Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]
On: 15 December 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773557620]
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.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306933
An Examination of 'Self-Monitoring' and the 'Influence of Others' as

Determinants of Attitude to the Higher Education Application Service
Process in the UK
Geraldine Clarkea
a
International Business School, Boston, UK
To cite this Article Clarke, Geraldine(2005) 'An Examination of 'Self-Monitoring' and the 'Influence of Others' as
Determinants of Attitude to the Higher Education Application Service Process in the UK', Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 15: 1, 1 — 20
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J050v15n01_01
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v15n01_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
An Examination of ‘Self-Monitoring’
and the ‘Influence of Others’
as Determinants of Attitude
to the Higher Education
Application Service Process
in the UK
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
Geraldine Clarke
ABSTRACT. The paper presents empirical research that investigated

significant dependent relationships between ‘type’ of influencer, e.g.,
parent, sibling, friend and total number of influencers, and levels of sat-
isfaction within the context of an extended service buying process, i.e.,
application to an institution of higher education. The type of influencer
is investigated in terms of the relevance of their indirect prior experi-
ence. The total number of influencers is considered as a useful represen-
tation of the level of self-monitoring. Satisfaction, although considered
as an attribute of service quality in previous literature, is here modelled
as an attitude, viewed from the consumer’s internal mental and emo-
tional processing, rather than from the service quality perspective.
The findings indicate a strong dependent link between the measure of
self-monitoring and the major measure of cognitive satisfaction. There
was no such strong link between ‘type’ of influencer and any measure of
cognitive or affective satisfaction, nor was it proved that the ‘type’ of
Geraldine Clarke is affiliated with International Business School, Boston, UK.

Address correspondence to: Dr. G. Clarke, International Business School, Boston,
UK (E-mail: gclarke@internationalbusinessschool.net).
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 15(1) 2005
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JMHE
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J050v15n01_01 1
2 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
influencer caused a difference in levels of satisfaction. The relevance of

prior experience of others does not exert a very strong effect on levels of
satisfaction. Finally the level of self-monitoring, expressed as a behav-
ioural variable, i.e., total number of decision-makers, was found to effect
both cognitive and affective levels of satisfaction. The implications for
higher education marketers are that affective or emotional satisfaction or
dissatisfaction can remain in the applicant’s memory for longer than
cognitive or thinking satisfaction or dissatisfaction. (Article copies avail-
able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.
E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.
HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.)
KEYWORDS. Service process, satisfaction, peer influence, self-moni-

toring, attitudes
INTRODUCTION
There is continuing debate; relevant to those working in higher edu-

cation marketing, about the meaning and conceptual domain of self-
monitoring as a moderating variable in the attitude to behaviour buying
model. This paper investigates the overlap between the concepts of
‘self-monitoring’ and ‘influence’ expressed in the consumer behaviour
literature, where self-monitoring is taken to mean the degree to which
an individual incorporates outside influence into her/his attitudes and
decision-making process.
For the sake of parsimony, in developing a model of consumer be-
haviour that represents reality, the fewer the intervening variables that
significantly affect the established relationship between attitude and be-
haviour, the easier it will be to verify the generalized model in different
contexts. A representative model that explains how attitude is formed,
changes and turns into behaviour, is a very useful tool to aid understand-
ing of the process, which can inform commercial and managerial
decisions.
This research models the effect of ‘influence’ on satisfaction (as an
attitude) within the service domain. The context is specifically a long
application process, i.e., applying to university, and it is also specific to
the UK higher education system which is quasi-competitive. The appli-
cants have six official choices and are looking for a conditional or un-
conditional offer to any of the universities of their choice. The research
Geraldine Clarke 3
monitors the applicant’s satisfaction levels with one university’s appli-

cation process and seeks to identify significant relationships between
level of satisfaction and influencing variables as identified in the
behaviour literature.
It is proposed that satisfaction is an attitude (Cronin & Taylor 1992;
Oliver 1997) composed of both cognitive and affective elements. Cogni-
tive elements have always been considered a part of attitude (Osgood et
al. 1957; Fishbein et al. 1975). Other researchers (Leigh 1984; Holbrook
1982) identify ‘affect’ as a construct on a par with ‘cognition’ as precur-
sors of behaviour.
The literature on self-monitoring and influence are reviewed to iden-
tify the potential overlap in the concepts. Would a summative estimate

of total influence be more appropriate as an ‘influence’ measure rather
than self-monitoring and/or peer influence? Is the type of ‘influencer’ or
adviser and their own prior experience important factors in attitude
change? This attitude is to the service buying process (i.e., applying to
Higher Education (HE) institutions), and is modelled as satisfaction.
Emphasis is placed on satisfaction as a cognitive and affective attitudi-
nal response to a service process.
Although the service marketing literature has used the concept of
‘satisfaction’ as a sum of total quality attributes, here it is expressed
as an internal process. Such a measure makes explicit the consumer’s
response to his/her treatment within that process. This has most rele-
vance for long buying processes such as application for a mortgage,
or joining an exclusive club as well as applying to university (per-
haps the longest buying process of all–taking 6-9 months in the UK).
The length of the buying process impinges on the relationship be-
tween the buyer, consumer and provider within the increasingly im-
portant relationship marketing paradigm (Kittle & Ciba 2002; Gyure &
Arnold 2001). Considering the emphasis now placed on ‘relation-
ship’ rather than ‘transactional’ marketing in services, the outcomes
provide important implications for enhancement of the HE service
buying process.
The research results clarify what needs to be measured to estimate
how other people can change attitudes, and what factors are most im-
portant when considering the influencer or adviser. Evidence is also
presented that clarifies the strength of the relationship between the
variables, i.e., influence and levels of cognitive and affective satisfac-
tion.
PRIOR STUDIES OF SATISFACTION

AND CHOICE BEHAVIOUR
IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION MARKET
The higher education marketing literature reflects trends in marketing

theory development. Satisfaction has usually been modelled as the de-
pendent variable from a service quality perspective (Browne, Kaldenberg,
Browne 1998; Shah, Zeis, Regassa & Ashmadian 1999; Elliot & Healy
2001; Clemes, Ozanne & Tram 2001). An exploratory study modelling sat-
isfaction as an attitude has been published previously (Clarke & Brown
1998).
The issue of cultural specificity is also very relevant to the outcomes of

these research studies. This paper presents findings from the UK higher ed-
ucation market. While it promotes a more ‘applicant-centered’ theoretical
framework by modelling satisfaction as an attitude, there are limitations to
the generality of the research findings across markets. Not only will there
be cultural differences between these markets, but there are also differences
in the nature of competition between higher education institutions.
Students’ and applicants’ perceptions and behaviours have also been
measured in the USA, Australia and the Far East. These aspects include
‘choice’ (Broekemeir & Seshadri 1999; Dawes & Brown 2002); ‘the
role of advising’ (Peterson, Wagner & Lamb 2001); and the decision
process itself (Stiber 2000; Hawker, Slade & Marber 2001). These stud-
ies have mostly been based on elements of service quality (e.g., safety,
relevant information, support activities). While Stiber (2001) employs a
decision process model; this is applied to a postgraduate enrolment pro-
cess, a more selective market than the general undergraduate one. More
specifically the role of self-monitoring in this context has not been vis-
ited recently, nor has the concept been effectively unravelled to
understand its relevance to the application process.
THE MEANING OF SELF-MONITORING
The traditional attitude behaviour link model (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975)
outlines beliefs, attitudes, intention and behaviour as a linear model that re-
lies on ‘intention to act’ and ‘norms’ to regulate behaviour. Aspects of this
linear model are developed in expectancy-value (Bagozzi 1984; Oliver
1997); attitude consistency (Fazio 1986); and self-monitoring research
(Snyder 1979; Ajzen, Timko & White 1982; Kline 1987; Slama & Singley
1996; Aaker 1999).
Geraldine Clarke 5
More specifically, Brinberg and Plimpton’s (1986) paper examined

the effect of self-monitoring in the relationship between peer group in-
fluence, product type and product conspicuousness. They concluded
that an individual’s level of self-monitoring had only a limited relation-
ship to reference group influence and brand choice. If a high self-moni-
tor is defined as ‘an individual influenced by social cues’ (Snyder 1974)
and reference group influence is perceived as both informational and
normative (Deutsch & Gerard 1955), then the concept of ‘influence of
others’ is central to both constructs. An insignificant effect would result
from an instrument measuring a similar construct to the main effect. It is
possible that in Brinberg and Plimpton’s (1986) experiment, the self-
monitoring instrument, measured a similar phenomenon to the peer

group influence measurement.
It would seem that some external influence is accepted as necessary to
become ‘diplomatic,’ i.e., to fit in with the social norm (Nantel & Strahle
1986), whereas another type of ‘influence’ is accepted as requisite to ‘be-
longing’ to the group (Park & Lessig 1977). The possible underlying
drivers are opinion leadership (Asugman, Borak, & Bodur 1994; Day et
al. 1996; Flynn et al. 1996) for ‘diplomacy-directed’ high self-monitoring
and conformism for ‘belonging-directed’ high self-monitoring (Kelman
1958; Snyder 1987). Low self-monitors are defined as having less con-
cern for the appropriateness of their social behaviour and attend less to
situational cues as guides to their social behaviour (Snyder & Monson
1975). The key to the original self-monitoring definition is its social con-
text. Researchers have considered this to be an important moderator, not
only in the attitude to behavioural intention relationship, but also in the
behavioural intention to behaviour relationship (Nantel & Strahle 1986).
Low self-monitors have been shown to have more attitude-behaviour
consistency than high self-monitors (Ajzen, Timko & White 1982; Nantel &
Strahle 1986), which makes estimates of their likely behaviour more reli-
able.
Most of the research conducted on self-monitoring has used the
Snyder (1974) 25-item scale. Bearden, Shruptine and Teel (1989) cri-
tique Snyder’s (1974) five domains of self-monitoring: social appropri-
ateness, social comparison, control of self-representation, the use of
self-representation control and self-expression consistency, because
subsequent empirical research does not provide separate factors in a
factor-analytic solution (Briggs, Cheek & Buss 1980; Warech et al.
1998). Further confusion is shown by the claim that low self-monitors
are more subject to reference group influence than high self-monitors
(Becherer, Morgan & Richards 1980); whereas other research consis-
tently indicates that low self-monitors are more personality-driven than

situation-driven (Snyder & Swann 1976; Becherer & Richards 1978;
Zanna, Olson & Fazio 1980; Ajzen, Timko & White 1982).
Overall, self-monitoring is viewed as a concept that distinguishes be-
tween personality-driven interference and context-driven interference
with complete attitude/behaviour consistency (Bearden, Shruptine &
Teel 1989). If behaviour is more consistent with attitude among low
self-monitors, then research identifying low self-monitors can more ac-
curately predict their behaviour. Consequently, in order to avoid the re-
ported pitfalls of using the original self-monitoring scale, it is hypothesised
that any measure that represents the total level of influence is a more
meaningful measure of self-monitoring and more useful in determining

a consistent attitude-behaviour link.
In the context of this research, the type of adviser and the perceived rel-
evance of advice is also hypothesised as being a significant differentiator
between levels of the satisfaction attitude. In the language of Fishbein et
al.’s (1975) original model, total influence and type of influencer change
the subjective norms that impinge on attitude. It is expected that HE ap-
plication service providers would benefit from knowing how to distin-
guish between high and low self-monitors during all parts of the application
process so as to address their informational and normative needs success-
fully.
THE STUDY OF INFLUENCE ON SATISFACTION
As stated previously, satisfaction is modelled as an attitude with both

cognitive and affective elements. Both cognitive and affective satisfac-
tion scales used in this research study have been tested over a three-year
period and proved to be valid, reliable and generalizable (Clarke 2001).
See Appendix 1 for details.
Low self-monitoring individuals, who are not influenced by many ad-
visers, are hypothesised to have different levels of satisfaction with the
university application process than individuals who rely greatly on the
advice of others, i.e., high self-monitors. A further aspect of the empirical
research investigates the nature of this influence on both cognitive and af-
fective satisfaction. This is a fundamentally different perspective from
the ‘satisfaction as service quality’ approach, previously addressed in the
higher education marketing literature (Broekemeir & Seshadri 1999;
Dawes & Brown 2002; Peterson, Wagner & Lamb 2001; Stiber 2000;
Hawker, Slade & Marber 2001).
Geraldine Clarke 7
Wilkie (1986) proposes a model of consumer behaviour that identi-

fies different processes by which affective and cognitive attitudes in-
fluence behaviour. Emotional arousal leaves much stronger affective
traces (Friedstad & Thorson 1986) which can be integrated into se-
mantic memory; these memories are more easily retrieved in situation
specific contexts. Affective trace retrieval has implications for the long-
term consequences for reputation management. For example, those
applicants with extreme affective satisfaction or dissatisfaction will
retrieve this as a memory more easily that applications with predomi-
nantly cognitive satisfaction. Basically it is more important to make
some applicants ‘feel’ good, rather than ‘think’ good. This reflects the
‘student-centeredness’ researched by Elliot and Healy (2001).

It is argued that emotional states, as well as cognitive reasoning,
can influence respondents’ selection and use of associated informa-
tion (Calder & Gruder 1988) and this use will be mediated by the to-
tal number of advisers and the type of adviser that the subject refers
to. The research study attempts to bypass the ‘self-monitoring’ con-
fusion and models ‘total influence’ and ‘influencers’ as equivalent to
‘self-monitoring,’ and as direct determinant of attitude, i.e., satisfac-
tion.
Although self-monitoring has been considered in a number of
studies and across a range of academic fields (Snyder 1974; Ajzen,
Timko and White 1982; Kline 1987; Warech et al. 1998; Jenkins
1993), this has not been researched extensively in the area of satis-
faction. The self-monitoring concept is operationalised in this study
on the assumption that low self-monitors will have few advisers be-
cause they are reasoned to be individuals who rely on their own atti-
tudes, preferring to act on their own counsel. Ajzen et al. (1982)
found these type of individuals exhibited stronger attitude/behaviour
consistency than high self-monitors. High self-monitors are adaptive
and are reasoned to have many advisers. This difference in the num-
ber and type of advisers, influencing the individuals’ information
processing during the application process (Celsi & Olson 1988), will
be reflected in significant differences in satisfaction with the appli-
cation process.
THE HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1: S = f(Na) (1)

There will be differences in the levels of satisfaction (S) reported by

high and low self-monitors (Na). Low self-monitors will report more
satisfaction than high self-monitors.
Hypothesis 2: S = f (T) (2)
The level of satisfaction (S) with the application process, as mea-

sured by cognitive and affective satisfaction constructs, is a function of
the type (T) of adviser referred to.
It is also hypothesised that the specific types of adviser which high
self-monitors rely on will distinguish between their levels of satis-
faction with the process. Applicants who rely on peers, i.e., friends,
sisters and brothers, will be listening to more current prior experi-
ence (Fazio & Zanna 1981; Snyder & Kendzierski 1982; Shepherd
1985) than those who rely on parents and schoolteachers. The latter
will be advising students based on experience further in the past. The
recency of the prior indirect experience will affect its relevance.
Hypothesis 3: S = f (Tcp) (3)
Applicants who rely on peer advice (Tcp) will be more satisfied (S)
with the application process than those that rely on parental or school
advice because it is more recent and therefore more relevant.
More specifically, the importance of the prior university experience
of these influencers is also hypothesised as being a significant factor in
determining the level of satisfaction with the applicant process. It is sit-
uation-specific; determining the plausibility of the advice (Waly &
Cook 1965; Brigham & Cook 1970) that applicants attach to the advice.
This is investigated in terms of parental advice.
Hypothesis 4: S = f (Tsp) (4)
University applicants, who take advice from parents who have had
no experience at university (Tsp), will have less satisfaction (S) with the
university application process than applicants whose parents have had
prior university experience. This is because the advice is less specific
and therefore less plausible.
Finally, it is hypothesised that there will be a difference in the level of
satisfaction with the application process based on the sole or joint deci-
sion to accept the place offered. Stiber’s (2001) decision process model
applied to postgraduate applicants is a comparable research study but
Geraldine Clarke 9
does not deal with the same intervening variables. This present study
centres on young adults, making their first independent decision, and in-
vestigates the effect group decision-making has on the level of satisfac-
tion with the application process. As such, it identifies the cognitive and
affective outcomes of self-monitoring on behaviour as opposed to
attitude.
Hypothesis 5: S = f(Nd) (5)
The number of decision makers (Nd) in the applicant process will sig-
nificantly affect the applicant’s satisfaction (S) with the process.
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
A random sample of respondents to an Applicant Survey carried out

by one university in the UK,1 was sent ‘Influence and Satisfaction’
questionnaires in 1999. In total 955 responses, representing a 47% re-
sponse rate, were analyzed over the following subject areas:
• Application Advisers: their graduate status; areas of advice.

• Level of Satisfaction: cognitive and affective.
• Decision Makers and Sharers.
The main advisers to applicants in order of frequency were parents,

subject teachers, friends, careers teachers and careers advisers. While
respondents thought that over three quarters of subject teachers went to
university, they thought only one quarter of parents went to university.
Respondents thought that less than half of their careers teachers had
been to university and only one third of friends and careers advisers.
Parents gave the most wide-ranging advice: on courses, specific uni-
versity, accommodation, but more importantly, finance. Friends mostly
gave advice on university and accommodation. Careers advisers gave
advice, in the main, on the courses and universities to choose. No advice
areas were reported for subject and careers teachers. Not much advice
was given on the application process itself; what little was given came
from friends, careers advisers and brothers/sisters.
Overall, the applicants in this sample thought the process mainly fair,
open and active; but complex and slow (see Appendix 1 Table 1: Cogni-
tive Scale). Large sub-samples found it daunting and frustrating, but oth-
ers found it welcoming, encouraging and informed (see Appendix 1
Table 2: Affective Scale). Most applicants made the decision to accept a

place by themselves. Those that did make a joint decision (20%), made it
with their parents, friends or brothers/sisters. The demographic character-
istics of the respondents indicated first time buyers: most were under 19
and came from 6th Form and Further Education Colleges or Comprehen-
sive Schools.
The hypotheses, indicating relationships between satisfaction levels,
the degree of self-monitoring of and the type of adviser to the applicant
were analysed as follows:
Hypothesis 1 S = f(Na) (1)

Hypothesis 2 S = f(T) (2)
The level of satisfaction with the application process, as measured by

two cognitive (PASD1 ‘Simple’ and PASD2 ‘Open’) constructs, and
one affective construct (PACON1 ‘Friendly’) (Clarke & Brown 1998;
Clarke 2001), is a function of the number and type of advisers referred
to. Three multiple regression analyses were run to identify significant
linear relationships.
‘Simple’ PASD1 = f [β + αq1 + ε ] (1.1)
‘Open’ PASD2 = f [β + αq 2 + ε ] (1.2)
‘Friendly’ PACON1 = f [β + αq 3 + ε ] (1.3)
Where q1,2,3 indicates a number of alternative advisers, including par-

ents (n = 799), aunts and uncles (n = 114), teachers (head and subject
teachers n = 752), friends (n = 640), brothers and sisters (n = 261),
careers teachers (n = 467), career advisers (n = 388), and others (n =
114).
The results of the regression analyses indicate that the cognitive
factor ‘Simple’ (PASD1) is significantly dependent on the total num-
ber of advisers (sum) (see Appendix 1 Table 3). Hypothesis 1 is proved
in this case. Also, there is evidence that some aspects of ‘satisfaction,’
as indicated by individual items, are a function of the level of self-
monitoring, as identified by the total number of influencers. The ‘easy’
item was a function of the same independent variable (sum) as its par-
ent factor, PASD1. The perception of a ‘relaxed’ application process
was an inverse function of the total number of advisers (sum). This in-
Geraldine Clarke 11
dicates that, as defined in this context, high self-monitors–applicants

with many influencers–found the process more ‘difficult’ and ‘daunt-
ing’ than low self-monitors.
Both cognitive and Affective ‘Satisfaction’ constructs were not de-
pendent on type of adviser. (See Table 3 in Appendix 1.) Hypothesis 2 is
not proved in this case. There were some significant relationships be-
tween some of the cognitive and affective satisfaction items and some
types of adviser. The perception of ‘clarity’ in the application process
was a function of advice from ‘friends.’ This was an inverse relation-
ship, indicating that if friends were used as advisers, the respondent
perceived the process as being ‘obscure.’
Further significant inverse functions were indicated for the ‘open-

ness’ of the process. If ‘teachers’ and ‘others’ gave advice, the process
was considered less ‘open.’ The perception of a ‘quick,’ ‘welcoming’ and
‘encouraging’ process was a function of advice from parents. It was a di-
rect relationship; if parents gave advice, the application process was con-
sidered to be quick rather than slow (cognitive), welcoming rather than
off-putting and encouraging rather than frustrating (affective).
Hypothesis 3 S = f (Tcp) (3)
Applicants who rely on peer advice (Tcp) will be more satisfied (S)
with the application process than those that rely on parental or school
advice because it is more recent and therefore more relevant.
Standardised mean factor scores were compared between four groups
of respondents, identified by their advisers: peers, relatives, teachers or
careers advisers. None of the mean scores (PASD1, PASD2, PACON1)
were found to be significantly different across adviser groups. Hypothesis
3 is not proved. Peer influence does not cause significantly greater satis-
faction than parental or other influence because it is more recent and
therefore more relevant.
Hypothesis 4 S = f (Tsp) (4)
University applicants who take advice from parents who have had no
experience at university (Tsp) will have less satisfaction (S) with the
university application process than applicants whose parents have had
prior university experience. This is because the advice is less specific
and therefore less plausible.
Three groups were considered:
1. applicants who did not use parental advice;

2. applicants who used parental advice but whose parents did not go
to university;
3. applicants who used parental advice and whose parents did go to
university.
A non-parametric analysis (Kruskal–Wallis H) for use with categori-

cal rather than continuous data, equivalent to one-way ANOVA, tested
whether these three groups were from the same population. The test re-
quires an ordinal level of measurement of the grouping variable, and the
three groups are considered by rank from no advice or experience to
advice AND experience.

The results gave no overall significant differences on all the satis-
faction scores for the three groups (see Appendix 1 Table 4). Overall
hypothesis 4 is rejected. The plausibility of the advice based on more
specific experience, in this instance, does not affect differences in atti-
tude. This can be explained by the fact that applicants mainly refer to
parents for non-university specific, common sense advice, e.g., fi-
nance and accommodation.
Hypothesis 5 S = f(Nd) (5)
The number of decision makers (Nd) in the applicant process will sig-
nificantly affect the applicant’s satisfaction (S) with the process.
The final hypothesis was tested by analysing the differences in mean
factor scores on the three dimensions of satisfaction (PASD1, PASD2,
PACON1) by applicants grouped according to their response to ‘was
the decision to accept a university place a joint decision?’
There were significant differences in scores for the group that did
make a joint decision, and the group that recorded ‘no’ to this ques-
tion. The differences were in the average score for ‘simple’ PASD1
(cognitive) and ‘friendly’ PACON1 (affective) factors (sig. 0.006 &
0.003 respectively). The standardized means for the joint deciders
were PASD1 ‘⫺0.159’ and PACON1 ‘⫺0.1442’ compared to 0.084
and 0.119 for those who registered that it was not a joint decision, i.e.,
they decided on their own. The findings indicate that joint deciders are
significantly less cognitively and affectively satisfied with the appli-
cation process than those who do not make a joint decision and Hy-
pothesis 5 is proved.
Geraldine Clarke 13
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The testing of the first hypothesis indicated that low self-monitors,

i.e., respondents with only a few advisers, have greater levels of satis-
faction, as measured by one cognitive factor ‘Simple’ and scale items
‘easy’ and ‘relaxed.’ This is pertinent to the question of attitude behav-
iour consistency (Ajzen et al. 1982; Fazio 1986). It is assumed, from
prior research (Ajzen, Timko & White 1982; Nantel & Strahle 1986),
that low self-monitors will show greater attitude behaviour consistency.
The results of this study have two implications.
Firstly, in the service process domain high scorers on the ‘Simple’
satisfaction factor are more likely to be low self-monitors. Low self-

monitors consider the service application process to be easier, clearer,
simpler and quicker than high self-monitors. To some extent, this is self-
evident as the process of consulting and taking advice from more
influencers is likely to complicate the process, making it more difficult
and slower. Secondly, low self-monitors will show more consistency
between their attitudes and subsequent behaviour because they are less
likely to be influenced in the buying situation. Where evidence of their
proposed behaviour has been collected, this can be relied on to a greater
extent than for high self-monitors.
In terms of higher education marketing, it is therefore advisable to con-
sider how to deal with both high and low self-monitors throughout the ap-
plication process. Within advice literature sent to applicants, it is possible
to promote the confidence of applicants to ‘think’ for themselves and to
rely less on others to influence/advise them. Promoting ‘low’ self-moni-
toring amongst applicants will help them to reduce the complications in
the application process and will lead to increased levels of cognitive satis-
faction. Promoting ‘low’ self-monitoring and boosting applicant’s confi-
dence to deal with the application process themselves will also create a
more reliable outcome, i.e., ‘low’ self-monitors have greater attitude-be-
haviour consistency. This indicates that if an applicant is ‘satisfied’ with
their treatment by admissions staff, they are more likely to realize that at-
titude by accepting a place and are less likely to be fickle and change their
minds.
On the other hand, where admissions staff recognize inveterate ‘high’
self-monitors; those asking for advice from many advisors and influencers–
then they can predict the likelihood of their lesser ‘cognitive’ satisfaction
and also their propensity to change their minds. Measuring service qual-
ity (Browne, Kaldenberg, Browne 1998; Shah, Zeis, Regassa & Ashmadian
1999; Elliot & Healy 2001; Clemes, Ozanne & Tram 2001) by satisfac-
tion scores at the application stage, should also be mitigated by the

self-monitoring perspective of applicants.
The second hypothesis, that satisfaction will be dependent on type of ad-
viser, was not proved, BUT there is some evidence that type of influencer,
e.g., friends (obscure), parent (quick, welcoming, encouraging), teacher
and others (secret), does act as a differentiating variable between level of
satisfaction and that the relationship is far more specific and complex than
previously thought. It would be possible, in a screening process, to incor-
porate these discriminators as a means of resolving potential problems of
low satisfaction with the HE service buying process. Applicants who use
friends as advisers need the process clarifying. Applicants who rely on
teachers and others need a more open process. This needs further investiga-
tion.
Of specific importance is the view that satisfaction and its facets (i.e.,
scale items), as a post-experience attitude, can be mediated by reference
to the level of self-monitoring and by reference to specific advisers. In
particular, it is the main cognitive aspect of satisfaction that has proved
to be most closely linked to self-monitoring and not affective satisfac-
tion, implying that self-monitoring is a cognitive rather than an affective
function. From a common sense point of view it is likely that if self-
monitoring is viewed as an information gathering process then it is more
‘cognitive’ than affective. Nevertheless, it is likely to be dependent on
personality and other psychological factors that are affectively gener-
ated. In such circumstances, we should view ‘affect’ as being of indirect
relevance only.
Significantly, HE marketers will address this finding by providing
specific cognitive information that will quash any obscure or confusing
advice. It can also be noted that ‘cognitive’ dissatisfaction will not be
more easily retrieved by applicants in the future, and so informational
marketing mistakes made at this stage are more likely to be forgotten
than affective dissatisfaction, which upset, stays in the applicant’s mind
for much longer and which will be a source of resentment and therefore
dis-reputation to the university/college.
The hypotheses 3 and 4, that type of influencer/adviser differentiates
between levels of both cognitive and affective satisfaction, were not
proved. This result should be considered in the light of hypothesis two;
some advisers, particularly parents, are associated with greater levels of
some aspects of satisfaction, e.g., quick, welcoming and encouraging.
Nevertheless, peer advice caused no greater satisfaction than parental or
teacher advice. There was no proof that recency of prior experience of
others caused a significant difference in attitude contrary to prior re-
Geraldine Clarke 15
search (Fazio & Zanna 198l; Snyder & Kendzierski 1982; Shepherd
1985). Neither was there proof that ‘specific prior experience of others’ cre-
ated significant differences in attitude (Waly & Cook 1965; Brigham &
Cook 1970). The implication for HE application marketing is that dif-
ferent advisers serve different purposes, but none provide greater over-
all satisfaction with the application than any other group of advisors.
Hypothesis 5 considered the role of self-monitoring at the decision-
making stage. It was proved that high self-monitors registered a lower
level of cognitive and affective satisfaction than low self-monitors. The
joint decision-makers find the process less ‘simple’ and ‘friendly’ than
the lone decision makers. In the attitude formation process the buying
behaviour is the final outcome, characterized by the decision to act. It is

therefore noteworthy that when advisers end up contributing to the deci-
sion also, the service satisfaction response is likely to be negative. The
level of self-monitoring discriminates between attitude levels at the
decision making/behaviour stage.
Of significance is the implication of reduced affective satisfaction,
because affect triggers emotive traces and memories that are more eas-
ily retrieved in situation specific contexts (Friedstat & Thorson 1986).
Joint decision-makers, in the service buying process, are less satisfied,
will remember it longer AND be able to retrieve that affective trace
more easily than a cognitive memory. This will affect the reputation of
the service provider. Higher education marketers should monitor deci-
sion-making, particularly numbers of decision makers of those appli-
cants they are targeting. Where there are decision makers besides the
applicant (even if a place is accepted), it means that affective satisfac-
tion with the application process is likely to be less and this may have
repercussions for retention. Again, the sensible admissions tutor will
provide advice to those applicants to be targeted, that will increase the
applicant’s confidence and self-reliance and reduce their level of
self-monitoring and their need for multiple sources of advice and deci-
sion-making help. However, there is the conundrum: the admissions tu-
tor may become yet one more source of advice, further confusing this
type of applicant. The admission tutor must tread a careful path and be
ready to identify high and low self-monitors, and the implications this
will have if the high self-monitor is also an applicant unable to come to a
decision themselves.
The research reported here is limited by the nature and size of the
sample used to test the hypotheses. Many similar studies have reported
smaller and less varied sample sizes. It is hoped that replication can as-
sist in verifying these results. This has been true of some of the findings
here, since they verify some results of prior research.
The modelling of satisfaction as an attitude can be further extended
by specifically considering it as a post-purchase mental and emotional
process. This means that after a dissatisfaction event, the applicants
may still be spreading dis-reputation, irrespective of service quality
measured. It is therefore important to consider affective as well as cog-
nitive satisfaction as being, to some extent, independent of service qual-
ity and developing in the minds of applicants based on their personal
profile and their propensity to seek advice.
In a pre-purchase environment, the paper indicates a remedial direc-
tive for process management. Admissions operations need to take into

account the fact that no matter how high they score on service quality
there may, nevertheless, be levels of dis-satisfaction which they cannot
address, based on the affective responses of applicants and their levels
of self-monitoring. Apart from this extension, it should also be noted,
particularly within the quasi-competitive UK market, that levels of ser-
vice quality are not even reaching reasonable degrees of satisfaction,
because of lack of co-ordination and lack of marketing orientation.
There is still a pervasive imperative to view the applicant as being hon-
oured to receive an offer of a place at a university. Yet, the results show
a significant causal relationship between level of self-monitoring and
cognitive and affective satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
The level of self-monitoring, conceptualised here in terms of the

number of advisers and therefore the level of influence, has some effect
on satisfaction modelled as an attitude, particularly the cognitive ele-
ments. The significance of indirect prior experience of peers and par-
ents were investigated as examples of relevance and plausibility. The
recency of the prior experience of peers does not make a significant dif-
ference to attitude. The plausibility of the prior experience of univer-
sity-educated parental advisers does not contribute to a significant
difference in the level of satisfaction with the HE service buying pro-
cess. The level of self-monitoring at the decision-making stage does sig-
nificantly differentiate between high and low levels of cognitive and
affective satisfaction.
Geraldine Clarke 17
Relationship Marketing
In conclusion, this paper has presented some clarification of the

terms, self-monitoring and level of influence from an empirical per-
spective that rationalises the number of intervening concepts between
attitude and behaviour. These research results infer that knowledge of
how the applicant thinks and feels about the HE application process, as
well as who is influencing them is important to the HE marketer as this
is possibly the beginning of a long relationship between the university
and the individual and whether successful or not the applicant is an ad-
vocate of the university amongst their peer and influence groups.
AUTHOR NOTE
Geraldine Clarke manages a small education and training business consultancy in the
UK. She gained her doctorate in consumer behaviour in the area of Services Marketing.
Her main research interests revolve around her doctoral thesis and corporate communi-
cations. She has published in a number of international journals and attended conferences
both in the UK and abroad over a number of years. Her teaching specialisms are in Inter-
national Marketing, Marketing Research, Consumer Behaviour and Services Marketing.
She is a Chartered Marketer, a member of the Market Research Society and a Member of
the Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
NOTE
1. This applicant pool is more representative of the general applicant population
than the subsequent student pool as applicants have 6 choices and usually choose best,
medium and ‘insurance’ universities. Where they go will depend on their exam grades
and whichever university gives them a place. Hence, the market is described as quasi-
competitive.
REFERENCES
Aaker J. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion: Jour-
nal of Marketing Research Vol. 36. No. 1
Ajzen I., Timko C. & White J. (1982). Self-Monitoring and the Attitude-Behaviour Re-
lation: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 42, No. 3, p. 426-435
Asugman G., Borak E. & Bodur M. (1994). Opinion Leadership and Self Monitoring:
Evidence for the two way flow of communications. Asia Pacific Advances in Con-
sumer Research Vol. 1, p. 203-207
Bagozzi R. (1984). Expectancy-Value Attitude Models: An Analysis of Critical Mea-

surement Issues: International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 1, p. 295-309
Bearden W., Shruptine F. & Teel J. (1989). Self Monitoring and reactions to image ap-
peals and claims about product quality. Advances in Consumer Research p. 703-710
Becherer R., Morgan F. & Richards L. (1980). Informal group influence among
situationally/dispositionally-oriented consumers. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 269-281 (quoted in Nantel & Strahle)
Becherer R. & Richard L. (1978). Self monitoring as a moderating variable in con-
sumer behaviour Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 5, p. 159-162 quoted in
Bearden et al. (1989) 4
Briggs S., Cheek J. & Buss A. (1980). An analysis of the Self-monitoring Scale. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 38 (4) p. 679-686 quoted in Bearden
et al., see above
Brigham J. & Cook S. (1970). The Influence of Attitude on Judgements of Plausibility:

A Replication and Extension: Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol.
30, p. 283-292
Brinberg D. & Plimpton L. (1986). Self-monitoring and product conspicuousness on
reference group influence Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 13, p. 297-300
Broekemier G. & Seshadri. S. (1999). Differences in college choice criteria between
deciding students and their parents: Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
Vol. 9 Pt. 3, p. 1-14
Browne B., Kaldenberg D. & Browne W. (1998). Satisfaction with business education:
A comparison of business students and their parents. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education Vol. 9, Pt.1, p. 39-52
Browne B., Kaldenberg D., Browne W. & Brown D. (1998). Student as customer: Fac-
tors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of Mar-
keting for Higher Education. Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 1-14
Calder B. & Gruder C. (1988). A network activation theory of attitudinal affect. unpub-
lished manuscript described in Moor B. & Isen A. eds. (1990) Affect and Social Be-
haviour. Heinemann
Celsi R. & Olson J. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 15, p. 210-224
Clarke G. & Brown M. (1998). Consumer Attitudes to the Higher Education Applica-
tion Process. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 83-96
Clarke G. (2001). Confirming Satisfaction as an Attitude within the Service Buying
Process. Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1 (2) September
Clemes M., Ozanne T & Tram L. (2001). An examination of student perceptions of
service quality in Higher Education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
Vol. 10, Pt. 3, p. 1-20
Cronin J. & Taylor S. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A re-examination and exten-
sion. Journal of Marketing July p. 55-68
Dawes P. & Brown J. (2002). Determinants of awareness, consideration and choice set
size in university choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 12, Pt. 1,
p. 49-75
Day D., Schleicher D. & Unckless A. (1996). Self monitoring and work related out-
comes. A meta analysis quoted in Warech et al. (1998) p. 467
Geraldine Clarke 19
Deutsch M. & Gerard H. (1955). A study of normative and social influences upon indi-
vidual judgements. Quoted in Brinberg D. & Plimpton L. (1986) Self Monitoring
and Product Conspicuousness on reference group influence. Advances in Consumer
Research Vol. 13, p. 297-300
Elliot K. & Healy M. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruit-
ment and retention: Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 10, Pt. 4, p. 1-12
Fazio R. & Zanna M. (1981). Direct Experience and Attitude-Behaviour Consistency:
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 14, p. 161-201
Fazio R. (1986). How do attitudes guide Behaviour. In Sorrentino R & Higgins E. (eds)
Handbook of Motivation and Cognition p. 204-243
Fishbein M. And Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Intro-
duction to Theory and Research: Addison Wesley
Flynn L., Goldsmith R. & Eastman J. (1996). Opinion Leaders and Opinion Seekers:
Two New Measurement Scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 137-147
Friedstad M. & Thorson E. (1986). Emotion–eliciting advertising. Effects on long term
memory and judgement. Advances in Consumer Behaviour Vol. 13, p. 111-115
Gyure J. & Arnold S. (2001). Using Relationship marketing: theory to develop and
training model for admissions recruiters. Journal of Marketing for Higher Educa-
tion Vol. 10, Pt. 4, p. 35-50
Harker D., Slade P & Marber M. (2001). Exploring the decision process of school leav-
ers and mature students in university choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Edu-
cation Vol. 11, Pt. 2, p. 1-20
Holbrook M. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,
Feelings and Fun: Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 9, p. 132-140
Jenkins J. (1993). Self-monitoring and turnover: Impact of personality on intent to
leave. Journal of Organisational Behaviour Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 83-92
Kelman H. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalisation. Three processes of
attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 2, p. 51-60
Kittle B. & Ciba D. (2002). Using college websites for student recruitment–a rela-
tionship marketing study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 11,
Pt. 3, p. 17-38
Kline S. (1987). Self-Monitoring and the Attitude-Behaviour Correspondence in Cable
Television Subscription: Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 127, p. 605-609
Leigh J. (1984). Recall and Recognition Performance for Umbrella Print Advertising:
Journal of Advertising Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 5-18
Nantel J. & Strahle W. (1986). The Self-Monitoring Concept: A Consumer Behaviour
Perspective Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 13, p. 83-87
Oliver R. (1997). Satisfaction: McGraw-Hill
Osgood C. Suci G. & Tannenbaum P. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press USA
Park C. & Lessig V. (1977). Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence Journal
of Consumer Research Vol. 4, p. 102-110 quoted in Binberg and Plimpton see above
Peterson M., Wagner J. & Lamb C. (2001). The role of advising in non-returning stu-
dents’ perceptions of their university. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
Vol. 10, Pt. 3, p. 45-60
Shah A., Zeis C., Regassa H. & Ahmadian P. (1999). Expected service quality as per-
ceived by potential customers. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 9
Pt. 3, p. 49-72
Shepherd G. (1985). Linking Attitudes and Behavioural Criteria: Human Communica-
tion Research Vol. 12, No. 2, Winter p. 275-284
Slama M. & Singley R. (1996). Self-Monitoring and Value-Expressive vs. Utilitarian
Ad. Effectiveness: Why the mixed findings? Journal of Current Issues and Re-
search in Advertising Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 39
Snyder M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behaviour. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology Vol. 30, No. 4, p. 526-537
Snyder M. & Monson T. (1975). Persons, Situations and the Control of Social Behav-
iour. Quoted in Nantel J. & Strahle W. (1986), see above
Snyder M. & Swann W. (1976). When Actions reflect Attitudes: The Politics of Im-
pression Management Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 34 (5)

p. 1034-1042 quoted in Bearden et al. (1989)
Snyder M. (1979). Self monitoring processes. In Berkowitz L. ed. Advances in Experi-
mental Social Psychology Vol. 12 Academic Press NY p. 85-128
Snyder M. & Kendzierski D. (1982). Acting on One’s Attitudes: Procedures for link-
ing Attitude and Behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 18,
p. 165-183
Snyder M. (1987). Public Appearances/Private Realities. The Psychology of Self-
Monitoring Freeman N.Y.Stiber G. (2000). Characterising the decision process
leading to enrolment in Doctoral programmes: Theory application and practise.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 10, Pt. 1, p. 13-26
Waly P. & Cook S. (1965). Effect of Attitude on Judgements of Plausibility: Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 2, No. 5, p. 745-749
Warech M., Smither J., Reilley R., Millsap R. & Reilly S. (1998). Self Monitoring and
360-degree Ratings Leadership Quarterly Vol. 9 (4) p. 449-473
Wilkie W. (1986). A Framework for Research on Affect in Consumer Behaviour: In
Consumer Behaviour: Wiley NY
Zanna, Olson & Fazio (1980). Attitude Behaviour Consistency: An individual Differ-
ence Perspective Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 38 (3) p. 432-
440 quoted in Bearden et al. (1989)
RECEIVED: 01/13/02
REVISED: 08/10/02
ACCEPTED: 10/20/04

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]

On: 15 December 2010

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

An Examination of 'Self-Monitoring' and the 'Influence of Others' as

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ABSTRACT. The paper presents empirical research that investigated

Geraldine Clarke is affiliated with International Business School, Boston, UK.

influencer caused a difference in levels of satisfaction. The relevance of

KEYWORDS. Service process, satisfaction, peer influence, self-moni-

There is continuing debate; relevant to those working in higher edu-

monitors the applicant’s satisfaction levels with one university’s appli-

tify the potential overlap in the concepts. Would a summative estimate

PRIOR STUDIES OF SATISFACTION

The higher education marketing literature reflects trends in marketing

The issue of cultural specificity is also very relevant to the outcomes of

THE MEANING OF SELF-MONITORING

More specifically, Brinberg and Plimpton’s (1986) paper examined

monitoring instrument, measured a similar phenomenon to the peer

tently indicates that low self-monitors are more personality-driven than

meaningful measure of self-monitoring and more useful in determining

THE STUDY OF INFLUENCE ON SATISFACTION

As stated previously, satisfaction is modelled as an attitude with both

Wilkie (1986) proposes a model of consumer behaviour that identi-

‘student-centeredness’ researched by Elliot and Healy (2001).

Hypothesis 1: S = f(Na) (1)

There will be differences in the levels of satisfaction (S) reported by

Hypothesis 2: S = f (T) (2)

The level of satisfaction (S) with the application process, as mea-

Hypothesis 3: S = f (Tcp) (3)

Hypothesis 4: S = f (Tsp) (4)

Hypothesis 5: S = f(Nd) (5)

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A random sample of respondents to an Applicant Survey carried out

• Application Advisers: their graduate status; areas of advice.

The main advisers to applicants in order of frequency were parents,

Table 2: Affective Scale). Most applicants made the decision to accept a

Hypothesis 1 S = f(Na) (1)

Hypothesis 2 S = f(T) (2)

The level of satisfaction with the application process, as measured by

‘Simple’ PASD1 = f [β + αq1 + ε ] (1.1)

‘Open’ PASD2 = f [β + αq 2 + ε ] (1.2)

‘Friendly’ PACON1 = f [β + αq 3 + ε ] (1.3)

Where q1,2,3 indicates a number of alternative advisers, including par-

dicates that, as defined in this context, high self-monitors–applicants

Further significant inverse functions were indicated for the ‘open-

Hypothesis 3 S = f (Tcp) (3)

Hypothesis 4 S = f (Tsp) (4)

1. applicants who did not use parental advice;

A non-parametric analysis (Kruskal–Wallis H) for use with categori-

advice AND experience.

Hypothesis 5 S = f(Nd) (5)

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The testing of the first hypothesis indicated that low self-monitors,

satisfaction factor are more likely to be low self-monitors. Low self-

tion scores at the application stage, should also be mitigated by the

behaviour is the final outcome, characterized by the decision to act. It is

tive for process management. Admissions operations need to take into

The level of self-monitoring, conceptualised here in terms of the

In conclusion, this paper has presented some clarification of the

Bagozzi R. (1984). Expectancy-Value Attitude Models: An Analysis of Critical Mea-

Brigham J. & Cook S. (1970). The Influence of Attitude on Judgements of Plausibility:

Two New Measurement Scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science