The role of brand authenticity for higher education institutions

ABSTRACT

Higher education institutions (HEIs) engage more and more in branding activities to sustain an advantage in an increasingly high competitive environment. In such a pressing managerial context, research on brand management in the specific context of higher education expanded over the past few years. While research indicates that brand authenticity is more and more important for consumers in the consumption sphere, it has remained unexplored in the context of HEIs. This paper contributes to the developing research area on HEIs branding by examining the determinants and implications of brand authenticity for those institutions. Across one field study with two different HEIs, we identify indexical, iconic and existential cues as antecedents of authenticity perceptions and examine the effects of such perceptions on theoretically grounded practical outcomes: brand attitude, emotional attachment, word-of-mouth, and willingness-to-pay. The study revealed that HEIs authenticity perceptions are a strong predictor of brand attitude, positive word-of-mouth, and emotional brand attachment.

KEYWORDS:

• Brand authenticity
• higher education brand management
• indexical cues
• iconic cues
• existential cues

1. Introduction

In recent decades, supported by globalization, economic, social, technological, and political effects, competition amongst business schools, university and colleges has steadily increased (AACSB International, 2011; Mause, 2009; The Economist, 2017). A drop in fundings from governments and other sources combined with increasing costs related to delivering academic programs and social questioning of the added value of higher education fueled competitive pressure amongst higher education institutions (HEIs hereafter). The need for HEIs to provide services to meet student demand for state-of-the-art equipment, small class sizes, world-class academic programs, recreational facilities, and building maintenance or expansion pressures costs (Eckel & King, 2004; Wilkins et al., 2022). Hastened by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020), those institutions have recently faced the need to embrace technological innovation and new modes of teaching delivery. In addition, they now must deal with new market entrants that provide free massive open online courses (i.e. Moocs). Although these profound changes have not hampered the willingness for people to engage in higher education, it has resulted in a dramatic increase in prices (i.e. tuition and related fees). For instance, in the United States, college tuition has more than doubled since the 1980s – from $15,000 in 1987 to $32,400 in 2018¹ – and over 45 million Americans have student-loan debt.

Spiraling costs for both universities and students – in addition to schools’ never-ending quest for differentiation (Becher & Trowler, 2001) – have led HEIs to employ branding techniques (Bock et al., 2014; Lowrie, 2007), often expending considerable sums in the process to support a competitive advantage (Roper & Davies, 2007). Meanwhile, those changes also have profoundly shaped students’ expectations about graduation rates, teaching quality, and campus facilities (Hemsley-Brown et al., 2016). Runaway costs have put further pressure on the leaders of HEIs to find a new management approach (Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016) and reposition their institutions in this highly competitive context. Echoing these challenges, a new research stream has emerged on the subject of brand management in the specific context of higher education management (Hemsley-Brown et al., 2016; Williams & Omar, 2014).

In order to contribute to this developing research area, this paper relies on prior research that delved into the determinants and implications of brand authenticity. We build respectively on the Entity-Referent Correspondence (ERC) Framework of Authenticity (Moulard et al., 2021) to define what authenticity means to students, and on the branding literature consistently showing that brand authenticity leads to positive outcomes – like emotional attachment (Manthiou et al., 2018; Morhart et al., 2015) or purchase intentions (Napoli et al., 2014) – to make predictions about the positive effects of such brand authenticity for HEIs. Building on this existing research, we here investigate the role of perceived brand authenticity (PBA, hereafter) as a driver of students’ attitudes and emotions towards HEIs. By doing so, we aim to identify if (and to what extent) and how such PBA may subsequently affect two critical drivers of revenue for HEIs – namely willingness-to-pay and positive word-of mouth.

In this article, we start by reviewing the various determinants of PBA in the context of higher education. Then, in one field study conducted among students in two European business schools (N = 470), we simultaneously test the impact of those determinants on the business schools’ PBA and the subsequent effects on willingness-to-pay and positive word-of-mouth. Finally, after gaining a stronger understanding of the determinants and outcomes of PBA for HEIs, this paper highlights the contributions to and implications for both theory and practice in higher education management.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Perceived brand authenticity and the entity-referent correspondence (ERC) framework

Consumers’ search for authenticity in consumption is an important trend in today’s society (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). Findings report that consumers prefer brands that they perceive as highly authentic over less authentic ones. Research shows that these highly authentic brands generate stronger and more positive attitudinal and emotional responses from consumers (Choi et al., 2015; Lasaleta & Loveland, 2019). This phenomenon has been observed with brands in different product and service categories, such as luxury goods (Holmqvist et al., 2020; Kapferer & Bastien, 2009), wines (Beverland, 2005, 2006), food (Groves, 2001), but also touristic destinations (Wang, 1999), museums (Grayson & Martinec, 2004), artistic performances (Daniel, 1996), cars (Leigh et al., 2006), fashion (Choi et al., 2015) or fast-moving consumer goods (Morhart et al., 2015). These findings lead to our overarching proposition that perceptions of authenticity might also be an important determinant of favorable attitudes and positive emotions towards higher education institutions. The ‘purchase’ of an educational product has longer and greater implications than the purchase of other services, which prior research has examined. As opposed to a wine purchase, a holiday or an outing, the ‘purchase’ of a degree involves a minimum of two years of personal commitment with high stakes related to employability and career paths. While recent research in higher education marketing has acknowledged the importance of brand authenticity for universities communication strategies on social media (Pringle & Fritz, 2019), the antecedents and consequences of PBA for HEIs have not been examined thoroughly. Consequently, this research aims to identify the role PBA plays, and more specifically its antecedents and outcomes in the peculiar context of HEIs.

The Entity-Referent Correspondence (ERC) Framework of Authenticity offers a conceptualization of the construct of brand authenticity (Moulard et al., 2021). This framework first proposes a general definition of authenticity, whereby such authenticity refers to the degree to which an entity (e.g. object, person, performance) in one’s environment is perceived to be true to something else, or – put differently – ‘corresponds to a referent’ (p. 99). More specifically, the ERC Framework proposes that being authentic implies being true to one of the following entities: i/ an ideal (e.g. the brand being traditional), ii/ a fact (e.g. the brand being transparent and honest), or iii/ the self (e.g. the brand being passionate and dedicated).

From what precedes and the focus of the ERC framework of authenticity on ‘being true’, it is thus no surprise that in the conceptualization of brand authenticity offered by Napoli et al. (2014), authenticity involves the three dimensions of quality commitment, sincerity and heritage. Quite similarly, Morhart et al. (2015) conceptualized brand authenticity as uncovering four dimensions of PBA: continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism. What these scales share in common is the recognized need for brands to be true to their heritage and exhibit consistency over time, as reflected by the dimensions of quality commitment and heritage in the work of Napoli et al. (2014) and the dimension of continuity in the work of Morhart et al. (2015). Another consistent dimension of PBA is trust, as highlighted by the emergence of the dimensions of sincerity (Napoli et al., 2014) and credibility and integrity (Morhart et al., 2015). The only difference between the two conceptualizations is the emergence of symbolism, which has been identified as a core component of PBA by Morhart et al. (2015).

What these conceptualizations of authenticity – and more specifically their dimensions of continuity and heritage – emphasize is that for consumers to perceive a brand as authentic, the brand must be one that survives the test of time. In other words, continuity, stability over time and trends constitute the first dimension of PBA. A second important component of PBA is trustworthiness, as highlighted by the components of sincerity, credibility and integrity. This component refers to the consumer’s assessment of the brand’s capability to deliver on its promise, but also to defend the authentic values of that promise. Finally, symbolism represents the use a person makes of the brand’s perceived values to build her self-reference. Simply put, symbolism refers to the degree consumers will use the brand’s perceived values to construct who they are. The more brands will be associated with those dimensions, the more people will perceive them as authentic. However, the question is still open as to what drives such components of PBA in a higher education context, which we address below.

2.2. The three types of antecedents of perceived brand authenticity in higher education

In accordance with the view of authenticity by Grayson and Martinec (2004), the ERC Framework stipulates that perceptions of authenticity are formed from an assessment of the genuineness of a product or experience made by an evaluator in a particular context. As such, perceptions of authenticity derive from the interaction of an object, place, and person. This view of PBA is in line with that of Fine and Speer (1985), who see an authentic experience as one that involves participation in a collective ritual, where strangers get together in a ‘cultural production’ to share a feeling of closeness or solidarity. What these views on PBA share is that for perceptions of authenticity of an object, place or performance to emerge, an actor must interact with that object, place or performance, within a context of ritual. Interestingly, HEIs have long been recognized as places of rituals (Dias & Sá, 2014; Manning, 2000), making them of particular interest for the examination of the role of PBA.

Importantly, and building on the work of Grayson and Martinec (2004) and Wang (1999), Morhart et al. (2015) proposed three types of antecedents of PBA: indexical, iconic and existential cues. Indexical cues refer to the objectivist perspective, according to which an authentic object is one that is ‘what it appears to be’, based on experts’ examination, such as a piece of art (Trilling, 1972). Indexical cues thus are evidence-based cues that can attest if an object is what it claims to be. For instance, labels are a typical indexical cue, which help certify that a product is real versus fake, or genuine versus phony (Ewing et al., 2012). Beyond labels or certifications, one way for brands or services to drive perceptions of indexicality – or the perception of genuineness – lies in exhibiting consistent actual brand behaviors, often operationalized as employee-congruent behavior or the lack of corporate scandals (Morhart et al., 2015). Put differently, a brand will be perceived as high in indexical authenticity if their employee behavior is aligned with the brand positioning (Sirianni et al., 2013), and if the brand avoids being the object of scandals (Thompson et al., 2006).

In the context of higher education, employee-congruent behavior is an important manifestation of an institution’s actual behavior. Students are in contact every day and repeatedly over a long period with HEIs employees, including professors, assistants or IT and administrative staff. These interactions between students and employees have an important impact on students’ satisfaction. For example, it has been shown that Brand Citizenship Behavior of HEIs employees significantly increases students’ satisfaction (Khan et al., 2021) Accordingly, it is likely that students base their evaluation of the higher education experience on the comparison between the behavior of HEIs employees and their expectations of how those employees should behave. Such a comparison may serve as an indexical cue with which to assess HEIs brand authenticity.

H1: Brand-congruent employee behavior significantly increases perceived authenticity of higher education brands.

Another manifestation of an HEI behavior is the actual service delivered to students. In particular, the difference between service quality expectations and perceived service quality – what is often referred to as the service-gap (Brown & Swartz, 1989; Hampton, 1993) – could serve as an indexical cue for students to attest an HEI’s brand authenticity (Ng & Forbes, 2009). In particular, recent research on authenticity emphasizes the important role of virtuous service behaviors (Södergren, 2021) – precisely, accuracy, connectedness, integrity, legitimacy, originality, and proficiency (for details, see Nunes et al., 2021) – in shaping perceptions of authenticity. Thus, and more concretely, being accurate (Moulard et al., 2021), honest (Kim, 2021) or transparent (Matthews & Eilert, 2022) – are behaviors that trigger a sense of authenticity. Accordingly, when the experienced service exceeds expectations, it is reasonable to anticipate a positive effect on the HEI’s perceived authenticity, because students will have tangible proof that the institution is what it claims to be, and thus high in indexical authenticity. By contrast, from students’ perspective, if the experienced service falls short of expectations, it might negatively affect their HEI’s perceived authenticity. Given what precedes, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: Perceptions minus expectations of service quality significantly increases perceived authenticity of higher education brands.

As previously mentioned, iconic cues represent another type of driver of perceived authenticity. Building on the constructivist perspective, authenticity refers to a ‘socially constructed concept’ (Cohen, 1988), built through negotiated meaning-making and agreement (Hughes, 1995). From this perspective, authenticity in the sense of ‘original’ or ‘real’ can be refuted, and an authentic object can be one that is ‘believed to be the original’ (Grayson & Martinec, 2004, p. 297) because it is an accurate reproduction of the original, so that it resembles the original’s physicality (Leigh et al., 2006). In a branding context, this subjective view of authenticity implies that an authentic brand is one that is perceived by consumers as ‘having a clear philosophy; one with a sense of what it stands for; a brand that lives up to its promise and is true to itself’ (Dwivedi & McDonald, 2018).

Consequently, and in line with most views on authenticity (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Brown et al., 2003; Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014), brands are perceived authentic when they appear to behave consistently with their core values. By adopting appropriate and consistent codes and communication styles, brands can create an impression of authenticity in the eyes of their stakeholders. In this regard, Dwivedi and McDonald (2018) showed that a consistent communication style helps the clarity of brand positioning, and subsequently PBA. Perceptions of authenticity can also be obtained by communicating on a brand’s virtue (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010) or on the origins of the brand, its creation history and its heritage (Beverland, 2005; Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014). Therefore, and based on a framework developed by Morhart et al. (2015), we propose that communication on HEIs’ virtues and roots can serve as iconic cues for students to assess an HEI’s brand authenticity.

H3: Communication on brand roots significantly increases perceived authenticity of higher education brands.

H4: Communication on brand virtue significantly increases perceived authenticity of higher education brands.

Finally, existential cues – i.e. the third type of brand authenticity antecedents – are brand elements that can help consumers feel true to themselves when experiencing the brand (Morhart et al., 2015). Such cues derive from the concept of existential authenticity, which relates to the idea of being true to one’s self, knowing one’s self and behaving in accordance with it (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wang, 2000). Therefore, brand-specific elements, which can help consumers discover their own identity and feel in line with their ‘true self’, can be considered existential cues that increase perceived brand authenticity.

In terms of operationalization, brand anthropomorphism – i.e. the extent to which a brand is perceived to have human characteristics (Aaker & Fournier, 1995) – might constitute such an existential cue. Anthropomorphism refers to the automatic process of attributing human-like characteristics (e.g. emotions, behaviors, etc.) to nonhuman entities, such as animals or other living beings, objects, or material elements, or abstract concepts (Epley et al., 2007). Such anthropomorphism reassures individuals because it helps them to find meaning and explanations for their surrounding environment, allowing them to interpret the world and its components as ‘humanlike’ (Guthrie, 1995). Applied to brands, anthropomorphism goes beyond brands’ observable actions and behaviors (Huaman-Ramirez et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2020) and refers to attributions of mind to the brands (Puzakova & Kwak, 2017). For instance, individuals can anthropomorphize a brand like Tesla – which sells electric-powered cars – to make inferences about its unobserved personality and intentions (e.g. Tesla is concerned with the environment). Such perceived brand anthropomorphism could well represent an existential cue of authenticity because it eases consumers’ interpretation of brand values, and supports them in constructing their own identity (Morhart et al., 2015). This type of cue seems particularly relevant in the context of higher education, for at least two reasons. First, HEIs are places where most of the interactions that students have with the brand are with people – not with computer- or technology-based agents –, the highest possible anthropomorphic agents, be they lecturers or administrative staff. Therefore, some genuine, sincere interactions with warm, friendly people who are part of the HEIs may contribute to the perceived authenticity of the institution (Portal et al., 2018). Second, students are often in a stage of life in which their identity is questioned and evolving. Their experience as students is thus shaping their personal and professional identities (Adams et al., 2000; Lairio et al., 2013) so that HEIs constitute important pillars for their identity construction. Indeed, previous research on HEI brand perception shows that the communication of brand personality traits, and in particular brand sincerity, can positively influence authenticity perceptions (Rutter et al., 2017). Therefore, there is reason to expect that the more an HEI brand is humanized, the more likely students will identify with it as they build their own self-identity and find their ‘true selves’. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H5: Brand anthropomorphism significantly increases perceived authenticity of higher education brands.

2.3. Outcomes of perceived brand authenticity in higher education

The outcomes of PBA have recently been the object of a rapidly growing body of research, most of it converging toward the idea that such outcomes are positive to the brand (Moulard et al., 2016; Schallehn et al., 2014). Morhart et al. (2015) for instance reported a positive influence of PBA on emotional brand attachment and positive word-of-mouth. Their study shows that all dimensions of PBA, except continuity, have a positive effect on emotional brand attachment, while all dimensions, except symbolism, have a positive effect on word-of-mouth. Other extant research also revealed positive effects of brand authenticity on important marketing outcomes, either behavioral, like purchase intentions (Napoli et al., 2014), or more relational, like brand relationship quality (Fritz et al., 2017) and trust (Moulard et al., 2016). Because consumers are looking for authentic brands in their everyday consumption (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Holt, 2002) and thus respond positively to it. Because HEIs are increasingly using brand management techniques (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006), students may seek authentic institutions for their studies, thus evaluating and responding positively to HEIs’ brand authenticity. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H6: Higher education brand perceived authenticity significantly increases (a) brand attitude, (b) positive word-of-mouth and (c) emotional brand attachment.

2.4. Outcomes of brand attitude in higher education

Brand attitudes refer to overall evaluations of a brand by consumers and are critical because ‘they form the basis for consumer behavior’ (Keller, 1993, p. 4). Favorable judgments of a particular brand are the sources of customers’ active engagement with a brand represented by willingness to invest money, time or other resources (Keller & Swaminathan, 2019). The effects of such consumer judgements on brand equity have been extensively studied in marketing literature across many products and service categories. However, to the best of our knowledge, with the exception of a research paper by Mourad et al. (2011) who found a positive relationship between higher education brand image and brand equity, no studies have examined the effect of higher education brand attitude on two student engagement constructs, namely willingness-to-pay and positive word-of-mouth. In a higher education environment, which is increasingly competitive (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006), students judgments of the HEI in which they are studying may constitute important drivers of their active engagement regarding the HEI. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H7: Positive higher education brand attitude significantly increases (a) willingness-to-pay, and (b) positive word-of-mouth.

2.5. Outcomes of brand attachment in higher education

Research from Dennis et al. (2016) proposed a framework on the antecedents and consequences of brand attachment strength in higher education. As their work indicates, higher education brand attachment is a strong predictor of students’ commitment, satisfaction and trust towards their education institution, making it therefore a pivotal construct in the student-university brand relationship. Previous research on brand attachment has documented other positive outcomes of brand attachment, such as willingness-to-pay a price premium, brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth and intention to purchase (Fedorikhin et al., 2008; Japutra et al., 2014; Park et al., 2010; Thomson et al., 2005). In the context of higher education, willingness-to-pay and positive word-of-mouth constitute relevant drivers of an institution’s future revenue. Therefore, we focus on – and predict – the effect of higher education emotional brand attachment on willingness-to-pay and positive word-of-mouth. More specifically, based on what precedes, we hypothesize:

H8: Higher education brand attachment significantly increases (a) willingness-to-pay, and (b) positive word of mouth.

The preceding hypotheses lead to the following theoretical model (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.

This conceptual framework is tested next in a study with a population of undergraduate and graduate students from two European business schools.

3. Testing the model in two European business schools

3.1. Procedure, data collection and measures

With the authorization of the concerned institutions, an online survey was distributed to 470 students (53% female; M_age = 20.7 years old, SD = 4.9) in two different business schools in Europe: one in France and one in the French speaking part of Switzerland. Gathering data from two different schools has two advantages: first, it enables to test the framework with a larger sample size, and second, it allows to enhance the results generalizability by conducting multiple group analyses across the two HEIs in which our questionnaire was distributed. Since the two regions in which the study was conducted are similar in terms of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions score (Hofstede Insights, n.d.), we do not expect national culture to play a role. Furthermore, even though the two schools are in different countries, they are both international business schools, attracting students with various nationalities (i.e. students from more than 40 nationalities participated to our study). Therefore, the location of the school does not appear as a relevant variable to analyze cultural differences in our study and will not be used as a moderating or control variable in the analyses.

After a short introduction explaining that we were interested in their opinion about the school and that anonymity was guaranteed, participants confirmed their consent to participate and answered questions about their beliefs and attitude towards the respective business school in which they were studying. The questionnaire ended with demographic questions (see Table 1 for sample characteristics).

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Age	Mean	20.75
	SD	4.89
Gender	Female	249 (53.0%)
	Male	221 (47.0%)
Nationality	French	278 (59.1%)
	Swiss	118 (25.1%)
	Other (40 nationalities)	74 (15.74%)
Current degree of studies	Bachelor	456 (97.0%)
	Master	14 (3.0%)

All variables were measured using existing and established scales. Concerning indexical cues, brand-congruent employee behavior was measured with a three-item, seven-point scale adapted from Morhart et al. (2009). Service gap was measured with a single item ‘How would you evaluate the [business school name] experience compared to what you expected?’ anchored with ‘1 = Far short of expectations’ and ‘5 = Far exceeds expectations’. The iconic cues of communication on brand roots and brand virtue were measured with two-item, seven-point Likert scales adapted from Morhart et al. (2015). Brand anthropomorphism was measured with a three-item, seven-point scale adapted from Aaker and Fournier (1995). The four perceived brand authenticity dimensions were measured on seven-point scales using items from Morhart et al. (2015). Concerning the outcomes of perceived brand authenticity, emotional brand attachment was measured on seven-point scales using the items and procedure suggested by Thomson et al. (2005), brand attitude was measured with a bipolar four-item scale adapted from Nan and Heo (2007), while positive word-of-mouth (Price & Arnould, 1999) and willingness-to-pay (Netemeyer et al., 2004) were both assessed with three-item, seven-point scales.

In order to assess measurement scales’ reliability, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with all latent variables present in the theoretical framework using Stata 14.1. Every item was forced to load only on its respecting construct and no restrictions were put on correlations between latent variables. The model fit indices indicate that the CFA model is an acceptable representation of the data (χ²(854) = 1807.585, p = .000; CFI = .942; TLI = .933; RMSEA = .049) (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

All measurement scales demonstrate appropriate reliability characteristics (Table 2), with Cronbach’s alpha of every measurement scale being above .7 (Nunnally, 1978), except communication on brand virtue (α = .65), which is close to .7. Further, all Composite Reliabilities (CR) are above the recommended threshold value of .6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All factor loadings are significant, and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct was above .5, providing empirical support for the convergent validity of the measures (Bagozzi et al., 1991). The discriminant validity of the measures was also supported, the AVEs of each construct being higher than the squared correlation between that construct and any other construct of the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Table 3).

Table 2. Measurement scale items and reliability characteristics.

Construct (source)	Items/dimensions	Factor loadings	Reliability
Brand-congruent employee behavior (Morhart et al., 2009)	The personal appearance of the employees of X is in line with the appearance of the X brand.	.527	α = .74 AVE = .53 CR = .76
	The actions of the employees of X are not at odds with what the X brand promises.	.867
	The employees of X show brand-congruent behavior.	.745
Communication on brand roots (Morhart et al., 2015)	According to you, the communication messages of X (emails, publications, website, social media, etc.) focus on:		α = .74 AVE = .65 CR = .78
	its history	.969
	its founder	.608
Communication on brand virtue (Morhart et al., 2015)	According to you, the communication messages of X (emails, publications, website, social media, etc.) focus on:		α = .65 AVE = .50 CR = .67
	delivering its promise	.617
	its core values	.789
Brand anthropomorphism (Aaker & Fournier, 1995)	X has a strong brand personality.	.625	α = .84 AVE = .68 CR = .86
	I can easily imagine X as a person.	.935
	I have no difficulties in imagining X as a person.	.881
Perceived brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015)	Continuity		α = .86 AVE = .63 CR = .85
	This is a school with a history.	.674
	This is a timeless school.	.858
	This is a school that survives times.	.893
	This is a school that survives trends.	.731
	Credibility		α = .87 AVE = .68 CR = .87
	This is a school that will not betray you.	.783
	This is a school that accomplishes its value promise.	.842
	This is an honest school.	.849
	Integrity		α = .91 AVE = .72 CR = .90
	This is a school that gives back to its students.	.776
	This is a school with moral principles.	.903
	This is a school true to a set of moral values.	.918
	This is a school that cares about its students.	.795
	Symbolism		α = .88 AVE = .65 CR = .85
	This is a school that adds meaning to people’s lives.	.785
	This is a school that reflects important values people care about.	.831
	This is a school that connects people with their real selves.	.803
	This is a school that connects people with what is really important.	.811
Emotional brand attachment (Thomson et al., 2005)	Following words describe my typical feelings to X:
	Affection		α = .86 AVE = .60 CR = .86
	Affectionate	.825
	Friendly	.856
	Loved	.65
	Peaceful	.753
	Passion		α = .88 AVE = .72 CR = .88
	Passionate	.89
	Delighted	.91
	Captivated	.734
	Connection		α = .87 AVE = .69 CR = .87
	Connected	.847
	Bonded	.839
	Attached	.811
Positive word-of-mouth (Price & Arnould, 1999)	I would recommend X to someone who seeks my advice.	.916	α = .94 AVE = .85 CR = .95
	I say positive things about X to other people.	.889
	I would recommend X to others.	.966
Willingness-to-pay a price premium (Netemeyer et al., 2004)	The price of X would have to go up quite a bit before I would switch to another brand of the same product category.	.576	α = .81 AVE = .63 CR = .83
	I am willing to pay a higher price for X than for other schools.	.88
	I am willing to pay a lot more for X than other schools.	.881
Brand attitude (Nan & Heo, 2007)	What is your global evaluation of X?		α = .95 AVE = .84 CR = .95
	Bad/good	.904
	Negative/positive	.932
	Unfavorable/favorable	.937
	Dislike/like	.88

Table 3. Latent variables squared correlation coefficients.

Latent variable		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
	AVE	0.53	0.65	0.5	0.68	0.63	0.68	0.72	0.65	0.6	0.72	0.69	0.85	0.63
1. Brand-congruent employee behavior	0.53
2. Communication on brand roots	0.65	0.06
3. Communication on brand virtue	0.50	0.16	0.14
4. Brand anthropomorphism	0.68	0.13	0.12	0.21
5. Continuity	0.63	0.20	0.16	0.23	0.33
6. Credibility	0.68	0.25	0.07	0.23	0.14	0.31
7. Integrity	0.72	0.25	0.04	0.20	0.08	0.18	0.66
8. Symbolism	0.65	0.15	0.07	0.17	0.14	0.29	0.50	0.42
9. Affection	0.60	0.19	0.07	0.18	0.17	0.32	0.39	0.35	0.46
10. Passion	0.72	0.16	0.07	0.20	0.24	0.37	0.35	0.30	0.46	0.52
11. Connection	0.69	0.14	0.07	0.26	0.20	0.36	0.27	0.24	0.40	0.52	0.53
12. Positive word-of-mouth	0.85	0.19	0.04	0.27	0.22	0.40	0.42	0.30	0.39	0.42	0.46	0.45
13. Willingness-to-pay	0.63	0.07	0.03	0.06	0.10	0.18	0.13	0.10	0.14	0.12	0.18	0.15	0.17
14. Brand attitude	0.84	0.11	0.04	0.17	0.13	0.23	0.32	0.27	0.31	0.31	0.35	0.33	0.45	0.14

3.2. Results

We applied structural equation modeling, using Stata 14.1 to test the conceptual framework in Figure 1. We used homogenous item parceling to model emotional brand attachment and perceived brand authenticity as first-order constructs measured by their respective dimensions. We averaged items measuring each dimension to create single factors. This transformation is appropriate for measuring latent constructs in complex structural equation structures and lead to a larger observation-to-variable ratio (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). The model fit indices indicate that the model is an appropriate representation of the data: χ²(280) = 880.724, p = .000; CFI = .935; TLI = .925; RMSEA = .068 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

Turning to hypotheses testing, the paths from the indexical cues – that is, brand-congruent employee behavior (β = .32, p ≤ .001) and service gap (β = .39, p ≤ .001) – to PBA were positive and significant as expected, respectively supporting H1 and H2. With regard to the iconic cues, communication on brand virtue (β = .24, p ≤ .001) positively and significantly influenced PBA, as predicted by H4, while communication on brand roots (β = .05, p > .05) did not impact PBA, contradicting H3. Concerning the existential cue brand anthropomorphism, results were consistent with H5, and revealed a positive effect on PBA (β = .14, p ≤ .001). Regarding the outcomes of PBA, brand attitude (β = .71, p ≤ .001), positive word-of-mouth (β = .32, p ≤ .001) and emotional brand attachment (β = .89, p ≤ .001) were all positively and significantly impacted, supporting H6. Brand attitude, then, significantly increased positive word-of-mouth (β = .24, p ≤ .001) – thus supporting H7b –, but not willingness-to-pay (β = .12, p > .05). H7a was thus rejected. However, and as predicted by H8, emotional brand attachment significantly influenced willingness-to-pay (β = .43, p ≤ .001) and positive word-of-mouth (β = .35, p ≤ .001).

To test the stability of the model and assess if causal parameters are equivalent across the two HEIs in which our study was conducted, we performed multiple group analyses and Chi-square difference tests for all our model paths, considering respondents from the two business schools (Switzerland vs. France) as two sub-samples. More specifically, for each causal relationship in our framework, we examine Chi-square difference test by comparing a model in which the parameter is constrained to be invariant across samples to a model in which the parameter is free and unconstrained. A significant chi-square test hence means that the invariance hypothesis across samples is rejected (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Results indicate invariance across the two sub-samples for all structural parameters except for the impact of PBA on emotional brand attachment. These results demonstrate an overall stability of our model as 11 out of the 12 model relationships are invariant across the two sub-samples. However, the significant Chi-square difference test for the path between PBA and emotional attachment (β_Switzerland = .89, p ≤ .001; β_France = .88, p ≤ .001; Δχ² (1) = 12.4, p ≤ .001), suggests that even though the structural coefficients are very close, the authenticity level of a HEI has a more important impact on emotional attachment for students in Switzerland than in France. Results of the multiple group analyses can be found in Table 5 (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4. Coefficients from the structural equation models.

Path	Standardized parameter	p	Interpretation
Brand-congruent employee behavior → PBA	.32	.000	H1 supported
Service gap → PBA	.39	.000	H2 supported
Communication on brand roots → PBA	.05	.158	H3 rejected
Communication on brand virtue → PBA	.24	.000	H4 supported
Brand anthropomorphism → PBA	.14	.000	H5 supported
PBA → Brand attitude	.71	.000	H6a supported
PBA → Positive word-of-mouth	.32	.001	H6b supported
PBA → Emotional brand attachment	.89	.000	H6c supported
Brand attitude → Willingness-to-pay	.12.	.056	H7a rejected
Brand attitude → Positive word-of-mouth	.24	.000	H7b supported
Emotional brand attachment → Willingness-to-pay	.43	.000	H8a supported
Emotional brand attachment → Positive word-of-mouth	.35	.000	H8b supported

Table 5. Multiple group analysis.

Path	France		Switzerland		Model differences
	Standardized parameter	p	Standardized parameter	p	Δχ^2	Δdf	p
Brand-congruent employee behavior → PBA	.30	.000	.31	.000	.011	1	.916
Service gap → PBA	.36	.000	.44	.000	1.024	1	.312
Communication on brand roots → PBA	.08	.793	.01	.062	1.117	1	.291
Communication on brand virtue → PBA	.26	.000	.25	.000	.147	1	.702
Brand anthropomorphism → PBA	.16	.002	.08	.139	1.157	1	.282
PBA → Brand attitude	.70	.000	.71	.000	3.669	1	.055
PBA → Positive word-of-mouth	.24	.067	.40	.004	1.113	1	0.29
PBA → Emotional brand attachment	.88	.000	.89	.000	12.40	1	.000
Brand attitude → Willingness-to-pay	.11	.175	.14	.152	0.117	1	.733
Brand attitude → Positive word-of-mouth	.29	.000	.17	.016	1.679	1	.195
Emotional brand attachment → Willingness-to-pay	.50	.000	.33	.000	3.523	1	.061
Emotional brand attachment → Positive word-of-mouth	.39	.001	.33	.010	.192	1	.662

4. General discussion

HEIs’ brand management activities can support differentiation to sustain an advantage in a highly competitive environment. Thus, this research paper examined the determinants and impacts of brand authenticity in higher education. Given the unique features of the services that HEIs provide in terms of their length, ritual activities, financial, social, and personal implications, a study on the determinants and consequences of PBA of HEIs contributes to both literature and practice. For academia, the study reinforces and refines the existing models related to brand authenticity and determinants of consumer behavior in general. For practice, it provides concrete clues for HEIs on how to gain efficiency in navigating the competitive landscape through brand management.

4.1. Determinants of PBA in HEIs: indexical cues

Our findings show that both the Morhart et al. (2015) and ERC’s frameworks (Moulard et al., 2021) stand the test of replication in the specific context of higher education. This support indicates that such frameworks can serve as solid theoretical foundations for further investigations on branding and authenticity perceptions in services.

Moreover, our research reveals distinctive features in terms of service in the context of HEI. First, it challenges the antecedent iconic cue ‘communication on brand roots’ which was the only independent effect not supported in this context. Second, our research complements existing frameworks with service gap – the difference between customers’ expectations about a specific service and their actual experience – as one specific authenticity cue that have profound effects on customers’ perceptions of authenticity. While prior research had either identified some typologies of cues that shape PBA (Beverland, 2006; Choi et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014), or some particular indexical cues (Carsana & Jolibert, 2018; Ewing et al., 2012), we here bring to the literature by identifying service gap as a newly discovered antecedent of PBA, thus adding to the theory on brand authenticity and indexical cues (Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

For practice, these findings indicate that a focus on a coherence between the brand and its service delivery, including the service gap, is pivotal to influence the willingness-to-pay and positive word-of-mouth. By extension, HEI managers could focus on indexical cues for positive students’ consumption behavior to further support the effect of evidence-based effects such as those of accreditations and certification on PBA. This study’s results reinforce the need for the service and delivery management to focus on aligning employees’ behavior with the brand’s message. Having employees – be they front-line employees at administrative offices or professors – who exhibit brand-congruent behavior and who are dedicated to providing the best service possible appears key to shape PBA. For that purpose, reinforcing corporate management practices by developing strong culture and values to support the coherence of brand and service delivery is an option worth exploring for practice.

4.2. Determinants of PBA in HEIs: iconic and existential cues

Contrary to prior research on communication as a driver of authenticity (Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Morhart et al., 2015), HEI communications on brand roots did not increase PBA in our study. This suggests that HEIs’ communication strategies which focus on history and origin of their schools are losing relevancy. This unprecedent finding may indicate an effect of generation on perceptions of brand authenticity. While older consumers appreciate and value the history and heritage attached to a brand, younger people (i.e. our samples are mainly composed of students belonging to generations Y and Z) seem to be less influenced by a brand’s roots when evaluating its authenticity. This finding is critical for HEI’s competitive decisions as they are deploying new educational offers in the life long learning context with multiple age groups as targets.

Concurrent with existing research, communication on brand virtue – the ability of a HEI to deliver its promise on the benefits of its actions for society – and brand anthropomorphism have a significant effect on PBA. Consequently, HEI’s administration and management have a stronger leverage through communication on their societal impacts and contributions, as identified by the AACSB task force report for instance (AACSB International, 2017), than on their roots, heritage and far history. Similarly, a marketing focus on the societal contributions as well as on humanizing the message related to its brand. These findings point to a valuable opportunity for non-Ivey league institutions’ strategies which is worth exploring in this highly competitive landscape.

4.3. Outcomes of PBA in HEIs: willingness-to-pay

As per our results, both emotional attachment and brand attitude have a significant effect on positive word-of-mouth. But brand attitude has no significant effect on willingness-to-pay. Simply put, we show that even though PBA increases attitude and emotional attachment, it is only emotional attachment that shapes students’ willingness-to-pay. As such, this research confirms the consistent identification of emotional brand attachment as mediating the effect of PBA on willingness-to-pay. This confirmation contributes to the literature on the role of emotional brand attachment in consumer–brand relationships (Malär et al., 2011). Such result indicates that PBA can constitute an interesting driver of the brand equity of HEIs, making this research extending the recent works on brand equity in higher education (Carvalho et al., 2020; Dennis et al., 2016; Mourad et al., 2020).

In practice, a successful HEI positioning as authentic will not, per se, significantly drive the decision to pay or invest a premium. However, it will help create some special attachment between students and the institution, allowing it to support a price premium that students will be willing to pay. Strong emotional bonds with an HEI prompt students to recommend and be loyal to their institution (Snijders et al., 2019). This again confirms the need to focus on supporting the coherence between the brand communication, service delivery, and actions that reinforce emotional attachment to have a significant effect on the students’ consumption behavior. In other words, establishing performance indicators monitoring authenticity and emotional attachment is one efficient direction for branding decisions. Such detailed path to the creation of a strong attachment is likely to not only support the deployment of successful life-long learning initiatives, but also sustain a strong community of active alumni.

4.4. Limitations and avenues for further research

This study is limited in its sample in two ways. First, it consists of two different institutions in two countries in Western Europe. While the two countries are similar in terms of national culture, one of our model paths (the influence of PBA on emotional attachment) is not identical in the two institutions and indicates that culture can influence the predictive effect of PBA on emotional attachment. Therefore, future research could include a more diverse sample of HEIs to explore the potential effect of country’s culture in our model. Similarly, in future exploration of the effect of a more diverse sample, the dimension of the HEI’s culture is worth further investigations. Given the importance of company’s culture and values in the execution of service delivery, the impact of organizational culture also calls for further studies.

Such future research and potential replication of our results would be of particular interest both from an academic and managerial standpoint. For academics, it would further inform on the universality of authenticity cues or uncover new antecedents. For managers of HEIs – or policy makers in higher education–, it would provide actionable findings on how to leverage the country or organization’s culture for a positive impact on student’s consumption behavior.

The second limitation of our sample relates to the nature of service in HEI. The fact that our sample is mainly constituted of enrolled students, which have not experienced the overall experience, may constitute a limitation of our research. Existing research indicates that brand attachment results from long-term interactions with an object, person, or place (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Park et al., 2010). It is usually measured with customers who have experienced a product or service entirely. Future research may test our framework with a sample of alumni. Such an investigation would help clarify if and how PBA, antecedents and outcomes evolve along the education stage of the learner. The HEI context is valuable to study the effect of time on the determinants and outcomes of PBA to complete our knowledge on the effect of brand authenticity on consumer behavior.

A research design element constitutes the third limitation. While we focused on the main determinants and outcomes of PBA, subsequent research could benefit from enlarging the overarching question of the determinants and effects of PBA.

We therefore recommend the study of the effect of peers and other users in the service experience. As mentioned in the literature review section, for PBA to emerge, the user must interact with the service within a ritualistic context. Again, this confirms the value of testing these relationships in the context of higher education which are generally rich in social and ritualistic dimensions.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/why-is-college-so-expensive-2018-4.