Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Student–university relationships and reputation: a study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Focusing on academic institutions in higher education as the research context, this study examined the relations of key factors affecting students’ supportive behavioral intentions toward the university (e.g., giving gifts as alumni, continuing education, and giving referrals regarding the university). Based on the literature from various disciplines, this study proposed four factors are critical influencing such intentions: (1) students’ communication behavior with the university, (2) perceived quality of educational experience, (3) evaluations of the relationship with the university, and (4) university reputation. The data in this study were collected using a survey of current undergraduate students (N = 336) who were attending a private university in Seoul during Fall 2005. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the proposed model. Regarding overall results, the proposed model can be retained as a valid model based on data-model fits: Eight hypotheses were supported in this study, but not the effect of students’ educational experience on university reputation. The findings suggest that to foster students’ supportive behavior, universities need to cultivate a good relationship with their students and to obtain favorable reputation held by students, while ensuring active communication behavior of students and the quality of students’ educational experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Private institutions in higher education in Korea have paid attention to fundraising since the mid-1990s. Despite the point of interest, fundraising, and alumni giving in particular, has received almost no research attention in the country. Given the search for alternative sources of income and the particularities of higher education in Korea, the purpose and motives for alumni donations deserve investigation. Such inquiry might also be of help in studies of the internal efficiency of educational institutions. However, due to the paucity of scholarship on relationship management and fundraising, this study is based on the theoretical foundation from the U.S.

  2. For example, communitarians want to give something back to their communities for what they have received (p. 18). Investors highly regard tax benefits, whereas re-payers support the institutions from which they have benefited due to loyalty or obligation.

  3. After reviewing definitions of relationships in several perspectives, Broom et al. (2000) described relationships between organizations and publics: “Organization–public relationships are represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics” (Broom et al. 2000, p. 18).

  4. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) defined organization–public relationships as the “states which exist between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political, and/or cultural well-being of the other entity” (p. 62).

  5. According to Stafford and Canary (1991), control mutuality is “the degree to which partners agree about which of them should decide relational goals and behavioral routines” (p. 224).

  6. Hon and Grunig (1999) defined trust as “one party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party” (p. 19).

  7. From the perspective of relationship marketing, Morgan and Hunt (1994) defined commitment as “an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures indefinitely” (p. 23).

  8. Citing Kelley and Thibaut (1978), Stafford and Canary (1991) explained relational satisfaction: “From a social exchange perspective, a satisfying relationship is one in which the distribution of rewards is equitable and the relational rewards outweigh the cost” (p. 225).

  9. See Grunig and Hunt (1984) and Grunig (1997) for more information regarding the theory.

  10. By a “collective phenomenon,” Bromley (2000) stated: A key concept in the study of the practical aspects of corporate, or personal, reputation is that of ‘consensus’ (agreement, unanimity, trend of opinion). Reputation is a collective phenomenon, and consensus underpins collective action… Collective reactions, such as a boycott, demonstration, or strike, however, depend on ‘consensus,’ meaning total or substantial conformity in the distribution of beliefs and agreement on how to react (p. 245).

  11. Hu and Bentler (1999) developed joint-cutoff criteria for fit indexes in a structural equation model (SEM), which can be useful to test tenable data-model fit. According to them, if an SEM model has “CFI (i.e., Comparative Fit Index) ≥.96 and SRMR (i.e., Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) ≤1.0” or “RMSEA (i.e., Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) ≤.06 and SRMR ≤.10,” it can be suggested that the fit between the data and the proposed model is tenable.

  12. According to the Korea Institute of Public Finance (2007), the average amount of individual donation in South Korea is smaller than that of other countries because of the following reasons: (1) wealth is often passed on family and relatives; (2) religious organizations receive most of philanthropic donations (U.S. 35.8%, U.K. 11%, South Korea 80%), whereas other types of non-profit organizations barely receive individual donations; and (3) many people believe that the transparency of the organizations that receive donations is questionable. Studies also show that more than 90% of U.S. adults donate to charities regularly, whereas only 10% of Koreans do.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 1–63). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). Fourth down and gold to go? Assessing the link between athletic and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 77(4), 789–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bae, B. (2006). The operational and legal problems of university fundraising. Journal of Education Law, 18(1), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlett, J. (1980). Familiar quotations (15th ed.). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Eds.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48–61). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belfield, C. R., & Beney, A. P. (2000). What determines alumni generosity? Evidence fro the UK. Education Economics, 8(1), 65–80. doi:10.1080/096452900110300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benham, G. (1948). Benham’s book of quotations, proverbs and household words (Revised ed.). London: Harrap.

  • Bollag, B. (1995). Looking for new money: As government support lags, Europe’s universities cultivate other sources. Chronicle of Higher Education, 41, A33, A35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 35–50. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image, and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3, 240–252. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. (2005). Measuring university quality. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concepts and theory of organization-public relationships. 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. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. M. (1999, January 11). Theory of reasoned action/theory of planned behavior. Accessed 21 October 2005 from http://hsc.usf.edu/~kmbrown/TRA_TPB.htm.

  • Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25, 157–170. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80160-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caywood, C. (Ed.). (1997). The handbook of strategic public relations & integrated communications. Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1991). Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 12, pp. 331–358). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T. (2003). Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 109–120. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00028-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 73–94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagley, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.

  • Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory ad measurement (pp. 477–492). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient sm: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C.J., & Rindova, V. (2000). The road to transparency: Reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell. In M., Schultz, M. J. Hatch and M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation and the corporate brand (pp. 77–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2003). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79–90. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(199301)30:1<79::AID-PITS2310300113>3.0.CO;2-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, G. (2002). Reputation management. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, P. W., & Chressanthis, G. A. (1994). The role of intercollegiate sports and NCAA sanctions in alumni contributions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 27–40. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1994.tb02669.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–48). Boston: International Thomson Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2000). Public relations in strategic management and strategic management of public relations: Theory and research from the IABC excellence project. Journalism Studies, 1, 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Educator’s 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 117–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagborg, W. J. (1998). An investigation of a brief measure of school membership. Adolescnece, 33(130), 461–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331–344. doi:10.1177/109467050134006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill & Knowlton. (n.d.). Shell: Reputation, relationships, results. Accessed 14 February 2005 from http://www.hillandknowlton.com/global/company/case_studies.

  • Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. (2001). Measuring public relationships among students and administrators at the University of Florida. Journal of Communication Management, 6(3), 227–238. doi:10.1108/13632540210807071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 23, 165–178. doi:10.1080/014904001316896855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Huang, Y. H. (1998). Public relations strategies and organization-public relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore.

  • Hueston, F. R. (1992). Predicting alumni giving: A donor analysis test. Fund Raising Management, 23(5), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alexander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review, 27, 247–261. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00085-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilchman, W. F., Katz, S. N., & Queen, II, E. L., (Eds.). (1998). Philanthropy in the world’s traditions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2004). Organization-public relationships: Measurement validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication Management, 9(1), 14–27. doi:10.1108/13632540510621434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 318–340. doi:10.2307/2673138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund-raising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1–23. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1901_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2000). Measuring the bottom-line impact of corporate public relations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 273–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2001). Measuring the economic value of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 3–26. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2005). An empirical study on the determinants of giving intention, giving satisfaction, and giving regularity of university donators. Journal of Korean Marketing Association, 20(4), 57–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 115–1377). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Institute of Public Finance. (2007). A plan to stimulate donation culture. Seoul: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. 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. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leppel, K. (2005). College persistence and student attitudes toward financial success. College Student Journal, 39(2), 223–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, W. E. & Winship, C. (1994). A logit model with interactions for predicting major gift donors. Research in Higher Education, 35(6), 729–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Ashfold, A. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, K. A., Mullin, C. H., & Siegfried, J. J. (2005). Undergraduate financial aid and subsequent alumni giving behavior. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 45, 123–143. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2003.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87–104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mixer, J. R. (1993). Principles of professional fundraising. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monks, J. (2003). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 121–130. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00036-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. doi:10.2307/1252308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hair, D., Friedrich, G. W., Wiemann, J. M., & Wiemann, M. O. (1995). Competent communication. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okunade, A. A. (1996). Graduate school alumni donations to academic funds: Micro-data evidence. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55(2), 213–229. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1996.tb03201.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford University Press. (1979). The Oxford dictionary of quotations (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panus, J. (1984). Megagifts: Who gives them, who gets them. Chicago: Pluribus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, P., & Wethington, D. (1996). Fund-raising appeals to alumni: Two experiments. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 51(1), 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppard, J. (2000). Customer relationship management (CRM) in financial services. European Management Journal, 18, 312–327. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(00)00013-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Planalp, S. (1987). Interplay between relational knowledge and events. In R. Burnett & P. McGhee (Eds.), Accounting for relationships: Explanation, representation and knowledge. New York: Info Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, V. (1992). Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy: A new approach to cultivating major donors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinchheld, F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits and lasting value. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, Y. (2004). The employee-public-organization chain in relationship management: A case study of a government organization. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, T. A., & Gerking, S. (2000). Educational contributions, academic quality, and athletic success. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(2), 248–258. doi:10.1093/cep/18.2.248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2002). Accumulating reputation through strategic action flows: Lessons from Amazon.com and its competitors in Internet retailing. Unpublished paper, University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J., & Larsen, M. H. (2000). Introduction: Why the expressive organization? In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand (pp. 1–7). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242. doi:10.1177/0265407591082004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stage, F. K., & Hossler, D. (2000). Where is the students. In J. M. Braxton (Eds.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 170–195). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, B. (1949). Stevenson’s book of proverbs, maxims and familiar phrases. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, B. (1974). Stevenson’s book of quotations (10th ed.). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundeen, R. A., & Raskoff, S. A. (1995). Teenage volunteers and their values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24, 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundeen, R. A., Raskoff, S. A., & Garcia, M. C. (2007). Differences in perceived barriers to volunteering to formal organizations: Lack of time versus lack of interest. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(3), 279–300. doi:10.1002/nml.150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623. doi:10.2307/2959965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokumura, S. S. (2001). Fundraising mores in diverse communities: The role of ethnicity and culture. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 34(Winter), 3–30. doi:10.1002/pf.3401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on “the public”. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 139–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker Information. (2003, March 11). Customer loyalty. Accessed 14 February 2005 from http://www.walkerinfo.com/products/customer.

  • Wehlage, G. (1989). Dropping out: Can schools be expected to prevent it. In L. Weis, E. Farrar, & H. Petrie (Eds.), Dropouts from school (pp. 1–19). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesk, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunnava, P. V., & Lauze, M. A. (2001). Alumni giving at a small liberal arts college: Evidence from consistent and occasional donors. Economics of Education Review, 20(6), 533–543. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(00)00023-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S.-U. (2007a). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their Antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S.-U. (2007b). Reputation management for organizations: Effects of organization-public relationships. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 305–326. doi:10.1108/13632540510621623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minjung Sung.

Appendix: “Student–university relational outcomes” scale items

Appendix: “Student–university relational outcomes” scale items

Control mutuality

This university and students are attentive to what each other say.

This university believes students’ opinions are legitimate.

In dealing with students, this university has a tendency to throw its weight around (Reversed).

This university really listens to what students have to say.

Commitment

I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to students.

There is a long-lasting bond between this university and students.

Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this university more.

Relational satisfaction

I am happy with this university.

Both the university and students benefit from the relationship.

Most students are happy in interactions with this university.

Relational trust

This university treats students fairly.

Whenever this university makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about students.

This university can be relied on to keep its promise.

I believe that this university takes students’ opinions into account when making decisions.

This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sung, M., Yang, SU. Student–university relationships and reputation: a study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university. High Educ 57, 787–811 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9176-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9176-7

Keywords

Navigation