ARTICLE IN PRESS

Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j

Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry

mode deliveries: An Australian perspective
Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau *
Curtin University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper compares students’ perceptions of push/pull and risk attributes for their impacts on attitude
Received 5 May 2013 and loyalty behavioural intention towards their university that has adopted multi entry mode strategy
Revised 17 January 2016 in its home and offshore campuses. A total of 561 completed responses were collected through an online
Accepted 17 January 2016
survey from students in a large university with campuses in Australia, Malaysia and Singapore. Findings
Available online
suggested that international students residing in Australia held the most favourable perceptions, atti-
tude and loyalty behavioural intention compared with their counterparts in Malaysia and Singapore,
Keywords:
suggesting the inward exporting strategy was successful for the university. The applicability of the Uppsala
Push/pull factors
Perceived risk model in explaining the university’s respective entry mode strategies validated its use in the context of
Attitude international higher education.
Loyalty behavioural intention © 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Entry mode

1. Introduction author, this trend is most pronounced in Australia, Canada, New

As world economies become increasingly interdependent and
businesses internationalise, the burden is on higher education to
mimic the practice of global business in adopting an internation-
ally oriented approach. Higher education systems in most countries
are “no longer considered an entirely national enterprise” (Elkin et al.,
2005, p. 319). Instead, the higher education sector plays a part in
the wider policy objectives of governments to further economic de-
velopment (Kameoka, 1996).
In the bid to internationalise, universities must make critical de-
cisions about their choice of an entry mode strategy. A university
must take into account how students will perceive of its push/pull
attributes (Alexander et al., 2009) and risk associated with inter-
national study (Beneke, 2011) for their impacts on students’ attitude
(Quintal and Phau, 2014) and loyalty behavioural intention (Quintal
et al., 2012) towards their university and campus. A university that
does not address the unique needs of its international student pop-
ulation in each campus runs the risk of leaving students “feeling
disappointed, unfulfilled, and even exploited” (Sherry et al., 2010,
p. 34). Yet, no empirical study has examined differences in stu-
dents’ perceptions, attitude and loyalty behavioural intention towards
their university that has utilised multi entry mode strategy.
It is the area of student body internationalisation that “gives rise
to the perception that universities are beginning to mimic corpo-
rations in their orientation” (Healey, 2008, p. 334). According to the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 92664014; fax: +61 8 92663937.
E-mail address: ian.phau@cbs.curtin.edu.au (I. Phau).
Zealand, the USA and the UK. In such countries, internationalisation
has followed the approach of global businesses by adopting the step-
by-step ‘Uppsala internationalisation model’ that includes exporting,
licensing/franchising, joint ventures and sole ventures (Healey, 2008).
In 2013, international education activity contributed $15.0 billion
to the Australian economy, arising from international students study-
ing and residing in Australia. This reflected a 3.8 per cent increase
from the earnings recorded in 2012 ($14.5 billion). A further $571
million was generated from sundry international education activi-
ties (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013).
Pull or supply-related attributes such as a university’s reputa-
tion for high quality teaching, learning, student support services and
resources (Mavondo et al., 2004) are paramount to its success in
attracting international students. The onus is on universities to equip
students with discipline-specific knowledge, interpersonal skills and
credible qualifications (Chen and Zimitat, 2006) that enhance their
contribution to society. Push or demand-related attributes such as
the veracity of university degrees to open doors to employment
(McIlveen and Pensiero, 2008) and personal economic well-being
(Duderstadt, 2000) are also crucial to students’ choice of an inter-
national education.
However, embracing the pathway to an international educa-
tion is fraught with risk (Beneke, 2011). From a student’s perspective,
there is risk associated with: (1) finance; (2) performance/function;
and (3) time loss. From a university’s perspective, there is risk in
managing: (1) different expertise of academics; (2) varying student
service levels; (3) condition of campus buildings and facilities; (4)
marketing efforts initiated by different faculties; and (5) behaviour
of students and staff members (Beneke, 2011). Such issues are

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
1441-3582/© 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
intensified in universities that have adopted varied export modes
(Healey, 2008). Poor management of the international student body
can severely impact on students’ perceptions, attitude and loyalty
behavioural intention towards their university (Quintal et al., 2012).
While there is growing interest in research that explores the
student body internationalisation (e.g. Elkin et al., 2005; Healey,
2008), there are gaps in the literature. First, there appears to be no
general consensus on what constitutes an international universi-
ty. In fact, Elkin et al. (2005, p. 319) have observed that “there has
been no means of identifying or measuring what might be key vari-
ables in developing an “international” university.” Second, to the
best of the authors’ knowledge, no empirical study exists which ex-
amines differences in students’ perceptions that impact on their
attitude and loyalty behavioural intention across a university that
has utilised multi entry mode strategy in its respective campuses.
Third, whether the Uppsala model can be utilised to evaluate a un-
iversity’s respective entry mode strategies also remains unexplored.
Although universities have committed policy and infrastructure
towards internationalisation, how students view and respond to their
university and respective campus has not been empirically estab-
lished. To address the research gaps, this paper examines one specific
Australian university that has adopted multi entry mode strategy
in its home and offshore campuses in Malaysia and Singapore. Thus,
this paper asks:
RQ1: Do students’ perceptions of their university’s push/pull and risk
attributes, attitude and loyalty behavioural intentions differ across
the university’s multi entry mode campuses?
RQ2: Will students’ perceptions of their university’s push/pull and
risk attributes impact on their attitude and in turn, their loyalty
behavioural intention towards the university across its multi entry
mode campuses?
RQ3: Can the Uppsala model be utilised to explain a university’s entry
mode strategies?
2. Relevant literature
2.1. Market entry modes
The Uppsala internationalisation process model was intro-
duced by Jan Johanson and Vahlne (1977) and explains the
characteristics of the internationalisation process encountered by
a firm (Jan Johanson and Vahlne, 2009). The authors identify four
key tenets, namely, market knowledge, market commitment, com-
mitment decisions and current activities. Firms handle the risks
associated with internationalisation through an incremental decision-
making process, where information acquired through foreign
investment in one stage is used in the next stage to take further steps.
Through this incremental process, the firm is able to exert control
over its foreign venture and accumulate knowledge of conducting
business in foreign markets (Forsgren, 2002).
As a firm begins to exert its control in a foreign market, it can
incrementally undergo four stages of market entry, namely, export-
Table 1
Uppsala internationalisation process in higher education entry mode context.
Authors Internationalisation process and entry mode
1st wave
Jan Johanson and Vahlne (1977, 2009) Market knowledge
Fletcher and Crawford (2014) Exporting
Bianchi and Drennan (2012), Healey Inward exporting
(2008), Mazzarol et al. (2003)
Present study Inward exporting of international
students in home campus
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
ing, licensing production, joint venture and sole venture (Fletcher
and Crawford, 2014). According to Healey (2008), generally, this se-
quencing coincides with the four stages of the Uppsala
internationalisation model. Consequently, in internationalising, one
of the most critical decisions a university must make is its choice
of entry mode strategy. This process is gradual, with universities
moving from one stage to the next in accordance with the Uppsala
internationalisation model as seen in Table 1. This paper exam-
ines the model’s applicability in evaluating entry mode strategy in
the context of international higher education.
First, universities acquire market knowledge when they export
higher education by enrolling international students in their home
campuses. In services marketing literature, this is referred to as
“inward exporting” or importing customers as it brings interna-
tional students to the universities’ home countries (Bianchi and
Drennan, 2012). Currently, with over 60% of the world’s popula-
tion, Asia is the most important source of students for Australia, New
Zealand and the United States (Healey, 2008).
Second, universities exhibit market commitment when they
license/franchise higher education by sub-contracting a local pro-
vider in another country to deliver a module or all of a university
degree programme (Healey, 2008). In the 1980s, Australian univer-
sities initiated arrangements with private colleges in Singapore and
Malaysia. Some of these arrangements included ‘1 + 2’ deals, during
which the first year of a three-year bachelor degree is delivered at
the college’s own premises, with students completing the rest of
their degrees at the university’s home campus. Subsequently, ar-
rangements included ‘2 + 1’ and ‘3 + 0’ models, the latter resulting
in a franchise of the entire degree at the college’s own premises.
The poor quality of private colleges, mostly established by profit-
making local companies, has roused critics to label the franchise
model as ‘McDonaldisation’ (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002).
Third, universities demonstrate commitment decisions when they
establish joint ventures by setting up offshore facilities, referred to
as the ‘third wave’ of the Uppsala internationalisation process
(Mazzarol et al., 2003). Since national legislation on licensing of edu-
cational providers usually requires the involvement of a local partner,
joint ventures are the standard organisational form of the third wave
(Healey, 2008). Singapore and Malaysia have been recipients of the
third wave between 1997 and 1998 respectively, with their gov-
ernments encouraging leading western universities to establish
branch campuses in both countries. In 2003, China followed suit with
its first joint-venture. The establishment of Australian campuses in
Singapore, Malaysia and China (Norris, 2011) has enabled Austra-
lian universities to tap into the “growing middle class, rapid
industrialisation and shortage of domestic tertiary places in these
countries” (Lebihan, 2012, p. 27).
Finally, universities implement current activities when they un-
dertake sole ventures by setting up wholly-owned campuses. In the
OECD, wholly-owned branch campuses exist in London and Paris.
However, these function as international study centres for visiting
students from the foreign (often the USA) university’s home campus
and are not part of any third wave of internationalisation by es-
2nd wave 3rd wave 4th wave
Market commitment Commitment decisions Current activities
Licensing production Joint venture Sole venture
Licensing programmes Joint venture Sole venture
Licensing delivery of courses/ Joint venture with partners to Not applicable
programmes in offshore campuses deliver courses/programmes in
offshore campuses
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
tablished western universities (Healey, 2008). The author has pointed
out that legislation usually precludes sole ventures by foreign uni-
versities, citing the owned and operated University of New South
Wales’ campus in Singapore, which opened in 2007 (now closed),
as a notable exception.
2.2. Push/pull factors
Pull factors operate within a host institution to make that in-
stitution relatively attractive to international students (Mazzarol and
Soutar, 2002). The authors have identified key pull factors to include
image, teaching, learning, student support services and resources.
A university’s image is the sum of opinions, ideas, and impres-
sions that prospective students have of the institution (Kotler and
Fox, 1995). It represents the overall impression that students have
of a university (Alves and Raposo, 2010) and is an aggregate process
by which the public compares the attributes of the university
(Nguyen and LeBlanc, 2001). Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) have ob-
served that image is rated highly in determining international
students’ university choice. More specifically, image acts as a pre-
cursor of the internationalised learning environment in Malaysia
(Fares et al., 2013) and Singapore (Quintal and Phau, 2014) for in-
ternational students who have no initial direct experience with their
university prior to commencing study.
Teaching is a core service of a university (Athiyaman, 2001) and
is central to a student’s university experience (Hill et al., 2003). Learn-
ing, a teaching outcome, results in an enduring change in a student
and consequently, how that student perceives the world and re-
sponds to it (Alexander et al., 2009). Maringe and Carter (2007) have
noted that excellent teaching and learning environments are ranked
as the top three factors for African students’ choice of university
in the United Kingdom. Wei’s (2013, p. 110) empirical study of in-
ternational student mobility has observed that a “lower ‘student-
teacher ratio’ is a positive factor as it indicates the abundance of
faculty resource, and higher quality of education, which guaran-
tees more attention to the international students.” However, although
student participation in learning environments is popular in Western
societies, it is not freely adopted in countries such as Malaysia where
students are reticent about putting themselves forward (Odigbo,
2013). Consequently, the author has called for “coordination and
creation of reciprocal and positive association between students and
staff” (Odigbo, 2013, p. 98).
Student support services refer to academic and non-academic
assistance provided to students (Gamage et al., 2008). In his study
of Japanese students, Hirano (2000) has identified four main areas
of student support services: (1) economic (tuition fees, loans and
scholarships); (2) physical (participation in sports and recreation
to maintain health); (3) mental health (psychological and voca-
tional aptitude support to raise consciousness towards employment);
and (4) habitual (access to information for job opportunities, fa-
cilities and student life). According to Sherry et al. (2010),
international students are frequently lonely in their new overseas
environment due to their lack of cultural/linguistic familiarity and
social networks. The authors have highlighted the need for both
social support and social connectedness in ensuring that interna-
tional students succeed in their new environment. Consequently,
a receptive university and community environment is “one of the
key factors in the mental health of international students” (Sherry
et al., 2010, p. 34). Further, Wei (2013, p. 110) has expressed concern
for the attention paid to international students when there are spikes
in the enrolment rates of domestic students since these may impact
on “possible negligence to international students.”
Facilities are physical evidence that add value to the student ex-
perience (Paswan and Ganesh, 2009). The library, self-study areas,
classrooms, car parks, layout, food outlets, recreational amenities
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
3
and health services (Douglas et al., 2006) are contributing influ-
ences in students’ university choice (Padlee et al., 2010). Technology
also functions as a support to the core services of teaching and learn-
ing (Sinkovics et al., 2009), indirectly contributing to students’ overall
impressions of a university. However, Quintal and Phau’s (2014) study
of offshore campuses in Malaysia and Singapore have observed that
funds and commitment towards developing facilities in these cam-
puses often are limited, resulting in crowding and over-extended
resources. This has the potential of generating unfavourable atti-
tude and loyalty behavioural intention towards the university and
its campus.
Push factors operate within a source country and initiate a st-
udent’s decision to undertake international study (Mazzarol and
Soutar, 2002). The authors have identified key push factors to include
opportunities for personal and professional development. Person-
al development relates to the improvement of a student as a person
(Clemes et al., 2007). Involvement in extra-curricular activities assists
students in developing interpersonal and cognitive skills (Huang and
Chang, 2004). Socialisation helps students to network and find part-
time jobs (Padlee et al., 2010). However, Odigbo’s (2013, p. 98) study
of international students in Malaysia has observed that they may
not show interest in external curriculum as they may perceive that
this does not in “anyway help to advance knowledge.” For these stu-
dents, the main focus remains on acquiring discipline knowledge
to secure employment.
Career development refers to a continuance of lifelong learn-
ing (McIlveen and Pensiero, 2008) and pathways for progressing
careers (Clemes et al., 2007). Students expect to develop work-
place competencies while studying at university and to receive
information about career opportunities upon their graduation (Joseph
and Joseph, 1997). Employment opportunities while studying
(Abubakar et al., 2010) and international recognition of qualifica-
tions to secure jobs (Maringe and Carter, 2007) are key criteria in
driving students’ choice of an international education. Wei’s (2013)
study of international student mobility has proposed that stron-
ger demand for labour (talent) and more favourable employment
policies in a host country attract a larger number of international
students. Conversely, the author has noted that a “larger amount
of domestic students represents a larger number of domestic gradu-
ates, thus affecting the job market for international talents” (Wei,
2013, p. 110).
2.3. Perceived risk
Bauer (1960, p. 21) has observed that “consumer behaviour in-
volves risk in the sense that any action of a consumer will produce
consequences which he cannot anticipate with anything approxi-
mating certainty, and some of which at least are likely to be
unpleasant.” Consequently, perceived risk is conceptualised as a sub-
jectively determined expectation of a potential loss, in which some
measure of probability can be attached to each possible outcome
(Stone and Gronhaug, 1993). An institution’s image is especially rel-
evant for professional services (Hill and Neeley, 1988) such as in
higher education where the perceived risk of making an incorrect
purchase decision is high. Since a university’s established reputa-
tion can reduce perceived risk, a positive image can influence the
decision to choose the university (Bourke, 2000; Gutman and
Miaoulis, 2003). Conversely, the risks associated with acquiring an
education can inhibit university choice (Beneke, 2011). The author
has identified three types of risk in terms of students’ subjective
expectations of probable loss. Financial risk refers to costs in-
curred to secure the higher education. Functional risk deals with
whether the acquired education will fulfil personal and economic
aspirations. Time risk involves opportunity costs in expending time
while studying at the university.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
2.4. Loyalty behavioural intention
In consumer behaviour, loyalty is conceptualised in three ways
(Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). First, attitudinal loyalty refers to psy-
chological commitment such as showing preference for a brand.
Second, behavioural loyalty refers to behaviour that exhibits com-
mitment such as repeat purchasing or re-patronage of the brand.
The third perspective, which the majority of marketing research-
ers subscribe to, is that loyalty is a composite of both an attitudinal
component (brand judgement, price consciousness and impulsive-
ness) and a behavioural component (repurchase intention) (Jacoby
and Kyner, 1973). In consumer decision-making contexts, loyalty
behavioural intention is commonly viewed in terms of the
behavioural component, namely, re patronage and willingness to
recommend (e.g. Ryu and Juang, 2009). This paper adopts this per-
spective by operationalising loyalty behavioural intention as students’
repurchase intention (desire to stay longer at their university) and
willingness to recommend their university to others.
In summary, this paper has three key objectives: (1) introduce
a decision-making framework that can explain how perceptions of
the push/pull and risk attributes impact on students’ attitude and
loyalty behaviour; (2) establish that scale items have measure-
ment invariance across a university’s multi entry mode campuses
so as to compare student behaviour across these campuses; and (3)
validate the use of the Uppsala model in evaluating a university’s
respective entry mode strategies. To achieve this, the relation-
ships between these constructs are examined across an Australian
university’s home and offshore campuses in Malaysia and Singapore.
3. Proposed model and hypotheses development
The research model in this study is underpinned by behavioural
psychology (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993) and the hierarchy of effects
model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961) which theorise that belief → at-
titude → behaviour. These over-arching theories are further supported
by risk theory (Stone and Gronhaug, 1993), attitude theory (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 1975) and loyalty behaviour theory (Jacoby and Chestnut,
Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses.
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
1978; Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). Adopting the perspective of
behavioural psychology and the hierarchy of effects model, it can
be argued that students’ perceptions of pull factors will influence
their perceptions of push and risk factors associated with their uni-
versity. Such perceptions are formulated into beliefs about their
university. These beliefs then have the potential to affect students’
attitude and in turn, loyalty behavioural intention towards their uni-
versity. Each hypothesis in the research model seen in Fig. 1, and
relevant theory associated with it, is introduced and justified.
Following behavioural psychology (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993) and
the hierarchy of effects model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961), stu-
dents’ perceptions of a university’s reputable image, teaching,
learning, student support services and resources are likely to have
positive effects on their perceptions of personal development (Quintal
et al., 2012). Lizzio et al. (2002) have observed a positive impact of
good teaching on personal development. Further, students who are
more involved in academic study and who interact often with staff
achieve higher and more positive study outcomes (Astin, 1984). Ac-
cording to Hirano (2000), student support services that promote
recreation and healthy lifestyles are also positive influencers of per-
sonal development. Thus:
H1. Students’ favourable pull factor perceptions of: (a) image; (b) teach-
ing; (c) learning; (d) student support services; and (e) resources will
have a positive effect on their personal development.
Similarly, a university’s image, teaching, learning, student support
services and resources are likely to have positive effects on stu-
dents’ perceptions of career development (Quintal et al., 2012). In
a review of universities in the UK, Knight (2002) has observed that
universities are required to set teaching curriculum with learning
goals directly related to student employability. Additionally,
Vermeulen and Schmidt (2008) has acknowledged the link between
learning generic skills of competency at university and their ap-
plication to work environments. Student support services that
provide employment information are also positive influencers of
career development (Hirano, 2000). Thus:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
H2. Students’ favourable pull factor perceptions of: (a) image; (b) teach-
ing; (c) learning; (d) student support services; and (e) resources will
have a positive effect on their career development.
In consumer decision-making contexts, risk perception is viewed
in terms of subjective negative outcomes (Dholakia et al., 2004) and
probable loss (Stone and Gronhaug, 1993). Students’ perceptions of
a university’s reputable image, teaching, learning, student support
services and resources are likely to have inverse relationships with
the financial, functional and time risks they associate with an in-
stitution (Hill and Neeley, 1988). According to Beneke (2011, p. 35),
financial risk refers to “whether the student, accommodation and/
or social activity fees are deemed to be worth the price tag.” Likewise,
other researchers have reported that cost is an important factor in
university selection (e.g., Chapman, 1993; Freeman, 1984; Shank
and Beasley, 1998) and parents of prospective students seek reas-
surances to reduce this high financial risk (Krukowski, 1985). This
has prompted Wei (2013) to conclude that generally, higher tuition
and living expenses will reduce the number of international stu-
dents to a host country. Thus:
H3. Students’ favourable pull factor perceptions of: (a) image; (b) teach-
ing; (c) learning; (d) student support services; and (e) resources will
have a negative effect on their perceived financial risk.
Beneke (2011, p. 35) has identified functional risk as “whether
the quality of the services of the institution meets the expectation
of the student.” Universities are likely to utilise brand image to
provide reassurance and reduce functional risk for potential stu-
dents (Beneke, 2011). In fact, Warwick and Mansfield’s (2003) study
of perceived risk in college selection has identified college reputa-
tion and quality of staff to be important risk-reducing factors when
prospective students and their parents assess functional risk. Thus:
H4. Students’ favourable pull factor perceptions of: (a) image; (b) teach-
ing; (c) learning; (d) student support services; and (e) resources will
have a negative effect on their perceived functional risk.
Beneke (2011, p. 36) has suggested that time risk refers to the
student’s inability to “easily transfer between institutions if the
chosen option is found to be undesirable.” Moreover, Cheng (2010)
has observed that for adult students who participate at university,
time risk is expressed as a probability as to whether it is worth-
while to expend time in this participation. Thus:
H5. Students’ favourable pull factor perceptions of: (a) image; (b) teach-
ing; (c) learning; (d) student support services; and (e) resources will
have a negative effect on their perceived time risk.
Attitude theory asserts that if an individual holds a strong belief
about an object, a positive attitude towards the object will develop
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Students’ beliefs that a university’s in-
ternational credentials will help shape their personal development
are likely to have positive effects on their attitude towards their uni-
versity (Bianchi and Drennan, 2012; Gruber et al., 2010). Chen and
Zimitat (2006) who have examined Taiwanese students’ choice of
Australian universities have identified personal development as a
key factor in influencing their attitude towards their university. Thus:
H6. Students’ favourable expectations of personal development at a
university will have a positive effect on their attitude towards their
university.
Likewise, students’ expectations that a university’s internation-
al credentials will help in their career development are likely to have
positive effects on their attitude towards their university. Chen and
Zimitat (2006) have cited an improvement of job prospects and
Gruber et al. (2010) the relevance of teaching to practice as criti-
cal in influencing students’ attitude towards their university. Thus:
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
5
H7. Students’ favourable expectations of career development at a uni-
versity will have a positive effect on their attitude towards their
university.
At the same time, students’ perceptions of risk associated with
a university are likely to have an unfavourable effect on their atti-
tude towards their university (Chen and Zimitat, 2006). Thus:
H8. Students’ perceptions of: (a) financial risk; (b) functional risk; and
(c) time risk will have a negative effect on their attitude towards their
university.
The hierarchy of effects model suggests that if an individual holds
a stronger belief about conducting a behaviour, a positive attitude
towards the behaviour will develop, which results in higher
behavioural intention (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961). Students’ atti-
tude is linked to their loyalty behaviour (Chen and Zimitat, 2006).
Mao and Oppewal (2010) and Quintal et al. (2012) have reported
a positive relationship between students’ attitude and willingness
to recommend their university. Similarly, Gruber et al. (2010) have
examined university students in Germany and reported that sat-
isfied students are more willing to recommend their university.
Finally, favourable attitude is likely to influence the willingness of
international students to engage in future participation at their uni-
versity (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009). Thus:
H9. Students’ favourable attitude towards their university will have
a positive effect on their willingness to recommend their university.
H10. Students’ favourable attitude towards their university will have
a positive effect on their willingness to engage in further study at their
university.
4. Methodology
For the purpose of this study, a large university in Australia which
adopts a multi entry mode strategy was selected. The university’s
2011 enrolment comprised 21,000 local students and 13,000 in-
ternational onshore and offshore students. Its multi entry mode
strategy of inward exporting, licensing/franchising and joint ven-
tures complements the first three stages of the Uppsala model. The
first stage, acquiring market knowledge via inward exporting, takes
place at the university’s home campus in Australia. The second stage,
exhibiting market commitment via licensing/franchising, exists in
Malaysia where the university has had long-standing arrange-
ments with private colleges. The third stage, demonstrating
commitment decisions via joint ventures, occurs in Singapore where
the university, in partnership with a private company, provides
degrees under the university’s own banner. Given legislation issues
in offshore markets, the fourth stage, engaging in current activi-
ties via sole venture, was not explored.
A 10-minute online survey was self-administered to a conve-
nience sample of students who were undertaking a second-year
international marketing unit at one of the university’s three cam-
puses. These students were targeted since they already had adequate
experience with their university. Students were requested to com-
plete the survey prior to attending a tutorial that examined Australia’s
international marketing of higher education and market entry mode
theory. Students who participated in the survey and tutorial dis-
cussion received credit for their input which contributed to their
final grade.
A total of 561 completed surveys were collected from the un-
iversity’s campuses in Australia, Malaysia and Singapore between
September 2011 and April 2012. The sample comprised: (1) 199 in-
ternational students (36 per cent) at the university’s home campus
in Australia; (2) 51 students (9 per cent) at the university’s campus
in Malaysia; and (3) 136 students (24 per cent) at the university’s
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
campus in Singapore. Further, 175 local students (31 per cent) at
the university’s home campus in Australia acted as the control group
for the study. There is some support in the literature that local stu-
dents demonstrate higher perceptions and attitude towards their
university due to familiarity with their university, its campus and
surrounds (e.g. Quintal and Phau, 2014; Quintal et al., 2012). For
this reason, this sample acted as the control group for the mea-
surement of the higher possible scores on each construct. Thus,
scores from the control group served as a benchmark against which
scores from the other samples could be compared.
The survey’s 73 items were adapted from existing scales that
demonstrated reliability (≥0.70) and contextual relevance. For in-
stance, scale items relating to image, teaching, learning, student
support services and resources were adapted from Paswan and
Ganesh (2009) and Russell (2005); personal and career develop-
ment from Clemes et al. (2007); perceived financial, functional and
time risk from Laroche et al. (2004) and Mieres et al. (2006); as well
as attitude, willingness to recommend and willingness to engage
in further study from Bagozzi et al. (2003). All survey items, with
the exception of the bipolar attitude scale, utilised a seven-point
Likert-style scale anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(7).
5. Analysis and results
The total sample of 561 responses was randomly split into
two. First, exploratory factor analysis using a VARIMAX rotation
with SPSS 22 examined the 73 scale items in the first split sample.
This was conducted to reduce the number of items in the instru-
ment. As seen in Table 1, the final 12-factor solution, with 66
items, explained 71% of the variance with a KMO of 0.94 and a
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity of 0.001. The 12 factors were identi-
fied as: (1) personal development; (2) resources; (3) financial/
functional risk; (4) attitude; (5) student support services; (6)
willingness to engage in further study; (7) teaching; (8) career
development; (9) willingness to recommend; (10) time risk; (11)
image; and (12) learning. Financial and functional risk appeared
to demonstrate multi collinearity as they grouped under one
factor and consequently, were treated as one factor. Cronbach’s
alpha for the factors ranged from 0.82 to 0.94 and reliabilities did
not increase if any scale item was deleted. This also suggested the
factors had acceptable reliability and convergent validity. Then,
the 12 constructs were refined with confirmatory factor analysis
using AMOS 22 with the second split sample. Through this process,
the 66 items were refined and reduced to 42 items as seen by the
bold items in Table 2.
Next, the 12 constructs were tested for measurement invari-
ance using AMOS 22. This was achieved with multi group analysis
of the three samples that included local students in Australia (control
group) as well as international students in Australia and Singa-
pore. Due to its small size (n = 51), the sample comprising
international students in Malaysia was excluded. All 12 constructs
met the goodness-of-fit criteria (χ2/df ≤ 3.0; RMSEA ≤ 0.08; CFI ≥ 0.90
and NFI ≥ 0.90), demonstrating configural invariance across the three
samples. This suggested that the basic meaning and structure of each
construct had equivalence cross-nationally. Moreover, there was good
model fit for the two risk attributes (χ2/df ≤ 1.41; RMSEA ≤ 0.03;
CFI ≥ 0.99 and NFI ≥ 0.98) as well as attitude, willingness to recom-
mend and willingness to engage in further study (χ2/df ≤ 1.82;
RMSEA ≤ 0.04; CFI ≥ 0.99 and NFI ≥ 0.97), suggesting metric invari-
ance across the three samples. Also, the push-pull factors met the
goodness-of-fit criteria (χ2/df ≤ 1/91; RMSEA ≤ 0.04; CFI ≥ 0.94 and
NFI ≥ 0.89), demonstrating partial metric invariance across the three
samples. This suggested that it was possible to compare construct
means cross-nationally.
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
Then, the 12 constructs were summed into composites and the
four data sets examined with ANOVA using SPSS 22. As seen in
Table 3, local students in Australia (control group) held the highest
image of their university (5.86), which was significantly different
from the rest. This may be attributed to their local and sustained
knowledge of the university. All four groups had similar percep-
tions of teaching, suggesting consistency in the unit’s delivery. Similar
and high average learning scores were recorded for international
students in Australia, Malaysia and Singapore (5.46–5.67). Student
support services was ranked the highest by international students
in Australia (5.48), which was significantly different from Malay-
sia and Singapore. Further, international students in Australia had
significantly higher perceptions of resources (5.15) than Malaysia
and Singapore. In both these countries, the smaller campuses, limited
student support services and fewer facilities may have contrib-
uted to this result.
All four groups had similar perceptions of personal and career
development, suggesting consistency in the way students per-
ceived the intrinsic and extrinsic values of their higher education.
Similarly, all four groups held similar financial/functional risk per-
ceptions. Probably, this shared view of risk is attributed to the higher
HECS for local students in Australia and the significant cost of an
international education in Malaysia and Singapore. Interestingly, local
students in Australia and international students in Malaysia cited
higher time risks (4.12 and 3.72 respectively), demonstrating an
urgency to finish studying, compared with international students
in Australia and Singapore.
Both local and international students in Australia demon-
strated more favourable attitude towards their university (5.72
and 5.59 respectively) than Malaysia and Singapore. Given Mala-
ysia’s lower scores for the majority of the push/pull factors, this
would account for their least favourable attitude towards the
university (4.82). International students in Australia and Singa-
pore shared similar responses in their willingness to recommend
(5.41 and 5.17 respectively). Willingness to further their study
was ranked the highest by local students in Australia (5.32),
which was significantly different from the others since continued
residence in the country made the prospect of further study more
feasible.
Finally, path analysis using AMOS 22 tested the hypothesised
effects in the research model. Again, multi group analysis of the three
samples that included local students in Australia (control group) as
well as international students in Australia and Singapore was con-
ducted. As seen in Table 4, the goodness-of-fit indices were
acceptable across the three campuses (χ 2 /df ≤ 1.8; p ≤ 0.001;
RMSEA ≤ 0.04; CFI ≥ 0.93 and NFII ≥ 0.91).
The university’s image and student support services had no
effects on students’ perception of personal development, which
did not support H1a and H1d. However, teaching and resources
had significant positive effects on personal development for both
local (ß = 0.36; p = 0.01 and ß = 0.13; p = 0.05) and international
(ß = 0.41; p = 0.001 and ß = 0.58; p = 0.001) students in Australia
respectively, supporting H1b and H1e. Further, learning had a
significant positive effect on local students in Australia (ß = 0.39;
p = 0.01) and international students in Singapore (ß = 0.71; p = 0.001),
supporting H1c. The university’s image and learning had no effects
on students’ perception of career development, which did not
support H2a and H2c. However, teaching and resources had signif-
icant positive effects on career development for local (ß = 0.32;
p = 0.01 and ß = 0.17; p = 0.05) and international (ß = 0.14; p = 0.05
and ß = 0.56; p = 0.001) students in Australia and international
students in Singapore (ß = 0.33; p = 0.001 and ß = 0.38; p = 0.001)
respectively, supporting H2b and H2e. Further, student support
services had a significant positive effect on career development
for local students in Australia (ß = 0.24; p = 0.01), supporting
H2d.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ 7

Table 2
Rotated component matrix for the 66 items.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Factor 1: Personal development

Interact and relate better to people 0.80
Function as a member of the team 0.74
Acquire general education in different fields 0.73
Gain confidence and self-esteem 0.73
Understand people of other ethnic backgrounds 0.70
Develop a personal code of values and ethics 0.66
Handle difficult situations 0.64
Develop analytical and logical thinking 0.53
Create innovative solutions in my field of study 0.53
Achieve my own expected grades 0.51
Factor 2: Resources
Good range of retail outlets 0.76
Modern recreation centre 0.74
24-hour access to computer labs 0.71
Adequate computer terminals 0.71
Excellent physical layout 0.70
Diverse range of food outlets 0.69
Conducive natural surrounding 0.68
State-of-the-art computer labs 0.66
Factor 3: Financial risk
High expenses may not justify the investment 0.80
Worry if degree will provide expected benefits 0.80
Anxious if my university provides good education 0.80
Degree may not provide the anticipated rewards 0.77
Not sure whether I will get my money’s worth 0.77
Costs mean significant financial losses 0.74
My experience may not live up to expectation 0.71
Other ways of spending money than getting a degree 0.58
Factor 4: Attitude towards university
Dislike:Like 0.77
Unenjoyable:Enjoyable 0.76
Unfavourable:Favourable 0.76
Dissatisfied:Satisfied 0.75
Bad:Good 0.73
Bored:Excited 0.73
Factor 5: Student support services
Accessible support staff 0.82
Sympathetic and reassuring administration staff 0.80
Administration staff solve my problems promptly 0.78
Good contact hours of support staff 0.73
Support staff who are willing to help 0.72
Student advisors who provide in-depth information 0.67
Factor 6: Willingness to further study at university
Improbable:Probable 0.88
Unlikely:Likely 0.87
Impossible:Possible 0.84
Uncertain:Certain 0.80
Factor 7: Teaching
Lecturers/tutors with good sense of humour 0.73
Lecturers/tutors who are willing to help students 0.71
Lecturers/tutors who are easy to talk to 0.69
Lecturers/tutors with ability to impart knowledge 0.69
Knowledgeable lecturers/tutors 0.64
Factor 8: Career development
Undertake work experience while studying 0.79
Establish connections with industry members 0.78
Develop my own career opportunities 0.74
Write resumes and prepare for interviews 0.73
Factor 9: Willingness to recommend university
Encourage others to study at my university 0.74
Provide positive information to anyone 0.73
Recommend to anyone who seeks my advice 0.72
Positive things to other people 0.72
Factor 10: Time risk
Studying puts time pressures on my schedule 0.82
Insufficient time to enjoy all university experiences 0.80
Getting my degree may incur significant time loss 0.79
Study process may be inefficient use of my time 0.75
Factor 11: Image
Well ranked against other universities 0.74
Reputation for higher learning 0.71
Excellent overall image to the community 0.65
Distinction for fulfilling promises made to students 0.63
Factor 12: Learning
Adequate workload that stimulates learning 0.73
Relevant learning materials 0.68
Opportunity to participate in class discussions 0.59
Variance 9.55 8.20 8.05 7.07 6.73 5.51 5.10 4.69 4.42 4.36 4.07 3.17
Eigen values 20.91 5.72 3.91 3.16 2.20 2.16 1.89 1.66 1.50 1.33 1.23 1.15
Cronbach alpha 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.82

Note: Final 42 items after confirmatory factor analysis are shown in bold.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■

Table 3 Image had a significant negative effect on financial/functional risk

ANOVA tests of student perception, attitude and behaviour across the university’s for local (ß = −0.25; p = 0.01) and international (ß = −0.37; p = 0.001)
campuses.
students in Australia and international students in Singapore
Attributes Local Exporting Licensing/ Joint (ß = −0.34; p = 0.001) respectively, supporting H3a. However, teach-
Australia International Franchising Venture
ing, learning, student support services and resources had no effects
N = 175 Australia Malaysia Singapore
N = 199 N = 51 N = 136 on financial/functional risk, which did not support H3b–e. Since the
functional risk construct shared high correlations with the finan-
Image 5.86 5.45a 5.38a 5.29a
(0.78) (0.89) (0.88) (1.01)
cial risk construct and was treated as one factor, H4a–e and H8b
Teaching 5.77a 5.69a 5.46a 5.74a were not tested. Image, learning student support services and re-
(0.71) (0.80) (0.82) (0.89) sources had no effects on time risk, which did not support H5a, H5c,
Learning 5.84a 5.67ab 5.46b 5.58ab H5d and H5e. However, teaching had a significant negative effect
(0.74) (0.80) (0.77) (0.87)
on time risk for international students in Australia (ß = −0.36;
Student support 5.18a 5.48a 4.64b 4.64b
services (1.00) (0.90) (1.35) (1.40) p = 0.001) and Singapore (ß = −0.23; p = 0.01), supporting H5b.
Resources 5.21a 5.15a 3.47 4.16 Both personal and career development had significant positive
(1.09) (1.06) (1.52) (1.35) effects on attitude for local (ß = 0.47; p = 0.001 and ß = 0.20; p = 0.01)
Personal 5.53a 5.53a 5.19a 5.51a and international (ß = 0.49; p = 0.001 and ß = 0.14; p = 0.05) stu-
development (0.86) (0.86) (1.00) (0.86)
Career 5.04a 5.11a 4.64a 4.79a
dents in Australia and international students in Singapore (ß = 0.40;
development (1.23) (1.08) (1.24) (1.39) p = 0.001 and ß = 0.33; p = 0.001) respectively, supporting H6 and
Financial/ 4.06a 4.33a 4.29a 4.44a H7. Financial/functional risk had a significant negative effect on at-
functional risk (1.37) (1.33) (1.22) (1.20) titude for both local (ß = −0.14; p = 0.05) and international (ß = −0.24;
Time risk 4.12a 3.64b 3.72ab 3.46b
p = 0.01) students in Australia, supporting H8a, whereas time risk
(1.59) (1.43) (1.35) (1.44)
Attitude 5.72a 5.59a 4.82b 5.22b had a significant negative effect on attitude for only international
(1.07) (1.00) (1.41) (1.06) students in Australia (ß = −0.19; p = 0.05), supporting H8c. Finally,
Willingness to 5.73a 5.41ab 4.67c 5.17bc attitude had a positive effect on willingness to recommend and will-
recommend (1.02) (1.04) (1.24) (1.22) ingness to engage in further study for local (ß = 0.70; p = 0.001 and
Willingness to 5.32 4.69a 4.21a 4.48a
further study (1.39) (1.42) (1.82) (1.53)
ß = 0.64; p = 0.001) and international (ß = 0.64; p = 0.001 and ß = 0.39;
p = 0.001) students in Australia and international students in Sin-
Note: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Means that share the same su-
gapore (ß = 0.71; p = 0.001 and ß = 0.59; p = 0.001) respectively,
perscript letter are not significantly different from one another (p < 0.05) using
independent groups t-tests. supporting H9 and H10.

Table 4
Path analysis to test hypothesised relationships across the university’s campuses.

Regressed relationship Local Australia Exporting International Australia Joint Venture Singapore
Beta Value (β) Beta Value (β) Beta Value (β)

H1a Image → personal development ns ns ns

H1b Teaching → personal development 0.36** 0.41*** ns
H1c Learning → personal development 0.39** ns 0.71***
H1d Services → personal development ns ns ns
H1e Resources→ personal development 0.13* 0.58*** ns
H2a Image → career development ns ns ns
H2b Teaching → career development 0.32** 0.14* 0.33***
H2c Learning → career development ns ns ns
H2d Services → career development 0.24** ns ns
H2e Resources→ career development 0.17* 0.56*** 0.38***
H3a Image → financial risk −0.25** −0.37*** −0.34***
H3b Teaching → financial risk ns ns ns
H3c Learning → financial risk ns ns ns
H3d Services → financial risk ns ns ns
H3e Resources → financial risk ns ns ns
H4 Pull factors → functional risk na na na
H5a Image → time risk ns ns ns
H5b Teaching → time risk ns −0.36*** −0.23**
H5c Learning → time risk ns ns ns
H5d Services → time risk ns ns ns
H5e Resources → time risk ns ns ns
H6 Personal development → attitude 0.47*** 0.49*** 0.40***
H7 Career development → attitude 0.20** 0.14* 0.33***
H8a Financial risk → attitude −0.14* −0.24** ns
H8b Functional risk → attitude na na na
H8c Time risk → attitude ns −0.19* ns
H9 Attitude → willingness to recommend 0.70*** 0.64*** 0.71***
H10 Attitude → willingness to further study 0.64*** 0.39*** 0.59***
Chi square 1765.84
df 981.00
p-value 0.001
RMSEA 0.04
CFI 0.93
NFI 0.91

Note: ns = not significant; na = not applicable; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; IFI = incremental fit
index.
* p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
6. Discussion and concluding comments
This paper introduced an empirical decision-making frame-
work that examined students’ perceptions of the push/pull and risk
attributes for their impacts on attitude and loyalty behaviour across
their university’s multi entry mode campuses. Scale items for the
12 constructs demonstrated configural and partial metric invari-
ance, enabling comparisons of students’ behaviour at the Australian
university’s home and offshore campuses in Malaysia and Singa-
pore. Findings validated the Uppsala model’s use in explaining the
university’s respective entry mode strategies.
Across all three groups, image had a significant negative impact
on financial/functional risk. Further, the average scores for image
remained high (5.29–5.86), with the control group being signifi-
cantly higher. Additionally, the average scores for financial/functional
risk were moderate (4.06–4.44), with no significant differences
between all three groups. This suggests that the university’s
favourable image provides some justification for the financial/
functional costs incurred in securing the higher education. Clearly,
this validates the first and second stages of the Uppsala model which
suggest that universities must first learn, before they can commit
to implementing risk-reducing initiatives in offshore markets. Such
initiatives include positioning themselves as providers of a quality
and value-for-money education that alleviate risk.
For international students in Australia and Singapore, teaching
had a significant negative impact on time risk. Further, the average
scores for teaching remained high (5.69–5.74), with no significant
differences between the two groups. Universities in the second and
third stages of the Uppsala model that are engaged in demonstrat-
ing their commitment and decisiveness in offshore markets should
take note. Since a degree is an investment in time and money, in-
ternational students expect good teaching standards to get through
this process within a stipulated time.
Across all three groups, teaching and resources had a signifi-
cant positive impact on career development. Further, both local and
international students in Australia cited teaching and resources as
a significant positive influence on personal development. Addition-
ally, the average scores for resources were moderate to high (4.16–
5.21), with Singapore being significantly lower. Similarly, there were
markedly lower average scores of student support services in Sin-
gapore (4.64) where students did not perceive such services to be
helpful towards their personal and career development. Evidently,
this validates the third stage of the Uppsala model which suggests
that universities must show decisiveness in offshore markets. Where
a joint venture partnership is in place, it is critical for universities
to conduct regular audits and initiate dialogue with their partners
to address budgets for upgrading learning platforms and student
support services.
Personal and career development had significant positive impacts
on attitude towards the university in all three groups. Further, the
average scores for personal development remained high (5.51–
5.53) and career development were moderate to high (4.79–5.11),
with no significant differences between the three groups. Addition-
ally, the average scores for attitude remained high (5.22–5.72), with
the Singapore group being significantly lower. Interestingly, both
financial/functional and time risks had significant negative impacts
on attitude for international students in Australia, possibly, exac-
erbated by the strong Australian dollar at the time the data were
collected. Some evidence of this may be gleaned from the continu-
ing decline in Australia’s international education sector between 2010
and 2012 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Given the current
climate, Australian universities in the first stage of the Uppsala model
should consider value-adding by increasing industry engagement
in their curriculum. For instance, the University of Western Austr-
alia’s Master of Clinical Audiology course is one of only five university
audiology programmes in Australia. Graduates are eligible for full
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
9
membership at the Audiological Society of Australia and employ-
ment prospects for audiologists are high in Australia and overseas
(http://www.studyat.uwa.edu.au/courses/master-of-clinical-audiology).
Across all three groups, favourable attitude produced signifi-
cant positive impacts on willingness to recommend and willingness
to engage in further study. Further, the average scores for willing-
ness to recommend remained high (5.17–5.73) and willingness to
further study were moderate to high (4.48–5.32), with no signifi-
cant differences between international students in Australia and
Singapore. This suggests that Australian universities in the first stage
of the Uppsala model should capitalise on their inward exporting
strategy. However, this time, instead of acquiring market knowl-
edge, universities should attempt to disseminate knowledge to
offshore markets via their international alumni. Clearly, these stu-
dents are in the unique position of experiencing the main campus
first hand and returning as ambassadors to convey their experi-
ence to others in their home country.
The study has several limitations. First, the sample size for data
collected in Malaysia was small due to the expiring contractual ar-
rangements there. This made it difficult to test the hypothesised
effects in multi group analysis and limited the conclusions drawn
for international students in Malaysia. Second, to give the study focus,
only three risk factors were considered. However, Beneke (2011)
identifies a further three factors associated with tertiary students,
namely, psychological, social and physical risk that may potential-
ly impact on student behaviour and these require consideration.
Third, only one unit offered by the university was examined across
the data sets. While this ensures some consistency in the research
focus, students’ responses to other units could help to generalise
the findings.
Several challenges lie ahead for Australian universities. First is
the delivery of programmes at their home and offshore campuses.
In 2014, The Times Higher Education Reputation Rankings listed only
five Australian universities in the top 100 compared to six in 2013
(The Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). This decline although small,
signals the need for the industry to refocus on its quality so that it
can compete effectively in the marketplace. Australia’s higher ed-
ucation system is underpinned by the Tertiary Education Quality
and Standards Agency (TEQSA). In line with the industry’s need to
refocus, TEQSA has been tasked to step up on its quality assurance
activities of accreditation from now to 2018 (The Commonwealth
of Australia, 2014).
Second, the next generation learners are profiled as being mobile,
placing less emphasis on physical attendance and face-to-face com-
munication and instead, accessing learning resources at their own
place and time (Daniel et al., 2009). Issues of equity and quality in
delivery require careful consideration. Universities must make de-
cisions now that will impact on their investments in teaching and
learning platforms for the next generation learners. Identifying new
technologies that enable universities to interface with existing and
prospective students could provide the competitive edge for uni-
versities aiming to stay ahead.
Third, has the strong Australian dollar made the USA and the UK
more attractive to international students? The swing away from Aus-
tralian universities is reflected in its 12.4 per cent decrease in
education export earnings in 2011 (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2012). If universities intend to maintain their export entry mode
strategy, they will need to add value to what they offer to interna-
tional students at their home campuses. A good start would be to
give students opportunity for work and defray the high cost of their
education. Recent legislation has granted unlimited work rights to
student visa holders who have commenced their postgraduate re-
search in Australia (Australia Department of Immigration and
Citizenship, 2012). While this is a good start, other opportunities
to add value to the international education require further
consideration.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
In conclusion, this paper introduced a decision-making frame-
work of students’ behaviour that examined their perceptions of the
push/pull and risk attributes, attitude, willingness to recommend
and willingness to engage in further study at their university. Tests
for measurement invariance demonstrated equivalence in stu-
dents’ responses which enabled comparisons to be made cross-
nationally. The paper’s findings validated the Uppsala model’s
applicability in evaluating entry mode strategies in the context of
international higher education.
References
Abubakar, B., Shanka, T., Muuka, G.N., 2010. Tertiary education: an investigation of
location selection criteria and preferences by international students – the case
of two Australian universities. J. Mark. High. Educ. 20 (1), 49–68.
Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., Reynolds, R.E., 2009. What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educ. Psychol. 44 (3), 176–197.
Alves, H., Raposo, M., 2010. The influence of university image on student behaviour.
International Journal of Educational Management 24 (1), 73–85.
Astin, A.W., 1984. Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education.
J. Coll. Stud. Pers. 25, 297–308.
Athiyaman, A., 2001. A longitudinal analysis of the impact of student satisfaction
on attitude toward the university. Proc. Acad. Mark. Stud. 6 (2), 38–44.
Australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2012. <http://www.immi
.gov.au/students/students/working_while_studying/conditions.htm> (accessed
14.12..12).
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. International Trade in Services, by Country, by
State and by Detailed Services Category, Calendar Year, 2011.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013. International Trade in Services, by Country, by
State and by Detailed Services Category, Calendar Year, 2012.
Bagozzi, R., Dholakia, U., Basuroy, S., 2003. How effortful decisions get enacted: the
motivating role of decision processes, desires, and anticipated emotions. J. Behav.
Decis. Mak. 16 (4), 273–295.
Bauer, R., 1960. Consumer behavior as risk-taking. In: Hancock, R.S. (Ed.), Dynamic
Marketing for a Changing World. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 389–398.
Beneke, J.H., 2011. Marketing the institution to prospective students – a review of
brand (reputation) management in higher education. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (1),
29–44.
Bianchi, C., Drennan, J., 2012. Drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for overseas
service customers: a critical incident technique approach. Australas. Mark. J. 20
(1), 97–107.
Bourke, A., 2000. A model of the determinants of international trade in higher
education. Serv. Industries J. 20 (1), 110–138.
Brown, R.M., Mazzarol, T.W., 2009. The importance of institutional image to student
satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education 58 (1), 81–
95.
Chapman, R., 1993. Non-simultaneous relative importance-performance analysis:
meta-analysis from 80 college choice surveys with 55,276 respondents. J. Mark.
High. Educ. 4 (1/2), 405–422.
Chen, C.-H., Zimitat, C., 2006. Understanding Taiwanese students’ decision-making
factors regarding Australian international higher education. Int. J. Educ. Manag.
20 (2), 91–100.
Cheng, C.-W., 2010. A study of the role of perceived risk in continuing education
participants’ learning motivation. Bus. Rev. Camb. 16 (2), 313–320.
Clemes, M.D., Gan, C.E.C., Kao, T.H., 2007. University student satisfaction: an empirical
analysis. J. Mark. High. Edu. 17 (2), 292–325.
Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., Uvalić-Trumbić, S., 2009. Breaking higher education’s iron
triangle: access, cost, and quality. Change. Mag. High. Learn. 41 (2), 30–
35.
Dholakia, U., Bagozzi, R., Pearo, L., 2004. A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. Int. J. Res.
Mark. 21 (3), 241–263.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., Barnes, B., 2006. Measuring student satisfaction at a UK
university. Qual. Assur. Educ. 14 (3), 251–267.
Duderstadt, J., 2000. New roles for the 21st century university. Issues Sci. Technol.
16 (2), 37–44.
Eagly, A., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.
Elkin, G., Devjee, F., Farnsworth, J., 2005. Visualising the “internationalisation” of
universities. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 19 (4/5), 318–329.
Fares, D., Achour, M., Kachkar, O., 2013. The impact of service quality, student
satisfaction, and university reputation on student loyalty: a case study of
international students in IIUM, Malaysia. Inf. Manag. Bus. Rev. 5 (12), 584–
590.
Fishbein, M.A., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fletcher, R., Crawford, H., 2014. International Marketing: An Asia-Pacific Perspective,
6th ed. Pearson.
Forsgren, M., 2002. The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalisation process
model: a critical review. Int. Bus. Rev. 11 (3), 257–277.
Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001
Freeman, H., 1984. The Impact of No-need Scholarships on the Matriculation Decision
of Academically Talented Students. Proceedings of the Symposium for the
Marketing of Higher Education. American Marketing Association, Chicago.
Gamage, D.T., Suwanabroma, J., Ueyama, T., Hada, H., Sekikawa, E., 2008. The impact
of quality assurance measures on student services at the Japanese and Thai private
universities. Qual. Assur. Educ. 16 (2), 181–198.
Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., Glaser-Zikuda, M., 2010. Examining student satisfaction
with higher education services: using a new measurement tool. Int. J. Public Sect.
Manage. 23 (2), 105–123.
Gutman, J., Miaoulis, G., 2003. Communicating a quality position in service delivery:
an application in higher education. Manag. Serv. Qual. 13 (2), 105–111.
Hayes, D., Wynyard, R., 2002. The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Praeger,
Wesport, CT.
Healey, N., 2008. Is higher education in really ‘internationalising’? High. Educ. 55,
333–355.
Hill, C.J., Neeley, S., 1988. Differences in the consumer decision process for professional
vs. generic services. J. Serv. Mark. 2 (1), 17–23.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L., MacGregor, J., 2003. Students’ perceptions of quality in higher
education. Qual. Assur. Educ. 11 (1), 15–20.
Hirano, T., 2000. Towards fulfilment of campus life: diversities of student service and
organisational integration of functions of student services. The case of Keio
University. Daigaku Gakusei 427, 15–18.
Huang, Y.-R., Chang, S.-M., 2004. Academic and cocurricular involvement: their
relationship and the best combinations for student growth. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 45
(4), 391–406.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W., 1978. Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. Wiley,
New York.
Jacoby, J., Kyner, D.B., 1973. Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behaviour. J. Mark.
Res. 10 (1), 1–9.
Jan Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.-E., 1977. The internationalisation process of the firm: a
model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments.
J. Int. Bus. Stud. 8 (1), 23–32.
Jan Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.-E., 2009. The Uppsala internationalisation process model
revisited: from liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. J. Int. Bus. Stud.
40 (9), 1411–1431.
Joseph, M., Joseph, B., 1997. Service quality in education: a student perspective. Qual.
Assur. Educ. 5 (1), 15–21.
Kameoka, Y., 1996. The internationalisation. OECD Obs. 202, 34–36.
Knight, P., 2002. Being a Teacher in Higher Education. Society for Research in Higher
Education and the Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Kotler, P., Fox, K., 1995. Strategic Management for Educational Institutions, second
ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Krukowski, J., 1985. What do students want? Status. Change 17, 21–28.
Laroche, M., McDougall, G., Bergeron, J., Yang, Z.Y., 2004. Exploring how intangibility
affects perceived risk. J. Serv. Res. 6 (4), 373–389.
Lavidge, R.J., Steiner, G.A., 1961. A model for predictive measurements of advertising
effectiveness. J. Mark. 59–62.
Lebihan, R., 2012. China rejects Australian uni courses. Aust. Financ. Rev. 27,
<http://www.afr.com>.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., Simons, R., 2002. University students’ perceptions of the learning
environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Stud.
High. Educ. 27 (1), 27–52.
Mao, W., Oppewal, H., 2010. Did I choose the right university? How post-purchase
information affects cognitive dissonance, satisfaction and perceived service
quality. Australas. Mark. J. 18 (1), 28–35.
Maringe, F., Carter, S., 2007. International students’ motivations for studying in UK
HE: insights into the choice and decision making of African students. Int. J. Educ.
Manag. 21 (6), 459–475.
Mavondo, F.T., Tsarenko, Y., Gabbott, M., 2004. International and local student
satisfaction: resources and capabilities perspective. J. Mark. High. Educ. 14 (1),
41–60.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., 2002. “Push-pull” factors influencing international student
destination choice. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 16 (2), 82–90.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., Seng, M.S.Y., 2003. The third wave: future trends in
international education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 17 (2/3), 90–99.
McIlveen, P., Pensiero, D., 2008. Transition of graduates from backpack-to-briefcase:
a case study. Educ. Train. 50 (6), 489–499.
Mieres, C., Martin, A., Gutierrez, J., 2006. Antecedents of the difference in perceived
risk between store brands and national brands. Eur. J. Mark. 40 (1/2), 61–
82.
Nguyen, N., LeBlanc, G., 2001. Image and reputation of higher education institutions
in students’ retention decisions. International Journal of Educational Management
15 (6/7), 303–312.
Norris, B., 2011. Crossing borders. Education Travel, April 2011, 25.
Odigbo, I., 2013. Perception of empowerment among international students at the
University Putra Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 8 (23), 93–101.
Padlee, S.F., Kamaruddin, A.R., Baharun, R., 2010. International students’ choice
behaviour for higher education at Malaysian private universities. Int. J. Mark. Stud.
2 (2), 202–211.
Paswan, A.K., Ganesh, G., 2009. Higher education institutions: satisfaction and loyalty
among international students. J. Mark. High. Educ. 19 (1), 65–84.
Quintal, V., Phau, I., 2014. Students’ perceptions of an internationalised learning
environment. Mark. Intell. Plann. 32 (1), 89–106.
Quintal, V., Shanka, T., Chuanuwatanakul, P., 2012. Mediating effects of study
outcomes on student experience and loyalty: a comparison of home and
international students. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Mark. 2 (2), 20–41.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V. Quintal, I. Phau/Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ 11

Russell, M., 2005. Marketing education: a review of service quality perceptions among
international students. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 17 (1), 65–76.
Ryu, K., Juang, S.S., 2009. The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioural
intentions through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants. J. Hospit. Tourism
Res. 31 (3), 56–72.
Shank, M., Beasley, F., 1998. Gender effects on the university selection process. J. Mark.
High. Educ. 8 (3), 63–71.
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., Chui, W.-H., 2010. International students: a vulnerable student
population. High. Educ. 60, 33–46.
Sinkovics, R.R., Haghirian, P., Yu, S., 2009. Information technology-based innovation
in international marketing education: an exploration of two learning
environments. J. Teach. Int. Bus. 20 (2), 123–148.
Stone, R., Gronhaug, K., 1993. Perceived risk: further considerations for the marketing
discipline. Eur. J. Mark. 27, 39–50.
The Commonwealth of Australia, 2014. Budget 2014–2015 – Higher education, 13
May 2014. CanPrint Communications Pty Ltd, Australia.
Vermeulen, L., Schmidt, H.G., 2008. Learning environment, learning process, academic
outcomes and career success of university graduates. Stud. High. Educ. 33 (4),
431–451.
Warwick, J., Mansfield, P., 2003. Perceived risk in college selection: differences in
evaluative criteria used by students and parents. J. Mark. High. Educ. 13 (1/2),
101–125.
Wei, H., 2013. An empirical study on the determinants of international student
mobility: a global perspective. High. Educ. 66, 105–122.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanessa Quintal, Ian Phau, Comparing student loyalty behavioural intentions across multi entry mode deliveries: An Australian perspective, Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.01.001