Examining the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from others on university choice

Phoebe Wong; Peggy M.L. Ng; Daisy Lee; Regan Lam

doi:10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190

Examining the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from others on university choice

Phoebe Wong, Peggy M.L. Ng, Daisy Lee, Regan Lam

Division of Business and Hospitality Management (BHM)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Understanding the influences in the decision-making process of prospective students when choosing a university is crucial in student recruitment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from significant others (e.g. parents, peers and teachers) on university choice. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 626 samples from eight government-subsidised secondary schools were collected and tested using the component-based structural equation modelling of partial least squares. Findings: The findings verified factors of source credibility that determine prospective students’ attitudes towards taking advice from others. Attitudes and subjective norms explained 49 per cent of the variance in intention to take advice from others on university choice. The findings of the present study provide practical marketing insights for enrolment and recruitment managers. Originality/value: While most studies focus on students’ university choice in the recruitment process, studies on perceived source credibility of significant others in the university choice decision-making process are limited.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	709-724
Journal	International Journal of Educational Management
Volume	34
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190
Publication status	Published - 1 Apr 2020

Keywords

Education
Self-financing
Source credibility theory
Theory of Reasoned Action
University marketing
University recruitment

Access to Document

10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190

Cite this

@article{80baa9daea804bc9877848e6e5b0fbac,

title = "Examining the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from others on university choice",

abstract = "Purpose: Understanding the influences in the decision-making process of prospective students when choosing a university is crucial in student recruitment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from significant others (e.g. parents, peers and teachers) on university choice. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 626 samples from eight government-subsidised secondary schools were collected and tested using the component-based structural equation modelling of partial least squares. Findings: The findings verified factors of source credibility that determine prospective students{\textquoteright} attitudes towards taking advice from others. Attitudes and subjective norms explained 49 per cent of the variance in intention to take advice from others on university choice. The findings of the present study provide practical marketing insights for enrolment and recruitment managers. Originality/value: While most studies focus on students{\textquoteright} university choice in the recruitment process, studies on perceived source credibility of significant others in the university choice decision-making process are limited.",

keywords = "Education, Self-financing, Source credibility theory, Theory of Reasoned Action, University marketing, University recruitment",

author = "Phoebe Wong and Ng, {Peggy M.L.} and Daisy Lee and Regan Lam",

note = "Funding Information: This paper was partially supported by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Funding Information: The findings provide practical marketing insights for enrolment and recruitment managers. Prospective students take advice from others (e.g. parents, family members, peers and teachers) regarding university choice when they think others have believable, truthful and knowledgeable advice to offer. Hence, there are different stakeholders in prospective students{\textquoteright} decision-making process. Prospective students do not make decisions alone. Instead, they are likely to seek advice from various key stakeholders such as parents, teachers or friends who are knowledgeable, reliable and similar to them. Hence, recruitment managers need to carefully identify, understand and convey effective messages regarding their university{\textquoteright}s value proposition to key stakeholders through different marketing channels ( Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006 ; Maringe, 2006 ; Rutter et al ., 2016 ). Some studies have concluded that parents are key influencers in the choice of university as they contribute to students{\textquoteright} financial support ( Brown and Geddes, 2006 ; Shanka et al ., 2006 ). For example, parents tend to have concerns about the return on investment of tuition fees in relation to students{\textquoteright} employability and career development ( Brown and Geddes, 2006 ). Maringe{\textquoteright}s (2006) study also confirmed that secondary school teachers influenced students{\textquoteright} interest in university courses and “could be universities{\textquoteright} greatest allies in helping students{\textquoteright} decision-making about higher education study” (p. 473). Friends and peers focusing on social life and campus facilities might also have an impact on prospective students{\textquoteright} decision-making ( Soutar and Turner, 2002 ). Enrolment and recruitment managers need to understand the sources of information (e.g. parents, secondary school teachers, friends or significant others) and formulate effective marketing strategies and communications efforts in order to influence prospective students{\textquoteright} university choice and decision-making process. This paper was partially supported by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Figure 1 Theoretical framework of the present study Figure 2 Results of the structural equation model Table I Questionnaire items Construct Adapted from Construct 1: attitudes ATT_1: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others is useful Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) , Cheon et al . (2002) ATT_2: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others can help me make a better decision ATT_3: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others is necessary ATT_4: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others is easy ATT_5: In the process of choosing a university, it is helpful for me to take advice from others Construct 2: subjective norms NORM_1: My parents and family members think I should take their advice when choosing universities Gatfield and Chen (2006) NORM_2: My friends think I should take their advice when choosing universities NORM_3: My senior fellow classmates or alumni think I should take their advice when choosing universities NORM_4: My secondary school teachers think I should take their advice when choosing universities Construct 3: intention INT_1: I intend to take advice from others Gatfield and Chen (2006) INT_2: I plan to talk to others to get more advice INT_3: I will seek others{\textquoteright} advice every time I have an opportunity Construct 4: expertise EXPERT_1: I seek advice from others who are knowledgeable Reichelt et al . (2014) EXPERT_2: I seek advice from others who have studied at universities in Hong Kong EXPERT_3: I seek advice from others who understand the education system in Hong Kong Construct 5: trustworthiness TRUST_1: I seek advice from others who give me honest advice on university choice Reichelt et al . (2014) TRUST_2: I seek advice from others who give me reliable advice on university choice TRUST_3: I seek advice from others whose advice on university choice appears to be dependable Construct 6: similarity SIM_1: I seek advice from others who have similar values Reichelt et al . (2014) SIM_2: I seek advice from others who have similar interests SIM_3: I seek advice from others who have similar preferences Table II Measurement model assessment Construct Item Loading Cronbach{\textquoteright}s α Composite reliability AVE Attitudes ATT_1 0.876 0.885 0.916 0.687 ATT_2 0.839 ATT_3 0.832 ATT_4 0.735 ATT_5 0.855 Norms NORM_1 0.736 0.765 0.864 0.679 NORM_2 0.807 NORM_3 0.832 NORM_4 0.795 Intention INT_1 0.931 0.902 0.938 0.836 INT_2 0.913 INT_3 0.898 Expertise EXPERT_1 0.837 0.870 0.900 0.565 EXPERT_2 0.788 EXPERT_3 0.845 Trustworthiness TRUST_1 0.929 0.887 0.930 0.815 TRUST_2 0.943 TRUST_3 0.926 Similarity SIM_1 0.886 0.925 0.953 0.870 SIM_2 0.914 SIM_3 0.909 Table III Discriminant validity HTMT ratio Confidence interval low Confidence interval up Attitudes → intention 0.757 0.498 0.664 Expertise → attitudes 0.566 0.170 0.381 Expertise → intention 0.468 0.071 0.308 Expertise → norms 0.426 0.134 0.320 Norms→ intention 0.440 0.051 0.219 Similarity → attitudes 0.354 0.037 0.212 Similarity → intention 0.339 0.044 0.251 Similarity → norms 0.284 0.019 0.212 Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.500 0.113 0.310 Trustworthiness → intention 0.435 0.083 0.344 Trustworthiness→ norm 0.351 0.028 0.217 Table IV Total effects Path coefficient ( O ) T -statistics p -values Attitudes → intention 0.581 14.064 0.000 Expertise → attitudes 0.274 5.070 0.000 Expertise → intention 0.186 3.141 0.002 Expertise → norms 0.226 4.709 0.000 Norms→ intention 0.133 3.095 0.002 Similarity → Attitudes 0.124 2.807 0.005 Similarity → intention 0.150 2.912 0.004 Similarity → norms 0.121 2.468 0.014 Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.217 4.199 0.000 Trustworthiness → intention 0.211 3.137 0.002 Trustworthiness→ norm 0.120 2.473 0.014 Table V Indirect effects Path coefficient ( O ) T -statistics p -values Expertise → intention 0.190 5.307 0.000 Similarity → intention 0.089 3.145 0.002 Trustworthiness → intention 0.142 4.247 0.000 Table VI Direct effects Path coefficient ( O ) T -statistics p -values Attitudes → intention 0.581 14.064 0.000 Expertise → attitudes 0.274 5.070 0.000 Expertise → intention −0.004 0.078 0.938 Expertise → norms 0.226 4.709 0.000 Norms→ intention 0.133 3.095 0.002 Similarity → Attitudes 0.124 2.807 0.005 Similarity → intention 0.061 1.511 0.131 Similarity → norms 0.121 2.468 0.014 Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.217 4.199 0.000 Trustworthiness → intention 0.068 1.156 0.248 Trustworthiness → norm 0.120 2.473 0.014 Table VII Results of hypothesis testing Hypothesis Item Path coefficient t -value p -value Result H1 Attitudes → intention 0.581 14.064 0.000*** Supported H2 Subjective norms → intention 0.133 3.095 0.002** Supported H3a Expertise → attitudes 0.274 5.070 0.000*** Supported H3b Expertise → subjective norms 0.226 4.709 0.000*** Supported H4a Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.217 4.199 0.000*** Supported H4b Trustworthiness → subjective norms 0.120 2.473 0.014* Supported H5a Similarity → attitudes 0.124 2.807 0.005** Supported H5b Similarity → subjective norms 0.121 2.468 0.014* Supported H6 Expertise → intention −0.004 0.078 0.938 Rejected H7 Trustworthiness → intention 0.068 1.156 0.248 Rejected H8 Similarity → intention 0.061 1.511 0.131 Rejected Notes: n =626 cases; bootstrap samples=5,000. * p <0.05; ** p <0.01; *** p <0.001 Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited.",

year = "2020",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190",

language = "English",

volume = "34",

pages = "709--724",

journal = "International Journal of Educational Management",

issn = "0951-354X",

publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examining the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from others on university choice

AU - Wong, Phoebe

AU - Ng, Peggy M.L.

AU - Lee, Daisy

AU - Lam, Regan

N1 - Funding Information: This paper was partially supported by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Funding Information: The findings provide practical marketing insights for enrolment and recruitment managers. Prospective students take advice from others (e.g. parents, family members, peers and teachers) regarding university choice when they think others have believable, truthful and knowledgeable advice to offer. Hence, there are different stakeholders in prospective students’ decision-making process. Prospective students do not make decisions alone. Instead, they are likely to seek advice from various key stakeholders such as parents, teachers or friends who are knowledgeable, reliable and similar to them. Hence, recruitment managers need to carefully identify, understand and convey effective messages regarding their university’s value proposition to key stakeholders through different marketing channels ( Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006 ; Maringe, 2006 ; Rutter et al ., 2016 ). Some studies have concluded that parents are key influencers in the choice of university as they contribute to students’ financial support ( Brown and Geddes, 2006 ; Shanka et al ., 2006 ). For example, parents tend to have concerns about the return on investment of tuition fees in relation to students’ employability and career development ( Brown and Geddes, 2006 ). Maringe’s (2006) study also confirmed that secondary school teachers influenced students’ interest in university courses and “could be universities’ greatest allies in helping students’ decision-making about higher education study” (p. 473). Friends and peers focusing on social life and campus facilities might also have an impact on prospective students’ decision-making ( Soutar and Turner, 2002 ). Enrolment and recruitment managers need to understand the sources of information (e.g. parents, secondary school teachers, friends or significant others) and formulate effective marketing strategies and communications efforts in order to influence prospective students’ university choice and decision-making process. This paper was partially supported by the College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Figure 1 Theoretical framework of the present study Figure 2 Results of the structural equation model Table I Questionnaire items Construct Adapted from Construct 1: attitudes ATT_1: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others is useful Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) , Cheon et al . (2002) ATT_2: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others can help me make a better decision ATT_3: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others is necessary ATT_4: In the process of choosing a university, taking advice from others is easy ATT_5: In the process of choosing a university, it is helpful for me to take advice from others Construct 2: subjective norms NORM_1: My parents and family members think I should take their advice when choosing universities Gatfield and Chen (2006) NORM_2: My friends think I should take their advice when choosing universities NORM_3: My senior fellow classmates or alumni think I should take their advice when choosing universities NORM_4: My secondary school teachers think I should take their advice when choosing universities Construct 3: intention INT_1: I intend to take advice from others Gatfield and Chen (2006) INT_2: I plan to talk to others to get more advice INT_3: I will seek others’ advice every time I have an opportunity Construct 4: expertise EXPERT_1: I seek advice from others who are knowledgeable Reichelt et al . (2014) EXPERT_2: I seek advice from others who have studied at universities in Hong Kong EXPERT_3: I seek advice from others who understand the education system in Hong Kong Construct 5: trustworthiness TRUST_1: I seek advice from others who give me honest advice on university choice Reichelt et al . (2014) TRUST_2: I seek advice from others who give me reliable advice on university choice TRUST_3: I seek advice from others whose advice on university choice appears to be dependable Construct 6: similarity SIM_1: I seek advice from others who have similar values Reichelt et al . (2014) SIM_2: I seek advice from others who have similar interests SIM_3: I seek advice from others who have similar preferences Table II Measurement model assessment Construct Item Loading Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE Attitudes ATT_1 0.876 0.885 0.916 0.687 ATT_2 0.839 ATT_3 0.832 ATT_4 0.735 ATT_5 0.855 Norms NORM_1 0.736 0.765 0.864 0.679 NORM_2 0.807 NORM_3 0.832 NORM_4 0.795 Intention INT_1 0.931 0.902 0.938 0.836 INT_2 0.913 INT_3 0.898 Expertise EXPERT_1 0.837 0.870 0.900 0.565 EXPERT_2 0.788 EXPERT_3 0.845 Trustworthiness TRUST_1 0.929 0.887 0.930 0.815 TRUST_2 0.943 TRUST_3 0.926 Similarity SIM_1 0.886 0.925 0.953 0.870 SIM_2 0.914 SIM_3 0.909 Table III Discriminant validity HTMT ratio Confidence interval low Confidence interval up Attitudes → intention 0.757 0.498 0.664 Expertise → attitudes 0.566 0.170 0.381 Expertise → intention 0.468 0.071 0.308 Expertise → norms 0.426 0.134 0.320 Norms→ intention 0.440 0.051 0.219 Similarity → attitudes 0.354 0.037 0.212 Similarity → intention 0.339 0.044 0.251 Similarity → norms 0.284 0.019 0.212 Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.500 0.113 0.310 Trustworthiness → intention 0.435 0.083 0.344 Trustworthiness→ norm 0.351 0.028 0.217 Table IV Total effects Path coefficient ( O ) T -statistics p -values Attitudes → intention 0.581 14.064 0.000 Expertise → attitudes 0.274 5.070 0.000 Expertise → intention 0.186 3.141 0.002 Expertise → norms 0.226 4.709 0.000 Norms→ intention 0.133 3.095 0.002 Similarity → Attitudes 0.124 2.807 0.005 Similarity → intention 0.150 2.912 0.004 Similarity → norms 0.121 2.468 0.014 Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.217 4.199 0.000 Trustworthiness → intention 0.211 3.137 0.002 Trustworthiness→ norm 0.120 2.473 0.014 Table V Indirect effects Path coefficient ( O ) T -statistics p -values Expertise → intention 0.190 5.307 0.000 Similarity → intention 0.089 3.145 0.002 Trustworthiness → intention 0.142 4.247 0.000 Table VI Direct effects Path coefficient ( O ) T -statistics p -values Attitudes → intention 0.581 14.064 0.000 Expertise → attitudes 0.274 5.070 0.000 Expertise → intention −0.004 0.078 0.938 Expertise → norms 0.226 4.709 0.000 Norms→ intention 0.133 3.095 0.002 Similarity → Attitudes 0.124 2.807 0.005 Similarity → intention 0.061 1.511 0.131 Similarity → norms 0.121 2.468 0.014 Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.217 4.199 0.000 Trustworthiness → intention 0.068 1.156 0.248 Trustworthiness → norm 0.120 2.473 0.014 Table VII Results of hypothesis testing Hypothesis Item Path coefficient t -value p -value Result H1 Attitudes → intention 0.581 14.064 0.000*** Supported H2 Subjective norms → intention 0.133 3.095 0.002** Supported H3a Expertise → attitudes 0.274 5.070 0.000*** Supported H3b Expertise → subjective norms 0.226 4.709 0.000*** Supported H4a Trustworthiness → attitudes 0.217 4.199 0.000*** Supported H4b Trustworthiness → subjective norms 0.120 2.473 0.014* Supported H5a Similarity → attitudes 0.124 2.807 0.005** Supported H5b Similarity → subjective norms 0.121 2.468 0.014* Supported H6 Expertise → intention −0.004 0.078 0.938 Rejected H7 Trustworthiness → intention 0.068 1.156 0.248 Rejected H8 Similarity → intention 0.061 1.511 0.131 Rejected Notes: n =626 cases; bootstrap samples=5,000. * p <0.05; ** p <0.01; *** p <0.001 Publisher Copyright: © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited.

PY - 2020/4/1

Y1 - 2020/4/1

N2 - Purpose: Understanding the influences in the decision-making process of prospective students when choosing a university is crucial in student recruitment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from significant others (e.g. parents, peers and teachers) on university choice. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 626 samples from eight government-subsidised secondary schools were collected and tested using the component-based structural equation modelling of partial least squares. Findings: The findings verified factors of source credibility that determine prospective students’ attitudes towards taking advice from others. Attitudes and subjective norms explained 49 per cent of the variance in intention to take advice from others on university choice. The findings of the present study provide practical marketing insights for enrolment and recruitment managers. Originality/value: While most studies focus on students’ university choice in the recruitment process, studies on perceived source credibility of significant others in the university choice decision-making process are limited.

AB - Purpose: Understanding the influences in the decision-making process of prospective students when choosing a university is crucial in student recruitment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from significant others (e.g. parents, peers and teachers) on university choice. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 626 samples from eight government-subsidised secondary schools were collected and tested using the component-based structural equation modelling of partial least squares. Findings: The findings verified factors of source credibility that determine prospective students’ attitudes towards taking advice from others. Attitudes and subjective norms explained 49 per cent of the variance in intention to take advice from others on university choice. The findings of the present study provide practical marketing insights for enrolment and recruitment managers. Originality/value: While most studies focus on students’ university choice in the recruitment process, studies on perceived source credibility of significant others in the university choice decision-making process are limited.

KW - Education

KW - Self-financing

KW - Source credibility theory

KW - Theory of Reasoned Action

KW - University marketing

KW - University recruitment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077162626&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190

DO - 10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85077162626

SN - 0951-354X

VL - 34

SP - 709

EP - 724

JO - International Journal of Educational Management

JF - International Journal of Educational Management

IS - 4

ER -

Examining the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from others on university choice

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this