This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]

On: 20 October 2014, At: 19:44

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20

Student Satisfaction and Retention: A Conceptual

Model
a b
Clinton B. Schertzer PhD & Susan M. B. Schertzer
a
Xavier University
b
Department of Marketing , University of Cincinnati
Published online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Clinton B. Schertzer PhD & Susan M. B. Schertzer (2004) Student Satisfaction and Retention: A Conceptual
Model, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14:1, 79-91, DOI: 10.1300/J050v14n01_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v14n01_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Student Satisfaction and Retention:
A Conceptual Model
Clinton B. Schertzer
Susan M. B. Schertzer
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

ABSTRACT. Students in institutions of higher education are becoming

more consumer oriented than ever before. As a result, the turnover rate
is increasingstudents are leaving universities almost as fast as new stu-
dents are enrolled. This is both costly and inefficient. Major efforts are
underway in all areas of traditional for-profit institutions to reduce their
churn rate. Efforts to attract students whose needs best fit what the indi-
vidual academic institution has to offer should be fruitful in reducing the
rate of drop outs and transfers. This paper proposes a model of retention
that considers student values congruence with the university and faculty
as a significant component of academic fit and ultimate student satisfac-
tion and retention. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.
com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2004 by The Haworth Press,
Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Student values, values congruence, student retention,

academic fit

Clinton B. Schertzer, PhD, is Associate Professor of Marketing, Xavier University. Susan

M. B. Schertzer is a Doctoral Student, Department of Marketing, University of Cincinnati.
Address correspondence to: Clinton B. Schertzer, Xauier University, Cincinnati,
OH 45207 (E-mail: Schertz@xu.edu).
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14(1) 2004
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JMHE
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J050v14n01_05 79
 80 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Consider the following sober facts:

1. Approximately 50 percent of the freshmen enrolled in colleges and uni-

versities drop out before completing their programs (Brawer, 1999).
2. Nearly one-third of college freshmen do not return after the first year
(Cravatta, 1997).

Using the leaky bucket paradigm, students are leaking out of the
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

bucket at an alarming ratein some cases students are leaving the univer-
sity almost as fast as new students are enrolled. It is costly and ineffective
to have to constantly replace the dropouts/transfers to keep classrooms full.
In the business world, we would be hard pressed to accept this customer
churn rate. Major efforts are under way in all areas of traditional
for-profit institutions to reduce their churn rate. It is more cost effective to
keep the customers you have than to constantly attract new customers. The
same logic applies to academic institutions. Any effort to attract students
whose needs better fit what the individual academic institution has to offer
should be fruitful in reducing dropout/transfer. Successful universities have
come to realize that is better to invest now (retain students) than to invest
later (attract new students) (Elliott & Shin, 2002). This paper proposes a
model of retention that considers student values congruence with the uni-
versity and faculty as a significant component of academic fit and ultimate
student satisfaction and retention.
An exacerbating factor in retention of todays students is that they are
more consumer oriented and search intensively for the right institution and
demand satisfaction from their institution of choice. In the competition for
the right student mix, universities today are becoming much more marketing
and promotion driven. Like any marketing organization, every university
(product) does not fit every student (customer). The result is mismatch (in-
congruent fit) between the academic institution and the student. This may
lead to student dissatisfaction, lack of institutional commitment, and ulti-
mately drop-out or transfer to an institution that fits student individual
needs and values more congruently. This model is costly and inefficient for
both the academic institution and the student. Incentives in the form of scholar-
ships, grants, assistantships, etc., are limited. If they are awarded to students
with the incongruent values the long-term effectiveness of the marketing ef-
forts will be compromised. Any effort to attract students with values more
congruent with the academic institution should improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the marketing efforts. Thus, an academic institution must
 Clinton B. Schertzer and Susan M. B. Schertzer 81

target the correct students to maximize the probability that they will have
congruent values, be satisfied with the institution, become committed over
time and ultimately not drop out or transfer.
The literature is rife with reasons for low retention rates, high dropout
rates and high transfer rates. Recurrent themes of those leaving voluntarily
are: uncertainty both about what to expect from college and its reward, tran-
sition/adjustment problems, financial difficulties, and academic under-prep-
aration (Kalsner, 1991). Others have found that reasons for low retention
include financial hardships, lack of maturity, work demands, family obliga-
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

tions and pressures, career indecision, poor academic records, ineffective

study skills, low institutional commitment, and poor school support services
(Drew, 1990). Extremely high attrition rates during the freshman year under-
score the difficulties students face in making the adjustment to college life
(Kalsner, 1991). Keup (1999) reported that student value orientation does in-
fluence overall student satisfaction: at-risk (expect to dropout or transfer) or
materialistic values (be well off financially) lead to lower satisfaction levels,
while undecided (career aspiration) value orientation is associated with
higher levels of overall satisfaction.
Retention has been tied to several factors. Peters (1988) found that The
evidence is overwhelming that life outside the classroom is crucial to the
students happiness. Institutional commitment will be developed through
the interaction with mentorsfaculty and upperclassmenand extracurricu-
lar activities, student union (Peters, 1988) and peer associations (Drew,
1990). Many students and parents seek a college where a college or univer-
sity where students might develop personal relationships with faculty
and/or staff. A sense of well-being occurs when a student establishes an
on-going relationship with a university faculty or staff member (Peterson,
Wagner & Lamb, 2001) and an important aspect of this personal relation-
ship is faculty advising. Evidence suggests that students who receive effec-
tive academic advising tend to feel positive about the institution as a whole
(Noel, 1978).
Overall, the literature supports the view that a variety of factors af-
fect student retention: academic fit, student-institution values congru-
ence, student-faculty values congruence, academic advising, institution
social opportunitiesall of which ultimately have an impact on satisfac-
tion, institutional commitment and student retention. In the next sec-
tions we review the literature on the impact of these factors on student
retention in support of a conceptual model tying these factors together
(Figure 1).
 82 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 1

Student-
Institution Pla
Satisfaction
Values
Congruence

Academic P1
Fit P3
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

Student-
Faculty Values Institutional
Congruence P1b Commitment

P4

Retention

ACADEMIC FIT

Academic fit is defined here as a confluence of two well researched con-

cepts: student-institution values congruence and student-faculty values con-
gruence. We are positing that these two factors combine to determine the
overall fit between an academic institution and an individual student. Where
the fit is not good, there will likely be dissatisfaction, lack of institutional com-
mitment and a high probability of student transfer or dropout. In the following
sections, we outline the various components of student-institution congruence
and student-faculty congruence.
Values congruence is positively associated with outcomes such as aca-
demic performance, persistence, job satisfaction, and stability of choice.
When there is congruence between individuals personalities and their work
environments, they will be reinforced by those settings, satisfied, and less
likely to leave those settings (George, 1992). Lamport (1993) observed that
the most comprehensive models (of academic fit) emphasize the level of stu-
dent integration into the academic and socialization components of the institu-
tionthe more integrated into the institutional environment, the less one is
likely to drop out. This interaction can strengthen the students goals and in-
 Clinton B. Schertzer and Susan M. B. Schertzer 83

stitutional commitments to maintain persistencethe lack of it can lead to vari-

ous forms of dropout (Tinto, 1975). It seems logical to conclude that we might
observe the same phenomenon when there is congruence between student
value structures and their academic environment (academic fit).
We turn now to a discussion of the two main components of academic fit in
our model:

1. Student-institution congruency.
2. Student-faculty congruency.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

STUDENT-INSTITUTION CONGRUENCY

Person-situation interactions have long been the focus of work on per-

son-environment fit (George, 1992). Student-institution congruency is analo-
gous to person-environment fit in the traditional psychological research genre.
George (2001) observed that the flavor of person-environment fit theories is
best captured by the following quote:

for each individual there are environments (interpersonal and non

inter-personal) which more or less match the characteristics of his (or
her) personality. A match or best-fit of individual to environment is
viewed as expressing itself in high performance, satisfaction, and little
stress in the system whereas a lack of fit is viewed as resulting in de-
creased performance, dissatisfaction, and stress in the system. (Pervin,
1968)

There is ample further evidence in the literature supporting a positive and

important relationship between academic fit and student-institution congru-
ence. Borden (1995) found that student satisfaction is related to the match be-
tween student priorities and the campus environment. Tinto (1987) argued that
integration into the academic and social communities are critical in determin-
ing whether a student will remain in school or leave. In a study of engineering
students Taylor confirmed the college-fit theory: If the values, goals and atti-
tudes of a student correspond to those of an institution, the student is likely to
remain at the institution (Taylor & Whetstone, 1983). Classroom education
research has also found that student satisfaction may be related to how well the
classroom environment matches student preferences (Fraser, 1994). Lamport
(1993) reported that socialization to values of the institution (i.e., a sense of
belonging, institutional fit) has the greatest influence on freshman attrition.
 84 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Another important factor in student-institution congruence are the relation-

ships of students with the employees. Customers (students) view employees as
tangible representations of the institution, and interactions with them lead to im-
portant and broader assessments about other institutional qualities (Bittner, 1995;
Hartline & Ferrell, 1996). Encounters ranging from discrete transactional inter-
actions (e.g., a one-time interaction with a food service employee in the cafete-
ria) to long-term relationships (e.g., a student and their academic advisor) can all
impact upon their assessments of the organization and their perceptions of the
organizations feelings about them (Bitner, 1995). In addition to interpersonal
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

relationships, people may form relationships with the institutions organiza-

tional identity (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

STUDENT-FACULTY CONGRUENCY

Faculty members are particularly important as formal and informal so-

cializing agents for students in the college experience. To varying degrees,
faculty can aid in student academic achievement, college satisfaction, in-
tellectual and personal development, persistence in college, and career and
educational aspirations (Lamport, 1993). Many students and parents seek a
college or university where students develop personal relationships with
faculty and/or staff. The relative fit with faculty orientations has been
shown to be associated with students satisfaction with their academic pro-
gram (Morstain, 1977). Researchers have presented evidence suggesting
students who receive effective academic advising tend to feel positive
about the institution as a whole (Peterson, Wagner & Lamb, 2001). The
likelihood of a student recommending the university to friends/relatives
was heavily influenced by the extent of interaction between the student and
university personnel (Browne et al., 1998).
Lamport (1993) synthesized the research on the informal interaction of
college students and faculty. Among his conclusions is that research sup-
ports the important socializing role of faculty in the college experience.
Other researchers have found that college satisfaction is positively associ-
ated with student-faculty interaction (Gaff & Gaff, 1981; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1976a, 1976b). Matteson and Hamann (1975) found that gradu-
ate students satisfaction to be negatively correlated with the dissonance
(lack of congruity) between graduate students and professors value orien-
tations.
While there has been much research done supporting this proposition of the
importance of student-faculty congruence, there are some unanswered ques-
tions and research shortcomings in this area pointed out by several authors.
 Clinton B. Schertzer and Susan M. B. Schertzer 85

Paetz (1966) observed that further research is needed to show student percep-
tions of faculty values, values of students in 4-year schools and in urban junior
colleges, and the colleges degree of success in meeting these values. The area
of student-faculty interaction, and the relationship to persistence/withdrawal
decisions, is one that needs further inquiry. Much of the present research is
gathered from single, large universities, thus it is not representative of smaller
colleges and wider populations (Lamport, 1993) and many of the studies are
conducted on the freshman year only.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

STUDENT SATISFACTION

Consumerist attitudes toward higher education have been encour-

aged by the replacement of maintenance grants with loans and the intro-
duction of fees (Rolfe, 2002). Thus, student satisfaction has become a
necessity for universities. Studies have shown student satisfaction to
have a positive impact on student motivation, student retention, recruit-
ing efforts and fundraising. Universities can best attract and retain quality
students by identifying and meeting students needs and expectations. To
this end, it is imperative for universities to identify and deliver what is im-
portant to students (Elliott & Shin, 2002). In response, universities have ex-
hibited their commitment to student satisfaction through mission statements,
goals/objectives, marketing strategies, and promotional schemes (Elliott &
Shin, 2002).
Richardson (1970) found ample evidence to support the hypothesis
that student fit is related to college satisfaction. Research shows that
student satisfaction is related to the match between student priorities and
the campus environment (Borden, 1995) and is being shaped continually
by repeated experiences in campus life (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Evans
(1972) found that personality need factors and college student satisfac-
tion were significantly correlated. Based on undergraduates responses to
the College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire the following factors
emerged as important dimensions of student satisfaction:

Educational quality.
Social life.
Student living and working conditions.
Compensation (study pressures).
Recognition (weak correlation).
 86 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT

We are positing that institutional commitment is positively correlated with

retention. The more committed students are to the academic institution, the
higher the persistence and commitment, and therefore the lower the dropout
and transfer rates.
Pascarella (1980) hypothesizes that the more one has informal interaction
with faculty, the stronger the institutional and personal commitment will be,
and subsequently, the less one is to withdraw. Studies, to varying degrees,
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

confirm the hypothesis that student faculty interaction and increases student
persistence and decreases the likelihood of voluntary withdrawal (Lamport,
1993).
Institutional commitment will be developed through the interaction with
mentorsfaculty and upperclassmanand through extracurricular activities, stu-
dent union (Peters, 1988), and peer associations (Drew, 1990). In 1993 Nora and
Cabrera (1993) investigated the construct validity of the student commitment to
institution as a factor in academic persistence. Results suggest factors such as
institutional quality, practical educational utility, student-institution fit, and loy-
alty to institution were more predictive of persistence than just similarity of stu-
dent-institutional values alone.
A students family background (social status, values, expectations), indi-
vidual attitudes (sex, race ability), and pre-college schooling (GPA, academic
and social attainments) all have an impact on college performance (Tinto,
1975). These factors, in turn, interact with: (1) the individuals goal commit-
ments toward grade performance and intellectual development, which results
in academic integration that reinforces goal commitment, and (2) the commit-
ment to the institution, through peer-group and faculty interaction, reflected in
positive social interaction and reaffirming institutional commitment (Drew,
1990). Goal and institutional commitments interact to comprise either dropout
decision or persister dedication (Tinto, 1975).

STUDENT RETENTION

In the last stage of this model, we posit that institutional commitment is

positively associated with retention, and negatively correlated with dropout
and transfer behavior. Research is provided, supporting the previous model
components as positive influences on student retention.
The faculty plays an important role in the college experience (Lamport,
1993). The frequency and quality of student-faculty interaction are related to
retention with the helpful attitude of professors as the strongest predictor of
 Clinton B. Schertzer and Susan M. B. Schertzer 87

satisfaction (Kirk & Dorfman, 1983). The hypothesis follows that the more
one has informal interaction with faculty, the stronger the institutional and
personal commitment will be, and subsequently, the less likely one is to with
draw (Pascarella, 1980). Taylor and Whetstone (1983) confirmed the col-
lege-fit theory: If the values, goals and attitudes of a student correspond to
those of an institution, the student is likely to remain at the institution.
On the other side of the coin, what about those who are not retained? Mohr,
Eiche and Selacek (1998) identified issues relevant to nontransfer college se-
niors who disenroll before graduating. Analysis suggests that non-retention of
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

seniors was best predicted by dissatisfaction with: academic guidance, access

to school-related information, the quality of education, and feelings of institu-
tional alienation.

CONCEPTUAL RETENTION MODEL

Our conceptual model of retention (see Figure 1) is centered around aca-

demic fit. The specific propositions are:

Proposition 1: Academic fit is positively related to student: satisfac-

tion and commitment to the institution.

Proposition 1a: Student-institution values congruence is positively re-

lated to academic fit.

Proposition 1b: Student-faculty values congruence is positively related

to academic fit.

Proposition 2: Student satisfaction is positively related to institutional

commitment.

Proposition 3: Institutional commitment is positively related to reten-

tion.

DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Academic institutions need to adopt a relationship marketing mindset.

This includes not only targeting and attracting the students with the right fit
with the institution, but then treating them as customers, thus striving to in-
crease their satisfaction which will lead to higher institutional commitment
and ultimately higher retention. A highly important, but difficult to measure
 88 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

tangential benefit will be more positive word-of-mouth. Satisfied customers

tell their friends. As was discussed earlier, recommendation from friends and
family is one of the more powerful factors influencing institutional choice.
While university administrators have begun to more aggressively adopt
many of the techniques associated with relationship marketing (McAlexander
and Koenig, 2001), more work needs to be done. In the area of targeting and
recruitment, enrollment managers can begin to profile the successful gradu-
ates versus the dropouts and transfers to ascertain what value mismatches
might discriminate between the two groups. Since values are an underlying
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

cause or director of behavior, and can be measured independently of the other

traditional measures, student-institution and student-faculty values congru-
ency may be predictors of academic fit, which has been shown to be posi-
tively related to student satisfaction, commitment to the institution (academy)
and retention. These measures can serve as an early indicator of dropout
and/or transfer. If academic institutions can identify prospective students that
have higher values congruency with their institution and their faculty they can
reduce student dissatisfaction, increase commitment to the institution, and
thereby reduce dropouts and/or transfers.
The importance of student-faculty congruence cannot be overlooked in both
recruiting and advising. Most students conduct campus visits and interact with
enrollment staff to see if they like the environment and it fits their preferences,
but too often they do not get to meet many faculty. Given the importance of stu-
dent-faculty values congruence, it would seem that the more faculty interaction
the students can be exposed to before making their choice, the better the fit the
institution can achieve. If institutions can expose prospective students to more
faculty, both formally (sit in on classes) and informally (informal discussions,
social occasions), a higher level of student-institution congruency should be at-
tainable. That only gets students into the system, however. Once matriculated,
their experiences continue and their values evolve. The importance of faculty
advising cannot be overstated. It is a critical part of the development of stu-
dent-faculty congruence and one of the major determinants of student satisfac-
tion. It is imperative that the institution continually monitors how it is doing
over time to avoid market drift. Students may have been satisfied when they
arrived but, over time, become less satisfied. This could be due to a combination
of factorstheir values may have changed and shifted away from the institution,
the faculty and/or institution have changed, or a combination of both. In any
event it is incumbent upon the institution to conduct continuous student satisfac-
tion efforts to make sure that they are indeed satisfying their customers.
Enrolling students that do not fit the institution is expensive to the univer-
sity, and also to the student and their family. Efforts to enhance the relation-
ship of the institution and faculty with the student and their family can only
 Clinton B. Schertzer and Susan M. B. Schertzer 89

serve to improve student (customer) satisfaction, institutional commitment

and retention. It is certainly improbable that there will ever be a model that
will perfectly select only those prospective students that fit a particular institu-
tionbut any improvement is valuable. We believe that this model can help
university administrators better conceptualize and manage enrollment and re-
tention for their institutions.
While this model is conceptual, we intend to empirically validate a measure of
student vs. institution and faculty values congruence and test our propositions.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

REFERENCES

Bhattacharya, C.B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), Understanding
the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museum
Members, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 (October), pp. 46-57.
Bitner, Mary Jo (1995), Building Service Relationships: Its All About Promises,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 246-251.
Borden, V.M. (1995), Segmenting Student Markets With a Student Satisfaction and
Priorities Survey, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(3), pp. 1-14.
Brawer, F.B. (1999), Retention-Attrition in the Nineties, ERIC Clearinghouse for
Colleges, online, 1999.
Browne, B.A., D.O. Kaldenberg, W.B. Browne and D. Browne (1998), Students as
Customers: Factors Affecting Satisfaction and Assessments of Institutional Qual-
ity, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 1-14, 1998.
Cravatta, M. (1997), Hanging On To Students, American Demographics, (Novem-
ber): 41.
Drew, Claudine Paula (1990), We Can No Longer Loveem and Leaveem: A Paper
on Freshman Retention, Community College Review, Vol. 17, Issue 4, p. 54,
Spring 1990.
Elliott, Kevin M. and Dooyoung Shin (2002), Student Satisfaction: An alternative ap-
proach to assessing this important concept, Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2002.
Evans, Clyde M. (1972), A Study of Personality Need Factors with Respect to College
Student Satisfaction in a Small Church Related College Located in a Southern
State, Counseling and Personnel Services (CG008971).
Fraser, B.J. (1994), Research On Classroom and School Climate, in D. Gabel (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Science and Teaching, pp. 493-541.
Gaffe, J. and S.S. Gaffe (1981), Student-Faculty Relationships, in A.W. Chickering
(Ed.), The Modern American College, pp. 641-656, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, Jennifer M. (1992), The Role of Personality in Organizational Life: Issues
and Evidence, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1992.
Hartline, Michael D. and O.C. Ferrell (1996), The Management of Customer-Contact
Service Employees, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 (October), pp. 39-51.
Kalsner, Lydia (1991), Issues in College Student Retention, Higher Education Ex-
tension Service Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, Fall 1991.
 90 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Keup, Jennifer Rinella (1999), Student Value Orientations About College: Direct and
Indirect Effects on Student Satisfaction, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Association for the Study of Higher Education (24th, San Antonio, TX, Novem-
ber 18-21, 1999).
Kirk, C.F. and L.T. Dorfman (1983), Satisfaction and Role Strain Among Mid-
dle-Age and Older Reentry Women Students, Educational Gerentology, Vol. 9,
pp. 15-29.
Lamport, Mark A. (1993), Student-Faculty Informal Interaction and the Effect on col-
lege Student Outcomes: A Review of the Literature, Adolescence, 00018449, Vol.
28, Issue 112, Winter 93.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

Matteson, Harold R. and James R. Hamann (1975), Satisfaction and Dissonance Be-
tween Professors and Students Value Orientations, College Student Journal,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 258-267, Sep 75.
McAlexander, James H. and Harold F. Koenig (2001), University Experiences, the
Student-College Relationship, and Alumni Support, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 21-43, 2002.
Mohr, Johathan J., Keith D. Eiche and William E. Sedlacek (1998), So Close, Yet So
Far: Predictors of Attrition in College Seniors, Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 343-354, Jul-Aug 1998.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of
Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, (July), pp. 20-38.
Morstain, Barry R. (1977), An Analysis of Students Satisfaction With Their Aca-
demic Program, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 1-16, Jan/Feb 77.
Noel, L. (1978), Reducing the Dropout Rate, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nora, Amauray and Alberto F. Cabrera (1993), The Construct Validity of Institutional
Commitment: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Research in Higher Education,
Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 243-251, Apr 93.
Paetz, Carl G. (1966), A Comparison of Perceived Educational Values of Community
College Students, Their Parents, and Faculties in Five Oregon Community Col-
leges, Dissertation document no. 66-12,978 University Microfilms.
Pascarella, E.T. and P.T. Terenzini (1976a), Informal Interaction with Faculty and
Freshmen Ratings of Academic and Nonacademic Experience of College, Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. 70, pp. 35-41.
Pascarella, E.T. and P.T. Terenzini (1976b), Outcomes of the Academic and
Nonacademic Experience of College Related to Frequency of Students Informal
Interaction with Faculty. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association
for Consumer Research, Los Angeles, May 3-6, 1976. (ERIC Reproduction Service
No. ED 134056.)
Pascarella, E.T. (1980), Student-Faculty Informal Contact and College Outcomes,
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 50, pp. 545-595.
Pervin, L.A. (1968), Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual-Envi-
ronment Fit, Psychological Bulletin, 69, pp. 56-58.
Peters, T.J. (1988), Individual Attention: The Key to Keeping Students in School,
ACU-1 Bulletin, 4-8.
 Clinton B. Schertzer and Susan M. B. Schertzer 91

Peterson, Mark, Judy A. Wagner and Charles W. Lamb (2001), The Role of Advising
in Non-Returning Students Perceptions of Their University, Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2001.
Richardson, Thomas E. (1970), Satisfaction with College: Its Relationship to Stu-
dent-College Fit, Counseling and Personnel Services, (CG501338).
Rolfe, Heather (2002), Students Demands and Expectations in an Age of Reduced
Financial Support: The Perspective of Lecturers in Four English Universities,
Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, Vol. 24, Issue 2, p. 171, 2002.
Taylor, Ronald G. and Robert D. Whetstone (1983), The College-Fit Theory and Engi-
neering Students, Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 267-
273, Jan 1983.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 19:44 20 October 2014

Tinto, V. (1975), Dropout From Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent

Research, Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987), Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attri-
tion, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Received: 08/01/03
Revised: 08/30/03
Accepted: 09/10/03