The Influence of University Visual Image on Student Behavior

This study s eeks to analyze the relationship between student e xpectation hedonic and utilitarian, satisfaction wit h university visual image design, quality, and com fort, student loya

The Influence of University Visual Image on Student Behavior

대학교 시각 이미지가 학생 행위에 미치는 영향

주 저자

중국 연변대학교, 시각디자인학과

Jin Cheng 부교수 김 성

교신 저자

중국 연변대학교, 패션디자인학과

Cui Yu Hua 부교수 최 유 화

This paper is supported by the "十三五" plan of Educational Science in Yanbian University

The Influence of University Visual Image on Student Behavior

대학교 시각 이미지가 학생 행위에 미치는 영향

￭ 중심어 : 대학교 환경, 대학교 시각 이미지, 기대, 충성도, 구전

￭ Keyword : University Environment, University Visual Image, Expectation, Loyalty, Word of Mouth

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1 Satisfaction with University Visual Image

2.2 Expectation

2.3 Loyalty

2.4 Word of Mouth

3 Research Method

3.1 Data Collection

3.2 Measures

4 Data Analysis and Results

4.1 Samples

4.2 Measurement Model

4.3 Hypothesis Testing

5 Conclusion

References

Appendix

초 록

대학교 및 기관들에서 시각적인 이미지에 대한 중

시를 보이기 시작하고 있다 하지만, 이러한 영역에

대한 연구가 아직은 결핍한 상태이다 본 연구에서는

학생들의 기대 (쾌락적 및 효용적), 대학교 시각 이

미지에 대한 만족도 (디자인, 품질, 쾌적성), 학생 충

성도 및 구전 등 요인들 사이의 관련성을 분석하는

것에 목적을 두었다 본 연구는 2020년 8월 6일에서

11일까지 온라인 설문조사 (www.sojump.com)를 통

해 총 200명의 학생 응답자를 모집하였다 연구목적

에 따라 구조방정식 모델을 사용하여 가설을 검증하

였다 학생 기대와 대학교 시각 이미지에 대한 만족

도 사이에는 정적인 관계를 나타내고 있다 구체적으

로 말하면, 쾌락적 기대는 디자인 만족도에 가장 큰

영향을 주고 효용적 기대는 쾌적성 만족도에 가장

많은 영향을 준다고 나타났다 충성도 및 구전에 대

한 영향에 있어서, 디자인과 쾌적성 만족도는 모두

긍정적인 영향을 보이는 반면, 품질 만족도는 유의한 영향을 주지 못하였다 또한, 학생 충성도가 높을수

록 학생 구전효과도 높게 나타났다 본 연구에서는 대학교 시각 이미지의 만족도에 주는 가장 큰 기대 변수와 충성도 및 구전에 대한 가장 영향력 있는 변

수를 제시해주었다 이러한 결과는 대학교 이미지 시

각 디자이너와 매니저들에게 이론적 및 실무적인 계

시를 제공해준다

Abstract Many universities and institutions have begun to attach importance to their visual image However, this occurrence is rarely investigated This study s eeks to analyze the relationship between student e xpectation (hedonic and utilitarian), satisfaction wit

h university visual image (design, quality, and com fort), student loyalty, and word of mouth (WOM).

An online survey tool (www.sojump.com) was em ployed from August 6–11, 2020 and recruited 200 r espondents from one university To accomplish the proposed objectives, a research model is tested thr ough the use of structural equations A positive rel ationship is found between student expectation and satisfaction with university visual image Hedonic expectation improve most design satisfaction More over, utilitarian expectation causes the highest incr ease in comfort satisfaction In terms of the effect

on loyalty and word of mouth (WOM), design and comfort satisfaction have a positively significant ef fect on student loyalty and WOM, but quality facto

r has no influence Meanwhile, student loyalty exer

ts a positive influence on WOM This work confir

ms that the construct which expectation influences the most is satisfaction with university visual ima

ge, and expectation is the most important factor in the mechanism by which visual image influences l oyalty and WOM All these findings can provide th eoretical and practical implications for university vi sual designers or manager.

1 Introduction

Training and learning have become

increasingly important Thus, education has

been redefined as a process of knowledge

construction through various factors while

new teaching methods are established for the

trend of continuous improvement.1) Recently,

many universities have made significant

investments in upgraded classrooms and

learning centers, by incorporating such factors

as tiered seating, customized lighting

packages, upgraded desk and seat quality, and

individual computers.2) Institutions of higher

education are increasingly realizing that they

are part of the service industry and are

placing greater emphasis on student

satisfaction as they face many competitive

pressures; moreover, student satisfaction has

been related to recruitment, retention, and

academic success.3) To date, few studies have

examined the impact of university

environment and image and how the

satisfaction with or evaluation of these

university images exerts considerable

influence on university achievements

Prior studies have examined the impact of

university image Wilkins and Huisman (201

3)4) identify the criteria used by prospective

1) Farcas, D., The image of e-learning: Perceptions about a

Chilean University and the e-learning system in the

context of Chile, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Capella

University, 2010, p.1.

2) Hill․Epps, The impact of physical classroom

environment on student satisfaction and student

evaluation of teaching in the university environment,

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4), 2010,

p.65.

3) Letcher․Neves, Determinants of undergraduate business

student satisfaction, Research in Higher Education

Journal, 2010, p.2.

4) Wilkins․Huisman, Student evaluation of university

image attractiveness and its impact on student

attachment to international branch campuses, Journal of

students to evaluate the images they hold of international branch campuses and investigate the impact of these assessments on students' attachment to institutions Under the influence

of the rapidly changing educational environment at home and abroad, in order to recruit more excellent students, many colleges and universities strive to establish the university identity and new image, such as setting up the logo of each college, so as to promote differential treatment5) Realize (201 8)6) reveals that an academic information system has a significant influence on direct university image and trust in the Kepulauan Riau Province Alves and Raposo (2010)7)

indicate that university image has a positive impact on student expectation, satisfaction, and loyalty; simultaneously, student expectation is significantly linked to satisfaction In terms of university educational image, Yugo and Reeve (2007)8) drew on methods and theory from organizational image research to better understand the factors that students use in forming their overall image of

a university as well as their intentions to attend a particular university

However, given the excessively broad concept of university image, clearly explaining the results is difficult and attempts can only

Studies in International Education, 17(5), 2013, pp.607-623.

5) Lee, H N., A study on logo design for improving brand competitiveness of college, Journal of Brand Design Association of Korea, 16(3), 2018, p.45.

6) Realize, R., Analysis of trust through academic information system and image of private university, Archives of Business Research, 6(6), 2018, pp.252-259 7) Alves․Raposo, The influence of university image on student behavior, International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 2010, pp.73-85.

8) Yugo․Reeve, Understanding students' university educational image and its role in college choice, Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research 12(1), 2007, pp.9-17.

make the conclusion more ambiguous.

Consequently, we narrow the scope of

university image by focusing on the

university visual image and consider that

image as the main variable measured by

student satisfaction That is, this work aims

to investigate the relationship between student

expectation (hedonic & utilitarian), satisfaction

with university visual image (design, quality,

comfort), student loyalty, and word of mouth

(WOM)

2 Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1 Satisfaction with University Visual Image

Image is a series of tangible and intangible

characteristics such as the ideas, beliefs,

values, interests, and features that make an

image unique.9) An image is the impression

achieved from knowledge and understanding

of factors or reality University image is

defined as a set of attitudes or beliefs that a

person holds about a university.10) This

attitude and beliefs come from the students'

evaluation of the university environment To

be exact, it is the evaluation of the university

visual image They can see with their eyes,

touch with their bodies, and feel with their

hearts That image also encompasses three

components: the study environment (friendly,

supportive, and innovative), practicality

(flexible courses and job oriented), and

conservativeness (long-established, traditional,

9) Realize․Brahmasari․Panjaitan, The influence of using

academic information system on private university

image and its impact to competitive advantage, Archives

of Business Research, 5(8), 2017, p.64.

10) Jiewanto․Laurens․Nelloh, Influence of service quality,

university image, and student satisfaction toward WOM

intention: A case study on Universitas Pelita Harapan

Surabaya, Procedia Social & Behavioral Sciences, 40(10),

2012, p.18.

and prestigious) from Brown and Mazzarol (2009).11)

Yang et al (2013)12) examine learning ambient attributes (including temperature, air quality, acoustics, and lighting), spatial attributes (room layout, furniture, and visibility), technological attributes (hardware [e.g., projector, computer, clicker, smart board and camera] and software [e.g., software installed on instructor and student computers and the Internet]) However, university image

as a mediation variable is rarely explored in the construct of student satisfaction and service quality from a higher education perspective.13)

According to the above theoretical basis, this paper characterize university visual image

as three dimensions: design, quality, and comfort Furthermore, the second concept to

be determined is student satisfaction, a notion related to university visual image Satisfaction with university visual image is the general evaluation of a percept that arises from the perceptions about a university

2.2 Expectation

Expectation refers to the expected outcome

of one's own behavior and views personal needs and the needs to balance one’s social identity as two distinctive forms of

11) Brown․Mazzarol, The importance of institutional image

to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education, Higher Education, 58(1), 2009, pp.81-95 12) Yang․Becerik-Gerber․Mino, A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance, Building & Environment, 70(dec.), 2013, pp.171-188.

13) Osman․Saputra․Luis, Exploring mediating role of institutional image through a complete structural equation modeling (SEM): A perspective of higher education, International Journal for Quality Research, 12(2), 2018, p.523.

expectations: hedonic and utilitarian

expectations.14)

Previous studies indicate a close

relationship between student expectations,

university image, and satisfaction Alves and

Raposo (2010)15) show a positive significant

relationship between student expectation and

university image, and expectation exerts a

negative effect on satisfaction The expected

grades of students are significantly related to

the physical characteristics of the classroom

environment, and a classroom environment

has a positive influence on student

satisfaction in the university (Hill & Epps,

2010).16) In Temizer and Turkyilmaz (2012),17)

student expectation is significantly related to

university image in higher education

institutions

Chang et al (2014)18) identify two kinds of

expectations: hedonic expectation is associated

with enjoyment, whereas utilitarian

expectation is goal oriented According the

above theoretical research, we propose the

following hypotheses:

H1a: Hedonic expectation is positively

related to design satisfaction with university

visual image

H1b: Hedonic expectation is positively

related to quality satisfaction with university

visual image

H1c: Hedonic expectation is positively

14) Chang․Liu․Chen, The effects of hedonic/utilitarian

expectations and social influence on continuance

intention to play online games, Internet Research, 24(1),

2014, p.23.

15) Alves․Raposo, Op.cit., p.73.

16) Hill․Epps Op.cit., p.69.

17) Temizer․Turkyilmaz, Implementation of student

satisfaction index model in higher education institutions, 

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2012,

pp.3802-3806.

18) Chang․Liu․Chen Op.cit., p.23.

related to comfort satisfaction with university visual image

H2a: Utilitarian expectation is positively related to design satisfaction with university visual image

H2b: Utilitarian expectation is positively related to quality satisfaction with university visual image

H2c: Utilitarian expectation is positively related to comfort satisfaction with university visual image

2.3 Loyalty

Loyalty is formed from the experience of using an item or service.19) Hashim et al (2015)20) indicate that institutional image has

a positive significant influence on University Utara Malaysia's student loyalty Alves and Raposo (2010)21) establish a greater propensity for loyalty when the students’ perception of institutional image is seen as favorable Temizer and Turkyilmaz (2012)22)

also reveal that student satisfaction has a positive effect on student loyalty in Turkey

A prior research investigates the relationship between the dimensions of value–satisfaction –loyalty constructs in the context of hotels (El-Adly, 2018),23) from which we can infer a positive effect of student satisfaction on student loyalty Thus, this study examines

19) Radiman․Gunawan․Wahyuni․Jufrizen, The effect of marketing mix, service quality, Islamic values and institutional image on students' satisfaction and loyalty, Expert Journal of Marketing, 6(2), 2018, p.96.

20) Hashim․Abdullateef․Sarkindaji, The moderating influence of trust on the relationship between institutional image/reputation, perceived value on student loyalty in higher education institution, International Review of Management & Marketing, 5(3), 2015, pp.122-128.

21) Alves․Raposo Op.cit., p.73.

22) Temizer․Turkyilmaz Op.cit., p.3803.

23) El-Adly, M I., Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50(september), 2018, pp.322-332.

the following hypotheses:

H3a: Design satisfaction with university

visual image is positively related to

student loyalty

H3b: Quality satisfaction with university

visual image is positively related to

student loyalty

H3c: Comfort satisfaction with university

visual image is positively related to

student loyalty

2.4 Word of Mouth

WOM is defined as oral, person–person

communication between a receiver and a

communicator whom the receiver perceives as

non-commercial, regarding a university visual

image revised in Jiewanto, Laurens and

Nelloh (2012) paper It would rare concept to

be determined in higher education sector

Jiewanto et al (2012)24) indicate that

university image and student satisfaction

positively impact WOM intention Regarding

loyalty and WOM, Uslu et al (2013)25)

confirm that brand loyalty has a positive

effect on WOM behaviors for consumers in

Germany In line with these explanations, the

current researchers propose the hypotheses

listed below The entire research model is

also shown as Figure 1

H4a: Design satisfaction with university

visual image is positively related to

student WOM

H4b: Quality satisfaction with university

visual image is positively related to

student WOM

H4c: Comfort satisfaction with university

visual image is positively related to

student WOM

H5: Student loyalty is positively related to

24) Jiewanto․Laurens․Nelloh Op.cit., p.18.

25) Usulu․Durmus․Tasdemir, Word of mouth, brand

loyalty, acculturation and the Turkish ethnic minority

group in Germany, Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 99, 2013, pp.455-464.

student WOM

Loyalty

WOM

H1a H1b H1c

H2a H2b H2c

Design

Quality

Comfort

Satisfaction of UVI

Hedonic

Utilitarian

Expectation

H3a H3b H3c

H4a H4b H4c H5

<Figure 1> Research Model

3 Research Method

3.1 Data Collection

The population in this study involve students from a comprehensive university in China The range of respondents is wide, as long as they are in-service college students

or graduate students can participate in the answer When collecting the questionnaire, there is no restriction on which university or department or city As long as Chinese college students or graduate students can answer the questionnaire All the participants were represented by stimuli photos (see Appendix) which we designed for university visual image recently At the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents will be explained what is the specific design, quality, and comfort The University visual image in this paper only has three stages The first step is that students view the scene with visual sense, that is, design, which includes color, appearance, image, details and other factors

In the second stage, students judge the scene

in the form of touch, that is, quality, which includes performance factors such as material, touch and durability The third stage is that students use their hearts to feel the scene,

that is, comfort, including ergonomics of

desks and chairs, space comfort, and the

sense of human body fit Participation in this

study was completely voluntary They answer

the questionnaire rigorously through the

online survey system (www.sojump.com) we

have edited It was conducted from August 6

–11, 2020 with a total of 200 respondents

3.2 Measures

Twenty-four items were used to measure

the constructs included in the proposed model

(i.e., student expectation, satisfaction with

university visual image, student WOM, and

student loyalty) with multiple item scales

adopted from previous studies First, we

conceptualized student expectation as a

multidimensional construct of two factors:

hedonic (three items) and utilitarian (three

items) expectation adopted from Chang et al

(2014).26) Second, in order to improve the

reliability, the questionnaire items about

university visual image satisfaction are

adopted and revised from previous study The

satisfaction that reflects students' overall

satisfaction was conceptualized as three

dimensions: design (four items), quality (four

items), and comfort (four items) adopted and

revised from Hill and Epps (2010).27) Third,

student loyalty that focuses on attitudinal

loyalty was conceptualized as a

uni-dimensional construct of three items

adapted from El-Adly (2018).28) Lastly,

student WOM was conceptualized as a

uni-dimensional factor (three items) revised

from Uslu et al (2013)29) and encompasses

26) Chang․Liu․Chen Op.cit., p.44.

27) Hill․Epps Op.cit., p.74.

28) El-Adly, M I Op.cit., p.327.

several facets of the public praise construct, including referral and propagate All these items were measured using a five-point Likert scale anchored by the rating “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree.” Demographic questions were also included at the end of the questionnaire

4 Data Analysis and Results

4.1 Samples

A total of 200 usable questionnaires were collected and used in the analysis The demographic characteristics of respondents show that females preponderated slightly (n =

140, 70.1%) In terms of age, 74.1% (n = 149)

of respondents were between 20 and 29 years old and 23.9% (n = 48) were under 19 years old Because we are targeting at college students, including undergraduate and graduate students, which are younger There are only four graduate students in their 30s, which is also the peak age Almost all respondents (n = 197, 98.0%) were single, with just 2.0% (n = 4) married participants The respondents were fairly well educated, with 89.6% (n = 180) possessing an undergraduate degree and 10.4% (n = 21) with graduate degrees The reason for this outcome is that this study is aimed at university students The household monthly income of 38.8% (n = 78) of the respondents was less than 1,000,000 Won, 39.2% (n = 79) had monthly income ranging from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 Won, and 21.8% (n = 44) had incomes above 1,500,000 Won per month (Table 1)

29) Usulu․Durmus․Tasdemir Op.cit., p.461.

Demographics Category Frequency(n) Percentage(%)

Gender FemaleMale 14060 29.970.1

Age

10s 48 23.9 20s 149 74.1 30s 4 2.0 Marital Status MarriedSingle 1974 98.02.0

Education Undergraduate StudentGraduate Student 18021 89.610.4

Monthly

Income

Below 1,000,000 WON 78 38.8 1,000,000~1,500,000 WON 79 39.3

1,500,000~2,000,000 WON 22 10.9

Over 2,000,000 WON 22 10.9

<Table 1> Descriptive Statistics of Respondents

4.2 Measurement Model

The measurement model was assessed for

the reliability of individual items, the internal

consistency between items, as well as the

model's convergent and discriminant validity

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was

conducted to group the 24 items from the

questionnaire using maximum likelihood

analysis with Promax rotation and SPSS 22

0.30) Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

was performed on the measurement model

and found to be an excellent goodness-of-fit

statistic, because X2/df = 1.985, RMR = 0.028,

GFI = 0.847, CFI = 0.967, IFI = 0.967, TLI =

0.960 using the AMOS 22.0 package

As Table 2 shows, the Cronbach's α and

the composite reliability (CR) measures were

all greater than the acceptable cut-off of

0.700 as recommended by previous works,

thereby indicating an adequate level of

internal consistency.31) Convergent validity is

demonstrated as the average variance

30) Anderson․Gerbing, Some methods for respecifying

measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct

measurement, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),

1982, pp.453-460.

31) Bagozzi․Yi, Specification, evaluation, and interpretation

of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 40(1), 2012, pp.8-34.

extracted (AVE) values for all constructs were above the suggested threshold value of 0.500.32) Table 3 shows the correlations between the constructs Diagonal values represent the square root of the AVE, and the other matrix entries represent the correlations Discriminant validity is indicated when the square root of each construct AVE

is larger than its correlations with other constructs Thus, an acceptable level of discriminant validity was achieved

Construct Questionnaire Items CoefficientStandard valuet- Cronbach's α CR AVE Hedonic

Expectation

If I stay here, I will experience

0.991 0.929 0.972

If I stay here, I will feel pleasure 0.982 55.489***

If I stay here, I will have fun 0.989 63.602***

Utilitarian Expectation

If I stay here, I will increase my sense of accomplishment. 0.988 ―

0.984 0.924 0.953

If I stay here, I will improve my academic performance and grades. 0.965 44.336***

If I stay here, I will specializes in reading and thinking. 0.976 50.393***

Design

Design is novel and unique 0.864 ―

0.923 0.922 0.757

Color matching in place 0.849 15.863***

Every detail is outstanding 0.918 18.395***

General layout is reasonable 0.848 15.847***

Quality

The quality used is very good 0.884 ―

0.924 0.945 0.756

The tables and chairs look stiff and

No odor, no formaldehyde exceeding

The light is bright and the quality is

Comfort

Reasonable space layout, easy to

0.943 0.956 0.809

Ergonomic tables and chairs are comfortable to use. 0.895 21.677***

The overall feeling is very humanized 0.925 24.047***

There are rest areas in every corner

Loyalty

I will continue staying here when I

0.944 0.949 0.851

I will always enjoy the learning facilities here. 0.895 22.655***

I am willing to recommend this university to my friends. 0.920 24.944***

WOM

I generally regard my family as a good source of advice about learning

0.944 0.948 0.854

I generally regard my friends as a good source of advice about studying environment here. 0.950 26.853***

I generally regard my neighbors as a good source of advice about university visual image here. 0.882 21.059***

Notes: X 2 /df = 1.985; RMR = 0.028; GFI = 0.847; CFI = 0.967; IFI = 0.967; TLI

= 0.960; ***p < 0.001

<Table 2> Reliability and Validity

32) Fornell․Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 1981, pp.337-346.

Awareness AwarenessOthers’ AwarenessSafety ConsumptionConformity QualityMask MaskPrice RepurchaseIntention

Community

Awareness 0.613 a

Others’

Awareness 0.321 b 0.674 a

Safety

Awareness 0.470 b 0.130 b 0.618 a

Consumption

Conformity 0.352 b 0.182 b 0.522 b 0.860 a

Mask Quality 0.330 b 0.144 b 0.437 b 0.412 b 0.652 a

Mask

Price 0.481 b 0.245 b 0.585 b 0.468 b 0.646 b 0.638 a

Repurchase

Intention 0.481 b 0.194 b 0.517 b 0.405 b 0.241 b 0.488 b 0.696 a

Notes: a AVE of each variable, b Square of correlation coefficient between latent

variables p*** < 0.001

<Table 3> Correlations between Constructs

4.3 Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was

used to investigate the hypotheses

relationships between the constructs The

results of the path diagram of the research

model are shown in Figure 2 Table 4 lists

the standard regression weights for the paths

and the overall goodness of fit indices (X2/df

= 2.974, RMSEA = 0.039, GFI = 0.881, CFI =

0.931, IFI = 0.931, TLI = 0.920) The

outcomes indicate support for all the

relationships except for H3b and H4b

In-depth analysis shows that hedonic

expectation has a significantly positive effect

on design (β = 0.569***, p < 0.001), quality

(β = 0.521***, p < 001), and comfort (β =

0.546***, p < 001) Thus, the higher the

student hedonic expectation of their current

university, the higher the student satisfaction

with the university visual image The impact

on design satisfaction is the greatest, followed

by comfort, and quality in the last place

Utilitarian expectation also has a significantly

positive effect on design (β = 0.431***, p <

0.001), quality (β = 0.357***, p < 001), and

comfort (β = 0.567***, p < 001) Therefore,

the higher the students' utilitarian expectation

about their university, the more comfort, design, and quality satisfaction with the university visual image they experience (in the order of strong to weak occurrence) Therefore, H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b and H2c are supported

In terms of the relationship between student satisfaction and loyalty, design (β = 0.256***, p < 0.001) and comfort (β = 0.517***, p < 0.001) have a significantly positive effect on student loyalty Conversely, quality (β = 0.096, p = 0.144) has no significant effect Thus, the more students perceive comfort satisfaction with the university visual image, the higher the student loyalty to the university, followed by design satisfaction Thus, H3a and H3c are supported, but H3b is rejected

The relationship between student satisfaction and WOM turned out to be ideal Design (β = 0.164**, p < 0.01) and comfort (β = 0.190**, p < 0.01) have a significantly positive effect on student WOM, but quality (β = 0.056, p = 0.282) has no significant effect Maybe this outcome arises from the difficulty of distinguishing quality from the stimuli photos which show the university visual image In any case, other significant effects can explained why a higher design and comfort satisfaction perceived by students leads to more WOM and why design has biggest effects Therefore, H4a and H4c are supported, but H4b is rejected

Lastly, student loyalty has a significantly positive effect on WOM (β = 0.591***, p < 0.001), thereby meeting our expectations Thus, the more the students perceived loyalty with their current university, the more frequent the WOM about the university from

Hypotheses Path Estimate S.E t-value Results

H1a Hedonic → Design 0.569*** 0.045 9.353 Supported

H1b Hedonic → Quality 0.521*** 0.044 8.298 Supported

H1c Hedonic → Comfort 0.546*** 0.037 10.741 Supported

H2a Utilitarian → Design 0.431*** 0.051 7.395 Supported

H2b Utilitarian → Quality 0.357*** 0.050 5.842 Supported

H2c Utilitarian → Comfort 0.567*** 0.044 11.116 Supported

H3a Design → Loyalty 0.256*** 0.079 3.622 Supported

H3b Quality → Loyalty 0.096 0.077 1.459 Rejected

H3c Comfort → Loyalty 0.517*** 0.083 7.045 Supported

H4a Design → WOM 0.164** 0.063 2.831 Supported

H4b Quality → WOM 0.056 0.059 1.075 Rejected

H4c Comfort → WOM 0.190** 0.074 2.835 Supported

H5 Loyalty → WOM 0.591*** 0.068 8.399 Supported

Notes: X 2 /df = 2.974; RMSEA = 0.039; GFI = 0.881; CFI = 0.931; IFI = 0.931;

TLI = 0.920; p*** < 0.001, p** < 0.01

<Table 4> SEM Results

0.569***

0.521***

0.546***

0.431***

0.357***

0.256***

Design

Quality

Comfort

Satisfaction of UVI

Hedonic

Utilitarian

Expectation

0.096 0.517***

0.164**

0.056 0.190**

Loyalty

0.591***

<Figure 2> Research Model Results

5 Conclusion

This research confirmed that the

relationship of the variables among student

expectations (hedonic and utilitarian), student

satisfaction with university visual image

(design, quality, and comfort), student loyalty,

and student WOM This study is in the initial

stage of exploration, so the classification of

the attributes of university visual image is

more general, only the design, quality, and

comfort level are considered The following

aspects presented linkages between variables,

and some theoretical and practical contributions from this work are discussed First, hedonic and utilitarian expectations can strengthen student satisfaction with university visual image, regardless of design, quality, or comfort satisfaction This outcome

is consistent with that of a previous study.33)

Interestingly, hedonic expectation has the greatest effect on design satisfaction, and utilitarian expectation has the biggest effect

on comfort satisfaction We can classify two groups of students for centralized management: hedonic-oriented and utilitarian-oriented students More in-depth investigation of these features is needed and other meaningful factors from student expectations must be identified

Second, design and comfort satisfaction with university visual image can improve students' loyalty to their current college This finding is consistent with that of El-Adly (2018)34) and indicates that student satisfaction has a positive effect on student loyalty in higher learning institutions To improve student loyalty, a university visual designer must pay more attention to the design factors with novelty, uniqueness, color and detail and certainly be more careful about comfort factors with ergonomic, humanized areas and rest spaces Of course, quality problems should not be ignored

Third, similar with the effects on student loyalty, design and comfort satisfaction with the university visual image can strengthen student loyalty toward their university, and student loyalty can improve WOM of student behavior This outcome is consistent with

33) Alves․Raposo Op.cit., p.79.

34) El-Adly, M I Op.cit., p.329.