with Yamane (1967). Overall, only a total of 304 questionnaires representing 95.6% response rate were successfully used in the fi nal analysis. Measurement items of all constructs were adopted from past studies namely institutional image from (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001), trust (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), perceived value adapted from (Lai et al. 2009) and composite loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Evanschitzky et al., 2006; Gremler and Brown, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 1996). These items were all measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Regression analysis was employed to test the hypothesised relationships. 4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Results of regression analysis in Table 1 shows the correlation score between the study’s constructs. Student perceived value is positively correlated with institution image (0.345). Student trust of the university has a signifi cant correlation with institution image (0.446) and perceived value (0.465) of the university’s activities. Similarly, student loyalty is correlated with commitment (0.821) and reputation (0.752). The most highly correlated construct is trust 0.707, followed by institution image and perceived value. The results in Table 2 reveal the confi rmatory factor and reliability analysis of items used in this study. Overall, a total of 18 items were employed to measure 4 constructs. Two items comprising of TRU4 and SLOY2 were deleted due to lower loadings retaining only 16 items. Factor loading of items on each construct which is a measure of convergent validity are all within the minimum acceptable threshold of above 0.7 as very significant and 0.5 as signifi cant (Costello and Osborne, 2005). There is also high internal consistency among the study constructs as Cronbach’s α values stand between above 0.5 (George and Malley, 2003) and 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). The mean score criterion for constructs namely; institutional image (M = 12.919, SD = 5.4721), perceived value (M = 5.135, SD = 2.8188), trust (M = 10.472, SD = 5.4021), and student loyalty (M = 12.829, SD = 6.8844) were all above 5.00. This implies that UUM’s postgraduate students’ are loyal because they perceived the university’s image and value to be very high and that resulted in their trust to the university. 4.1. Testing Hypotheses This study employed multiple regression analysis tools to assess the hypothesised relationships. Results of the analysis reveal the Durbin–Watson values for paths 1-3 in Table 3 were 2.063, 1.604, and 2.063 respectively. Hence, are within the general rule of thumb of between 1.5 and 2.5. This implies that no autocorrelation existed within the 1% signifi cance level between the residual items. Results in Table 3, displays the relationships among the study variables. Testing the relationship between institutional image and student loyalty scores where β = 0.434, t = 9.051, P < 0.001. This statistical value reveals that UUM’s image has a signifi cant positive infl uence on student loyalty behaviour, hence H1 was supported. This is consistent with opinion that attaining the benefi ts of customer loyalty depends on a company’s ability to invest in good corporate image (Tarus and Rabach, 2013). On the infl uence of institutional image on student perceived value the results shows β = 0.345, t = 6.387, P < 0.001. Thus, implies that university with favourable image/reputation tend to have strong positive infl uence Table 1: Correlation analysis Construct Image Perceive value Trust Student loyalty Image 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Perceive value 0.345 1.000 0.000 0.000 Trust 0.446 0.465 1.000 0.000 Student loyalty 0.546 0.473 0.707 1.000 Table 2: Reliability, factor and mean analysis Construct Item Factor loading Cronbach’s Α Mean SD Institutional ımage IMG1 IMG2 IMG3 IMG4 IMG5 0.792 0.641 0.916 0.661 0.916 0.726 12.919 5.4721 Perceive value PV1 PV2 0.942 0.506 0.503 5.135 2.8188 Trust TRU1 TRU2 TRU3 TRU5 0.714 0.732 0.704 0.704 0.818 10.472 5.2041 Student loyalty SLOY1 SLOY3 SLOY4 SLOY5 SLOY6 0.789 0.736 0.604 0.736 0.789 0.888 12.829 6.8844 SD: Standard deviation Table 3: Hypothesised analyses Path Hypothesis Standard beta T value Signifi cant Decision IMG-SLOY H1 0.434 9.051 0.000*** Supported IMG-PV H2 0.345 6.387 0.000*** Supported PV-SLOY H3 0.323 6.734 0.000*** Supported ***P<0.001, **P<0.05, *P<0.01. IMG: Image, SLOY: Student loyalty, PV: Perceive value International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015126 Hashim, et al.: The Moderatıng Infl uence of Trust on the Relatıonshıp between Instıtutıonal Image/Reputatıon, Perceıved Value on Student Loyalty ın Hıgher Educatıon Instıtutıon on their students’ perception of the value attached to the institution, thus H2 was supported. The result was in agreement with Kotler and Fox (1995) that current institutional image is frequently more important than quality because it is the perceived image that actually inspires choices made by potential students. Also, results examining the relationship between perceived value and student loyalty were β = 0.323, t = 6.734, P < 0.001, confi rming that institutional perceived value has signifi cant positive effect on student loyalty to the institution. Hence, H3 was supported. The fi nding is supported by Sarkindaji et al. (2014b) who emphasised that universities must identify and manage students’ knowledge effectively in order to satisfy their perceived needs and preferences that could assist in building trust and loyalty behaviour. 4.2. Moderation Test Results of regression analysis of Model 1 in Table 4 depicts student loyalty regressed on the presumed moderator variables. Testing the moderating effect of trust on institutional image and student loyalty the scores in Model 1 where R2 = 0.58, β = 0.324, P < 0.001. In Model 2, as the interaction variable i.e. IMGTRU was integrated the scores where R2 = 0.57, β = 0.757, P < 0.001 resulting in decrease in the total variance explained by R2 value from 58% to 57%. The outcome of this interaction signifi es absence of moderation. Thus, confirmed that trust does not moderate the relationship between university image and student loyalty to the institution, hence H4 was not supported. This is inconsistent with a study that confi rmed institutional image to have signifi cant positive infl uence on trust and trust infl uence loyalty intention (Lin and Lu, 2010). Their opinion postulated that different types of corporate image exhibit different levels of infl uence on consumer trust. Although the result of this study is not in support of the proposed hypothesis, yet other factors such as satisfaction, relationship and service quality, social pressure, commitment and perceived value may have played a very crucial moderating role in strengthening the relationship among UUM’s image and postgraduate student loyalty. This might be due to different cultural and countries background of the composition of UUM’s postgraduate international students. Similarly the results show a reduction in the R2 value from 53% to 46% when examining the infl uence of trust on perceived value and student loyalty. Hence, established that trust does not moderate the association among student perceived value and their loyalty to the university, therefore H5 was not supported. 5. CONCLUSION Based on the study’s conceptual framework fi ve relationships were hypothesised. Overall fi ndings supported three hypotheses while two were not supported. From the results the importance of institutional image and perceived value cannot be undermined as they play a very crucial role in infl uencing student loyalty. However, institutional image and perceived value was found to have positive significant influence on UUM’s student loyalty. This was established by Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) that there exists a greater propensity of loyalty attitude as the students’ perception of institutional image/reputation is seen to be favourable. Results further established that institutional image has a strong positive impact on UUM’s student perceived value. An institution’s perceived image is what truly inspires decisions made by potential students (Kotler and Fox, 1995). Consequently, in establishing the moderating infl uence of trust on the relationships between institutional image and perceived value on student loyalty, fi ndings affi rmed absence of moderation between the variables and therefore provided no support for the two hypothesised relationships. Although trust does not moderate the relationships between UUM’s image and perceived value with student loyalty, other factors such as satisfaction, quality of service, and excellent facilities might have played a signifi cant role. Furthermore the population of this survey focused solely on UUM’s international postgraduate students without considering undergraduate international students and possibly other students who are Malaysian indigenes. This poses a limitation and reduces the strength of our fi ndings. Future study should widen the scope and identify other possible drivers of student loyalty, in addition to investigating other moderating factors on the relationships between image and perceived value on loyalty such as commitment, satisfaction and social value. REFERENCES Agarwal, S., Teas, K.R. (2001), Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 1-14. Ali Dehghan, A., Dugger, J., Dobrzykowski, D., Balazs, A. (2014), The antecedents of student loyalty in online programs. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(1), 15-35. Alves, H., Raposo, M. (2010), The infl uence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73-85. Andreassen, T.W., Lindestad, B. (1998), Customer loyalty and complex services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(1), 7-23. Aydin, S., Ozer, G. (2005), National customer satisfaction indices: an implementation in the Turkish mobile telephone market. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23(5), 486-504. Ball, D., Coelho, P.S. and Vilares, M.J. (2006), ‘‘Service personalization and loyalty’’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 391-403. Baloglu, S. (2002), Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from well wishers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 47-59. doi: 10.1177/0010880402431005. Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K. (1998), On the relationship between store Table 4: Result of moderation test Path Model 1 Model 2 Decision Signifi cant R2 change R2 Beta Signifi cant R2 change R2 Beta IMG-TRU-SLOY 0.000*** 0.58 0.324 0.000*** 0.57 0.757 No moderation PV-TRU-SLOY 0.000*** 0.53 0.184 0.000*** 0.46 0.680 No moderation ***P<0.001, **P<0.05, *P<0.1. TRU: Trust, IMG: Image, SLOY: Student loyalty, PV: Perceive value International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015 127 Hashim, et al.: The Moderatıng Infl uence of Trust on the Relatıonshıp between Instıtutıonal Image/Reputatıon, Perceıved Value on Student Loyalty ın Hıgher Educatıon Instıtutıon image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 499-513. Bodet, G. (2008), Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four constructs, several relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15, 156-162. Caceras, R.C., Paparoidamis, N.G. (2007), Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 41(7/8), 836-867. Chandrashekaran, M., Rotte, K., Tax, S.S., Grewal, R. (2007), Satisfaction strength and customer loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, XLIV(1), 153-163. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust to brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 81-93. Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W. (2005), Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. De Rutyer, K., Wetzels, M., Bloemer, J. (1998), “On the relationship between perceived service quality, service loyalty and switching costs”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 436-453. Dick, A., Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113. Eskildsen, J., Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., Kristensen, K. (1999), Benchmarking student satisfaction in higher education based on the ECSI methodology. Proceedings of the TQM for Higher Education Institutions Conference: Higher Education Institutions and the Issue of Total Quality, 30-31 August, Verona, p385-402. Eskildsen, J., Kristensen, K., Juhl, J.H., Østergaard, P. (2004), “The drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty. The case of Denmark 2000-2002”, Total Qual ity Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 859-868. Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J. and Meffert, H. (2006), “The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 1207-13. Fombrun, C., Shanley, M. (1990), What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258. Garbarino, E., Johnson, M.S. (1999), The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87. George, D., Mallery, P. (2003), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: a Simple Guide and Reference. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Gremler, D.D. and Brown, S.W. (1996), “Service loyalty: its nature, importance and implications”, in Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W. and Johnston, R. (Eds), Advancing Service Quality: A Global Perspective, International Service Quality Association, New York, NY, pp. 171-80. Gummesson, E., Gronroos, C. (1988), Quality of services, lessons from the product sector. İn: Suprenant, C. editor. Add Value to your Service the Key to Success. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Hart, A.L., Rosenberger, P.J. (2004), The effect of corporate image in the formation of customer loyalty: an Australian replication. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(3), 88-96. Harsandaldeep, K., Harmeen, S. (2013), The mediating roles of commitment, switching costs and corporate ımage on satisfaction, trust and customer loyalty. AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings, 24, 194-195. Helgesen, O., Nesset, E. (2007), What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some fi eld study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126-143. Helgesen, Ø. (2006), “Are loyal customers profitable? Customer satisfaction, customer (action) loyalty and customer profi tability at the individual level”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 3-4, pp. 245-266. Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F. and Hansen, U. (2001), “Modeling and managing student loyalty”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 331-344. Hoyt, J.E., Howell, S.L. (2011), “Beyond customer satisfaction: reexamining customer loyalty to evaluate continuing education programs”, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 21-33. Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management. NewYork: Willey. Johnston, R. (1995), The determinants of service quality: satisfi ers and dissatisfi ers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53-71. Jones, T.O., Sasser, W.E., 1995. Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business Review 72 (6), 88-99. Kaur, H., Soch, H. (2013), Mediating roles of commitment and corporate image in the formation of customer loyalty. Journal of Indian Business Research, 5(1), 33-51. Keith, G.W., Wiedmann, D.K. (2006), How do corporate reputation and customer satisfaction impact customer defection? A study of private energy customers in Germany. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 412-420. Kelvin, K.F.S., Ceridwyn, K., Beverley, A.S., Ying, W. (2013), The infl uence of customer brand identifi cation on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 31-41. Kotler, P., Fox, K.F. (1995), Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Lai, F., Griffi n, M., Babin, B.J. (2009), How quality, value, image and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 980-986. Lin, L., Lu, C. (2010), The infl uence of corporate image, relationship marketing, and trust on purchase intention: the moderating effects of word-of-mouth. Tourism Review, 65(3), 16-34. MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., Hillenbrand, C. (2005), Reputation in relationships: measuring experiences, emotions and behaviors. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(2), 214-232. McDougall, G.H.G., Levesque, T. (2000), Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392-410. Nguyen, B., Klaus P.P., Simkin, L. (2014), It’s just not fair: exploring the effects of fi rm customization on unfairness perceptions, trust and loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(6), 484-497. Nguyen, N., Leblanc, G. (1998), The mediating role of corporate image on customer retention decisions: an investigation in fi nancial services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 16(2), 52-65. Nguyen, N., LeBlanc, G. (2001), Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6/7), 303-311. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill. O’Malley, L. (1998), Can loyalty schemes really build loyalty? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16(1), 47-55. Odin, Y., Odin, N., Valette-Florence, P. (2001), Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 75-84. Petrick, J.F. (2004a), Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25(4), 463-470. Petruzzellis, L., Romanazzi, S. (2010), Educational value: how students choose university. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(2), 139-158. International Review of Management and Marketing | Vol 5 • Issue 3 • 2015128 Hashim, et al.: The Moderatıng Infl uence of Trust on the Relatıonshıp between Instıtutıonal Image/Reputatıon, Perceıved Value on Student Loyalty ın Hıgher Educatıon Instıtutıon Ranaweera, C., Prabhu, J. (2003), ‘The infl uence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(4), 374-395. Rauyruen, P., Miller, K.E. (2007), Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 21-31. Robertson, T.S., Gatignon, H. (1986), Competitive effects on technology diffusion. Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 1-12. Sarkindaji, B.D., Hashim, N.A.B., Abdullateef, A.O. (2014a), A review of the ınconsistency in CRM measurement: evidence from the telecommunication ındustry. Journal of International Business and Economics, 2(2), 107-131. Sarkindaji, B.D., Hashim, N.A.B., Abdullateef, A.O. (2014b), Knowledge management and organizational performance of mobile service fi rms in Nigeria: a proposed framework. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 4(11), 88-95. Sarkindaji, B.D., Hashim, N.A.B., Abdullateef, A.O. (2015), Assessing effi ciency of service quality on consumers retention in Nigerian Mobile service ındustry. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 195-203. Stodnick, M., Rogers, P. (2008), Using servqual to measure the quality of the classroom experience. Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 115-133. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., Sabol, B. (2002), Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37. Teas, K.R., Agarwal, S. (2000), The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifi ce, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 278-290. Tarus, D.K., Rabach, N. (2013), Determinants of customer loyalty in Kenya: does corporate image play a moderating role? The TQM Journal, 25(5), 473-491. Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall. Weiwei, T. (2007), Impact of corporate image and corporate reputation on customer loyalty: a review. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 1(2), 57-62. Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M.S. (2013), Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 143-156. Yamane, T. (1967), Statistics: an Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row. Yang, Z., Peterson, R.T. (2004), Customer perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty. The role of switching costs. Journal of Psychology and Marketing, 21(10), 799-822. Yap, B.W., Ramayah, T., Nushazelin, W., Shahidan, W. (2012), Satisfaction and trust on customer loyalty: a PLS approach. Business Strategy Series, 13(4), 154-167. Zabala, I., Panadero, G., Gallardo, L.M., Amate, C.M., Sa´ nchez-Galindo, M., Tena, I., Villalba, I. (2005), Corporate reputation in professional services fi rms: reputation management based on intellectual capital management. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 59-71. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-36. Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), “Service quality, profi tability, and the economic worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 67-85. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /All /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /CHS /CHT /DAN /DEU /ESP /FRA /ITA /JPN /KOR /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken voor kwaliteitsafdrukken op desktopprinters en proofers. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /PTB /SUO /SVE /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents for quality printing on desktop printers and proofers. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /NoConversion /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /NA /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure true /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /LeaveUntagged /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice