The roles of student trust, identity and commitment in the relationship between university reputation and behavioral intention

1 and 4 were that the majority of experts and graduates participating in the discussion agreed that the reputation of the university is expressible through 6 components: (1) Leadership (2) Student support (3) Social contributions (4) Environment (5) Funding (6) Research and development Results of seminar discussions for the third time. Participants in group 3 were asked, “What do you think about the relationship between university reputation and student behavioral intention?” The participating lecturers answered as follows: LE1G3 thought that participating students were studying at a prestigious university and would visit this university after graduation. LE2G3 stated an intention to select this university for further study in the future. LE3G3 stated an intention to recommend that friends and relatives study at this university. LE4G3 stated an intention to speak highly of this university to others. LE5G3 stated an intention to contribute 72 mentally and materially to the development of the university, if possible. LE6G3 stated that if they are successful in the future, they will help graduates from this university. LE7G3 thought that participating students were studying at a national key university and would visit this university after graduation. LE8G3 stated an intention to select this university for further study in the future. LE9G3 stated an intention to recommend that friends and relatives study at this university. LE10G3 stated an intention to speak highly about this university to others. LE11G3 stated an intention to contribute mentally and materially to the development of the university, if possible. LE12G3 stated that if they are successful in the future, they will help graduates from this university. LE13G3 thought that participating students were studying at an honest and reliable university and would visit this university after graduation. LE14G3 stated an intention to select this university for further study in the future. LE15G3 stated an intention to recommend that friends and relatives study at this university. LE16G3 stated an intention to speak highly about this university to others. LE17G3 stated an intention to contribute mentally and materially to the development of the university, if possible. LE18G3 stated that if they are successful in the future, they will help graduates from this university. LE19G3 thought that participating students were studying at a university that has made a great contribution to society and that students would return to visit this university after graduation. LE20G3 stated an intention to select this university for further study in the future. LE21G3 stated an intention to recommend that friends and relatives study at this university. LE22G3 stated an intention to speak highly about this university to others. LE1G3 stated an intention to contribute mentally and materially to the development of the university, if possible. LE2G3 stated that if they are successful in the future, they will help graduates from this university. LE5G3 thought that participating students were studying at a university that is familiar to many students and that students would visit this university after graduation. 73 LE6G3 stated an intention to select this university for further study in the future. LE7G3 stated an intention to recommend that friends and relatives study at this university. LE8G3 stated an intention to speak highly about this university to others. LE9G3 stated an intention to contribute mentally and materially to the development of the university, if possible. LE10G3 stated that if they were successful in the future, they will help graduates from this university. LE3G3 thought that graduates from the university of participating students would easily be recruited into domestic and foreign companies and would visit this university after graduation. LE4G3 stated an intention to select this university for further study in the future. LE7G3 stated an intention to recommend that friends and relatives study at this university. LE4G3 stated an intention to speak highly about this university to others. LE5G3 stated an intention to contribute mentally and materially to the development of the school, if possible. LE6G3 stated that if they are successful in the future, they will help graduates from this university. Here, the relationship between university reputation and the behavioral intention of learners is positive. (2) The roles of student trust, student identity, and student commitment in mediating the relationship between university reputation and student behavioral intention, according to expert and personal viewpoints. The first group discussion focused only on exploring the components that create university reputation, while the second group discussion focused on reviewing whether it was possible to discover any new components. Therefore, the first and second group discussions effectively recorded the scales for each component of university reputation. After identifying the components that create the university reputation through the first and second group discussions, we relied on the scales of the components utilized in previous studies but explored the first and second group discussions as a basis for further discovery, adjustment, and inclusion of component scales to suit the perceptions of 74 experts, lecturers, and individuals on university reputation in the Vietnamese market. Through the 4 th group discussion, we wanted to examine the roles of student trust, student identification, and student commitment in mediating the relationship between university reputation and student behavioral intention. When asked “What do you think about the roles of student trust, student identity, and student commitment in the relationship between university reputation and student behavioral intention?”, the specialists answered as follows: SP1G2 thought that university reputation impacted student trust in higher education because university reputation has a very significant impact on university trust. SP1G2 thought that university reputation impacted student identity in higher education because university identity has a very positive effect on university reputation. SP1G2 thought that student trust and student identity research had examined the direct influence of student trust on student–university identity, so student trust must impact student identity in higher education. SP1G2 thought that trust was an essential factor that influenced commitment to a university, so student trust must impact student commitment to higher education. SP1G2 thought that identity was a crucial variable for developing commitment, so student identity must impact student commitment to higher education. SP1G2 thought that the evidence showed a linkage between trust and behavioral intention, so student trust must impact behavioral intention in higher education. SP1G2 thought that university identity had a significant impact on student intention, so student identity must impact behavioral intention in higher education. SP1G2 thought that student commitment was related to student behavior, so student commitment must impact behavioral intention in higher education. Discussion with SP1G2 indicated that the roles of student trust, student identity, and student commitment in mediating the relationship between university reputation and 75 student behavioral intention are quite complex, and SP1G2’s comments prompted the author to reexamine these roles in the data analysis. To sum up: through the 4th group discussion, we explored the roles of student trust, student identification, and student commitment in mediating the relationship between university reputation and student behavioral intention. The specialists agreed that these relationships are new. Other members continued to discuss in order to adjust some observations, and they added new observations to the research model, as follows. Measuring Social Contributions Social Contribution is a comprehensive measurement of social contributions developed by Esangbedo and Bai (2019), Chen and Esangbedo (2018), Nikou and Economides (2017), Plewa et al. (2016), and Calitz et al. (2016). This scale is related to a student’s community, social influences, jobs, and available equipment. Because this concept is new in Vietnam, there are currently many divergent views on its measurement. Therefore, referring to previous studies, the author conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results showed that most of the variables considered were similar to the selected scale, and they suggested a new item: "This university name positively influences the value of my degree." The results of the component are shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Social Contributions items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by q Q1 Social Contributions My university strongly supports the Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019); 76 community. Nikou and Economides (2017). Q Q2 My university has a positive social influence. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019); Nikou and Economides (2017). Q Q3 My university will help student graduates get better jobs. Calitz et al. (2016); Esangbedo and Bai (2019); Plewa et al. (2016). Q Q4 Graduates from this university are well equipped for the workplace. New. Q Q5 This university name positively influences the value of my degree. New. Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion. Measuring Environment “Environment” is a comprehensive measurement developed by Del-Castillo- Feito et al. (2020), Esangbedo and Bai (2019), Chen and Esangbedo (2018), Verčič et al. (2016), and Badri and Mohaidat, (2014). This scale includes a safe, clean, and pleasant environment for students, cultural diversity, and international renown. Because this theory is new in Vietnam, there are many different measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, the author conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results showed that 77 most of the items considered were similar to the selected scale, and they recommended two new items: "The university's physical facilities are visually appealing” and This university provides up-to-date university equipment." The results of this variable are shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Environment items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q6 Environments My university has a safe, clean, and pleasant environment for students to learn in. Badri and Mohaidat (2014); Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Del-Castillo-Feito et al. (2020). Q Q7 My university’s learning environment has cultural diversity. Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q8 My university is internationally renowned. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Verčič et al. (2016). Q Q9 The university’s physical facilities are visually appealing. New. 78 Q Q10 This university provides up- to-date equipment. New. Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion. Measuring Leadership Leadership is a measurement developed by Fombrun et al. (2000), Fombrun et al. (2015), Chen and Esangbedo (2018), and Esangbedo and Bai (2019). This independent variable describes lecturers, prestigious professors, and the vision of development, the latest technology, and strong academic support. Because this theory is new in Vietnam, there are many different measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, the author conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results illustrated that most of the items considered were similar to the selected scale. The results of these components are shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.4. Leadership items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q11 Leadership This university has excellent leadership. Fombrun et al. (2000). Q Q12 This university employs prestigious professors. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019); Fombrun et al. (2015). Q This university has a clear vision of development. Chen and Esangbedo 79 Q13 (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019); Fombrun et al. (2000); Fombrun et al. (2015). Q Q14 Courses are designed in this university to make use of the latest technology. Chen and Moses Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q15 This university recognizes and takes advantage of market opportunities. Fombrun et al. (2000). Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion. Measuring Funding Funding is a measure developed by Chen and Esangbedo (2018) and Esangbedo and Bai (2019). This independent variable describes the cost of living, financial worries, scholarships, research grants, and tuition fees. Because this scale is new in Vietnam, there are many different measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, we conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results illustrated that most of the items considered were similar to the selected scale. The items of this component are shown in Table 3.5. Table 3.5. Funding items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q16 Funding The cost of living is this university is reasonable. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai 80 (2019). Q Q17 I sometimes feel pressured by financial worries. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q18 This university receives funds from the government to give scholarships to students. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q19 This university provides grants for research conducted by students. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q20 Tuition fees are competitive with other similar universities. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019) Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion Measuring Research and Development Research and Development is a measure designed by Chen and Esangbedo (2018) and Esangbedo and Bai (2019). This independent variable describes a university’s technological trends, key national projects, innovative publications, working conditions, and library. Because this variable is new in Vietnam, there are many measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, we conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results demonstrated that most of the items considered were related to the selected scale. The items of this element are shown in Table 3.6. 81 Table 3.6. Research and Development items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q21 R&D This university follows technological trends in conveying knowledge. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q22 This university takes part in key national projects. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q23 This university is innovative in its publications. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q24 Equipment is in good working condition and properly maintained. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Q Q25 The library is provided with up- to-date books and sources. Chen and Esangbedo (2018); Esangbedo and Bai (2019). Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion Measuring Student Guidance Student Guidance is a measurement developed by Plewa et al. (2016). This scale describes student guidance counselors, consultation availability, and university interactions with the student. Because this theory is new in Vietnam, there are many different measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, the author 82 conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results showed that most of the items considered were related to the elected scale, and they recommended two new items: “My university respects students freely and privately” and “My university is available for consultation and vocational guidance." The results of this variable are shown in Table 3.7. Table 3.7. Student Guidance items \ No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q26 Student Guidance Our guidance counselors understand my needs. Plewa et al. (2016) Q Q27 My university is available for consultation when students need it. Plewa et al. ( 2016) Q Q28 My university makes interacting easy. Plewa et al. (2016) Q Q29 My university respects students’ freedom and privacy. New Q Q30 My university is available for consultation and vocational guidance. New Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion 83 Measuring Student Trust The below scale is used to assess the customers’ overall trust structure. Four items were adapted from the scales of Liu et al. (2019), Rather (2018), Heffernan et al. (2018), Agarwal et al. (2015), and Meer and Chapman (2014), which measure customer trust, to instead measure perceived university brand trust, perceived university brand honesty, perceived university brand safety, and university brand engagement. The results of this variable are shown in Table 3.8. Table 3.8. Student Trust items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q31 Student Trust I trust this university brand. Agarwal et al. (2015); Liu et al. (2019); Rather (2018). Q Q32 This is an honest university brand. Rather (2018). Q Q33 This university brand is safe. Rather (2018). Q Q34 I engage with this university brand. Agarwal et al. (2015); Heffernan et al. (2018); Meer and Chapman (2014). Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion 84 The measurement of Student Identity Student Identity is a measurement developed by Rather (2018), Mitchell et al. (2018), Agarwal et al. (2015), and Keh and Xie (2009). This scale represents the university brand, university brand successes, discussion of the university brand, and identification with the university brand. Because this theory is new in Vietnam, there are many different measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, we conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results of this variable are shown in Table 3.9. Table 3.9. Student Identity items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by 3 Q35 Student identity When someone criticizes this university brand, it feels like a personal insult. Agarwal et al. (2015); Keh and Xie (2009); Rather (2018). Q Q36 This university brand’s successes are my successes. Agarwal et al (2015); Mitchell et al. (2018). Q Q37 When I talk about this university brand, I usually say “we” rather than “they.” Agarwal et al. (2015); Rather (2018). Q Q38 When someone praises this university brand, it feels like a personal compliment. Agarwal et al. (2015); Keh and Xie (2009); Rather (2018). Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion. 85 Measuring Student Commitment Student Commitment is a measurement developed by Liu et al. (2019), Rather (2018), and M. Chen (2018). This scale describes the commitment to a university brand, pride associated with belonging to the university brand, care for the long-term success of the university brand, and commitment to the positive attitude and behavior of the university’s students. Because this theory is new in Vietnam, many different measurement techniques. Therefore, referring to previous studies, we conducted a group interview with the remaining members of the four groups. The results of this variable are shown in Table 3.10. Table 3.10. Student Commitment items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by 3 Q39 Student Commitment I am committed to this university brand. Liu et al. (2019); Rather (2018). Q Q40 I am proud to belong to this university brand. Rather (2018). Q Q41 I am a loyal customer of this university brand. Rather (2018). Q Q42 I care about the long-term success of this university brand. Rather (2018). Q Q43 I am committed to the positive attitude and behavior of these M. Chen (2018). 86 university students. Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion Measuring Behavioral Intention Nuraryo et al. (2018), Nikou and Economides (2017), Twaissi, and Al-Kilani (2015) suggested that Behavioral Intention should be measured by student loyalty indicators such as the intention to study, consideration of this university as a student’s first choice, and plans to study with this university’s master's program. As a result of the study, Behavioral Intention was measured using an instrument accepted by the above authors. Components of Behavioral Intention are listed in Table 3.11. Table 3.11. Behavioral Intention items No. Variable Measuring items Proposed by Q Q44 Behavioral Intention I intend to study most of the relevant courses in my master's program at this university in the future. Nikou and Economides (2017); Nuraryo et al. (2018); Twaissi and Al-Kilani (2015). Q Q45 I consider this university my first choice when it comes to where to study my master’s program. Nikou and Economides (2017); Nuraryo et al. (2018); Twaissi and Al-Kilani (2015). 87 Q Q46 I plan to study at this university’s master's program in the next few years. Nikou and Economides (2017); Nuraryo et al. (2018); Twaissi and Al-Kilani (2015). Source: Author’s review—adjusted after discussion Measuring business reputation Reputation measurement has grown in recent years. Researchers have sought ways to overcome the disadvantages of previous measurement techniques. It can be fairly stated that reputation is not an easily measured variable; there are still many unresolved concerns connected to its analysis (Fombrun, 2005). Perhaps the best-known measurements are rankings published by various. According to Fombrun (2012), there are more than 183 reputable rankings across 38 different countries. Many media companies conduct commercial ranking surveys; the oldest and most common is Fortune's America's Most Admired Companies (AMAC), which investigates and ranks the most prestigious companies in the U.S. AMAC, which is both the most widely used and publicly accessible ranking, has been published every year since 1982 (Fombrun, 2007). Since its inception, the survey has asked executives and managers about their views on the 500 most reputable businesses, and since 1995, it has also inquired about the 1,000 most popular. AMAC's measurement includes eight key attributes: financial capacity, long-term investments, asset utilization, creativity, management quality, product and service quality, attractiveness, development, and retention of talent, and social responsibility. The Financial Times' survey of the world's most respected businesses includes a questionnaire featuring eight key business 88 attributes: strong and strategic planning, maximizing the satisfaction and loyalty of customers, business leadership, product and service quality, robustness and profitability consistent with performance, a holistic and cohesive corporate culture, effective changes of the board, and globalization of business. The value of pioneering is accepted in both sets of attributes. However, an essential problem continues to exist with reputation measurements: they lack a defined methodology and display the possibility of bias (Fryxell and Wang, 1994). Some measurements are performed by experts (i.e., they cannot be replicated), while others are taken using private information and therefore have not been verified (Fombrun, 2005; Fombrun et al., 2015). Further, it is difficult for a group of experts to incorporate the diversity of key organizational stakeholders’ perceptions. Moreover, the issue of financial bias is often alleged. The Fortune list relies on data obtained only from directors, managers, and financial analysts. This reflects a general tendency to overemphasize certain considered groups. Conversely, rankings that are based on public polls are generally problematic as well because it is difficult to aggregate all the components of reputation from the individual opinions of a random sample (Fombrun et al., 2000). Discussing measurement scales in existing research In research, many authors have tried to develop measure