Paper presented at The 8th Annual SEAAIR International Conference Surabaya, 4-6 November 2008

The Influences of Personal Values and Time Constraints on Faculty Student Out-of-Class Interaction: An Empirical Research Sabrina Oktoria Sihombing University of Pelita Harapan sabrinasihombing@hotmail.com Abstract
Student retention is one of central themes in education. This is because some students left universities without having completed their course. On the contrary, universities are having difficulties in recruiting students nowadays as a result of tight competition among universities. There are several factors contributing to students leaving universities such as financial and psychological problems. One essential finding from several researches on student development is the importance of student-faculty interaction in the lives of students. The interaction can be divided into interaction in the class room and outside the class room (outof-class interaction). The interaction in the classroom is about the subject being taught by the lecturer in that subject class. On the other hand, out-of-class interaction is interaction between faculty and students in informal way. Although there has been a fair amount of research on out-of-class student-faculty interaction based on students perception, few studies have focused on that interaction based on faculty perception. Therefore, this research developed a model to investigate the relationship between personal values, time constraints, attitude toward doing interaction out-of-class, and doing interaction out-of-class based on facultys perception. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data for this study. The data was then analyzed using structural equation modeling. Only one research hypotheses were supported, which is the relationship between time constraints and attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. The paper provides an analysis of the data, a discussion of the findings and the implications for theoretical and managerial. Key words: student retention, faculty, out-of-class interaction

1. Background to the research problem

Student retention is one of central themes in education (Mayo, Helms & Codjoe, 2004). This is because some students left universities without having completed their course. On the contrary, universities are having difficulties in recruiting students nowadays as a result of tight competition among universities (http://rembuknas2008.diknas.go.id). There are several factors contributing to student leaving universities such as financial and psychological problems. One essential finding from several researches on student development is the importance of student-faculty interaction in the lives of students (e.g., Kim & Sax, 2007). The interaction can be divided into interaction in the classroom and beyond the classroom (out-ofclass interaction). The interaction in the classroom is mainly about the interaction between faculty and student about the subject is being taught by the lecturer in that subject class. On the other

hand, out-of-class interaction is interaction between faculty and students in informal way. That interaction can be done in many ways, such as talking to students, attending students activities, and having chat through internet. Although there has been a fair amount of research on out-ofclass student-faculty interaction on students perception, few studies have focused on that interaction based on faculty perception. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine faculty perception of out-of-class interactions with students and to determine the relationship among personal values, time constraints, attitudes toward doing interaction and faculty-student out-of-class interaction.

1.1 Justifications for the research

This research can be justified on these two grounds: (1) the importance to understand the facultystudent interaction, and (2) the lack of research on faculty student out-of-class interaction from the lecturers perspective. The importance to understand the faculty-student interaction. Education is an interactive process between student and faculty. Research has shown that faculty-student interaction, in and out-ofclass is one of the important factors associated with student development (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2008; Kim & Sax, 2007; Garrett & Zabriskie, 2004). Furthermore, students have more positive perceptions of supportive campuses where faculty members interact frequently with the students (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2008). Thus, there is a need to understand the facultystudent interaction in and out of the classroom. An understanding of that interaction can provide valuable insight not only for faculty but also to the university as a whole. The lack of research on faculty student out-of-class interaction from the lecturers perspective. Conducting empirical research that focuses on faculty-student out-of-class interactions will contribute to the literature on faculty-student interaction. This is because despite the extensive research addressing student-faculty out-of-class interaction (for example: Kim & Sax, 2007; Laird & Cruce, 2007; Garrett & Zabriskie, 2004; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Bradley, Kish, Krudwig, Williams, & Ontario, 2002; Mook, 2002; Jaasma & Koper, 2001), not many research on studentfaculty out-of-class interaction is conducted (Frankel & Swanson, 2002). Specifically, it is important to understand education based on both student and faculty perspectives. If only one perspective is frequently measured, the results will be wrong.

2. Literature review 2.1 Interpersonal communication

Interpersonal communication is defined as the process through which people create and manage their relationship and exercising mutual responsibility in creating meaning (Verderber, Verderber, & Berryman-Fink, 2007). Interpersonal communication is important because it serves peoples needs. In other words, we need to interact with other people to meet a range of human needs such as physical needs, safety needs, belonging needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization needs.

Models of interpersonal communication

According to Wood (2004), there are three models of interpersonal communication: linear model, interactive model, and transactional model. The linear model shows that communication is a oneway process in which one person acts on another. This model has three major weaknesses. First, this model shows that communication is flowing in only one direction, from a sender to a receiver. In other words, the listeners only listen and never give feedback. Second, a linear model shows listeners as passively absorbing senders messages but not as having any impact on sender.

Thirdly, the model portrays that communication as a sequential set of actions in which one step (listening) follows an earlier step (talking). The interactive model shows communication as a process in which listeners respond to speakers. A key feature in this model is feedback. The interactive model is an improvement over the linear model. However, one major weakness of this model is that it still treats communication as a sequential set of actions. The transactional model shows that interpersonal communication as a process and dynamic in which people simultaneously send and receive messages. The transactional model doesnt label one person as a sender and the other as a receiver. This model is the foundation for understanding people interaction. Interpersonal communication is something that people do everyday. The interaction between faculty and student is an example of interpersonal communication.

2.2 Faculty-student out-of-class interaction

A variety of literature shows that student learning and development were formed by many factors such as coursework, motivation, class participation, interaction with faculty in and out-of-class, and others (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2008; Lundber & Schreiner, 2004). Specifically, Tinto (1987 cited by Garrett & Zabriskie, 2004) stated that student-faculty interaction (that is, in and out-of-class interaction) is a main factor for student retention and student development. In relating with out-of-class interaction, several researchers found that out-of-class interaction can support integration of students into academic and social life (Kim & Sax, 2007; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Garrett & Zabriskie, 2004). There are several factors that can influence personal interaction based on consumer behavior literature. Those factors are personal values, attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction, and time constraints.

2.3 The value-attitude-behavior hierarchy

A value is defined as a type of belief about how one ought or ought not to behave (Rokeach, 1968). Values are the underlying beliefs that shape people to act, think, and feel (Rokeach, 1968; Wells & Prensky, 1996). The concept of value is one important variable to understand consumer behavior. This is because values are taught in an earlier age. In the specific, Hofstede (1994) pointed out that values are among the first children learning. Since the age of 10, most children have their basic value systems. Moreover, values are stable through generations. As stated before, values the underlying beliefs that shape people to act, think, and feel. Therefore, values influence internal factors inside consumers such as perception and attitude. Consumer attitudes then influence consumer behavior. This hierarchy is referred to the value-attitude- behavior hierarchy (Arnould et al., 2004; Homer & Kahle, 1988). According to Homer and Kahle (1988), values have an indirect effect on consumer behavior through less abstract mediating factors such as domain-specific attitudes. Furthermore, the influence of values flows from abstract values to mid-range attitudes to specific behaviors. This research followed the sequence of value attitude behavior. In other words, personal values lead to consumer attitude. Consumer attitudes lead to specific behavior. This hierarchy has been applied by several researchers (e.g., Jayawardhena, 2004; Schiffman, Sherman, & Long, 2003).

2.4 Time constraints

There are three primary professional responsibilities of faculty: teaching, research, and service. In other words, faculty should not only focus on teaching loads, but also doing research and serving the society. Several researches indicated that time constraints is one major problem of faculty-student outof-class interaction (eg., Cuseo, 2008) brought about by the three responsibilities above. In the

specific, faculty should manage their time to do teaching, research, and service. Therefore, time constraint is one major issue in understanding interaction between faculty and student. Based on the explanation above, the following model is developed and research hypotheses are stated as follows:

Figure 1. Research Model Personal Value H1 (+) H3 (+)

Attitude toward doing OOC interaction

Time Constraints

Behavior (doing OOC Interaction

)

H2 (-)

H1. Personal value will positively relate to attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. H2. Time constraints will negatively relate to attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. H3. Attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction will positively relate to behavior (doing out-of-class interaction).

3. Research method
Data collection. The data for this research was obtained through self-administered questionnaire from lecturers in a private university in West Java. The design sampling for this research was a purposive sampling. Respondents are those staff who have worked at least one year at the university. This research applied a two-step process to obtain a good response rate. First, researchers brought questionnaires to all faculties. In each faculty, researchers met respondents (i.e., faculty members) and informed them about the survey. When possible, researchers tried to give questionnaires to faculty members directly. However, when researchers could not meet faculty members directly, then researchers left questionnaires to the administration staff of each faculty so s(he) can give questionnaires to these lecturers whom researchers could not meet. Second, we contacted those respondents in 3 to 14 days in order to obtain responses. The researcher also contacted the staff administration to collect the questionnaires. The anonymity of the respondents was considered in this research. The respondents were assured of their anonymity. In order to obtain good response rate, all questionnaires were also provided with a gift from researchers. Sample size. This research applied structural equation modeling for analyzing data. The sample size was considered mainly in regard to the method used in analyzing data. Following Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), the sample size was set at between 100 and 200. Research Instrument. As suggested by Sekaran (2006), established scales were used where possible. Therefore, constructs used in this study (i.e., attitude and value) were measured by multi-item scales from prior studies. Items in the questionnaire were designed to be grouped together. In other words, items that measure the same constructs were grouped together. This is

because it can facilitate comprehension of the questions and retrieval information (Harrison & McLaughlin, 1996). Furthermore, the grouped items can result in greater discriminant validity (Harrison & McLaughlin, 1996). Only items for measuring time constraints and out-of-class faculty-student interaction were developed using scale development. In other words, item generation was based on surveys about factors that can inhibit faculty members to do interaction with students and most activities that faculty do when they interact with student out-of-class. Scale development was used because the established scales for measuring out-of-class interaction may not be appropriate for this research. In assuring the validity of the questionnaire, this research applied a pilot test that was administered to 30 individuals. The aims of the pilot test are instrument clarity, question wording, and validity (Fraj & Martinez, 2006). Values. This research applied the Kahle (1983) List of Values (LOV) to measure personal values. This scale consists of nine values, namely, a sense of belonging, excitement, fun and enjoyment of life, warm relationships with others, self-fulfillment, being well-respected, sense of accomplishment, security, and self-respect. The items were measured by a seven point rating scale from very unimportant to very important in response to the question: How important are the following words to you in guiding principles in your life? The LOV scale was applied because of the following advantages: first, the LOV scale is being easier to administer and easier to complete quickly (Hoyer & McInnis, 2007; Wells & Prensky, 1996; McCarthy & Shrum, 1993; Beatty, Kahle, Homer, & Misra, 1986; Kahle, Beatty, & Homer, 1986). Second, the value items were believed well grounded in theory (Suzanne & Muller, 1996). Third, the LOV is meeting the requirement for validity and reliability (Kropp, Lavack, & Silvera, 2005). Fourth, according to Hoyer and MacInnis (2007), some values in another scale (that is, Rokeach Value Survey) are less relevant to consumer behavior. Those values are salvation, forgiving, and being obedient. Attitude. Respondents will be asked to express their attitude toward the act of doing interaction with students out-of-class on five 7-point semantic differential evaluative scales: bad good; foolish wise; harmful - beneficial; unpleasant pleasant. Out-of-class faculty-student interaction. The dependent variable for this research is out-of-class faculty-student interaction. Examples items for this variable are as follows: advise or supervise students working on their research project, participated in meetings of students organization, and had a small talk with students. All items were measured on a five point scale ranging from never to very often. Time constraint. Respondents were asked to express their opinion toward items such as My teaching obligations leave little or no time for out-of-class interaction with students and My research obligations leave little or no time for out-of-class interaction with students. (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree) Reliability and validity of the measures. Reliability is an assessment of the degree of consistency between multiple measurements of a variable (Hair et al., 2006). Reliability was measured by applying the Cronbachs alpha test and the item-to-total correlation. The cut-off point for Cronbachs alpha is 0.7 and 0.50 for the item-to-total-correlation (Hair et al., 2006) were applied in this study. Validity is the extent to which a scale or set of measures accurately represents the concept of interest (Hair et al., 2006). According to Hair et al. (2006), three most widely accepted forms of reliability are convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. First, based on Sengupta, Krapfel, and Pusateri (2000), every item loaded significantly on its underlying latent factor

providing evidence of convergent validity. Second, discriminant validity can be assessed through correlational analysis (Sekaran, 2003, Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995). Specifically, discriminant validity is established when two different constructs are not correlated with each other. In other words, the correlation between constructs should be less than 1. Finally, nomological validity can be established by to which predictions from constructs are consistent with a theory (Bagozzi et al., 2006). It can be assessed through correlation (Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991). Data analysis. This research applied structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation to test research hypotheses. This method was used because SEM has ability to assess the relationships comprehensively (Hair et al., 2006). As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the structural equation analysis in this research was conducted in two main stages: the estimation of the measuring model and the estimation of the structural model. In the particular, the former was conducted to confirm the suitability of the proposed scales using the criteria of reliability and validity. Then, the latter will be conducted to test the relationships between the constructs.

4. Results 4.1 Response rate and sample characteristics

A total of 147 questionnaires were returned out of 200 distributed. Fifteen questionnaires were eliminated due to incomplete responses. Hence, 132 usable questionnaires were obtained, yielding a response rate of 66%. As shown in Table 1, the profile of the sample reveals that male constituted about 67.9 per cent of the sample. Those between 31-35 years old represent 20.6% of the sample, and the oldest (more than 51 years old) represent 15.3% of the sample. The majority of the respondents are fulltime lecturers (working a 5-day week). Almost two-third of the respondents were married (71%). From those who where married, almost one-third respondents have no children (31.1%).

Table 1. Sample profile

Demographic Characteristics Gender: Male Female Age: < 20 years old 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41- 45 46 - 50 51 Job Status Lecturer assistant Lecturer Full time Lecturer (5 days work) Semi Full time Lecturer (2 4 days work) Part time Lecturer Frequency (Percentage) 89 (67.9%) 42 (32.1%) 0 (0%) 11 (8.4%) 26 (19.8%) 27 (20.6%) 21 (16%) 13 (9.9%) 13 (9.9%) 20 (15.3%) 11 (8.4%) 120 (91.6%) 77 (64.16%) 13 (10.8 %) 30 (25.04%)

Job experience < 1 year 1 2 years 3 4 years 5 6 years 7 8 years 9 10 years 11 years Marital status Single Married Married but no child Married with 1 child Married with 2 child Married with > 2 child

13 (9.9%) 21 (16%) 19 (14.5%) 17 (13%) 16 (12.2%) 4 (3.1%) 41(31.35) 38 (29%) 93 (71%) 29 (31.1%) 20 (21.5%) 21 (22.5%) 23 (24.9%)

Table 2 shows the correlations between value, attitude, , behavior, and time constraints. Table 2 also shows the reliability of the measures. According to Hair et al. (2006), the generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbachs alpha is 0.70, although it may decrease to 0.60 in exploratory research. The reliability (i.e., Cronbach's Alpha) of the scales of all variables ranged from 0.683 to 0.915, proving evidence of internal consistency of the measures. The Cronbachs alpha for behavior (doing interaction) is 0.683. The lower alpha may result that this research is an exploratory study, as far as researcher understands that no similar research has been conducted in Indonesian context.

Table 2. Correlation matrix and summary statistics

Variable 1. Value 2. Attitude 3. Behavior 4. Time constraints Mean Standard deviation Cronbachs alpha 1 1 0.172* 0.039 -0.075 5.96 0.93 0.915 2 1 0.072 -0.147 5.83 0.88 0.812 3 4

1 - 0.090 2.95 0.84 0.683

1 2.81 1.23 0.897

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 levels

According to Bagozzi, Yi and Phillips (1991), discriminant validity was achieved when the factor correlations were significantly different from one. Table 2 above shows a coefficient correlations among constructs are different from one indicated discriminant validity was achieved. However, based on table 2 also shows that nomological validity was not achieved since some correlations among constructs are not significant. Table 3 shows that all items were loading on their corresponding construct indicating convergent validity were achieved.

Table 3. Factor Analysis

1 Value1 Value2 Value3 Attitude1 Attitude2 Attitude3 Attitude 4 Behavior1 Behavior2 Behavior3 T-constraint1 T-constraint2 T-constraint3 T-constraint4 2 3 0.959 0.898 0.901 4

0.800 0.841 0.821 0.765 0.820 0.823 0.727 0.864 0.900 0.914 0.809

4.2 Measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood method was performed to assess the measurement model. The results show a chi-square value of 94.945 with 71 degrees of freedom (DF) at the p = 0.030 level for a 1.337 chi-square/DF (the adjusted chi-square). There is no clear guideline about what value of the adjusted chi-square is minimally acceptable. Two suggestions are that the ratio is as low as 1.0 (Hair et al., 1995) and as high as 5.0 (Kelloway, 1993). Thus, a ratio 1.337 is within the range of acceptable model fit. Other fit indices show a good-fit model (GFI = 0.914, CFI = 0.974, RMR = 0.077). Following Bagozzi, Yi and Phillips (1991) and also Anderson and Gerbing (1988), convergent validity was assessed by examining the parameter estimates and their associated t-values. The result showed that most parameter estimates were high with significant t-values (Table 4).

Table 4. Standardized Regression Weight Estimate CR

Value1 <--Value2 <--Value3 <--Attitude1 <--Attitude2 <--Attitude3 <--Attitude4 <--Behavior1 <--Behavior2 <--Behavior3 <--T-constraint1 <--T-constraint2 <--T-constraint3 <--Value Value Value Attitude Attitude Attitude Attitude Behavior Behavior Behavior T-constraint T-constraint T-constraint .997 .840 .823 .752 .807 .736 .658 .751 .733 .500 .810 .875 .911 14.643 13.993 8.303 7.786 7.006 4.567 4.380 11.754 12.253

Estimate
T-constraint4 <--- T-constraint .700

CR
8.741

4.3 Model and hypothesis testing

Using structural equation modeling, the relationships hypothesized in this study were analyzed. The results showed a chi-square value of 95.369 with 73 degrees of freedom (DF) at the p = 0.0041 level for a 1.306 chi-square/DF. A ratio of 1.306 is within the range of acceptable model fit. Other fit indices show a marginal-fit model (GFI = 0.914, AGFI = 0.876, RMR = 0.080) Hypothesis 1 (that is, personal value will positively relate to attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction) is not supported. The standardized coefficient in this hypothesis has non significant value (standardized regression weight = 0.135; CR = 1.452). Time constraints will negatively relate to attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction in hypothesis 2 is supported (standardized regression weight = -0.204; CR = -2.076). However, hypothesis 3 (attitude toward doing out-ofclass interaction will positively relate to do out-of-class interaction) is not confirmed (standardized regression weight = 0.071; CR = 0.644).

Figure 2. Parameter Estimates for Structural Paths 0.135* Personal Value Time Constraints
* not significant

0.071*
Attitude toward doing OOC interaction

-0.204

Behavior (doing OOC Interaction

)

5. Discussion
The results show that there is no significant relation between personal values and attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. Furthermore, the results also show that there is no significant relation between attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction and doing out-of-class interaction. The only supported hypothesis in this research is the relationship between time constraints and attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. There are two reasons why these two hypotheses were not supported (i.e., the not significant relation between value and attitude and the relation between attitude and behavior). First, the list of values (LOV) that was used in this research was developed to assess the values of Americans (Follows & Jober, 2000) which are different from those of Indonesians. Therefore, the insignificant relationship between personal values and attitude toward doing interaction was because the personal values measurement were not match with the Indonesian value. Second, the other possible explanation for insignificant relation between attitude and behavior is the omission of one variable called behavioral intention. Behavioral intention is one main variable that can used to explain consumer behavior. In the specific, this variable is used in several consumer model such as theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988), and theory of trying (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990). For instance,

based on theory of reasoned action shows that individual behavior is driven by behavioral intentions where behavioral intentions are a function of an individual's attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms surrounding the performance of the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The non significant relation between attitude and behavior may also result from other factors. For example, according to several researchers, attitudes alone are no longer expected to predict unconditionally: however, their relation to behavior is moderated by other variables, such as: temporal stability of attitudes (Doll & Ajzen, 1992), the amount of information about the attitude object (Davidson et al., 1985), self-monitoring (Borgida & Campbell, 1982), attitude strength (Smith & Swinyard, 1983), behavioral commitment (Smith & Swinyard, 1983), personal experience (Smith & Swinyard 1983; Ajzen, Timko, & White, 1982), sequence of prior events, attitude change, time interval and correspondence between attitudinal and behavioral variables (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979)

6. Theoretical and Managerial Implications

This study attempted to test the relationship among personal values, time constraints, attitude toward interaction and faculty-student out-of-class interaction based on facultys perception. This research has both theoretical and managerial implications. For theory, this research provides support for the relationship between time constraints and attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. In other words, factors such as teaching loads and writing academic articles may result in the negative attitude toward attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. For practice, understanding about faculty-student interaction is important for university. This is because the interaction is one of main factors in retaining students in the university. Not only that, faculty-student interaction is one key point for student development Therefore, the more understanding on faculty-student interaction, the better universities will be able to support their faculty member to improve themselves without decreasing interaction with students.

7. Conclusion, research limitations and directions for future research

This research results suggest that time constraints will negatively relate to attitude toward doing out-of-class interaction. However, no significant relationship between personal values and attitude toward doing interaction. The results also shows that no significant relation between attitude toward doing interaction and faculty-student out-of-class interaction. The results of this research need to be viewed in light of its limitation. The first limitation is the use of a non-probability sampling. Therefore, the generalisability of the findings limited to samples in which the study was conducted. Another limitation is the multi-item scales used for measuring out-of-class interaction does not include internet as a medium of out-of-class interaction. This is because the main answers given by the respondents when they were asked on activities out-of-class interaction with students did not include interaction via internet. The researchs limitations suggest directions for future research. First, future research needs to replicate this model and use probability sampling. Furthermore, the replication of model in different populations and different countries is recommended to enhance external validity of the model. Second, the understanding that faculty and student interaction is important for student development. In the specific, the interaction can be done in and out of the class. The digital era has brought information and communication technology (ICT) into every aspect of human life. ICT in education has no exception. Therefore, future research may consider out-of-class interaction including interaction via internet.

References Anonymous. Kesimpulan hasil Komisi II: Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Tinggi pada rembuknas pendidikan 2008. http://rembuknas2008.diknas.go.id/bahan/Komisi%202/GABUNG%20Komisi%202Final.ppt. Date accessed: 1 June 2008 Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, Britain: Open University Press. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding aAttitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Ajzen, I., Timko, C. and White, J.B. (1982). Self-monitoring and the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 3, 426-435. Bagozzi, R.P. and Kimmel, S.K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of goaldirected behaviors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 437-461. Bagozzi, R.P and Warshaw, P.R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127-140. Borgida, E. and Campbell, B. (1982). Belief relevance and attitude-behavior consistency: the moderating role of personal experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 2, 239-247. Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R., Homer, P. and Misra, S. (1996). Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: the list of values and the Rokeach Value Survey. Psychology & Marketing, 2, 3, 181199. Bradley, C., Kish, K.A. Krudwig, A.M., Williams, T. and Wooden, O.S. (2002). Predicting faculty-student interaction: an analysis of new student expectations. Journal of Indianan University Student Personnel Association, 72-85. Chickering, A. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7. Davidson, A.R., Yantis, S., Norwood, M. and Monatno, D.E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 5, 1184-1198. Davidson, A.R. and Jaccard, J.R. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 8, 1364-1376. Doll, J. and Ajzen, I. (1992). Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 5, 754-765. Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2006). Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 3, 133-144. Frankel, R. and Swanson, S.R. (2002). The impact of faculty-student interaction on teaching behavior: an investigation of perceived student encounter orientation, interactive confidence, and interactive practice. Journal of Education for Business, 78,2, 85. Garrett, M.D. and Zabriskie, M.S. (2004). The influence of living-learning program participation on student-faculty interaction. http://www.housing.umich.edu Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis, 6th ed. NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Hinkle, S.E. (2002). The impact of e-mail use on student-faculty interaction. Journal of the Indiana University Student Association. http://www.indiana.edu/iuspa/Journal/2020/Hinkle.pdf. Homer, P.M. and Kahle, L.R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 4, 638-646. Hoyer, W.D. and MacInnis, D.J. (2007). Consumer Behavior. 4th ed. NY: Houghton Miffin Company. Jaasma, M.A. and Koper, R.J. (2001). Talk to me: an examination of the content of out-of-class interaction between students and faculty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Washington, May 24-28. Jayawardhena, C. (2004). Personal values influence on e-shopping attitude and behaviour. Internet Research, 14, 2, 127-138.

Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P. (1986). Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: the list of values (LOV) and values and life style (VALS). Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 405-409. Kim, Y.K. and Sax, L.J. (2007). Different patterns of student-faculty interactions in research universities: an analysis by student gender, race, SES, and first-generation status. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.10.07. Berkeley: University of California. Kropp, F., Lavack, A.M. and Silvera, D.H. (2005). Values and collective self-esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university student. International Marketing Review, 22, 1, 7-33. Laird, T.F.N. and Cruce, T.M. (2007). The individual and environmental effects of part-time enrollment status on student-faculty interaction. http://www.nsse.iub.edu/uploads/AERA2007PTStuFac03.19.pdf. Lundberg, C.A. and Schreiner, L.A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: an analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 5, 549-564. Mayo, D.T., Helms, M.M. and Codjoe, H.M. (2004). Reasons to remain in college: a comparison of high school and college students. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 6, 360-367. McCarty. J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (1993). A structural equation analysis of the relationships of personal values, attitudes and beliefs about recycling, and the recycling of solid waste products. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 641-646. Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (1976). Informal interaction with faculty and freshman ratings of academic and non-academic experiences of college. Journal of Educational Research, 70, 35-41. Schiffman, L.G., Sherman, E. & Long, M.M. (2003). Toward a better Smith, R. E. and Swinyard, W.R. (1983). Attitude-behavior consistency: the impact of product trial versus advertising, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 257-267. Suzanne, C. and Muller, T.E. (1996). Measuring values in international settings: are respondents thinking real life of ideal life? Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8, , 169. Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing construct. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283-299. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attition. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Umbach, P.D. and Wawrynski, M.R. (2008). Faculty do matter: the role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. http://www.wabash.edu/cila/docs/faculty_do_matter.pdf Verderber, K.S., Verderber, R.F. and Berryman-Fink, C. (2007). Inter-act: interpersonal communication concepts, skills, and contexts. NY: Oxford University Press. Wells, W.D. and Prensky, D. (1996). Consumer Behavior. Canada: John Wiley & Sons. Wood, J.T. (2004). Interpersonal communication: everyday encounters. CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.