Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Marketing For Higher Education
Journal of Marketing For Higher Education
Journal of Marketing For Higher Education
To cite this Article Clarke, Geraldine(2005) 'An Examination of 'Self-Monitoring' and the 'Influence of Others' as
Determinants of Attitude to the Higher Education Application Service Process in the UK', Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 15: 1, 1 — 20
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J050v15n01_01
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v15n01_01
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
An Examination of ‘Self-Monitoring’
and the ‘Influence of Others’
as Determinants of Attitude
to the Higher Education
Application Service Process
in the UK
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
Geraldine Clarke
INTRODUCTION
The traditional attitude behaviour link model (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975)
outlines beliefs, attitudes, intention and behaviour as a linear model that re-
lies on ‘intention to act’ and ‘norms’ to regulate behaviour. Aspects of this
linear model are developed in expectancy-value (Bagozzi 1984; Oliver
1997); attitude consistency (Fazio 1986); and self-monitoring research
(Snyder 1979; Ajzen, Timko & White 1982; Kline 1987; Slama & Singley
1996; Aaker 1999).
Geraldine Clarke 5
THE HYPOTHESES
faction with the process. Applicants who rely on peers, i.e., friends,
sisters and brothers, will be listening to more current prior experi-
ence (Fazio & Zanna 1981; Snyder & Kendzierski 1982; Shepherd
1985) than those who rely on parents and schoolteachers. The latter
will be advising students based on experience further in the past. The
recency of the prior indirect experience will affect its relevance.
Applicants who rely on peer advice (Tcp) will be more satisfied (S)
with the application process than those that rely on parental or school
advice because it is more recent and therefore more relevant.
More specifically, the importance of the prior university experience
of these influencers is also hypothesised as being a significant factor in
determining the level of satisfaction with the applicant process. It is sit-
uation-specific; determining the plausibility of the advice (Waly &
Cook 1965; Brigham & Cook 1970) that applicants attach to the advice.
This is investigated in terms of parental advice.
University applicants, who take advice from parents who have had
no experience at university (Tsp), will have less satisfaction (S) with the
university application process than applicants whose parents have had
prior university experience. This is because the advice is less specific
and therefore less plausible.
Finally, it is hypothesised that there will be a difference in the level of
satisfaction with the application process based on the sole or joint deci-
sion to accept the place offered. Stiber’s (2001) decision process model
applied to postgraduate applicants is a comparable research study but
Geraldine Clarke 9
does not deal with the same intervening variables. This present study
centres on young adults, making their first independent decision, and in-
vestigates the effect group decision-making has on the level of satisfac-
tion with the application process. As such, it identifies the cognitive and
affective outcomes of self-monitoring on behaviour as opposed to
attitude.
The number of decision makers (Nd) in the applicant process will sig-
nificantly affect the applicant’s satisfaction (S) with the process.
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
Applicants who rely on peer advice (Tcp) will be more satisfied (S)
with the application process than those that rely on parental or school
advice because it is more recent and therefore more relevant.
Standardised mean factor scores were compared between four groups
of respondents, identified by their advisers: peers, relatives, teachers or
careers advisers. None of the mean scores (PASD1, PASD2, PACON1)
were found to be significantly different across adviser groups. Hypothesis
3 is not proved. Peer influence does not cause significantly greater satis-
faction than parental or other influence because it is more recent and
therefore more relevant.
University applicants who take advice from parents who have had no
experience at university (Tsp) will have less satisfaction (S) with the
university application process than applicants whose parents have had
prior university experience. This is because the advice is less specific
and therefore less plausible.
Three groups were considered:
12 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
The number of decision makers (Nd) in the applicant process will sig-
nificantly affect the applicant’s satisfaction (S) with the process.
The final hypothesis was tested by analysing the differences in mean
factor scores on the three dimensions of satisfaction (PASD1, PASD2,
PACON1) by applicants grouped according to their response to ‘was
the decision to accept a university place a joint decision?’
There were significant differences in scores for the group that did
make a joint decision, and the group that recorded ‘no’ to this ques-
tion. The differences were in the average score for ‘simple’ PASD1
(cognitive) and ‘friendly’ PACON1 (affective) factors (sig. 0.006 &
0.003 respectively). The standardized means for the joint deciders
were PASD1 ‘⫺0.159’ and PACON1 ‘⫺0.1442’ compared to 0.084
and 0.119 for those who registered that it was not a joint decision, i.e.,
they decided on their own. The findings indicate that joint deciders are
significantly less cognitively and affectively satisfied with the appli-
cation process than those who do not make a joint decision and Hy-
pothesis 5 is proved.
Geraldine Clarke 13
teachers and others need a more open process. This needs further investiga-
tion.
Of specific importance is the view that satisfaction and its facets (i.e.,
scale items), as a post-experience attitude, can be mediated by reference
to the level of self-monitoring and by reference to specific advisers. In
particular, it is the main cognitive aspect of satisfaction that has proved
to be most closely linked to self-monitoring and not affective satisfac-
tion, implying that self-monitoring is a cognitive rather than an affective
function. From a common sense point of view it is likely that if self-
monitoring is viewed as an information gathering process then it is more
‘cognitive’ than affective. Nevertheless, it is likely to be dependent on
personality and other psychological factors that are affectively gener-
ated. In such circumstances, we should view ‘affect’ as being of indirect
relevance only.
Significantly, HE marketers will address this finding by providing
specific cognitive information that will quash any obscure or confusing
advice. It can also be noted that ‘cognitive’ dissatisfaction will not be
more easily retrieved by applicants in the future, and so informational
marketing mistakes made at this stage are more likely to be forgotten
than affective dissatisfaction, which upset, stays in the applicant’s mind
for much longer and which will be a source of resentment and therefore
dis-reputation to the university/college.
The hypotheses 3 and 4, that type of influencer/adviser differentiates
between levels of both cognitive and affective satisfaction, were not
proved. This result should be considered in the light of hypothesis two;
some advisers, particularly parents, are associated with greater levels of
some aspects of satisfaction, e.g., quick, welcoming and encouraging.
Nevertheless, peer advice caused no greater satisfaction than parental or
teacher advice. There was no proof that recency of prior experience of
others caused a significant difference in attitude contrary to prior re-
Geraldine Clarke 15
search (Fazio & Zanna 198l; Snyder & Kendzierski 1982; Shepherd
1985). Neither was there proof that ‘specific prior experience of others’ cre-
ated significant differences in attitude (Waly & Cook 1965; Brigham &
Cook 1970). The implication for HE application marketing is that dif-
ferent advisers serve different purposes, but none provide greater over-
all satisfaction with the application than any other group of advisors.
Hypothesis 5 considered the role of self-monitoring at the decision-
making stage. It was proved that high self-monitors registered a lower
level of cognitive and affective satisfaction than low self-monitors. The
joint decision-makers find the process less ‘simple’ and ‘friendly’ than
the lone decision makers. In the attitude formation process the buying
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
sist in verifying these results. This has been true of some of the findings
here, since they verify some results of prior research.
The modelling of satisfaction as an attitude can be further extended
by specifically considering it as a post-purchase mental and emotional
process. This means that after a dissatisfaction event, the applicants
may still be spreading dis-reputation, irrespective of service quality
measured. It is therefore important to consider affective as well as cog-
nitive satisfaction as being, to some extent, independent of service qual-
ity and developing in the minds of applicants based on their personal
profile and their propensity to seek advice.
In a pre-purchase environment, the paper indicates a remedial direc-
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
CONCLUSION
Relationship Marketing
AUTHOR NOTE
Geraldine Clarke manages a small education and training business consultancy in the
UK. She gained her doctorate in consumer behaviour in the area of Services Marketing.
Her main research interests revolve around her doctoral thesis and corporate communi-
cations. She has published in a number of international journals and attended conferences
both in the UK and abroad over a number of years. Her teaching specialisms are in Inter-
national Marketing, Marketing Research, Consumer Behaviour and Services Marketing.
She is a Chartered Marketer, a member of the Market Research Society and a Member of
the Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
NOTE
1. This applicant pool is more representative of the general applicant population
than the subsequent student pool as applicants have 6 choices and usually choose best,
medium and ‘insurance’ universities. Where they go will depend on their exam grades
and whichever university gives them a place. Hence, the market is described as quasi-
competitive.
REFERENCES
Aaker J. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion: Jour-
nal of Marketing Research Vol. 36. No. 1
Ajzen I., Timko C. & White J. (1982). Self-Monitoring and the Attitude-Behaviour Re-
lation: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 42, No. 3, p. 426-435
Asugman G., Borak E. & Bodur M. (1994). Opinion Leadership and Self Monitoring:
Evidence for the two way flow of communications. Asia Pacific Advances in Con-
sumer Research Vol. 1, p. 203-207
18 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Deutsch M. & Gerard H. (1955). A study of normative and social influences upon indi-
vidual judgements. Quoted in Brinberg D. & Plimpton L. (1986) Self Monitoring
and Product Conspicuousness on reference group influence. Advances in Consumer
Research Vol. 13, p. 297-300
Elliot K. & Healy M. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruit-
ment and retention: Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 10, Pt. 4, p. 1-12
Fazio R. & Zanna M. (1981). Direct Experience and Attitude-Behaviour Consistency:
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 14, p. 161-201
Fazio R. (1986). How do attitudes guide Behaviour. In Sorrentino R & Higgins E. (eds)
Handbook of Motivation and Cognition p. 204-243
Fishbein M. And Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Intro-
duction to Theory and Research: Addison Wesley
Flynn L., Goldsmith R. & Eastman J. (1996). Opinion Leaders and Opinion Seekers:
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
Shah A., Zeis C., Regassa H. & Ahmadian P. (1999). Expected service quality as per-
ceived by potential customers. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education Vol. 9
Pt. 3, p. 49-72
Shepherd G. (1985). Linking Attitudes and Behavioural Criteria: Human Communica-
tion Research Vol. 12, No. 2, Winter p. 275-284
Slama M. & Singley R. (1996). Self-Monitoring and Value-Expressive vs. Utilitarian
Ad. Effectiveness: Why the mixed findings? Journal of Current Issues and Re-
search in Advertising Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 39
Snyder M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behaviour. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology Vol. 30, No. 4, p. 526-537
Snyder M. & Monson T. (1975). Persons, Situations and the Control of Social Behav-
iour. Quoted in Nantel J. & Strahle W. (1986), see above
Snyder M. & Swann W. (1976). When Actions reflect Attitudes: The Politics of Im-
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 16:27 15 December 2010
RECEIVED: 01/13/02
REVISED: 08/10/02
ACCEPTED: 10/20/04