You are what you communicate: on the relationships among university brand personality, identification, student participation, and citizenship behaviour

ABSTRACT

This article presents an empirical investigation of the effects university brand personality and student–university identification have on student participation and citizenship behaviour in the context of higher education. The study employed a self-administered questionnaire to collect data from 433 university students. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling. The results revealed that only the sincerity and lively facets of university brand personality play a vital role in informing student–university identification. Furthermore, when students perceive their university brand to be more sincere, they are more likely to exhibit citizenship behaviour. The study also found that students who identify with their university engage in various forms of participation and citizenship behaviours. University administrators can streamline their marketing and branding communication to emphasise specific brand characteristics in order to improve student identification with the university and student engagement in university-supportive and extra-role behaviours.

KEYWORDS:

• Brand personality
• student–university identification
• participation behaviour
• citizenship behaviour
• higher education
• Gulf region

Introduction

University education is considered a unique service in the sense that the service recipient is assessed during the service provision (Ng & Forbes, 2009) and is expected to make necessary efforts for a successful service outcome. If students do not make such efforts, they are likely to experience lower quality university experience. Like consumers, students who actively participate in the service provision by bringing their experience, knowledge, skills, and their willingness to learn (Fagerstrøm & Ghinea, 2013) may enjoy several benefits including hedonic, cognitive, social, and personal benefits. Students can engage in behaviours outside the classroom sphere such as participation (e.g. information seeking, information sharing and co-operative behaviour) and citizenship behaviour (e.g. feedback, advocacy, helping behaviour, and tolerance) (Elsharnouby, 2015) that benefit their university in several ways (Wilkins & Huisman, 2013). Today, it is imperative for universities to understand what stimulates students to engage in such behaviours. Would students engage more with their university if they perceive it as a distinct and unique university? Would students who strongly identify with their universities engage in different forms of participation and citizenship behaviour? The extant literature does not provide clear answers to these questions.

The growing competition in higher education, shrinking supply of college students, and constraints on public funding (Eldegwy et al., 2018; Harrison-Walker, 2010; Yousaf et al., 2020) have intensified the need for universities to streamline their focus to establish and maintain a unique and strong university brand image (Balaji et al., 2016; Chapleo, 2011). Universities predominantly operate in an evolving market and aim to attract prospective students by establishing a robust and favourable brand image over time (Lomer et al., 2018; Steimer, 2016). Higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly offering similar degree programmes, thereby leading to a cluttered sector (Rutter et al., 2017), making it hard for students to recognise the differentiation among HEIs. Despite the doubts concerning the importance of branding activities for HEIs, university names continue to play a critical role in evoking impressions, emotions, and associations, highlighting the significance of managing a distinct university brand (Pringle & Fritz, 2019). Therefore, several recent studies observe the need for HEIs to develop a vibrant strong brand to differentiate themselves from the competitors (Chapleo, 2015; Elsharnouby, 2015; Hashim et al., 2020).

Considering the varied audience categories and sub-branding activities involved, commercial product/service branding strategies cannot be adopted for HEIs without being adjusted. Each of the university audience groups has varying needs, expectations, and aspirations from the university, thereby creating complexity for managing the university brand (Dooley, 2013; Neumark, 2012). This complexity also arises from the need for unified marketing and branding efforts within several levels in the university (e.g. colleges, departments, programmes, centres, units). Brand complexity is a characteristic exhibited by all universities as they aim to target diverse audiences, including current and prospective students, parents, business community employers, and government (Bock et al., 2014; Eldegwy et al., 2018). In addition, when communicating to a diverse audience, it is challenging for HEIs to decide what themes they should use in their messaging to differentiate themselves from the crowd (Clayton et al., 2013). Other university-related factors also contribute to the complexity of university branding, such as the need to serve a set of diverse audiences with limited options for differentiating the product offering to each segment (Story, 2021), internal structures, sub-branding activities executed by schools/facilities, internal communication systems, and the need for support by university leadership (Williams & Omar, 2014).

Previous studies have indicated that brand personality can reduce brand complexity by maintaining image consistency in the marketing efforts (Farquhar, 1989). People tend to associate human characteristics with brands (Aaker, 1997) and perceive them in the same way they deal with friends (Rutter et al., 2017). A consistent and attractive brand personality can enhance perceived brand image (Rutter et al., 2017). Furthermore, a favourable university image can convert students into university advocates by stimulating a feeling of identification with the university (Balaji et al., 2016; Wilkins et al., 2016). To identify with a brand, the person should have a clear idea of their self-concept. As such, social identification with a group reflects the perception of a similar self-concept (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This concept explains the psychology of belongingness to the group (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010). University identification is described as a form of social identification that reflects students’ sense of belongingness or attachment with the university (Balaji et al., 2016). When choosing a university, students seek common features between themselves and the university groups.

The dynamics of the relationships among brand personality, student–university identification, student participation and citizenship behaviours are not sufficiently investigated. To this end, this study contributes to services marketing, branding, and higher education literature by examining the role of brand personality dimensions (e.g. conscientiousness, sincerity, prestige, lively, cosmopolitan, and appeal) on university identification. Furthermore, it examines how brand personality dimensions influence student participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour directly and indirectly through university identification.

Theoretical background

Social identity theory

Social identity is the individual perception that helps individuals align themselves with a specific group of people who share common social identities (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Social identity enables individuals to conduct a screening process to categorise themselves socially. As a result, this process improves their self-esteem by being attached to a social group following similar conventions. Social identity theory underpinnings explain that social identity works as a stimulant for enforcing people’s attitudes and behaviours to follow social convention (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Bliuc et al., 2011). The foundation of social identity incorporates two integral processes: self-categorisation and social comparison (Stets & Burke, 2000). Self-categorisation operates by highlighting the resemblance between individual perception and the in-group as well as the contrast with the out-group. In the social comparison process, a person’s self-esteem is boosted by assessing the in-group and out-group traits that lead to a positive judgment of the in-group and a negative judgment of the out-group (Stets & Burke, 2000).

In this study, the social identity theory underpinnings elucidate why students would better identify with universities that possess specific brand personality characteristics and the consequences of such identification. In social contexts, individuals tend to seek group affiliation with organisations that enable them to differentiate themselves from others (Ahearne et al., 2005). The social identity theory would suggest that when students evaluate the congruity between themselves and the university they study at, they would consider the perceived similarities/differences between the self and other in-group/out-group students (Wilkins & Huisman, 2013). Students would consider issues such as nationality, ethnicity, religious affiliation and socio-economic class to categorise themselves and other students who study at the same university. This categorisation enables students to evaluate the social environment in the university and assess the fit between themselves and others (Kim et al., 2010). Furthermore, the consequence of the social comparison with in-group students as a result of the perceived congruence between the self and in-group members might help students accomplish their self-esteem and retain balance in their self-identity (Smith, 1998). Using the same reasoning, when students perceive their university as a distinctive and has favourable university brand personality that allows them to distinguish from others, they are more likely to identify with the university (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

Social identity theory also provides a theoretical foundation to the notion that university identification enables students to express their self-concept, which might affect their engagement in university supportive behaviours (Tajfel, 1978). The theory further proposes that, when consumers identify with a firm that satisfies their self-esteem needs, they are likely to respond by advocating and promoting the firm (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Furthermore, social identity theory suggests that individuals are more likely to develop their social identity by connecting with social groups that they feel, they belong to (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). When individuals recognise a greater similarity between their identity and the identity of the organisation they belong to, they tend to perform extra-role behaviours (Ahearne et al., 2005). When students develop such a sense of belongingness to their university, they are more likely to engage in a variety of supportive behaviours (Balaji et al., 2016; Bliuc et al., 2011).

University brand personality

The concept of brand personality is viewed as a set of trait inferences perceived by the customer based on actual experience with the brand and observation of behaviours executed by the company managing the brand (Fournier, 1998). Brand personality reflects the human attributes identified with a brand (Aaker, 1997). Executing a consistent brand personality creates a robust brand image, which enables customers to relate to the brand on a personal level (Aaker, 1997). According to Lin (2010), brand personality combines three groups of information: consumer references, branding efforts, and brand attributes. Consumers tend to favour a brand personality that fits their self-concept as it assimilates their connection with the brand. Therefore, consistent robust brand personalities are expected to affect the consumer’s behavioural outcomes (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013).

Branding a university to have a unified robust image is a complex process for two reasons. First, a university has multiple stakeholders that should be considered while implementing a branding strategy. University stakeholders include categories such as students, academics, employees, families, governing entities, suppliers, competitors, donors, alumni, and government regulators (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010). HEIs face difficulties catering to often contradictory demands coming from these varied stakeholders (Alcaide-Pulido et al., 2017). Each category has distinct ideas regarding university brand personality. Thus, the university should admit these differences when executing their branding activities. Second, the university has several colleges, programmes, and facilities to capture in their brand communications. Consequently, university communications can potentially be ambiguous, and audiences develop their own interpretations of a message. When intrinsic product attributes are difficult to comprehend, brand personality plays a key role in informing product/service perceptions (Freling & Forbes, 2005).

Brand personality sets the foundation for a brand to have a unique perception in consumers’ minds. When competing brands sound similar, brand personality differentiates them (Freling & Forbes, 2005). In higher education, it is critical for universities to unify their marketing and branding efforts as they circulate multiple messages to prospective students during the admission stage. These messages vary because they are created at different levels, such as the department, college, and university level. For other products and services, consumers tend to have prior expectations based on previous experience. However, for a university, prospective students typically do not have prior experience to set expectations towards the programme they plan to commence. Therefore, students find it challenging to understand the institution’s sophisticated brand. They tend to use others’ opinions and other informal sources of information to form an attitude towards the university and its services (Swaminathan, 2003).

Brand personality is considered a complex concept that comprises multiple dimensions, such as competence, sincerity, excitement, ruggedness, and sophistication (Aaker, 1997). Initially, Aaker’s scale was employed to examine brand personality in different contexts for assessing its validity, reliability, and ability to uphold translation and cross-cultural use (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). Thereafter, multiple scales were constructed to suit varying countries, cultures, sectors, and product/service settings (Davies et al., 2004; Sung & Yang, 2008). As the current study emphasises universities’ brand personality, established scales that have been developed and employed in university contexts have been reviewed. This study employed Rauschnabel et al.’s (2016) brand personality scale to operationalise university brand personality. The scale includes six dimensions: conscientiousness, sincerity, prestige, lively, cosmopolitan, and appeal. Each dimension is described by specific adjectives to capture varying aspects of that dimension. For example, conscientiousness covers the competent, organised, effective, and structured attributes of the university. Sincerity encompasses helpful, humane, trustworthy, friendly, and fair traits. Prestige reflects characteristics such as accepted, reputable, leading, considerable, and successful. The lively facet covers the creative, dynamic, and athletic components of a university. Cosmopolitan represents whether people perceive a university as an open or closed institution. Appeal represents desirable aspects of the university as a person, such as special, productive, and attractive (Rauschnabel et al., 2016).

University identification

University identification refers to the level of accentuation between the university’s and the student’s identity (Balaji et al., 2016). This identification corresponds to the student’s recognised sense of belongingness with the HEI (Balaji et al., 2016). Originating from the organisational context, identification is the manifestation of belongingness and solidarity towards the organisation and its members and activities (Wilkins & Huisman, 2013). University identification reflects how students perceive themselves with regard to their affinity to their college or university (Kim et al., 2010). With the diverse and multicultural nature of most university campuses, there have been calls for research to provide a deeper understanding of what constitutes university brand identification among current students and the influences of such identification (Yao et al., 2019). Wilkins and Huisman (2013) have empirically proven that students tend to be attracted to HEIs when these institutions accentuate their identities coherently and clearly to fit with the features that students like. When considering the study abroad decision, international students tend to choose a host HEI that can match or enhance their self-image (Nghiêm-Phú & Nguyễn, 2020).

Social identity theory demonstrates that individuals are likely to classify other people into varying social groups based on several factors, such as gender, age, social class, and profession (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). When individuals connect with a specific social group, they show a tendency to bind favourable bias towards that group (Tajfel, 1978) in an attempt to enhance self-identity. Consumers tend to use the same reasoning when they think about brands. The consumer–brand personality congruence is believed to trigger consumers to identify with the brand (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010). Extant higher education literature extends this cogitation and demonstrates that, when university brand is evaluated positively as being unique, practical, friendly, and appealing, university identification is enhanced (Stephenson & Yerger, 2014). Some brand personality dimensions such as sincerity and competence are observed to have a significant impact on university identification (Polyorat, 2011). Students who perceive the university personality as favourable tend to develop a strong sense of belongingness with the university (Sung & Yang, 2008). Therefore, a more distinctive and appealing university brand personality will encourage students to develop a stronger identification with the university. Therefore, we hypothesise:

H1: Favourable university brand personality has a positive influence on student–university identification.

Student participation and citizenship behaviour

According to the service-dominant logic perspective, the consumer is viewed as a co-creator of value by playing a more collaborative and active role during the service experience (Lusch et al., 2007; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Consumers provide a critical source for competence to firms by bringing their experience, knowledge, capabilities, skills, and their willingness to learn and explore when they engage in an active dialogue with firms’ personnel or with other consumers (Fagerstrøm & Ghinea, 2013). On the other side, consumers who actively participate in the co-creation process may enjoy several benefits including hedonic, cognitive, social, and personal benefits. Thus, opportunities for value creation are boosted for firms that create a personalised experience environment as the source of unique value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). In higher education, the university experience is co-created which requires students’ participation and involvement (Ng & Forbes, 2009). It is important for students to play an active role, take responsibility for their learning, and use university resources to ensure more successful outcomes (Mavondo et al., 2004). University education is the only service type where the primary consumer is assessed to prove a successful service outcome (Ng & Forbes, 2009). If students do not make the necessary efforts to attain their academic targets, they are more likely to experience lower quality interactions with the university and its stakeholders (e.g. faculty, employees, and other students). Students are expected to engage in one or two levels of behaviours to have a positive university experience—namely, participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour (Elsharnouby, 2015).

Customer participation is defined as the behaviours indicative of responsible and active inclusion in the administration and evolution of an organisation (Bettencourt, 1997). In higher education, students receive and consume educational services and their participation is conceptualised as the essential and required behaviour expected from the student for successful service provision (Elsharnouby, 2016). Student participation behaviour is a multi-dimensional concept that comprises four dimensions: information sharing, information seeking, personal interaction, and responsible behaviour (Yi & Gong, 2013). Information sharing pertains to sharing the needed information with the service provider for successful service completion. For instance, it is expected that university students will provide employees with the required information to get the needed services (Elsharnouby, 2016). Information seeking implies students’ propensity to seek information and perform the required tasks to get the right service (Yi & Gong, 2013). Personal interaction represents the interpersonal relationship between the student and the university’s personnel that is necessary for successful service provision (Elsharnouby, 2015). Finally, responsible behaviour is exhibited when the student recognises the responsibilities and duties they should perform to receive university services. It is crucial for the student to be cooperative and accept guidance from the service provider’s personnel for effective service provision (Bettencourt, 1997).

Customer citizenship behaviour is primarily inspired by the positive interaction an individual has with the firm and the consequent satisfaction and commitment (Yi & Gong, 2013). This behaviour is observed when the same individual is motivated to reciprocate the support/kindness towards other customers (Dang & Arndt, 2017). Therefore, student citizenship behaviour can be described as the supportive and cooperative actions a student performs towards other students or the university in a way that is appreciated and valued by the institution.

The present study conceptualises student citizenship behaviour as a multi-dimensional concept encompassing four dimensions: feedback, advocacy, helping behaviour, and tolerance (Yi & Gong, 2013). Based on their experience, current students can offer relevant first-hand information to their peers and employees with regard to facilities, faculty, and administrative tasks. If institutions enable students to share information more freely, students might offer the most insightful and innovative advice on how to improve the services offered to them (Dollinger et al., 2018). Students can also offer feedback to help other students enhance their university experience. Advocacy is exhibited when students reveal a sense of affinity with the university and recommend it to their friends and family. Students may advocate their university by playing an active role in the alumni groups (Pedro et al., 2018) and by recommending it to others or choosing it again for future study (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). Helping behaviour is demonstrated when students voluntarily help their peers execute required tasks (Elsharnouby, 2015). Students tend to exhibit a sense of social responsibility towards other students and provide assistance to them when they recall their experiences as freshmen students. Finally, tolerance is derived from the sportsmanship concept and defined as the disposition to accept inevitable disruptions and inconveniences without complaining (Organ, 1990). Students may exhibit tolerance when performance does not match their expectations or when they experience a service failure. Examples of tolerance include accepting a change in classroom timings, studying in inconvenient study conditions, accepting a change in the course syllabus, and adopting new learning approaches (Mazen et al., 2008).

The link between brand personality and different types of consumer behaviour has been examined in several contexts. Kim et al. (2001) empirically demonstrated the positive association between brand attractiveness, brand loyalty, and positive word-of-mouth in the cell phone market. In the tourism sector, Usakli and Baloglu (2011) suggested that, when consumers favour the firm’s brand personality, they tend to repeat purchase and exhibit some extra-role behaviours, such as advocacy. Clemenz et al. (2012) illustrate that when consumers perceive the brand as being responsible and active, they tend to associate the brand with a higher level of quality. Likewise, being perceived as a responsible brand enhances consumer satisfaction and trust, while being perceived as an active brand boosts loyalty (Japutra & Molinillo, 2019). Goldsmith and Goldsmith (2012) observe that the responsibility dimension has a strong impact on brand engagement.

In higher education, university brand personality is constructed in students’ minds based on two facets: students’ experience with faculty, staff, and other students and university branding efforts. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) observed that students tend to exhibit their personality by mirroring the university’s image when they like and admire the university’s branding efforts. This favourable assessment of university brand personality is reflected in students’ supportive behaviour towards the university (Sung & Yang, 2008). Furthermore, distinct and attractive brand personalities significantly trigger favourable attitudes and behaviours (Aghaz et al., 2015; Sung & Yang, 2008). University image, in terms of the image of education, image of facilities and equipment, and image of communication, has been found to be a driver of alumni supportive behaviours, such as personal recommendations and a willingness to be advocates, ambassadors, mentors, and donors (Pedro et al., 2018). Accordingly, when students favour the university brand personality, they are expected to exhibit participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour towards the university. Hence, this study hypothesises:

H2: Favourable university brand personality dimensions positively affect (a) student participation behaviour and (b) student citizenship behaviour

Prior studies have investigated the link between identification and specific dimensions of participation and citizenship behaviour (e.g. Ahearne et al., 2005; Balaji, 2014; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Elbedweihy et al., 2016). For example, brand identification is found to be a driver of positive word-of-mouth and repurchase intention in the automobile industry (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010). In the tourism sector, Berrozpe et al. (2019) find that brand identification with a destination enhances tourists’ loyalty. On the contrary, customer-brand disidentification lead to patronage reduction and negative word of mouth (Anaza et al., 2021).

In the higher education context, Wilkins and Huisman (2013) find that when students have a strong identification with the university, they tend to engage in supportive behaviours that are directly or indirectly favourable to the institution. Students who strongly identify with their universities tend to engage in several citizenship behaviours, such as recommending their universities to friends or other people, defending their universities from critics, and using the logos or names of their universities at home, in public settings, and at gatherings or parties (Yao et al., 2019). Perin et al. (2012) find that a strong sense of identification with the university triggers students’ commitment in terms of growing tendency to attend future courses and events in the university. Balaji et al. (2016) suggested specific outcomes of university identification, including actively voicing suggestions for developments, advocating the university, and participating in future university events. Hence, we hypothesise that:

H3: Student–university identification positively affects (a) student participation behaviour and (b) student citizenship behaviour

Methodology

Measures and questionnaire development

We employed well-established and validated scales (Table 1) to measure study constructs using five-point Likert scales (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). To measure the concept of university brand personality, Rauschnabel et al.’s (2016) brand personality scale was employed. This scale includes six dimensions: conscientiousness, sincerity, prestige, lively, cosmopolitan, and appeal. The items used to measure student–university identification were derived from the study of Balaji et al. (2016). Following Yi and Gong (2013), we measured student participation and citizenship behaviour in terms of four dimensions for each. Student participation measures consisted of information seeking, information sharing, responsible behaviour, and personal interaction. Student citizenship behaviour included helping behaviour, tolerance, advocacy, and feedback. A self-administered questionnaire was constructed following an extensive literature review. A rigorous pre-test procedure was performed to examine the items’ clarity, wording, appropriateness, and relevance on a sample of 20 students and five faculty members. This process resulted in minor modifications for some statements’ wording.

Table 1. Skewness and Kurtosis for measuring items, standardised factor loadings, t-values, and composite reliability.

Constructs	Operationalisation of the constructs	Skewness Statistic	Kurtosis Statistic	λ	T	CR
Conscientiousness	Structured	−.844	.150	0.80	–	0.89
	Competent	−.881	.713	0.84	19.29
	Organised	−.745	−.174	0.78	17.66
	Effective	−.987	.967	0.86	19.82
Sincerity	Helpful	−.885	.611	0.78	–	0.85
	Trustworthy	−.851	.321	0.90	18.10
	Human	−.743	.106	0.75	19.15
Lively	Lively	−.762	.122	0.88	–	0.80
	Dynamic	−.550	.183	0.75	16.18
Student-University Identification	My university reflects who I am.	−.424	−.678	0.71	–	0.90
	I find that my values and the values of my university are very similar.	−.559	−.302	0.79	15.52
	I find it easy to identify with my university.	−.920	.368	0.78	19.77
	I view problems at my university as my problems.	−.618	−.240	0.61	12.02
	I feel like I ‘fit in’ at this university.	−.603	−.149	0.81	15.94
	My university holds a great deal of personal meaning for me as it helps me become a better person.	−.370	−.443	0.87	17.03
	I feel I have a lot in common with other students affiliated with my university.	−.854	.112	0.64	12.63
Student Participation Behaviour	I tend to search for information about this service.	−.730	.383	0.64	–	0.86
	I adequately complete all the expected behaviours of a student.	−.913	1.134	0.75	11.34
	I provide the necessary information so that university employees can perform their duties.	−.905	1.100	0.65	11.21
	I perform all the tasks that are required to get this service.	−.860	1.575	0.80	13.06
	I answer the employee’s service-related questions.	−1.185	2.573	0.66	11.35
	I fulfil my responsibilities to the university.	−1.089	2.256	0.75	12.52
Student Citizenship Behaviour	I say positive things about the university services to others.	−.898	.755	0.73	–	0.91
	I recommend my university services to other students.	−.951	.511	0.74	15.23
	I assist other students if they need my help when getting/using university services.	−1.629	4.020	0.78	13.30
	I advise other students regarding university services.	−1.292	2.581	0.62	12.50
	I help other students if they seem to have problems with university services.	−1.398	2.652	0.83	13.10
	I encourage other students to use university services.	−1.098	1.886	0.79	12.95
	I teach other students to use university services correctly.	−.966	1.146	0.81	12.83

Data collection and sample

The data employed in this study came from the higher education sector in Qatar. In the 2017–2018 academic year, 34,000 students were enrolled in 19 universities in Qatar, including two public institutions (Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics, 2019). Using an online self-administered questionnaire, we surveyed a sample of 433 students from a leading public university in Qatar. This university was selected as it is the primary higher education institution in the country and accommodates 62% of students enrolled in the Qatari higher education sector. Unlike most other HEIs in Qatar, which focus on specific specialty programmes, the selected university offers a total of 79 undergraduate and graduate programmes in-house. As the largest and oldest university in the country, appealing to students at different colleges and programmes in the university helped the researchers draw a diverse sample. The sample encompasses respondents who exhibited a range of demographic characteristics, including five age groups, both male and female, and they varied in their educational level, the field of study, employment status, and nationality. A snowball sampling technique was employed to distribute the online survey link via broadcast emails. The survey link was emailed to professors as well as the Student Affairs and Graduate Studies departments to broadcast it to students.

In total, 433 useable responses were obtained, after sorting out incomplete surveys. The sample size met the statistical requirement to run structural equation modelling (Hair et al., 2010). The majority (83%) of the respondents were females and the rest males. This proportion approximately matches the student population of the university (74% of the university population is female). In the 2017–2018 academic year, female students constituted the majority of students enrolled in universities in Qatar by 68% (Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics, 2019). There are several reasons behind this imbalance such as the highly competitive packages of job benefits provided to nationals, which induce male students to enter the workforce immediately after high school. Furthermore, a high percentage of Qatari male students enrol in military colleges or study abroad for better future career opportunities. Unlike male students, social and cultural factors pose challenges for many Qatari female students to benefit from the generous scholarships offered by the state. In addition, 54% of the sample were senior and junior undergraduate students, 16% were postgraduate students, and the rest were sophomore and freshman students. The sample comprised 56% domestic and 44% international students, most of whom were between 18 and 25 years old (68%).

Results

Measurement validation

A two-stage structural equation modelling approach employing AMOS 25 was used to evaluate the measurement model’s validity and reliability and to test the study hypotheses. Using the maximum likelihood method with Promax rotation, several exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were performed to specify the appropriate sub-dimensions of the study constructs. Two series of EFA were executed: one on the brand personality scale items and another on the other constructs. Items with factor loadings less than 0.40 and/or with cross-loading were removed (Clemes et al., 2008; Parasuraman et al., 2005). Drawing on the EFA results, only 13 items were extracted to represent four dimensions of university brand personality; sincerity, conscientiousness, prestige, and lively, which explained a total variance of 67.31%. The other two dimensions (cosmopolitan and appeal) were removed because the factor loadings of their corresponding items were less than 0.40 or loaded on two different dimensions. The factors identified in the second EFA were student–university identification, student participation behaviour, and student citizenship behaviour, explaining a total variance of 54.91%. The results of the EFA revealed the unidimensional nature of both student participation and citizenship behaviour constructs. This inference coincides with the findings of Elsharnouby (2015). Although this result contradicts some literature considering these constructs as multi-dimensional, this is justified as the measures for student participation and citizenship behaviour were conceptualised and developed in varied settings (e.g. retailing, healthcare facilities, restaurants, online shopping, and travel) rather than the distinct context of higher education.

To assess normality assumption, skewness and kurtosis of all measurement items were calculated. As illustrated in Table 1, the results show no substantial departure from normality since the skewness and kurtosis values for all constructs’ items were below the thresholds of 3 and 10 respectively (Kline, 2015). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to evaluate the reliability of the measures and assess the construct validity of the proposed measurement model. The CFA model demonstrated a good fit to the data, χ2 (353) = 573.59, χ2/df = 1.63, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.04. As illustrated in Table 1, composite reliability scores ranged between 0.80 and 0.91, implying high internal consistency for all constructs (Hair et al., 2006; Table 1). The convergent validity was supported as average variance extracted (AVE) scores for all model constructs were above 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and all CFA item loadings were greater than the cut-off point of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010; Table 2). Discriminant validity for all constructs is also supported as the AVE for each construct exceeded the squared correlations between all pairs of constructs. The prestige dimension did not meet this criterion, leading to a discriminant validity concern. As a result, it was eliminated before running the structural model. Furthermore, we conducted the Harman single factor to evaluate the possibility of a common method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010). The results illustrated several factors and the first factor explained less than 30% of the variance in the data, which means common method variance was not evident. Finally, we run linear regression to diagnose multicollinearity concerns. The results illustrate that correlation coefficients for all predictor variables were well below 0.50, collinearity tolerances were more than 0.1 and VIF statistics were less than 3; thus, multicollinearity concerns were not observed.

Table 2. Correlation matrix and AVE values.

	Mean	SD	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Conscientiousness	3.73	0.91	0.67	0.82
2. Sincerity	3.72	0.92	0.66	0.78***	0.81
3. Lively	3.49	0.92	0.67	0.80***	0.73***	0.82
4. Student-university Identification	3.55	0.87	0.56	0.67***	0.70***	0.67***	0.75
5. Student participation behaviour	4.12	0.59	0.51	0.30***	0.35***	0.26***	0.46***	0.71
6. Student citizenship behaviour	4.00	0.70	0.58	0.34***	0.37***	0.31***	0.34***	0.59***	0.76

Note: N=433, ***p < 0.001.

Structural model

To test the proposed hypotheses, a structural model comprising the six identified constructs was developed. The structural model demonstrated adequate fit, χ2 (354) = 672, χ2/df = 1.90, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, IFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05. As illustrated in Table 3, the results show that only the sincerity and lively dimensions affected university identification. Although sincerity (β = .38, p < .001) and lively (β = .25, p < .01) demonstrated a strong significant impact on university identification, the conscientiousness dimension did not affect student–university identification. This partially supports H1. Collectively, the three factors explained 55% of the variation in identification. However, the findings indicated that the three university brand personality dimensions did not have a significant impact on student participation behaviour; thus, H2a was not supported. The results also demonstrated that sincerity is the only brand personality dimension that affects student citizenship behaviour (β = .26, p < .05), thereby partially supporting H2b. In support of H3a and H3b, university identification had a positive effect on both participation behaviour (β = .47, p < .001) and citizenship behaviour (β = .19, p < .05). Together, university brand personality and identification explained 24% and 17%, respectively, of the variation in student participation and citizenship behaviour Table 4.

Table 3. Structural model results.

Hypothesised paths	Beta	t-value	Hypothesis result
H1: University brand personality → Student-university identification.			Partially Supported
Conscientiousness	.17	1.84
Sincerity	.38***	4.51
Lively	.25**	2.82
H2a: University brand personality → Student participation behaviour			Rejected
Conscientiousness	−0.002	−.02
Sincerity	0.18	1.68
Lively	−0.19	−1.69
H2b: University brand personality →Student citizenship behaviour			Partially Supported
Conscientiousness	0.08	.70
Sincerity	0.26*	2.38
Lively	−0.09	−.77
H3a: Student–university identification → student participation behaviour	.47***	5.39	Supported
H3b: Student–university identification → Student citizenship behaviour	0.19*	2.35	Supported
R^2
Identification	0.55
Participation behaviour.	0.24
Citizenship behaviour	0.17

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.

Table 4. Mediation analysis.

Indirect Path	Lower	Upper	P-Value	Standardized Estimate
Conscientiousness → Identification → Participation	−0.055	0.001	0.115	−0.032
Conscientiousness → Identification → Citizenship	−0.130	0.005	0.132	−0.075
Sincerity → Identification → Participation	0.056	0.156	0.001	0.121***
Sincerity → Identification → Citizenship	0.177	0.358	0.001	0.285***
Lively → Identification → Participation	−0.128	−0.043	0.001	−0.123***
Lively → Identification → Citizenship	−0.280	−0.143	0.000	−0.291***

Note: ***p < 0.001.

To examine whether university brand personality dimensions have indirect effects on student participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour through identification, a mediation analysis was conducted. Following the bootstrapping approach suggested by Hayes and Preacher (2014), a mediation analysis was performed based on 2,000 bootstrap samples. The results illustrate that identification mediates the relationship between sincerity and both student participation behaviour (β = .121, p < .001) and citizenship behaviour (β = .285, p < .001). The results also indicate that identification mediates the relationship between lively and both student participation behaviour (β = -.123, p < .001) and citizenship behaviour (β = -.291, p < .001). However, the link between conscientiousness and both student participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour is not mediated through identification.

Conclusion

Theoretical implications

Extant higher education literature addresses university brand personality and brand identification antecedents and consequences (e.g. Balaji et al., 2016; Polyorat, 2011; Stephenson & Yerger, 2014; Sung & Yang, 2008). This study extends this line of research by providing some empirical evidence on the dynamics of the relationships among brand personality, student–university identification, student participation and citizenship behaviours. The results indicate that specific university brand personality dimensions significantly affect university identification. Only the sincerity and lively facets of university brand personality play a vital role in informing student–university identification. When students perceive their university brand to be more sincere (e.g. trustworthiness, helpful, human) and lively, they tend to identify with the university. Sincerity reflects brand trust, which should be inherent in the university’s actions to be perceived as a credible brand (Rutter et al., 2017). This finding aligns with previous studies in that some university brand personality positively influences student identification (Stephenson & Yerger, 2014). Polyorat (2011) explained that competence and sincerity have a stronger effect on university identification than excitement and sophistication. The lively dimension of a university reflects dynamic, athletic, and creative meanings (Rauschnabel et al., 2016). In some countries, like the USA, students associate with university sports teams more than a university’s academic reputation (Toma & Cross, 1998). Sung and Yang (2008) observed that, when students perceive congruency between their personality and the university’s personality, they tend to develop a sense of belongingness which improves their identification with the university.

We find support to the notion that favourable brand personality affects students’ supportive behaviour. This result extends recent findings of the role of brand personality in boosting consumer extra-role behaviour (Japutra & Molinillo, 2019). When students perceive their university brand to be more sincere, they are more likely to exhibit citizenship behaviour. This result corroborates the conclusions of Sung and Yang (2008), who suggested that a university’s personality traits have a positive effect on student supportive behaviour towards the university. Furthermore, none of the university brand personality dimensions had a significant direct effect on student participation behaviour. One possible reason for this is that strong university identification should exist to ensure that students are willing to actively participate in co-producing the services offered by the university. The results also lend support for concluding the mediating effect of university identification. Identification mediates the effects of sincerity and lively dimensions on student participation and citizenship behaviours. Students are more likely to actively participate in the service provision when they have a strong sense of identification with the university, and not from the perception of a favourable university brand personality per se. This result implies that students who strongly identify with the university when perceiving a favourable university brand personality (e.g. sincere) are far more likely to actively engage in co-producing the services offered by the university. Furthermore, it is not sufficient for a university to have a sincere brand personality to get students to become actively engaged in services provision. Hence, this finding underscores the critical role university identification plays in boosting both student participation and citizenship behaviour. In contrast, results suggest that lively personality of the university has a negative indirect effect on both participation and citizenship behaviour. Identification makes the negative effects of lively aspect more salient. Lively university personality emanates from being dynamic and focusing on promoting athletic activities and events, which seems to be not welcoming by students. This finding may be attributed to the local conservative cultural norms and values, which may hinder social interactions between students and their peers particularly those who come from different social or cultural backgrounds (Elsharnouby, 2015). Students, especially female students, in the Gulf culture tend to encounter numerous barriers to participation in athletic activities and social events due to issues related to family, religion and changing gender dynamics (Harkness, 2012).

Prior studies have conceptualised and examined the association between students’ sense of identification and belongingness with the university and their behaviour (Balaji et al., 2016; Berrozpe et al., 2019; Perin et al., 2012). The findings of this study confirm this association by indicating that university identification has a significant positive impact on participation and citizenship behaviour. These results concur with the findings of Mael and Ashforth (1992), who observed a positive impact of organisational identification on alumni behaviour. In the employee–organisation context, employees who identify with their organisation tend to engage in supportive behaviours towards the organisation (Choi, 2007). The findings also corroborate the findings of Balaji et al. (2016), who found that students with strong university identification tend to engage in supportive behaviours.

The current study found that university identification has a stronger effect on student participation behaviour than citizenship behaviour. One possible explanation is that it is expected that most students would perform the necessary tasks, such as information sharing, information seeking, and responsible behaviour, to get the required university service within a reasonable standard. Stronger student–university identification would trigger student participation behaviour at higher levels. However, to exhibit citizenship behaviour, which includes voluntary discretionary behaviour such as advocacy, and helping behaviour, students should have a strong sense of belongingness with the university. In other words, the existence of student–university identification would stimulate student citizenship behaviour, but not as strongly as it does with participation behaviour.

Managerial implications

In today’s competitive and congested higher education environment, differentiation and reputation management hold greater significance for HEIs (Neumark, 2012). Higher education marketers can use brand personality assessment to create new avenues for developing marketing and branding communications (Rutter et al., 2017). They can use branding activities to establish a unique and strong personality, thereby creating a long-lasting impression on current and prospective students (Dooley, 2013). They can also unify the university brand proposition by evaluating the brand personality they establish in different communication channels in order to harmonise marketing and branding messages.

Universities need to rethink the way they allocate resources to marketing and branding efforts. Although universities tend to invest heavily in research and academic reputation to improve their ranking, fewer resources are allocated to branding activities. This situation has led to a competition at the input side (e.g. financial support for research) instead of the output side (e.g. student learning experience; The Economist, 2015). Mere emphasis on research and academic reputation is not enough to enhance student–university identification or trigger student supportive behaviour (e.g. participation and citizenship behaviour). As concluded in this study, branding efforts are crucial to make the university stand out in the face of intensively competitive university admissions and stimulate stronger identification and student supportive behaviour.

Since universities are complex brands, university marketers can streamline branding efforts towards brand personality dimensions that the university needs to enhance. For example, the findings show that when students perceive the university brand personality as more sincere and lively, they tend to develop a stronger identification with the university. Thus, the marketing efforts of HEIs in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries should focus on maintaining the sincerity and lively dimensions in their brand personality. In other words, if students do not perceive the university as sincere or lively enough, more emphasis on promoting the activities to overcome specific deficiencies is required (e.g. offer student career development programmes to stimulate the sincerity trait or organise on-campus events that consider students’ cultural norms and values to stimulate the lively trait).

Moreover, universities can gain several benefits from stimulating student participation and citizenship behaviours directly (e.g. better understanding of students’ needs and aspiration, rich source of students insights, having students as partial employees, and brand advocates) or indirectly through ensuring that students engage in service provision, with the expected benefits such as hedonic, cognitive, social, and personal benefits. The results demonstrate that sincerity is the critical dimension of brand personality that affects student citizenship behaviour. Thus, universities are advised to make every effort to strengthen trust, credibility and being helpful and supportive as to be perceived as a sincere entity. Professor Jaap Winte, the President of VU Amsterdam, commented on the confidence in higher education, ‘universities must develop strategies to prove their relevance and value to society in a credible way … it is crucial that higher education institutions do not deliver this message just by saying it but actually by showing it’ (Bothwell, 2017). It is recommended that universities enhance student trust by ensuring staff and faculty's credibility and that they perform their role effectively and reliably and are concerned about students’ welfare (Snijders et al., 2020). In addition, enhancing student satisfaction and boosting university perceived reputation were proved effective in encouraging students to engage in some forms of citizenship behaviour (Elsharnouby, 2015).

Finally, the findings demonstrate that identification strongly affects student participation and citizenship behaviour. Thus, universities are advised to design their internal marketing and branding communications in a way that makes university identity meaningful and relevant to students (Dollinger et al., 2018). Hence, this self-brand connection would stimulate students’ supportive behaviour towards their colleagues, employees, and the university. Universities can also enhance students’ sense of belonging and attachment, as a means for promoting students’ participation and citizenship behaviour, by promoting student engagement in co-curricular activities such as cultural, social, leisure, intellectual and personality development activities (Eldegwy et al., 2018).

Limitations and future research directions

As with any research, the current study has some limitations. First, the study focused only on brand personality as part of the university’s brand image. Therefore, other brand image facets that might affect university identification, student participation, and citizenship behaviour were not examined in this study. Second, data were collected from a public university in one GCC country (i.e. Qatar). Hence, the findings may be more specific to this region. Future research could replicate the current study in other countries. Third, the study model has been examined from the student perspective only. Future studies can extend this work by addressing the perspectives of other stakeholders of the university, such as employees, alumni, and donors. This information could help universities develop their brand personality in a way that streamlines the university branding activities when they aim to connect with a specific stakeholder group. Finally, the study used only a survey as the data collection instrument. A mixed-method approach using a qualitative study with interviews to investigate brand personality from a dyadic perspective (e.g. university versus student) would give a holistic view of brand personality.

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).