This article was downloaded by: [SENESCYT ] On: 10 May 2012, At: 13:51 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

An Integrative Analysis of Reputation and Relational Quality: A Study of UniversityStudent Relationships

Sung-Un Yang , Sue Westcott Alessandri & Dennis F. Kinsey
a a a b

Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
b

Department of Communication and Journalism, Suffolk University, Boston, MA Available online: 12 Dec 2008

To cite this article: Sung-Un Yang, Sue Westcott Alessandri & Dennis F. Kinsey (2008): An Integrative Analysis of Reputation and Relational Quality: A Study of UniversityStudent Relationships, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18:2, 145-170 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841240802487353

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

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. 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.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Journal 1540-7144 0884-1241 WMHEof Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 18, No. 2, October 2008: pp. 137 Education,

An Integrative Analysis of Reputation and Relational Quality: A Study of University-Student Relationships

Sung-Un Yang Sue Westcott Alessandri Dennis F. Kinsey

Journal of Marketing for Higher Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey Education

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this research is to explore the link between reputation and relational quality in the context of student-university relationships, based on a perceptual analysis of the participants subjective views (i.e., factor analysis with Q methodology). To this end, the researchers selected a private university located in the Northeast region of the United States as the research setting, with students of the university serving as research participants. The researchers proposed three research questions regarding the link between student-university relational quality and university reputation. The findings of this research indicate that the concepts of relational quality and reputation can be variantly intertwined on the basis of individual stakeholders subjective views of their experience, interactions, and information, rather than intertwined in a linear way.

Sung-Un Yang, PhD, Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Sue Westcott Alessandri, PhD, Department of Communication and Journalism, Suffolk University, Boston, MA. Dennis F. Kinsey, PhD, Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Address correspondence to: Sue Westcott Alessandri, Department of Communication and Journalism, Suffolk University, 41 Temple Street, Boston, MA 02114 (E-mail: sue.alessandri@gmail.com). Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18(2) 2008 Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved. doi:10.1080/08841240802487353

145

146

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

KEYWORDS. University reputation, student-university relationships, higher education, Q methodology In todays increasingly competitive educational marketplace, colleges and universities have begun to embrace the marketing mind-set of corporate America. As Litten (1980) writes, however, Marketing is more than mere institutional presentation and the generation of information. It is also the development and delivery of educational and auxiliary services for which there is desire or need (p. 43). In an educational context, these services attract students, who form a relationship with the university. Over time, the hope is that these relationships will ensure a positive reputation in the educational marketplace. An organizations reputation is built on the foundation of its identity, but the more proximal beginning of a positive reputation is likely the organizations image (Alessandri, 2001). An organizations image is generally agreed on in the literature as the perception of the organization (Abratt, 1989; Gray & Balmer, 1998; Gregory & Wiechmann, 1999; Hawn, 1998). Treadwell and Harrison (1994) explore the image of a university among its faculty, staff, and students, and the authors recognize that the universitys image is likely to differ among groups, since images are thought to be related to members and non-members affective and behavioral responses to the organization (p. 64). Yet while image is an important factor, the universitys reputation is more enduring, since it represents repeated impressions of the organizations image, whether positive or negative (Gray & Balmer, 1997, 1998; Markwick & Fill, 1997). Although the Carnegie Corporation wrote about the invisible thread of a universitys reputation as early as 19661 (as cited in Cook & Zallocco, 1983), there is relatively little literature exploring university reputation, and none that explores the construct of reputation in the context of how students view both the reputation of and their own relationship withthe university they attend. In this study, we use Q methodology to explore students perceptions of their relationship with the university and their perceptions of the reputation of the university. We then use correlational analysis to further explore the relationship between the two constructs of student-university relationships and university reputation. In the next section, we present the relevant literature on university reputation and student-university relationships. In the following section, we elaborate on how different methods of analysis were used to explore the

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

147

research question. In reporting our results, we focus on a summary of key findings as well as the limitations and implications of the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW University Reputation Defining University Reputation

While organizational reputation is typically studied from a management or marketing perspectivewith the exception of Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) and Theus (1993)the body of literature focused on corporate reputation can also be useful in conceptualizing university reputation. Depending on the perspective, the concept of organizational reputation has been defined, in general, as (a) assessments that multiple stakeholders make about the companys ability to fulfill its expectations (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2003), (b) a collective system of subjective beliefs among members of a social group (Bromley, 1993, 2000, 2002), (c) collective beliefs that exist in the organizational field about a firms identity and prominence (Rao, 1994; Rindova & Kotha, 2001), (d) media visibility and favorability gained by a firm (Deephouse, 2000), and (e) collective representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time (J. Grunig & Hung, 2002; Yang & Grunig, 2005). The intersection between such definitions is that the reputation of an organization refers to perceptions of the organization shared by its multiple constituents over time. On the basis of such an intersection of definitions of organizational and corporate reputation, a universitys reputation can be defined as collective representations that the universitys multiple constituentsvarious internal and external constituents, including the mediahold of the university over time.
Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Different University Reputations for Different Types of Publics

Theus (1993) writes that a universitys reputation nearly always hinges on quality, but that quality relates to a number of different characteristics depending on the characteristics importance to a specific public. For example, Kazoleas, Kim, and Moffitt (2001) found that there are seven components of university image, three of which are quality of education, financial reasons, and sports programs. According to Theus (1993),

148

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

the importance of any one of these dimensions would depend on the subject being studied. Additionally, Kealy and Rockel (1987) studied Colgate University students perceptions of the schools quality on four dimensionsacademic reputation, social atmosphere, location of campus, and athletic qualityand found that students displaying particular characteristics were predisposed toward specific dimensions of quality; that is, those with athletic ability were more likely to have a higher perception of the quality of the universitys athletic program. This idea that different publics have different expectations for reputation formation supports the notion of a multiplicity of images put forth by Leitch and Motion (1999) that states that different publics will form impressions of an organization that are consistent with their individual expectations of the organization. The limited research on university reputation makes it increasingly clear that there is a rich myriad of factors that influence a publics perception of reputation, but most important, Cook and Zallocco (1983) validate the overall idea of a positive university reputation. In a study of Ohio colleges among college freshmen,2 the researchers found that an excellent reputation was the most important characteristic of a university in predicting a students attitude toward a university. Based on the previous discussion, the researchers propose the following research question regarding the perception held by students of university reputation: RQ1: How do college students perceive the reputation of their university? What are some strong factors that segment college students as a public in perceiving the universitys reputation?

Student-University Relationships Defining a Public for an Organization-Public Relationship

The term public originated from the Latin phrase poplicus or populus, meaning the people (Price, 1992; cited in Vasquez & Taylor, 2001, p. 140). J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) defined a public as a group of people who face a problem, are divided on its solution, and organize to discuss it (p. 145). People become stakeholders because of interdependence with an organization. Stakeholders organize into publics because of problems they have with an organization or problems they want an organization to solve (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Publics often

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

149

engage in active communication behavior to solve such problems with an organization (J. Grunig, 1997; J. Grunig & Repper, 1992).

Students as the Key Public of Universities

In the context of higher education, students are members of the organizations key public. From the managerial perspective, students are unique from the publics of ordinary, for-profit organizations since they perform various roles. For example, students are internal constituents, consumers of products and services (i.e., education), suppliers of economic resources (i.e., through their tuition), and potential donors/support base as alumni. Related to such diverse roles, college students also have various expectations from universities. On the basis of the types and extent of their relational quality regarding their expectations, they can be activists againstor loyal constituents foruniversities. Therefore, the researchers consider that studying student-university relationships is critical for quality management of universities; the literature focused on publicorganization relationships is helpful in exploring student-university relational quality.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Defining an Organization-Public Relationship

OHair, Friedrich, Wiemann, & Wiemann (1995) defined a relationship as the interdependence of two or more people (p. 10). Likewise, J. Grunig and Hunt (1984), Hon and Grunig (1999), and J. Grunig and Huang (2000) explained that because of behavioral consequences an organization and its publics engage in and cultivate a relationship. Therefore, adopting Yang and Grunigs (2005) definition, the researchers define the student-university relationship as the interdependence of students and the university and the consequences of such interdependence.

Assessing Student-University Relationship Quality

Organization-public relationship measurement has focused on either the processes of relationship formation or relationship outcomes. Based on relational outcomes, Huang (2001) maintained that the four indicators of relational outcomes (trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality) occur consistently in the literature of relationships, and that these four features represent the essence of public-organization relationships.

150

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Hon and Grunig (1999) defined the four dimensions as follows: 1. Trust: the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party 2. Satisfaction: the extent to which both parties feel favorably about each other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced 3. Commitment: the extent to which both parties believe and feel that the relationship is worth spending energy on to maintain and promote 4. Control mutuality: the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence each other (p. 3) Additionally, Hon and Grunig (1999) introduced two types of publicorganization relationships (communal versus exchange relationship). Initially, Clark and Mills (Clark, 1984; Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982, 1994) distinguished communal and exchange relationships based on the rules of norms that govern the giving and receiving of benefits and defined each concept: 1. In exchange relationships, benefits are given with the expectation of receiving a comparable benefit in return or as repayment for a benefit received previously 2. In communal relationships, benefits are given in response to needs or to demonstrate a general concern for the other person (Clark & Mills, 1993, p. 684) The major distinction between communal and exchange3 relationships lies in the fact that a communal relationship does not create a specific debt or obligation to return a comparable benefit, as it does in an exchange relationship (Clark & Mills, 1993, p. 684). About the importance of the distinction of communal and exchange relationships, Mills and Clark (1994) write: We believe that the distinction between a communal and exchange relationship is a fundamental one, and that relationships in which there is a concern for the welfare of the other are different in important ways from relationships in which people benefit one another in order to receive specific benefits in return. (p. 30) Another distinct feature of a communal relationship4 is in its varying strength, unlike exchange relationships (Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills &

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

151

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Clark, 1994). According to Clark and Mills (1993), The greater the motivation to be responsive to the other persons needs, the stronger the communal relationship (p. 685). They cited examples of such varying strength of communal relationships: The communal relationship with ones best friend is typically stronger than that with ones own friends. The communal relationship with ones child is typically stronger than that with ones best friend (p. 685). From the public-organization relationship perspective, Hon and Grunig (1999) redefined communal and exchange relationships: (a) in an exchange relationship, one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future, and (b) in a communal relationships, both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the othereven when they get nothing in return (pp. 2021). Exchange is the essence of marketing relationships between organizations and customers and the key concept in marketing theory; however, theorists of relational marketing also point out that profit organizations need communal relationships with customers (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Because publics expect communal relationships (e.g., organizations to do things for the community for which organizations get little or nothing in return), organizations can be effective by building communal relationships with strategic publics (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). In particular, Hon and Grunig (1999) described the implications of communal relationships for organizational effectiveness: 1. Communal relationships are important if organizations are to be socially responsible and to add value to society as well as to client organizations. 2. Communal relationships reduce the likelihood of negative behaviors from stakeholders such as litigation, regulation, strikes, boycotts, negative publicity, and the like (p. 21). However, as Clark and Mills (1993) explained, most relationships begin as exchange relationships and then develop to communal relationships as they mature. In this regard, L. Grunig and colleagues (2002) said that while exchange relationships are not bad for organizations, communal relationships are more strongly associated with organizational effectiveness than exchange relationships. Likewise, L. Grunig and colleagues (2002) explained the effects of communal relationships: Nevertheless, a measure of the degree to which a public perceives that it has a communal

152

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

relationship with an organization is perhaps the purest indicator of the success of the public relations management function (p. 553). Based on the discussion, the researchers propose the following research question regarding relational quality with a university as evaluated by college students: RQ2: How do college students evaluate relational quality with a university? What are strong factors that segment the public of college students in evaluating relational quality with a university reputation?
Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Integrative Framework between Reputation and Relationship Quality

The researchers consider that, as in any other organizational context, a publics type and evaluation of experience and interactions (i.e., relational quality) influence its perceptions of the organization (i.e., reputation). Indeed, previous research has pointed out the effects of public-organizational relational outcomes on organizational reputation. Management scholars have emphasized the critical role of quality relationships between a corporation and its strategic constituents in achieving a favorable corporate reputation (e.g., Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Van Riel, 2003; Knox, Maklan, & Thompson, 2000; Rindova & Kotha, 2001). For example, Fombrun (1996) emphasized the role of organization-public relationships as an important antecedent of corporate reputations: To acquire a reputation that is positive, enduring, and resilient requires managers to invest heavily in building and maintaining good relationships with their companys constituents (p. 57). For corporate reputation to be maintained properly, Knox et al. (2000) and Schultz, Mouritsen, and Gabrielsen (2001) suggested that corporations should manage good long-term relationships with their strategic constituents. Rindova and Kotha (2001) investigated how strategic actions of new firms affect corporate reputation building. They found that relational actions (corporate actions to establish stakeholder-corporation relationships) influence corporate reputation positively over time. Most recently, Fombrun and Van Riel (2003) explained that, in terms of corporate citizenship (p. 118), socially responsible behavior in an organization is the primary factor in forming a favorable organizational reputation. In public relations research, L. Grunig and colleauges (2002) suggested: (a) the quality of relationships affects reputation, (b) quality relationships and reputation result more from the behavior of organizations than from

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

153

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

messages disseminated, and (c) the value of relationships includes the value of reputation. In terms of crisis management, Coombs (2000) and Coombs and Holladay (2001) have studied the link between organizationpublic relationships and organizational reputation. Coombs (2000) said that organizational reputation is damaged by crises, which often resulted from negative stakeholder-organization relationships. On the basis of the relevant literature, the researchers consider that there exists a strong link between student-university relationships and university reputation. However, because of reciprocal influences between student and university, the researchers consider here that a correlational analysis makes more sense than a linear causal effect of relational quality on reputation. Applying general principles of reputation formation (Bromley, 1993, 2000; Caruana, 1997; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; J. Grunig & Hung, 2002), the researchers posit that a universitys reputation is also related to the perception of a students relationship with the university, since a university has such a unique public in its students. Based on the discussion, the researchers propose the following research question regarding the link between university reputation and relational quality between a university and its students: RQ3: How and to what extent is university reputation as perceived by college students related to the relational quality with the university?

METHODOLOGY Research Design

Given the subjective nature of ones judgment about the reputation of a university and about ones relationship with a university, we selected a method appropriate for the study of subjectivity. Stephenson (1953) developed Q technique and its methodology as a way to investigate situations steeped in subjectivity rather than facts, e.g., in aesthetic judgment . . . perceptions of organizational roles . . . perspectives on life (Brown, 1996). Q methodology was the most appropriate research approach for this study because it offered the best possibility of revealing the subjective perceptions of participants by enabling them to construct models of their beliefs.

154

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Fundamentally, Q methodology is a rank-ordering procedure. Participants rank stimulus items (Q sample) to some condition of instructionfor example, from most agree to most disagree. Once the participants have sorted the items to reflect their own viewpoint, the data are correlated and factor analyzed. People who have sorted the items in a similar fashion will cluster together on a factor. Each factor represents a point of view or shared perception of those associated with the factor. For more on Q methodology see Brown (1980, 1986) and McKeown and Thomas (1988).
Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Research Instrument: Q Samples

Two Q samples were developed for this study: a reputation Q sample and a relationship Q sample. Items for the Q samples were culled from the reputation and relationship literature. First, to measure university reputation, the researchers adopted Fombrun and Gardbergs (2000) Reputation Quotient measurement items. Also, the researchers modified and adopted items from Arpan, Raney, and Zivnuska (2003) to assess athletic prominence in university reputation. After a pretest, the researchers selected 23 items for the Q sample, representing dimensions of university reputation including emotional appeal, products and services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment, social responsibility, and athletic prominence. Second, to assess student-university relational quality, the researchers adopted Hon and Grunigs (1999) organization-public relationship measurement scale. This scale includes four dimensions of relational outcomes (trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment) and two types of relationships (communal and exchange relationships). After a pretest, the researchers selected 28 items for the Q sample, modified for the context of university reputation perceived by students.

Participants
The researchers selected a private university located in the Northeast region of the United States as the research context, and students of the university as the research participants. Sixty communication students from four classes were selected to participate in this study. Eighty percent of the research participants were female students (n = 48) and 20% were male students (n = 12). Fifty two percent (n = 31) were undergraduate students and 48% (n = 29) were graduate students. The mean age was 21.39.

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

155

Condition of Instruction
Participants were asked to sort the statements in each Q sample from most disagree to most agree in the following distributions. One half of the respondents sorted the reputation Q sample first while the other sorted the relationship Q sample first to avoid any ordering bias.

Q Sort Distribution for University Reputation

Most Disagree Most Agree 0 5 +1 4 +2 3 +3 2

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Value Frequency

3 2

2 3

1 4

Q Sort Distribution for University Relationship

Most Disagree Value Frequency 3 3 2 4 1 4 0 6 +1 4 Most Agree +2 4 +3 3

All Q sorts were administered in person. The 60 Reputation Q sorts were correlated and factor analyzed. The 60 relationship Q sorts were correlated and factor analyzed. Centroid extraction with varimax rotation was performed through the PCQ3 software program.

RQ 1: Results of University Reputation

Two factors emerged from the correlation and subsequent factor analysis of the 60 reputation Q sorts. One factor (Factor 1) highlighted the academic aspects of the university studied, while the other (Factor 2) focused on the sports program.

Reputation Factor 1: High Quality Education

Participants associated with Factor 1 believe the university studied offers high quality education and services and stands behind them (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):
+3 +3 0 +2 16. This university offers high quality education and services. 2. This university stands behind its education and services.

156

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Additionally, Factor 1 participants imply that the university studied is well positioned for the future. They believe that the university is an innovative university that recognizes and takes advantage of academic opportunities (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):
+2 +2 1 1 9. This university develops innovative education and services. 18. This university recognizes and takes advantage of academic opportunities.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Factor 1 participants strong view of the academics at the university studied does not translate into a belief that the university studied is financially well managed or is a low-risk investment for donors (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):
3 3 2 2 2 0 5. This university is well-managed. 23. This university tends to outperform its competitors financially. 10. This university looks like a low-risk investment for donors.

Additionally, Factor 1 respondents do not give the university studied very good marks for being environmentally friendly or having a good sports program (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):
2 2 1 +2 13. This university is an environmentally responsible organization. 14. This university has strong sports programs.

Reputation Factor 2: Strong Sports Program

Unlike Factor 1, Factor 2 respondents believe the university studied has a strong sports program. More than that, the university is defined by its sports program. This factor believes that the university studied is committed to athletic excellence, has strong sports programs, and famous coaches and athletes (scores for Factors 2 and 2, respectively):
1 1 2 +3 +3 +2 7. This university is committed to athletic excellence. 21. This university has famous coaches and/or athletes. 14. This university has strong sports programs.

Factor 2 respondents strongly reject the idea that the university studied has excellent leadership or that the university offers education and services

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

157

that are a good value. Additionally, this factor does not trust the university much (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):
0 0 +1 3 3 2 4. This university has excellent leadership. 22. This university offers education and services that are a good value for the tuition. 15. I trust this university a great deal.

Positive Consensus Items

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Consensus items are statements that are scored the same across factors. Two positive consensus items are worth mentioning. Respondents from both factors indicated that they have a good feeling about the university studied and believe the university stands behind its education and services (scores for Factors 1 and 2, respectively):
+2 +3 +2 +2 1. I have a good feeling about this university. 2. This university stands behind its education and services.

RQ 2: Results of Relationship Quality Overview

Three factors emerged from the correlation and subsequent factor analysis of the 60 relationship Q sorts. It is noteworthy that the participants subjective views on the relational quality with the university were mostly represented by the types of relationships (i.e., communal versus exchange relationships) rather than by the relational outcomes. The first two factors emerged regarding communal and exchange relational types respectively. And the final factor was about relational outcome-oriented views such as competency and power.

Relationship Factor A: Communal Relationship

The perceived relationship between the university studied and the participants associated with Factor A is a strong one. The Clark and Mills (1979, 1993) conception of a communal relationship fits well here. Factor A participants are positive and happy with their relationship with the university studied. Factor A respondents indicated that they are happy with the university, believe that the university studied is trying to maintain a longterm commitment to them, and are pleased with the relationship the

158

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

university has established with them (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
+3 +3 +3 +3 0 0 +1 +1 1 4. I am happy with this university. 3. I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to students like me. 22. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university has established with students like me.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Additionally, Factor A respondents feel that the university studied treats them fairly and wants to maintain a relationship with them. These students indicate that there is a long-lasting bond between them and the university (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
+2 0 0 +2 +1 +2 +2 +1 2. This university treats students like me fairly and justly. 9. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with students like me. 1 15. There is a long-lasting bond between this university and students like me.

The negative end of Factor As Q sort (exchange relationship items) reflects the same positive-relationship view. For example, Factor A rejects the contention that the university studied succeeds by stepping on or taking advantage of students (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
3 3 1 1 1 1 24. I think that this university succeeds by stepping on students. 18. I feel that this university takes advantage of students who are vulnerable.

Relationship Factor B: Exchange Relationships

Like Factor A respondents, factor B respondents indicate that they, too, are happy with the university studied (please see their scoring of statement number 4 in the previous section). However, Factor B respondents views of reciprocity were conditional based on mutual gains. For example, they feel that they favor the university as long as they can gain from the university and vice versa. Such conditional reciprocity, therefore, also includes aspects of an exchange relationship to some extent. For example, Factor B respondents believe that the university studied is only interested in a relationship because it will gain something. The university studied will only compromise with students when it knows it will gain something and takes care of

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

159

only those students who are likely to reward the university (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
0 2 2 +3 +3 +2 +3 +2 +2 23. This university takes care of students who are likely to reward the university. 17. This university will compromise with students like me when it knows that it will gain something. 5. Whenever this university gives or offers something to students like me, it generally expects something in return.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Factor B respondents do not believe that the university studied listens to them or takes student opinions into account when making decisions (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
0 1 1 3 3 3 0 +1 0 19. This university really listens to what students like me have to say. 20. I believe that this university takes the opinions of students like me into account when making decisions. 25. The leadership of this university gives students like me enough say in the decision-making process.

Relationship Factor C: Outcome-Oriented

Factor C respondents are not overly happy with the university studied and do not believe other students are happy with the university. These students do not feel that the university cares about their welfare (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
+3 +1 +1 +3 0 0 +1 3 2 4. I am happy with this university. 16. Most students like me are happy in their interactions with this university. 12. This university is very concerned about the welfare of students like me.

Despite their belief that the university studied does not care about them, Factor C students acknowledge that the university is competent and powerful enough to achieve its desired outcomes. Based on such outcome-oriented expectations from the university, these students also believe that they will benefit from the relationship (scores for Factors A, B, and C, respectively):
+1 +2 +2 +2 +1 +2 +3 +2 +3 28. This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 9. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with students like me. 10. Both this university and students like me benefit from the relationship.

160

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

RQ3: Link Between Reputation and Relationship Quality

The reputation Factor 1, High Quality Education, is significantly and positively correlated with the relationship Factor A, the Communal Relationship Factor (r = .38; p < .01). That is, respondents who view the reputation of the university via the quality of education also perceive the strongest relationship with the university. The reputation Factor 2, Strong Sports Program, is significantly and positively correlated with the relationship Factor C, the Outcome-Oriented Relationship Factor (r = .30; p < .05). Also, the correlation between the reputation Factor 2, Strong Sports Program, and the relationship Factor B, the Exchange Relationship Factor, just misses significance (r = .25; p = .051). Taken together, those respondents who view the reputation of the university through the lens of its sports program perceive a different and weaker relationship with the university than those who base the reputation of the university on the quality of the education it provides.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research is to explore the link between reputation and relational quality in the context of student-university relationships, based on a perceptual analysis of the participants subjective views. To this end, the researchers selected a private university located in the Northeast region of the United States as the research setting, and students of the university as the research participants. Before this research, many previous studies found that relational quality between an organization and its publics influenced the reputation of the organization. In other words, as J. Grunig and Hung (2002) pointed out, favorable reputation is a by-product of quality organization-public relationships. It is reasonable to posit that individual members of a public or group of stakeholders decide their perceptions on the basis of the types and the extent of their previous experience and interactions with an organization (i.e., the history of organization-public relational quality) as well as on the information they have about the organization. However, despite the research evidence on the effect of relational quality on reputation, the researchers raised a question of such a linear link: the effect of relational quality on reputation. First, depending on various types and the extent of relationship history, individual members of a public or group of stakeholders can have different

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

161

perceptions of an organizations reputation. Especially, as college students perform various roles in universities and retain different expectations of universities, how relational quality affects university reputation might be variant depending on their subjective views regarding such various roles and expectations. This was why the researchers used Q methodology to segment the research participants based on their subjective views on the concepts of relationships and reputation. Second, the way in which relational quality affects university reputation might be reciprocal; in other words, students can decide the quality of their relationships with their universities based on the universitys reputation as subjectively perceived by them. This is the reason the researchers delimited statistical analysis to a correlational analysis rather than a linear causal analysisto interpret the link between relational quality on reputation from the participants perspectives. The findings of this research are intriguing, and the researchers believe they will be relevant not only for higher education institutions but also for corporate environments as well. Interestingly, college students perception of the university reputation was dominantly driven by two factors: quality of education and evaluations of athletic/sports program performance. The researchers did not expect that sports program would drive students perceptions of the university so dominantly as found in this current research. And this is one of the reasons why the researchers consider that Q methodology will be a very helpful method to explore organizational reputation perceived by multiple stakeholders on the basis of their subjective perspectives. Previous research, for example, Kazoleas and colleagues (2001), found that the main components of university reputation/image were quality of education, financial reasons, and sports programs. Although the dimension of financial reasons was not found dominant in this current research, there were stark similarities between this researchs findings and the findings of Kazoleas and colleagues research. Additionally, Arpan and colleagues (2003) also focused on athletic prominence in measuring university reputation. As for relational quality, the researchers found that the participants subjective views on relational quality were mainly driven by three factors: (a) communal relationship, (b) exchange relationship, and (c) outcomeoriented relationship. Indeed, as Hon and Grunig (1999) pointed out, relational quality can be assessed by relational outcomes and the types of a relationship. And according to Clark and Mills (Clark, 1984; Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1982, 1994), a relationship can be categorized

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

162

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

by two dominant types (communal versus exchange relationship). Therefore, the researchers consider that the three factors extracted in this research are aligned well with the theoretical assumptions. More interestingly, the researchers found that the way in which relational quality is associated with reputation is different depending on the participants subjective views. Some factors between relational quality and reputation were positively correlated and others were negatively correlated. This finding implies that, even in corporate environments, the concepts of relational quality and reputation can be variantly intertwined on the basis of individual stakeholders subjective views of their experience, interactions, and information. More specifically, the participants who viewed relational quality as communal were more likely to focus on academic quality in perceiving the reputation of the university. Second, the participants who viewed relational quality as either exchange or outcome-oriented (such as the universitys competence or power) were more likely to focus on performance of sport programs in perceiving university reputation. Regarding practical applications, the findings of this study suggest that marketing in higher education needs to recognize the different orientation of college students with regard to their perceptions about the universitys reputation (as an internal public) and student-university relationships. Some groups of students pay attention to the long-term mutual betterment by student-university relationships; they are more resilient in variation of the universitys environment. Thus, marketing in higher education should highlight the substantial development of the university in order to ensure the quality of education rather than focus on symbolic endeavors to publicize peripheral aspects of the university. Also, this type of student might have a long-lasting positive perception of the university; once the universitys positive reputation is achieved, these students are more likely to be loyal supporters of the university. Other groups of students, according to the findings of this study, have a tendency to evaluate student-university relationships contingent on the universitys achieving day-to-day tangible outcomes, especially with regard to the athletic program, as Kazoleas and colleagues (2001) and Arpan and colleagues (2003) also found. Therefore, the students are susceptible to changes in the universitys attainment of outcomes and tend to form a reputation of the university conditionally and on a short-term basis. Marketing practitioners in higher education can utilize this finding by implementing effective promotional activities strategically aligned with the objectives of those relevant university units.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

163

Although these are significant findings, the number of research participants could be deemed a limitation. However, the purpose of this research was not external validity or generalization of its findings. Rather, the researchers were interested in exploring the subjective views of the participants regarding how they shared their perceptions about the universitys reputation and relationships with them, and how those perceptions are intertwined.

NOTES
Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012
1. In 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a classification system for all U.S.based colleges and universities in an attempt to name and classify all of the various forms of higher education available. While the Carnegie Commission developed its system simply to further its own research and policy analysis, it advertently pitted schools against one another by grouping schools according to academic offerings. As a result, colleges and universities began to look at peer institutions, and schools around the country became increasingly aware of the need to differentiate themselves from the competitive pack in order to attract studentsand donors (Melewar & Akel, 2005). 2. The seven universities studied were the state-supported universities in Ohio: University of Akron, Bowling Green State University, Kent State University, Miami of Ohio, Ohio University, Cleveland State University, and Ohio State University. 3. Clark and Mills (1993) said that they used the term exchange in accord with the dictionary definition of exchange (i.e., giving or taking one thing in return for another); the term exchange is broadly defined in social psychology as mutually rewarding interaction. 4. Clark and Mills (1993) suggested that there can be one-sided communal relationships. On this point, Clark and Mills stated, At the beginning of our work on communal/ exchange distinction, our focus was on communal relationships that are mutual (Clark & Mills, 1979). Later (Mills & Clark, 1988), we discussed one-sided communal relationships, such as the relationship between a parent and an infant or young child (pp. 684685).

REFERENCES
Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 6376. Alessandri, S. W. (2001). Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication and theoretical explanation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 173182. Arpan, L. M., Raney, A. A., & Zivnuska, A. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97113. Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

164

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image, and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(3), 240252. Bromley, D. B. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 3550. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brown, S. R. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In W. D. Berry & M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientists: Advances and applications in research methods (pp. 5776). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 561567. Caruana, A. (1997). Corporate reputation: Concept and measurement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(2), 109118. Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 549557. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1224. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684691. Cook, R. W. & Zallocco, R. L. (1983). Predicting university preference and attendance: Applied marketing in higher education administration. Research in Higher Education, 19(2), 197211. Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 7394). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 321340. Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 10911112. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrun, C. J., & Gardberg, N. (2000). Whos tops in corporate reputation? Corporate Reputation Review, 3, 1317. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). Whats in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233258. Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2003). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 2430. Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: A vital component of strategy (working paper). Glasgow: University of Strathclyde International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

165

Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695702. Gregory, J. R., & Wiechmann, J. W. (1999). Marketing corporate image: The company as your number one product. Chicago: NTC Business Books. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges, and new research. In D. Moss, T. McManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: International perspectives (pp. 547). London: International Thompson Business Press. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hung, C. F. (2002, March). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented at the PRSA Educators Academy 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 117158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hawn, R. (1998, April/May). Image vs. identity. Trends, 14, 2227. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 6190. Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffitt, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 205216. Kealy, M. J. & Rockel, M. L. (1987). Student perceptions of college quality: The influence of college recruitment policies. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(6), 683703. Knox, S., Maklan, S., & Thompson, K. E. (2000). Building the unique organization value proposition. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand (pp. 1151377). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leitch, S., & Motion, J. (1999). Multiplicity in corporate identity strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 193199. Litten, L. H. (1980). Marketing higher education: Benefits and risks for the American academic system. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 4059. Markwick, N., & Fill, C. (1997). Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 396409.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

166

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

McKeown, B. F., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, vol. 66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Melewar, T. C. & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 4157. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Communal and exchange relationships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 121144. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1988, July). Communal and exchange relationships: New research and old controversies. Invited address at the biannual meeting of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, Vancouver, British Columbia. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies and research. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 2942). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 303311. OHair, D., Friedrich, G. W., Wiemann, J. M., & Wiemann, M. O. (1995). Competent communication. New York: St. Martins press. Price, V. (1992). Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 19851912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 2944. Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Accumulating reputation through strategic action flows: Lessons from Amazon.com and its competitors in Internet retailing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: Analyzing a ranking system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 2441. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Theus, K. T. (1993). Academic reputations: The process of formation and decay. Public Relations Review, 19(3), 277291. Treadwell, D. F. & Harrison, T. M. (1994, March). Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image: Model images, commitment, and communication. Communication Monographs, 61(1), 6385. Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on the public. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 139154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yang, S. U., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). The effects of organization-public relationships outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and overall evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication Management 9(4), 305326.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

RECEIVED: 01/16/2007 ACCEPTED: 03/26/2008

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

167

APPENDIX A: FACTOR SCORES OF RELATIONAL QUALITY AND UNIVERSITY REPUTATION

Participant ID A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 73 81 78 73 43 30 50 85 44 47 81 65 71 80 41 4 4 79 30 47 4 23 13 5 77 34 90 50 53 12 5 66 51 39 13 20 21 73 Relationship Factors B 2 6 3 1 44 17 1 2 4 33 12 23 6 25 47 52 14 21 51 28 33 41 40 18 6 36 2 40 4 69 70 47 57 39 10 73 69 44 C 31 15 5 18 15 42 61 5 0 32 7 40 4 1 2 63 63 6 67 45 64 54 28 58 27 61 7 26 24 15 47 2 22 3 55 5 21 5 Reputation Factors I 66 4 42 51 64 31 38 75 65 56 64 69 63 57 51 16 6 63 33 55 44 41 21 39 76 8 62 21 25 18 6 12 32 33 3 24 39 29 II 32 7 28 30 22 65 35 12 4 39 29 19 12 11 13 50 36 20 45 24 30 26 26 33 14 14 37 13 23 47 56 14 61 16 22 50 75 67 (Continued )

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

168

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

APPENDIX A: (Continued)
Participant ID A 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Eigenvalues % variance 41 83 85 29 52 14 52 65 29 68 30 45 37 39 3 20 5 5 38 28 9 24 15 25 Relationship Factors B 57 6 19 40 23 29 11 44 64 10 53 54 14 64 66 63 4 47 41 24 44 62 9.2 15 C 18 13 15 2 60 61 40 4 8 27 16 31 51 4 39 0 32 31 44 65 1 24 7.2 12 Reputation Factors I 61 34 36 14 4 1 13 41 66 9 36 9 13 67 14 52 60 52 6 20 40 32 10.8 18 II 52 21 66 60 65 70 78 30 5 77 41 67 48 40 84 44 55 48 16 29 71 74 11.6 19

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

Note: Decimals to two places omitted within matrix. Loadings exceeding 53 for Reputation and 48 for Relationship are significant ( p < .01).

Yang, Alessandri, and Kinsey

169

APPENDIX B: Q SAMPLE AND FACTOR ARRAYS FOR RELATIONSHIP QUALITY Q SORTS

Factor Scores A B C 0 0 1 1 2 1. This university and students like me are attentive to what one another says. 2. This university treats students like me fairly and justly. 3. I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to students like me. 4. I am happy with this university. 5. Whenever this university gives or offers something to students like me, it generally expects something in return. 6. This university does not especially enjoy giving other organizations aid. 7. This university believes the opinions of students like me are legitimate. 8. Whenever this university makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about students like me. 9. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with students like me. 10. Both this university and students like me benefit from the relationship. 11. Students like me have had a relationship with this university for a long time, 12. This university is very concerned about the welfare of students like me. 13. In dealing with students like me, this university has a tendency to throw its weight around. 14. This university can be relied on to keep its promises. 15. There is a long-lasting bond between this university and students like me. 16. Most students like me are happy in their interactions with this university. 17. This university will compromise with students like me when it knows that it will gain something. 18. I feel that this university takes advantage of students who are vulnerable. 19. This university really listens to what students like me have to say. 20. I believe that this university takes the opinions of students like me into account when making decisions. 21. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this university more. 22. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university has established with students like me. 23. This university takes care of students who are likely to reward the university. 24. I think that this university succeeds by stepping on students. 25. The leadership of this university gives students like me enough say in the decision-making process. 26. Most students enjoy dealing with this university. 27. This university helps students like me without expecting anything in return. 28. This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.

0 1 2 0 3 0

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012

3 2

3 2

2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 2

2 3 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 2

3 1 1 0 3 0 1 3 1 3 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 3

3 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 3

170

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

APPENDIX C: Q SAMPLE AND FACTOR ARRAYS FOR REPUTATION Q SORTS

Factor Scores A 2 3 1 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 B 2 2 1 3 2 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 3 2 1. I have a good feeling about this university. 2. This university stands behind its education and services. 3. This university has a strong record of growth. 4. This university has excellent leadership. 5. This university is well-managed. 6. This university supports good causes. 7. This university is committed to athletic excellence. 8. I admire and respect this university. 9. This university develops innovative education and services. 10. This university looks like a low-risk investment for donors. 11. This university has a clear vision for its future. 12. This university looks like a good university to work for. 13. This university is an environmentally responsible organization. 14. This university has strong sports programs. 15. I trust this university a great deal. 16. This university offers high quality education and services. 17. This university looks like a university with strong prospects for future growth. 18. This university recognizes and takes advantage of academic opportunities. 19. This university looks like a university that would have good employees. 20. This university maintains high standards in the way it treats people. 21. This university has famous coaches and/or athletes. 22. This university offers education and services that are a good value for the tuition. 23. This university tends to outperform its competitors financially.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 13:51 10 May 2012