MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229365559 · doi:10.1108/imr-05-2021-0180

How do marketing activities influence organizational reputation in higher education institutions? An impression management perspective across eight countries

2022· article· en· W4229365559 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Angulo‐Ruiz, Albena Pergelova, Juraj Chebeň, Eladio Angulo-Altamirano

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Marketing Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Identity and Reputation
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationModerationMarketingMediationContext (archaeology)Organizational learningOrganizational commitmentQuality (philosophy)PsychologyBusinessSocial psychologyKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Based on impression management theory, the authors ask how marketing activities build organizational reputation and examine the mediating mechanisms of desired impressions, and the moderating impact of national culture. Specifically, and in the context of higher education (HE) institutions, the authors examine the influence of relational marketing and traditional advertising on organizational reputation through the mediation of desired impressions (e.g. quality of learning, career prospects and extracurricular activities) across countries and specify the moderation role of cultural variables. Design/methodology/approach This study estimates empirical models using a survey data set comprising 1,890 student responses from 10 universities in 8 countries. The authors use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance models, as well as ordinary least squares with robust standard errors to test the hypotheses. Findings The results indicate that marketing activities affect organizational reputation through the mediation of desired impressions in line with our theoretical reasoning. Specifically, the results show that (1) relational marketing has direct and indirect effects on organizational reputation; (2) relational marketing has a higher influence on organizational reputation in countries with lower individualism and lower masculinity scores; (3) quality of learning mediates the relationship between traditional advertising and organizational reputation; (4) quality of learning also mediates the association between relational marketing and organizational reputation; (5) career prospects mediate the relationship between relational marketing and organizational reputation; (6) traditional advertising does not have a direct but only an indirect effect on organizational reputation; and (7) these findings are net of the effect of respondents', universities', and countries' characteristics. Research limitations/implications The findings contribute to the body of knowledge on the antecedents of organizational reputation, from an international marketing perspective. The results extend the impression management by integrating constructs that have been studied independently into a cohesive framework that links marketing activities, desired impressions and organizational reputation. With the study, impression management theory provides a framework to study the impact of marketing activities on organizational reputation not only in domestic but also in international markets. Practical implications By asking the target market about the importance of different marketing activities, their expectations of the organization and its reputation, HE administrators can employ the model proposed in this study to assess the relevant marketing strategies that will drive desired impressions which in turn will influence reputation. Originality/value While there are studies that focus on the impact of several constructs on organizational reputation in an international context, it is striking to observe that extant research is silent on how (via what mediating mechanisms) marketing activities work as an antecedent of organizational reputation. To address this gap, we examine marketing activities as antecedents of organizational reputation in an international, cross-country context, and specify the moderation role of cultural variables.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Marketing ReviewSame topicCorporate Identity and ReputationFrench-language works237,207