Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ROLE OF SYMBOLS IN INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ CHOICE OF A
UNIVERSITY: A CASE OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITY - AFRICA
BY
JANE K. NYAGA
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - AFRICA
SUMMER 2017
ROLE OF SYMBOLS IN INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ CHOICE OF A
UNIVERSITY: A CASE OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITY - AFRICA
BY
JANE K. NYAGA
A Research Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters in Business Administration
(MBA)
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY – AFRICA
SUMMER 2017
ii
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any
other college, institution or university other than the United States International
University-Africa for academic credit.
Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Jane K. Nyaga
ID No: 621561
This research report has been presented for examination with my approval as the
appointed supervisor.
Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Dr. Damary Sikalieh
Signed: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Dean, Chandaria School of Business
iii
COPYRIGHT
© JANE K. NYAGA, 2017
All material in this project is unless otherwise stated, the property of Jane K. Nyaga.
Copyright and other intellectual property laws protect these materials. Reproduction of
the materials, in part or whole in any manner without the prior written consent of the
copyright holder, is a violation of Copyright law.
iv
ABSTRACT
Marketing managers in universities are struggling to adapt to the fast changing
environment and stiff competition in the education sector. These institutions are facing
stiff competition and therefore must aim at remaining competitive yet profitable.
University branding and the use of symbols are about aligning existing and potential
students, as well as employee behavior with brand values. This study focused on the role
of symbols in influencing students’ choice of a university.
This study was governed by three specific objectives: the visual role of symbols; the
communication role; and the differentiation role and how these key areas influence
students’ choice of a university. The study employed a descriptive design. Descriptive
research was chosen because it enabled the study to generalize the findings to a larger
population. The student body was stratified into freshmen and sophomore students of the
United States International University – Africa. A sample of 54 freshmen and 46
sophomores was selected using simple systematic sampling from the strata. The study
used questionnaires to obtain primary data. Data obtained from the questionnaires was
then cleaned, coded and keyed in. It was then analysed using descriptive analysis (mean,
median, standard deviation) through the use of the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) software and later subjected to interpretation. The tests were conducted
at 95% level of confidence (α=0.05). Further, a multivariate regression model will be
applied to determine the relative relationship of each of the roles with student choice of a
university.
The study showed that students chose USIU-Africa because it had a good reputation. The
general image of the university and their parents greatly influenced the students’ choice
of the university. The study further showed that the perceived quality of service given to
students Africa as well as the quality of education offered influenced their choice of
USIU.
The study showed that the symbols used offer visual identity system that unites the whole
university. The study revealed that the use of symbols increases USIU-Africa recognition
to both internal and external customers and that the symbols used by USIU-Africa and
serve as a focal point of connection which communicate the university’s core values.
Further, the symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity and intimate appeal to students. The
v
study showed that the name of the university captures students’ attention whenever they
see or hear of it and that when someone spoke of USIU-A, students were able to associate
it with the images used on the symbols.
The symbols used by USIU-Africa build a sense of unity amongst the diverse societies
represented in the university and they were also used to communicate about the
university’s commitment and engagement to providing quality education. The study
showed that symbols chosen by USIU-Africa should be used in all its promotional
materials because they helped students to have the university convincingly positioned in
their mind. The study showed that students felt that USIU-Africa symbols created a
good brand image for the university and also contributed to its overall success. The study
also revealed that the aesthetic response attached to symbols was one of the clues that
differentiated it.
The study recommends USIU-A to ensure that the articulation of its brand is supported by
qualitative and quantitative research that should be conducted on their behalf by a well-
known branding agency with experience in higher education issues. This organization
should be given the task of ensuring that the university symbols and colours are
differentiated from the existing ones.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDENT’S DECLARATION ............................................................................................. ii
COPYRIGHT ......................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study ....................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................5
1.3 General Objective of the Study ............................................................................................9
1.4 Specific Objectives ..............................................................................................................9
1.5 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................9
1.6 Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................10
1.7 Definitions of Terms ..........................................................................................................10
1.8 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................11
CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................12
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................12
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................12
2.2 Choice of a University .....................................................................................................12
2.3 The Visual Role of a Symbol in Influencing Student Choice ............................................16
2.4 The Communication Role of a Symbol in Influencing a Student’s Choice ......................24
2.5 The Differentiation Role of a Symbol in Influencing a Student’s Choice .........................29
2.6 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................35
CHAPTER THREE ...............................................................................................................36
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................36
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................36
3.2 Research Design.................................................................................................................36
3.3 Population and Sampling Design .......................................................................................36
3.4 Data Collection Methods ...................................................................................................39
vii
3.5 Research Procedures ..........................................................................................................40
3.6 Data Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................41
3.7 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................41
CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................42
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...........................................................................................42
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................42
4.2 Response Rate ....................................................................................................................42
4.3 General Information ...........................................................................................................42
4.4 Choice of a University .......................................................................................................43
4.5 Visual Role of the Symbols in influencing student choice of a university ........................51
4.6 Communication Role of Symbols ......................................................................................63
4.7 Differentiation Roles of Symbols ......................................................................................74
4.8 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................86
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................88
5.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................88
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................88
5.2 Summary ............................................................................................................................88
5.3 Findings..............................................................................................................................90
5.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................94
5.5 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................95
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................97
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................102
APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ...................................................................102
APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................103
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population Distribution ............................................................................................37
Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution .........................................................................................39
Table 4.1 Student’s Choice of a University .............................................................................43
Table 4.2 Correlations for Student’s Choice of a University ...................................................45
Table 4.3 Student’s Choice of a University and the Choice Theory .......................................46
Table 4.5 Student’s Decision-Making Process ........................................................................49
Table 4.6 Correlations for Student’s Decision-Making Process ..............................................51
Table 4.7 Effect of Visual Role of the Symbols ......................................................................52
Table 4.8 Correlations for Visual Role of Symbols .................................................................53
Table 4.9 Effect of Visual Identity ..........................................................................................54
Table 4.10 Correlations for the Effect of Visual Identity ........................................................56
Table 4.11 Effect of Cueing Role of Symbols .........................................................................57
Table 4.12 Correlations for Effect of Cueing Role of Symbols ..............................................58
Table 4.13 Effect of Persuasion Role of Symbols ...................................................................59
Table 4.14 Correlations for Effect of Persuasion Role of Symbols .........................................60
Table 4.15 Effect of Logos in University Selection ................................................................61
Table 4.16 Correlations for the Effect of Logos in University Selection ................................62
Table 4.17 Effect of Communication Role of Symbols ...........................................................64
Table 4.18 Correlations for the Effect of Communication Role of Symbols ..........................65
Table 4.19 Effect of Social Cohesion Role of Symbols ..........................................................66
Table 4.20 Correlations for the Effect of Social Cohesion Role of Symbols ..........................67
Table 4.21 Effect of Marketing Role of Symbols ....................................................................68
Table 4.22 Correlations for Marketing Role of Symbols ........................................................69
Table 4.23 Effect of Identification Role of Symbols ...............................................................70
Table 4.24 Correlations for the Effect of Identification Role of Symbols ...............................71
Table 4.25 Role of Logos in communication..........................................................................72
Table 4.26 Correlations for the Effect of Role of Logos in Communication ..........................74
Table 4.27 Effect of Differentiation Role of Symbols .............................................................75
Table 4.28 Correlations for the Effect of Differentiation Role of Symbols ............................76
Table 4.29 Effect of Brand Image Role of Symbols ................................................................78
Table 4.30 Correlations for Effect of Brand Image Role of Symbols .....................................79
Table 4.31 Effect of Brand Loyalty Role of Symbols .............................................................80
Table 4.32 Correlations for the Effect of Brand Loyalty Role of Symbols .............................81
ix
Table 4.33 Effect of the Differentiation Role of Logos ...........................................................82
Table 4.34 Correlations for the Effect of Brand Identification Role of Symbols ....................84
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Public University Selection ....................................................................................85
Figure 4.2 Private University Selection ...................................................................................86
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Marketing managers in Universities are struggling to adapt to the fast changing
environment and stiff competition in the education sector. Evidence abounds that
globalization has brought on the most significant and rapid changes in recent decades
(Tsui, 2007). This move towards globalization has also affected institutions of higher
learning which are now to a greater extent competing with their service on an
international arena (Melewar and Akel, 2005). A university’s brand is a manifestation of
the features that distinguish it from others, reflect its capacity to satisfy students’ needs,
stimulates trust in its ability to deliver a certain type and level of higher education, and
help potential recruits to make wise enrolment decisions (Bick, Jacobson, and Abratt,
2003).
Consumer behavior studies show how individuals, groups and organizations select, buy,
use and dispose off goods and services, ideas or experiences to satisfy their needs and
desires (Kotler, 2009). It also describes buyer behavior as a concept that attempts to
answer the basic question of how buyers choose among alternatives. Buyers make
purchase decisions in a dynamic market environment, which affords them choices from
enormous numbers of products (and in this case different universities) and brands as well
as influence from diverse set of marketing efforts.
It is noteworthy that the role of students is changing. No longer can they be subsumed
under the category the “clients”, they need to be recognized as brand “ambassadors”
(Hemsley, 1998). Students and university employees constitute the interface between a
brand’s internal and external environments and can have a powerful impact on
consumers’ perceptions of both the brand and the organization (Schneider and Bowen,
1985; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991). Furthermore, with the ubiquity of technology
decreasing the potential for sustained competitive advantage, marketing managers are
focusing more on differentiating their brands on the basis of unique emotional, rather than
functional, characteristics (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo, 2001). A brand’s emotional
values are communicated not just by advertising, but also through students’ interactions
with different stakeholders. Students and employees represent a source of customer
information and action needs to be taken to ensure this is compatible with the way senior
2
management wishes the organization to be perceived (Kirp, 2003). University students
and employees are thus becoming central to the process of brand building and their
behavior can either reinforce a brand’s advertised values or, if inconsistent with these
values, undermine the credibility of advertised messages. It is therefore crucial for United
States International University - Africa (USIU-A) and other institutions of higher learning
to look inside the university to consider how students’ values and behavior can be aligned
with a brand’s desired value.
Students are often faced with the decision to choose just one university to attend. This
reveals their preference for the chosen university compared to the others that may have
admitted them but were not selected (Kotler, 2009). The decision-making process which
students follow when selecting a university is generally lengthy because individuals
usually progress through all five steps, namely problem/need recognition, information
search, evaluation of alternatives, selection, as well as the post-purchase evaluation
processes (Etzel, Walker and Stanton, 2007). Need recognition is triggered when the
student recognizes a need or a problem (to further his/her education). It is followed by
information search (about universities), an evaluation of alternatives and a purchase
decision. The purchase decision is derived from the consumer ranking the alternatives to
formulate a purchase intention (Kotler, 2009). The process students go through will be
discussed in detail in the literature review. The steps in the decision-making process can
be used by universities like USIU-Africa to identify areas in which they can influence
students’ behavior.
From time immemorial, symbols have played a significant role in the life of men and
have served in influencing the choices they make. In fact it will not be far-fetched to say
that man has grown with the symbols (Rajan, 2008). An interesting finding in the area of
college choice by Daly (2005) reported that females students rated recruiting materials
and information from colleges more important compared to males. Further, Rashkov
(2010) asserted that students may perceive one university as more prestigious than others
just because of the symbol used thus influencing their choice. The Merrian-Webster
Collegiate dictionary (2003) defines symbols, in the most general sense as something, be
it an arbitrary or conventional sign, an object or act or sound - that stands for or suggests
something else by reason of relationship, association, convention or accidental
resemblance. Symbols are used to relate a tangible object with an intangible concept. For
3
the sake of this research, symbols are used to refer to the USIU-Africa name and logo.
Symbols give meaning to objects so members can identify each other (Bowers, 2014).
For example, many cultures associate a long white coat with a medical professional
(Karnath, 2014). Symbols also help cultures form stereotypes for other groups or cultures.
In American culture, members of the biker group can be stereotypically identified by
extensive tattoos and leather clothing (Sailor, 2011). Symbols can function as a sort of
unspoken communication for members that allows them to easily find a group to fit into
based on their interests or career. The phenomenon is transformed into a concept, or an
idea by the symbol, the idea, in turn, is depicted into a visual image and the image
captures the thinking faculty of the seeker and stays permanently there. Henceforth, every
time he seeks the phenomenon, he has only to recall the symbol (Rajan, 2008).
For most universities, attracting quality students to sustain and improve their performance
and international recognition puts pressure on capturing a larger base of prospective
students to select from. In order to do so, a university has to successfully communicate
messages not just by its symbols, correspond to future students’ expectations and in the
same time keep up with general shifts of focus within the field it operates. Van-Grinsven
and Das (2014) propose that the design complexity of symbols such as logos influence
brand recognition and brand attitude. Further, Universities obtain accreditations when
they meet certain criteria of quality which also includes its symbolism. The symbols of a
university play a major role in influencing the choices students make because most of
these symbols are included on its website and in multiple other media, materials, leaflets,
and brochures (Payne, 2007) used by students in their university search.
Although symbols play various roles in influencing consumer choice, this study focused
on the visual, communication and differentiation roles played by symbols in influencing
student choice of a university. The visual role of symbols involves providing
communication that conveys an idea through a visual aid (Wei, 2002). It therefore, relies
purely on vision. Visual symbols include drawings, graphic design, colors, signs,
symbols, illustration, typography etc. (Wei, 2003). Many communicators use colors as a
tool to send messages visually to the audience who unconsciously receives them. This
study also looked at the communication role of symbols in influencing student choice.
4
According to Gray and Balmer (1998), communication is a vital component which ties
corporate identity with the corporate image and reputation, as it influences the reflection
to all important stakeholders of an organization. They also highlight that the customer’s
mental picture creates a corporate image as the identification of a company’s name and
logo shape expectations. A university can be linked through their name, symbol or
promotional methods. Henderson and Cote (1998) emphasize that symbols are essential
communication assets which organization promote at large costs to generate
identification, image and connotation. They further explain that organizations regularly
modernize their logos in order to sustain a reputable image, which must communicate the
organization’s objectives and traditions as seen in USIU-Africa’s rebranding. Wei (2002)
further emphasizes that major organizations spend millions of dollars finding the right
brand name and designing logos with the intention of attracting customers,
communicating and creating the correct corporate image. Van de Bosch et al. (2005) say
that symbols are not only means of communicating the existence of an organization but
also a means of creating differentiation of your organization. This is the third concept this
study focused on.
The concept of being different is very essential in today’s world of cut-throat competition
in the higher education sector (Judson, Gorchels and Aurand, 2006). Differentiation is a
basic business and marketing strategy, by which a company focuses on distinct
differences in its offering to customers as the basis for establishing a competitive
advantage (Etzel et al., 2007). The products and/or services a university offers have to be
different in order for them to survive the competition and influence students to choose
one university from myriad choices.
Through the use of a marketing differentiation strategy, a university can create the
perception of uniqueness in the minds of her customers. Marketing differentiation
strategies can be based on price, service, a unique focus or a different product mix (Kotler
and Armstrong, 2009). The university sector has become highly competitive and turbulent
and is constantly changing. Market conditions move from being simple to complex, from
stable to dynamic and from tame to hostile (Neu and Brown, 2005). In response to
changing market conditions, universities have become more customer-centric and
innovative, in a way that students receive products and services that better fit their needs
5
(Neu and Brown, 2005). According to Judson et al. (2006), the need for differentiation
and re-branding so as to influence students’ choice cannot therefore be underplayed.
University symbols are the most salient visual elements of a brand and facilitate its
identification and differentiation from competing alternatives (Janiszewski and Meyvis,
2001). As a result, symbols can shape the brand's reputation (Baker and Balmer, 1997;
Van den Bosch, de Jong and Elving, 2005) along with consumers’ attitudes, their
purchase intentions (Woo, Chang-Hoan and Joon, 2008) and their brand loyalty (Müller,
Kocher and Crettaz, 2011). Symbols also have an impact on the financial value of a
university because they can influence student choice positively or negatively (Van Riel
and Van den Ban, 2001).
USIU-A recently adopted Africa into its name as well as unveiled a new logo. Speaking
during the ‘unmasking’ event the then Vice Chancellor Prof. Freida Brown, said the new
identity would align with the institution’s responsibility of contributing positively to
Africa’s development. The event also marked USIU-Africa’s contribution to universal
understanding; a tradition that continues through the 67 nationalities represented at the
University (USIU Gazette, 2014). Though there are many symbols, the logo and name of
the university would make the bulk of this study. The name and logo a university selects
is nearly as important as the products or services they provide. Effective branding/re-
branding in institutions of higher education requires a critical understanding of the
perceptions of the key target markets such as students, employees, employers, alumni and
the general public (Pesch, Calhoun, Schneider and Bristow, 2008). In a bid to stay
relevant, especially with intense competition from newly established tertiary institutions,
USIU-A in 2014 decided to modify her symbols and corporate colors. The rebranding to
USIU-Africa complete with a new logo was met with mixed reactions, a result of which,
this study sought to investigate the role symbols play in influencing student’s choice of a
university.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
There have been opposing attitudes towards marketing education and especially in third
world countries fortified by the perceived and arbitrary established misconceptions
attached to the general concept of marketing (Chimombo, 2005). One of these is that
marketing is associated with commercialism, (where the main purpose of running the
6
educational institution would be to make financial profits (Gerald, 2008) rather than
providing education as a social service. Levy (2006) challenges this opinion by arguing
that marketing is present not only in the ‘for-profit’ organizations, but also in the ‘non-
for-profit’ organizations and even in charities. People who oppose marketing education
feel that they have a supreme mission of educating people and that they cannot get
involved with the commercial aspect and make financial profits (Levy, 2006). Kirp
(2003) strongly criticizes these opinions by stating that "dollars have always greased the
wheel of higher education". This suggests that marketing has a presence and role in the
educational sector and especially in this century.
A second opinion is about whether or not students could be considered as customers or
consumers in the first place (Sharrock, 2000). Attitudes opposing marketing education
believe that it is not suitable to talk about this subject and it is even ‘shameful’ to call
students ‘customers’ (Holbrook, 2005). Others believe that the introduction of market
forces into the area of education evokes feelings of concern, even mistrust, within the
world of education (Gibbs and Knapp, 2002). Currently, universities are facing stiff
competition and therefore must aim at remaining competitive yet profitable.
Empirical studies undertaken by Naude and Ivy (1999) and Ivy (2001) show that students
are highly influential in the representation of higher education institutions to the public.
Jevons (2006) notes that if staff and students do not clearly understand the institution’s
brand, their acts may associate more with their own values than the university’s brand
value.
According to Borja de Mozota (2003) all visual design input generates initial perception
from viewers which trigger psychological, emotional, and behavioral responses through
information processing. The visual expression in a symbol is an important tangible asset
of an organization (Van den Bosch, de Jong and Elving, 2005). It can clarify a company’s
features and qualities, and can also be associated with the organization’s roots (Van Riel
and Van de Ban, 2001). Though minimal research seems to have been done on the role of
visual symbols in influencing the choice of products in mainstream companies as well as
the field of psychology, little or no research has been done on their role in influencing
student choice and especially in Africa, more specifically Kenya.
7
Baker and Balmer (1997) point out that communication is crucial for managing higher
education institutions. In addition, Belanger and Schaupp (2002) suggest that in order to
ensure that students and employees’ behaviour supports the institution’s brand, the
branding or re-branding process must communicate the fundamental questions of ‘who
we are’ and ‘what our values’ are. Although, there are studies on corporate branding and
how higher education institutions create their corporate identity (Melewar and Akel,
2005; Balmer and Liao, 2007; Atakan and Eker, 2007), studies are not strongly related to
how symbols help in communicating their value proposition to students so as to influence
their choice of a university. The aim of this study was to fill the existing knowledge gap
by investigating the communication role of symbols.
Numerous pressures and changes in the higher education sector including increased
competition impact on a university’s endeavor to attract quality students (Mouwen, 2000;
Haigh, 2002; Moller, 2006). According to Crow (2002), the lack of innovation in our
colleges and universities results in an insufficient differentiation between distinct
categories of institutions as well as a stultifying homogeneity among institutions of the
same type. Universities as service providers require restructuring in order to survive.
Consequently, there have been calls to respond to such challenges by institutions
differentiating themselves as well as understanding the factors influencing the Higher
Education Sector choice process among prospective students (Maringe, 2006; Briggs and
Wilson, 2007) because these students and potential students are daily bombarded by a
myriad of different communications that influence their choices. Although considerable
research has been done on product/service differentiation (Soberman, 2002; de
Chernatony et al., 2001; Gjelsvik and Arbo, 2006; Crow, 2002) published research based
on differentiation in universities in Sub-Sahara Africa and Kenya in particular is
relatively limited, thus the need for this study to fill the knowledge gap on the
differentiation role symbols play in influencing student choice of a university.
Keller (2003) points out that symbols such as logos contain concrete or abstract visual
information about a brand. Further research by Pieters and Warlop (1999) asserts that
consumers’ visual attention affects brand choice. These authors suggest that consumers
choose a brand based on their visual filtering of the brand’s elements (name or logo etc.).
Labrecque and Milne (2012) show that color can affect consumers’ intention to purchase.
Another research by Bottomley and Doyle, 2006 also shows that choosing an appropriate
8
color for an organization’s symbols sends a message of value to the brands. Though
minimal research seems to have been done on the role of visual symbols in influencing
the choice of products in mainstream companies, there exists a knowledge gap on their
role in influencing student choice of a university and especially in Africa, more
specifically Kenya.
Baker and Balmer (1997) point out that communication is crucial for managing higher
education institutions. In addition, Belanger and Schaupp (2002) suggest that in order to
ensure that students and employees’ behavior supports the institution’s brand value, the
branding or re-branding process must communicate the fundamental questions of who we
are and the values we hold. Students who are enrolled in a university often wear the
university’s symbols such as logos on their clothes (for example, jumpers, t-shirts, student
identity tags etc.). In so doing, students are able to express who they really are. For
instance, if the university is well-known as green and sustainable, by donning clothes
with the university’s logo, the students can communicate to others that they are concerned
about the environment (Japutra, Keni Keni and Nguyen, 2016) and probably convince
potential students to consider joining them. Although, there are studies on corporate
branding and how higher education institutions create their corporate identity (Melewar
and Akel, 2005; Balmer and Liao, 2007; Atakan and Eker, 2007), studies are not strongly
related to how symbols help in communicating their value proposition to student so as to
influence their choice of a university, another gap this study sought to fill.
Further, Universities as service providers require restructuring in order to survive.
Consequently, there have been calls to respond to such challenges by institutions
differentiating themselves as well as understanding the factors influencing the Higher
Education Sector choice process among prospective students (Maringe, 2006; Briggs and
Wilson, 2007) because these students and potential students are daily bombarded by a
myriad of different communications that influence their choices. Although considerable
research has been done on product/service differentiation (Soberman, 2002, de
Chernatony et al., 2001, Gjelsvik and Arbo, 2006, Crow, 2002), there exists a knowledge
gap in the published literature on the use of a symbol as a differentiation tool in
universities. The Kenyan context in particular is relatively limited.
9
Research on the role of symbols in influencing choice of students remains relatively
sparse. For universities, students’ positive experiences with the symbols and especially
brand logos can increase their affective commitment (Japutra, Keni Keni and Nguyen,
2016). For example, when students receive holiday job placement, acceptance is easier
because of a reference letter containing the brand logo of their university. This being said,
it can be said that symbols provide a functional benefit. As a result, this positive
experience would create an emotional connection between the students and the university
brand or increase the students’ inclination to stay with the university (Japutra, Keni Keni
and Nguyen, 2016) of choice. There exists a knowledge gap both in theory and practice
on how universities can effectively use symbols to influence student choice. This study
sought to fill this gap by investigating the role symbols play.
1.3 General Objective of the Study
The general objective of this study was to determine the role of symbols in influencing
student choice of a university in Kenya.
1.4 Specific Objectives
1.4.1 To investigate the visual role of symbols in influencing student choice of a private
university in Kenya.
1.4.2 To determine the communication role of symbols in influencing student choice of a
private university in Kenya.
1.4.3 To determine the differentiation role of symbols influencing student choice of a
private university in Kenya.
1.5 Significance of the Study
This study is of great importance to various players in the education sector in Kenya. The
results of the study will enable informed decision making as far as branding and the use
of symbols is concerned.
1.5.1 Policy Making Bodies
The study may assist the bodies to develop market oriented policies and also to improve
current policies. Moreover, the study has provided a body of knowledge for future
research works besides helping to underscore the role of symbols in institutions of higher
learning.
10
1.5.2 Management and Board of Directors
The study may assist the management and board of directors in coming up with strategic
plans that may be beneficial to their institutions and that take students’ perceptions into
consideration.
1.5.3 Marketers and Company Employees
This study may help the universities to understand their customers, predict their behavior
in certain situations and ultimately influence their behavior when making a choice of
which institution of higher learning to join. The marketers may be better at promoting
their products and services more effectively and device marketing plans and strategies to
foster sustainable competitive advantage for their products and services.
1.5.4 Present and Future Scholars
Students gained insight into their own behavior before and while spending money on the
services provided by universities. The study may be beneficial to students studying
consumer behavior, consumer satisfaction, consumer choice and preference as well as
other academicians and researchers.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study was carried out in USIU-Africa among the first and second year students.
USIU-Africa enrolls over 5,000 students who come from over 50 countries of the world
(USIU-Africa Catalog, 2014/15). The university offers undergraduate, graduate and
doctorate studies. Menon, Saiti and Socratous (2007) suggest that first and second year
students are considered to be suitable as they still have a relatively accurate recollection
of the decision-making process which had preceded their entry into universities. For the
sake of this research and due to funds as well as time constraints, the researcher randomly
selected a target population of 100 out of 2498 freshmen and sophomore students who
provided the data through the use of self- administered questionnaires. The time scope of
the study was May 2016 to July 2016.
1.7 Definitions of Terms
This section refers to terms that have been used in the study.
11
1.7.1. Perception
Perception is the process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensations into a
meaningful whole (Adcok, Halborg and Ross, 2003).
1.7.2. University
An educational institution designed for instruction, examination, or both, of students in
many branches of advanced learning, conferring degrees in various faculties, and often
embodying colleges and similar institutions.
1.7.3 Brand
A brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to
identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them
from those of competitors (Kotler et al. 2009).
1.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter set the basis of the study. It begun by giving a brief background of the study
topic. In a bid to stay relevant, especially with intense competition from newly
established tertiary institutions, USIU-A in 2014 decided to modify her symbols and
corporate colors. For students considering joining a university or institutions of higher
learning, the selection process assumes a high priority. Many factors probably affect the
final decision made by a student. The researcher in this case sought to find out what
advises a students’ choice, the visual role symbols play, their communication role and
finally the differentiation role of symbols in influencing USIU-Africa students’ choice.
There exists a knowledge gap the role symbols play in influencing student of choice of a
private university in Kenya and the purpose of this study was to fill these gaps. The
study’s findings may be of great benefit to stakeholders in the higher education sector and
may provide relevant information and knowledge to the government as well as other
policy makers. The scope of this study was limited to USIU-Africa. Chapter two
reviewed prior research conducted with the aim to explore and determine factors
influencing student choice of a university.
12
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Chapter two focused on prior research conducted with the aim to explore and determine
factors influencing selection of a university. A comprehensive review of the relevant
literature offered insightful information and was divided into four parts. Each collated
and discussed the literature related to the research objectives. First, the visual role of
symbols in influencing student choice of a university; second, the communication role
symbols and lastly the differentiation role of the symbol in influencing student choice of a
university.
2.2 Choice of a University
University symbols serve, today as in the past, as an organizational artifact that captures,
and is used to signal, organizational identity. This strategy of identity signaling relies on
the deciphering of pre‑existing cultural codes. The symbol is therefore a marker not only
of the identity of the particular organization, in this case a university, but also the social
context with which this identity is conversing (Drori, Delmestri and Oberg, 2013).
The growth of higher education has been experienced in many parts of the world
including Europe, the United States of America (USA), Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, China, Hong Kong, South Africa, Taiwan, Brazil,
Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and the Philippines (Gupta, 2008). Every year, university
bound high school students are faced with the problem of selecting an institution of
higher learning. The selection process typically spans a number of years and involves
considering many factors. According to this researcher, one of those factors that may
influence a student’s choice of a university is the symbols the university chooses to use.
According to Kitswad, 2013, university choice is a complicated process that involves a
wide range of individuals including but not limited to the high school students
themselves, family members, university administrators and policy makers.
Understanding the factors that influence their choice of a university is therefore an
important area of study. Attributes and characteristics of particular universities give
insights into some of the factors that influence a student’s choice. Such attributes include
13
cost, quality of education offered, location, image (Baharun, Suleiman and Zubaidah,
2012). Educational choice involves critical decision making for the future because it may
reflect student’s expected outcomes that may have long-term implications (ibid).
It is important for students to have a say and be provided with an opportunity to express
their views, ideas and values in relation to life choices. Many researchers have outlined
the importance of seeking opinions and gathering data from respondents right from high
school (Fielding, 2004; Cook-Sather, 2006; Brooking, Gardiner and Calvert, 2009;
Smyth, 2012). The importance of the student voice in understanding situations and
decision-making cannot be understated and forms the basis of this study. The next section
of this chapter will use Glasser’s theory of choice selection to explain that though human
beings in general share similar needs, the behaviors which individuals choose to satisfy
those needs may greatly vary.
2.2.1 Theories of Choice Selection
The choice theory was developed by Glasser (1998) who sought to explain that though
human beings in general share similar needs, the behaviors which individuals choose to
satisfy those needs may greatly vary. From the early stages of life, each one has
distinctive life encounters which may be either pleasant or distressing. Through this
encounters, one begins to discover how to fulfill their needs.
Several theories have been proposed to explain choice and behavior. According to
Crossman (2010) economics plays an enormous role in human behavior. It is believed
that people in general are motivated by money, meaning that they tend to consider the
opportunity of profit making in which they appraise the possible costs and benefits of
future engagement before making their decision on what to do. West and Turner (2007)
defined costs as the components of relational life that have negative value to a person, for
example the endeavor placed into a relationship, and the amount of time and money
spent. Rewards on the other hand refer to components of a relationship that have positive
values, such as sense of acceptance, support and companionship. According to social
sociologists, people will continue with a relationship if the rewards are greater than the
cost. For a student, the consideration would be the amount of time and money spent at a
reputable university of choice and the reward component such as getting value for money
and good grades at the end of the day.
14
The second theory is the behavioral which describes choice and preferences (Kotler,
2009). Students are often faced with the decision to choose just one university to attend;
this reveals their preference for the chosen university compared to the others that
admitted the student but were not chosen. The decision-making process which students
follow when selecting a university is generally lengthy because individuals usually
progress through all five steps, namely; problem/need recognition, information search,
evaluation of alternatives, selection, as well as the post-purchase evaluation processes
(Porter and Armstrong, 2009). The steps in the decision-making process can be used by
USIU-Africa, and other universities to identify areas in which they can influence
students’ behavior.
Further rational choice theorists suggest that the same basic principles can be used to
comprehend human relationship where time, information, approval and prestige are the
resources exchanged (Scott, 2000). The approach is supported by Blau (1964) theory
during the 1960s and 1970s as a formal model of rational choice. The theory proposed
that factors that motivate individuals are their personal goals and wants that are driven by
their personal desires. The theory proposed that it is not possible to attain all of your
desires thus the need to make a rational choice of the alternative that would most likely
satisfy them. In this case, it not possible to join more than one university at a time and
therefore the student has to make one choice among the many available alternatives. The
next section will explain the decision making process consumers go through before
finally making a choice.
2.2.2 Decision-Making Process
The first step in the decision-making process, problem/need recognition (Kotler et al.,
2009), occurs when prospective students recognize a need to further their education. The
emphasis of the second step is the provision of information. The sources of information
that students consult, the type of information they need and the amount of research
students engage in, are important information for institutions to obtain as it will enable
them to use the media more effectively to reach students. The third step in the decision-
making process, namely the evaluation of alternatives (ibid) (in this case different
universities), is the focus of this study and identifies important evaluation/selection
criteria (also referred to as choice factors).
15
If a university like USIU-Africa knows which factors students use to evaluate and choose
a university, and the relative importance of each, they can ensure that their image,
positioning and marketing strategies implicitly contain the essence of the evaluation
criteria. The fourth step involves the selection of the university and the purchase of a
service (ibid) (education), by paying the registration fees and enrolling at the institution.
The fifth step consists of the post-purchase processes, namely dissonance (doubt or
anxiety), service product use and evaluation (Kotler, 2009). The last step in the decision-
making process entails that students now use the education product which can have a
negative (fail) or positive (pass) outcome. Knowledge of the decision-making processes
of students can provide universities with insight into their market and the development of
a differentiated marketing strategy. Furthermore, an understanding of the relative
importance of choice factors as a decision in students’ selection processes, can add to the
refinement of targeted marketing strategies. The next section narrows down to how
students generally make their choices of which universities to attend.
2.2.3 Students’ Choice
A wide range of studies across the international spectrum of nations have been done
regarding factors which influence students’ choice of a university. There are common
factors which span national territory and specific factors emerge when reviewing specific
nations. These factors include common elements such as mass-media, parental
preference, influence of peers, location, cost and characteristics of the host countries are
significant, with the top factors being learning environment, political environment,
concern for students, cost of education, facilities, and location in descending order
(Baharun, Suleiman and Zubaidah, 2012).
Ciriaci and Muscio (2011) agree that “good” universities may act as a magnet for good
brains. Kusumawati, Yanamandram and Perera (2010) suggest that the reputation of the
institution was the most significant factor in a student’s decision to join an institution of
higher learning. Johnson and Ford (2007) indicate that similar factors on student choice
most important to students include degree program flexibility, academic reputation and
prestige reflecting national and international recognition, physical aspects of the campus
such as the quality of the infrastructure and services, career opportunities upon
completion, location of the institution and the time required for the completion of the
program. Heller (2007) indicates that income or the socio-economic status of students is
16
also primary determinants. Excellence in teaching is also viewed as a strong determinant
of choice (Kusumawati, 2010; Soutar and Turner, 2002).
Shifts in public policy, emerging institutions of higher learning, increasing academic
programs, changing demographics in higher education, continuing growth in higher
education attendance, implementation of differential institutional practices, complex
marketing techniques and enrollment strategies have enormous impact on student’s
choice of a university (Kitsawad, 2013).
Understanding how students make their choices and what directions they are likely to
take in future are key issues for all stakeholders in the university. However, it is evident
that there are several gaps in understanding determinant factors especially with regards to
the role symbols play in influencing students’ choice. Along this line, it is apparent that
studies of this nature are limited in Kenya. Besides, according to this study, it is
necessary to know specifically what role symbols play in influencing student choice of a
university. The next section will focus on the visual role symbols play in influencing
student choice.
2.3 The Visual Role of a Symbol in Influencing Student Choice
The content of the artifacts of universities – university buildings and symbols – visually
captures the identity of the institution. The construction of such visual artifacts –
architecture for buildings and symbols – is a social process that articulates the vision or
values of the institution. The use of symbols in universities and the process of rebranding
universities tell the story of the globalization‑induced changes that confront this
organization and the institution of higher education (Drori, Delmestri and Oberg, 2013).
University symbols serve, today as in the past, as an organizational artifact that captures,
and is used to signal, organizational identity (ibid). This strategy of identity signaling
relies on the deciphering of pre‑existing cultural codes, or ‘trait laws’. The symbol is
therefore a marker not only of the identity of the particular organization or university like
USIU-A, but also the social context with which this identity is conversing and which in
turn may likely influence a student’s choice of the university.
17
More often than not, universities prefer to use a brand name for example USIU-Africa
and a logo as their visual cues. The logo is the flagship image of any brand. Logos can
quickly speak volumes about your business, your mission and what services you offer
(Hardy, 2011). Visual cues that tie the brand names to existing product-category linkages
improve learning due to the elaboration which creates additional records to help in recall.
Names can also be selected to capitalize on existing linkages in memory as such when
one sees a certain logo, they are able to associate it with a particular brand name.
According to Borja de Mozota (2003) all visual design input generate initial perception
from viewers which trigger psychological, emotional, and behavioral responses through
information processing. The visual expression in a symbol is an important tangible asset
of an organization (Van den Bosch, de Jong and Elving, 2005). A corporate visual
identity system is designed based on the essence of the organization – what it stands for,
what its aims are, in which respects it differs from others, a suitable design will
eventually come to represent the organization and influence consumer choice (Van den
Boash et al., 2005). It consists of a name, a symbol and/or logo, typography, colour, a
slogan and – very often – additional graphical elements (Van den Boash et al., 2005). In
this particular research, the name and logo a university uses will be the main area under
study because these are the two elements unveiled during USIU-Africa’s rebranding. The
perception formed by students and potential students about the university considerably
influences their choice and demand for the services and/or products that the university
offers. The next section looks at specific visual roles played by symbols.
2.3.1 Specific Visual Roles of Symbols
2.3.1.1. Visual identity
According to Schoenfeld (2015) visual content drives engagement. In fact, just one month
after the introduction of Facebook timeline for brands, visual content (photos and videos)
saw a 65% increase in engagement. Symbols when used as visual representations of
universities are capable of reminding customers of a brand's functional benefits and/or
communicating such benefits to them (Loken, Joiner and Peck, 2002). Nike’s “Swoosh”
for instance, suggests the superior physical form that athletes strive for (Goldman and
Papson, 1998).
18
In higher education, a uniform visual system of graphic symbols, typography and color
help to build the identity of the institution. Over time, these visual cues come to
represents the attributes for which the institution is known, and serve to reinforce those
attributes in the minds of students, employees and alumni (Kiernan, 2015). To take
advantage of this potential, a university may develop a visual identity system that unites
all of campus – every school, department, program and office by the use of a symbol.
USIU-Africa’s martial eagle is meant to signify the university’s strength and commitment
to offering premier education to its students.
Every member of the university community plays an important role in bringing this
identity to life and maintaining its integrity. This is done through consistent use
throughout all media and channels–including publications, displays, advertising,
promotional products, web pages, email and other electronic formats–to both internal and
external audiences Jevons (2006). With consistent use, this visual identity system will
serve to increase USIU-Africa’s recognition and thus making it a university of choice to
student and potential students. The next role is that of cueing.
2.3.1.2 Cueing
Another visual role of symbols is that of cueing. The Merrian Webster English Dictionary
defines a cue is a signal of something or a reminder of something. It brings to mind
something from past knowledge or previous experience that provides a framework of
meaning that can be used to interpret the sign. The concept of cueing is very important to
visual communication because much of past experience is filed in memory as a visual
element. Symbols have been considered key elements of a corporate visual identity
system (Melewar and Akel, 2005). They serve as visual cues and delivers subtle
messages to consumers about a firm’s commitment and engagement. This would also
apply for universities who use symbols to remind students about them. For most firms
the goal of logo redesigns is typically to render the brand more appealing to new
customers as well as to the existing customer base (Melewar, 2003). The question then
begs, did the rebranding of USIU -A to USIU-Africa and the unveiling of a new logo
signal this great role? Would it serve as a signal that would lead a potential student to
choose the university? The next visual role is that of persuasion.
19
2.3.1.3 Persuasion
Additionally, visible symbols help to elaborate the message one intended to send through
to an audience and increase the chance of persuading them. Symbols are likely to increase
the cognition value of the message, which leads to cognitive elaboration when the
audience processes the message (Jeong, 2006). Since symbols visually represent what the
university is and what it stands for, they have the potential to serve as a focal point of
connection for students by communicating and reinforcing the university’s core values. In
other words, the symbols are critical for conveying associations between the brand and
the students, which in turn helps the students see the university as part of themselves so
much so as to influence their choices (Walsh, Winterich, and Mittal, 2010). Moreover,
symbols provide brands with a face and may thus enhance a brand's authenticity and
intimate appeal to the students (Henderson and Cote, 1998). Symbols have the potential
to not only express such brand-self associations, but also to reinforce and strengthen
them, thus enhancing students' willingness to exert effort and invest resources towards
sustaining their relationship with the university (Park et al., 2010). The importance of
establishing a symbolic association with a brand can be particularly critical in an
environment in which customers resent or even attack corporations that are perceived as
faceless or distant from customers' selves, but develop a considerably stronger affinity
towards brands that foster self-relevant relations with their customers (Escalas and
Bettman, 2005).
The symbols used by a university must attempt to inform, persuade and remind customers
about them. This section looked at the visual engagement role in influencing choice, how
symbols can be used by marketers in cueing or reminding students about the university
and finally how all these roles persuade students to choose a particular university from a
myriad of choices. None of the literature studied shows how the visual aspects of
symbols directly influence a student’s choice of a university. This study therefore seeks
to fill this gap. As stated in chapter one, the symbols in focus in this study are mainly the
logo and name of the university and how they influence choice. The next section will
look at the role logos play in university selection.
2.3.4 The Role of Logos in University Selection
Whilst semiotics treats logos as part of the sign system a company uses to interact with
stakeholders, corporate identity literature views logos as a company’s signature on its
20
materials (Kotler, 2009). Combined with the selected brand name, the message should be
replicated in publications such as the letterhead, brochures, and catalogs. Logos offer a
frequently untapped opportunity for companies to communicate and symbolize a brand’s
essence to consumers, thereby building closer relationships with them, creating strong
positive emotions and facilitating top-of-mind recall in the consumer when faced with
choices (Van den Boash et al., 2005). Overall, symbols are the most crucial visual
synthesizers of a brand that consumers turn to on a daily basis in making choices.
A logo consists of the graphic design and typeface elements an organization uses to
identify itself or its products (Bennett, 1995; Henderson and Cote, 1998). Logos appear in
print and television advertising, and on point-of-purchase displays, packaging, business
cards, letter heads, and branded apparel (Henderson and Cote, 1998). Logos are an
important element of a brand’s visual identity (Keller, 2003; Kohli, Suri, and Thakor,
2002) and allow organizations to communicate positively about a product or the company
itself (Check-Teck, 2001), can create competitive advantage and support global marketing
strategy (Henderson et al., 2003).
A logo has the potential to express organizational characteristics (Van Riel and Van de
Ban, 2001). It can clarify a company’s features and qualities, and can also be associated
with the organization’s roots (Van den Bosch et al., 2005). Researchers agree that well-
designed logos should be recognizable, familiar, elicit consensually held meanings, and
evoke positive affect. If the logo’s design is difficult to memorize, unlikable, or fails to
convey accurate meanings, it will not achieve desired responses and may even damage
the corporate identity (Henderson and Cote, 1998).
As stated earlier, a wide range of studies (Kotler, 2009; Baharun, Suleiman and Zubaidah,
2012; Ciriaci and Muscio, 2011; Kitsawad, 2013) across the international spectrum of
nations have been done regarding factors which influence students’ choice of a university.
A clear understanding of the students’ selection and choice processes will influence an
organization’s choice of both the logo and name to ensure that they communicate and
symbolize the brand’ essence to the students and in return influence their choice.
It is clear that university logos offer a frequently untapped opportunity for universities to
communicate their brand value to students. A well selected logo will serve to create
21
strong positive emotions about the university and facilitate top-of-mind recall in the
student’s mind when they are choosing a university. Though there are numerous studies
on the role of logos in influencing choice, there seems to be sparse literature specifically
on how they influence student choice of university, a gap that this study seeks to fill. The
next section will look at the relationship between logos and students choice.
2.3.2 Relationship between Logos and Students’ Choice
Students’ perceptions are an amalgamation of a student’s beliefs about and feelings and
behavioral intentions toward a university. These components are viewed together since
they are highly interdependent and together represent forces that influence how the
student will react to the symbols a university decides to use. Students may hold positive,
negative or neutral beliefs towards a university (Kaewsurin, 2010). The belief one holds
will affect their perception towards a university and will in effect, affect their choice. No
two students will hold the same exact believe about a brand. The use and adoption of
symbols is therefore meant to differentiate a university from its competitors. Brand equity
stems from the greater confidence that consumers place in a brand than they do in its
competitors. This confidence translates into consumers’ loyalty and their willingness to
pay a premium price for the brand (Janiszewski and Meyvis, 2001).
Awareness of the brand (its name and logo) is viewed as being a basic step towards
knowledge and attitudes of the brand. According to Aaker (2007), brand awareness can
be viewed from three different aspects; recognition, recall, first recall and dominant, and
concerns more than the students simply remembering the brand name. Creating
awareness is not the easiest tasks and can become an expensive commitment, but if done
effectively, it may increase the brand equity. For a symbol to be recognized there has to
be recollection of the same. The result should elicit positive or negative feelings. The
power of the brand resides in the mind of the consumer and if for example a student feels
that the thought put into designing a university logo is done creatively, then it bears an
influence on perceived quality thus choice. If the shape and design is extravagant, then
the value placed on the university is worthwhile. Together with superior service quality, a
logo design that is artistically revealed has a positive impact on a student (Holmes and
Paswan, 2012) and may result in a student choosing the said university.
22
Henderson and Cote (1998) identify a set of subjectively measured logo design
characteristics (for example a logos’ naturalness, elaborateness, harmony, and roundness),
as well as a set of objectively measured design characteristics (for example the number of
parallel and repeated elements, and the logo’s proportions). They then examined the
impact of these logo design characteristics on consumer responses to the logo: positive
affect, familiar meaning, correct recognition, and false recognition. Results suggest that
positive affect is evoked by moderately natural, moderately elaborate, and highly
harmonious logos. Familiar meaning arises from highly natural and moderately
proportional logos; false recognition is more likely for artificial looking, highly
harmonious logos at moderate levels of parallel elements and proportion. Correct
recognition, on the other hand, is furthered by highly natural, moderately harmonious
logos with many repeated elements. Positive affect and familiar meaning also increase
correct recognition so that satisfied buyers can easily choose the product or service
offered by a certain organization again (Kotler et al., 2009).
Particular logo shapes send out particular messages: Circles, ovals and ellipses tend to
project a positive emotional message. Using a circle in a logo can suggest community,
friendship, love, relationships and unity. Rings have an implication of marriage and
partnership, suggesting stability and endurance. Curves on any sort tend to be viewed as
feminine in nature (Christie, 2014). Straight edged logo shapes such as squares and
triangles as seen on the new USIU-Africa logo suggest stability in more practical terms
and can also be used to imply balance. Straight lines and precise logo shapes also impart
strength, professionalism and efficiency. However if they are combined with colors like
blue and grey, they may also appear cold and uninviting. Subverting them with off-kilter
positioning or more dynamic colors can counter this problem and conjure up something
more interesting which will lead to immediate recall in a student or potential student’s
mind thus influence their decision on which university to choose.
It has also been suggested that triangles have a good association with power, science,
religion and law. These tend to be viewed as masculine attributes, so it's no coincidence
that triangles feature more prominently in the logos of companies whose products have a
masculine bias. Our subconscious minds associate vertical lines with masculinity,
strength and aggression, while horizontal lines suggest community, tranquility and calm.
The implications of shape also extend to the typeface chosen. Jagged, angular typefaces
23
may appear as aggressive or dynamic; on the other hand, soft, rounded letters give a
youthful appeal. Curved typefaces and cursive scripts tend to appeal more to women,
while strong, bold lettering has a more masculine edge (Christie, 2014). The symbolic,
aesthetic and communication role that a product or service fulfill appear to have the most
significant effect concerning a student’s university preference and choice (Creusen and
Schoormans, 2005).
According to Mehigan, Solway and Zervos (2013) people have a mean preference for
rounded logo designs. The study shows that rounded designs result in greater purchase
likelihood, and that rounded designs are more appealing, more pleasing and less
annoying. Tavassoli (2001) examined effect of printing brand names in color. Madden,
Hewett and Roth (2000) on the other hand explored intercultural differences in consumer
preferences for colors and color combinations for product logos. The results showed a
cross-cultural pattern of both similarity and dissimilarity in color preferences and color
meaning associations. When the respondents were asked to match colors for a product
logo, some color combinations suggested a consistency in meaning, whereas other
combinations suggested colors whose meanings are complementary. The presence of such
patterns opens the possibility of managing color to create and sustain brand and corporate
images across international markets.
Etzel, Walker and Stanton (2007), go further to state that like design and shape, symbol
color often is the determining factor in a customer’s acceptance or rejection of a product
or service. In fact, color is so important that the United States (US) Supreme Court
confirmed in 1995 that the color of a product can be registered as part of the trademark
under the Lanham Act (Tysver, 2015). A differential advantage may be gained by
identifying the most pleasing color to the eye and in knowing when to change colors.
Though personal taste is highly involved in one’s choice of a university, individual
expectations also affect judgment (Kotler, 2009). USIU-Africa not only changed its logo
but the university color as well. Could this influence a student’s choice?
Investigations into the process through which potential students determine their choice of
university have increased over the past decade. Previous research seems to have
considered geographic location as an important factor (Wagner and Fard 2009; Beneke
and Human 2010) as well as institutional characteristics include teaching quality,
24
prestige, infrastructure, library, computer facilities, location, quality of the curricula,
scientific research quality, administrative support, extra-curricular factors (sports, leisure,
and canteens) and the availability of exchange programs with foreign universities
(Tavares et al., 2008). Price, Matzdorf and Smith (2003) noted that for many institutions,
facilities were perceived as having an important influence on students’ choice of
institutions.
Although many studies have been done on factors that influence student choice, this
section sought to show how universities can use the visual aspects of symbols to inform,
persuade and remind students about them. However, it appears that there is no clear and
comprehensive understanding of how the visual features of symbols have been used in
influencing student choice among students in Kenya. The next section of this chapter will
focus on the communication role of symbols in influencing student choice.
2.4 The Communication Role of a Symbol in Influencing a Student’s Choice
Once a university has developed a clear differentiation strategy, it must communicate that
effectively. According to Kotler (2009) quality is communicated by choosing those
physical signs and cues that people normally use to judge quality. The symbols used must
attempt to inform, persuade and remind customers (directly or indirectly) about their
brand. Kotler et al. (2009) say that communication represents the “voice” of the company
and its brands and is the ways in which it can establish a dialogue and build relationships
with customers. In this case, communications allows universities to link their brands to
other people, places, events, brands, experiences, feelings and things. They can contribute
to brand equity by establishing the brand in long term memory and creating a brand
image as well as drive sales and affect shareholder value (Kotler et al., 2009). The main
advantage of effectively communicating through the use of good symbols is so that a
university can be convincingly positioned in the minds of the potential student and other
decision makers so as to influence their choice because communication play an important
role in the formation of congruent perceptions (Balmer, 2000) . The next section will
focus on the specific communication role played by symbols in influencing student
choice.
25
2.4.1 Social cohesion
According to Charles Pierce (1914), one of the founding fathers of semiology – symbols
essentially serve the purpose of communication between the members of a given
community, since communication is a prerequisite of any human society. Whatever
function symbols might fulfill, either from the view point of anthropologists and
sociologists who mainly tend to focus on their function in social cohesion and rituals or
from the perspective of philosophers, structuralists and semiologists who are more
concerned with the relationship between the symbol and what it stands for, it is evident
that the symbols make possible for human beings to send and receive messages, first
within their specific community and then their overall social surroundings. The USIU-
Africa symbols are therefore meant to help send and receive messages to the whole
community.
Heyneman, Kraice, Lesko and Bastedo (2014) state that higher education can play an
important role in promoting understanding between social groups and building a sense of
unity in diverse societies has long appealed to educators and policymakers alike.
Universities especially have been utilized to build an intellectual basis to promote
pluralistic cultures and increase societal synergy. Although there is potential for
universities to take a larger and more deliberate role in the advancement of social
cohesion through the use of symbols, Heyneman et al. (2014) are of the opinion that some
academic cultures reject the idea that the university has any social role to play other than
preparing students for careers. Having said that, this study seeks to find out whether the
United States University symbols have played this role in the use of their symbols. The
next specific role of communication is that of marketing.
2.4.2 Marketing
According to Becker and Palmer (2009), universities used to live in a rather protective
world. The education system in the United Kingdom (UK) for example used to work as a
cartel in the sense that there was not really any competition but a few big universities.
There were less places at a university than there are today, thus the demand was higher
than the supply. As a result, marketing of universities was considered an unnecessary
cost as long as student demand exceeded the amount of available places. Marketing of
universities was also mainly directed at the university’s internal audiences, with the goal
26
of consolidating organizational identity and allowing for constituent buy‑in. Further, in
the past universities seemed to work under the motto “if you build it, they will come”
(Eccles, 2004). This saying will not do for universities run in a more corporate way
Becker and Palmer (2009). A key role symbols play in communication is identification.
For this reason, rebranding and the use of symbols in universities such as USIU-Africa
has been done as one way to market universities with some using a great deal of money to
this end.
It is of utmost importance for universities to continually and consistently communicate
the message by all means possible, including the use of symbols in order to make sure
that customer, be it external or internal, understand the values of the university. For
example, as a result of less student applications and increased competition, academic
institutions in the UK are now marketing themselves more aggressively to be able to
increase their market share (Becker and Palmer, 2009). This trend was also noted in
Sweden as well where the university capacity in the past years has increased dramatically
(Brandberg, 2006). For Sweden unlike the UK, the trend that marketing activities makes
sense if a university is forced to compete with a numerous of available places at rival
universities. Otherwise universities might face the risk of becoming the anonymous
player in a marketplace filled of similar offerings.
One issue when marketing an institution of higher learning though is that sometimes it
can be marketed as a product and other times a service (Anctil, 2008). The author goes
on to mention that the students are both the customers and the products in a sense.
According to him, marketing of the institution should then be approached firstly, create a
positive common image that is easy to communicate to all audiences and secondly, within
the common image communicate distinct images for the variety of target audiences that is
wished to be reached. Marketing of a university should be done intentionally because the
people within the university interact with each other and give positive of negative
feedback externally. For a university, use of symbols is nothing more than the total
impression of images, emotions, experiences and facts that an organization has created in
the public mind. When someone mentions the name USIU-Africa, certain associations,
images and faces will be evoked.
27
Symbols are valuable company assets that firms spend a great deal of time and money
promoting. Indeed, many firms spend substantially more on permanent media such as a
good names and logos than on other forms of marketing communication (Henderson and
Cote, 1998). A widely held belief among marketers and scholars is that good symbols
should readily evoke the same intended meaning across consumers (Henderson and Cote,
1998). Indeed, it is a common notion that, in general, marketing stimuli should
communicate one clear message that is difficult to misinterpret (Keller, 2003). This
implies that symbols and any form of marketing communication, should be unambiguous,
as a result reducing the perceived risk of losing out in the student’s decision making
process and eventual choice. The next section looks at identification as another role
symbols play in communication.
2.4.3 Identification
A key role symbols play in communication is identification. They offer guidance, convey
an expectation of quality and so offer help and support to those making purchase
decisions (Kotter, 1999). Symbols make it easier for consumers to interpret and digest
information on products and or services. The perceived choice and purchasing risk is thus
minimized, which in turn helps cultivate a trust-based relationship (Kusumawati, 2010).
For university students or potential students, how easy it is to recognize a particular
symbol for example a logo is very important in influencing their choice. Further, for
universities, students’ positive experiences with the symbols and especially brand logos
can increase their affective commitment (Japutra, Keni Keni and Nguyen, 2016). As seen
earlier, this positive experience may create an emotional connection between the students
and the university brand or increase the students’ inclination to stay with the university
(Japutra, Keni Keni and Nguyen, 2016) of choice. The next section will therefore focus
on the role of logos in communication.
2.4.4 Role of Logos in communication
The brand name and logo of a university serves as its social business card, expressing
membership in a certain group. Premium brands, for instance, can even engender a sense
of distinction and prestige. Choosing certain brands is also a means of communicating
certain values (Keller, 2003). By opting for a particular university, a student demonstrates
that he or she embraces particular values; its symbols becoming a tool of identity
formation. When a university is able to increase the perceived brand logo benefit,
28
students tend to maintain their relationship and commitment with the university (Park,
Eisingerich, Pol and Park (2013) while at the same time exhibit their emotional
connection (Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi, 2012). This increased commitment and bonding
also holds true if students encounter positive experiences with the university, as positive
emotions will be developed (Park et al, 2013; Batra et al, 2012). For example, if the
universities’ logo helps students to find jobs (functional benefit), students are more likely
to remain committed to the university.
One of the logo’s added values is its key role in communicating with consumers (Kohli,
Suri, and Thakor, 2002). Using a logo influences speed of recognition and helps
remember the brand name (Kohli et al., 2002). Because pictorial representations are
processed and retrieved from memory faster than non-pictorial representations (ibid),
logos act as facilitators that enhance and quicken brand name recognition and help elicit
stronger support and eventual choice. Kohli et al. (2002) emphasized that the instant
recognition resulting from logos is highly beneficial, considering that some 60% of
consumers’ buying decisions are made inside the store. Henderson and Cote (1998)
similarly suggest that a logo is used as one of the main channels for communicating
image, drawing customer’s attention, and speeding recognition of the company. This
helps facilitate purchase so that customers (students in this case) do not have high levels
of indecisions as to which university to choose.
According to Ancheh, Krishnan and Nurtjahja (2007) recognition and reputation of the
institutions are the strongest evaluative criteria used by students in their selection of
higher education for both private universities and colleges in Malaysia. Briggs (2006)
also noted that reputation is one of the ten factors that influence the selection decision by
university students.
Nowadays, Universities are not just educational facilities with the sole purpose of
learning but now also offer services just like other organizations do. They are increasingly
employing marketing and branding programs (Bunzel, 2007) as has been seen in USIU-
Africa. Melewar and Akel (2005) state that the globalization of business has finally been
embraced by the higher education sector which education is seen as a service that could
be marketed worldwide, just like normal consumer goods. Although it was noted that
there are numerous important factors considered by students when selecting a university,
29
there is no explicit study that focuses on the communication role of symbols in
influencing student choice, this study therefore seeks to fill this gap. To do this, the study
will specifically focus on the social cohesion role, marketing communication and
identification roles of communication. It will also look at the communication role of
logos. The succeeding section will highlight the differentiation role of symbols in
influencing student choice.
2.5 The Differentiation Role of a Symbol in Influencing a Student’s Choice
Kotler et al. (2009) defines differentiation as the act of designing a set of meaningful
differences to distinguish the company’s offering from competitors. Product or service
differentiation can be achieved in many ways. It may be as simple as packaging the goods
in a creative way, or as elaborate as incorporating new functional features. Sometimes
differentiation does not involve changing the product at all, but creating a new advertising
campaign or other sales promotions instead as it the case of USIU-Africa who opted to
change her name and logo. Even when competing offers look the same, students may
respond differently to the university’s image or brand image. It is important to distinguish
between identity and image. Identity comprises of the ways that a company aims to
identify itself or position its products. Image is the way the public perceives the company
or its products. A company (university in this case), designs an identity or positioning to
shape the public’s image (Kotler et al., 2009).
Winning business strategies are grounded in sustainable competitive advantage. An
organization has competitive advantage whenever it has an edge over rivals in securing
customers and defending against competitive forces (Porter, 1985). According to the
same author, there are many sources of competitive advantage, these are making the
highest-quality product, providing superior customer service, achieving lower costs than
rivals. Others include; having a more convenient geographic location, designing a
product that performs better than competing brands, making a more reliable and longer-
lasting product and providing buyers more value for the money (a combination of good
quality, good service, and acceptable price). To succeed in differentiating itself, an
organization must try to provide what buyers will perceive as superior value and a
product or service worth choosing. That said, the most competitive universities therefore
will be those that anticipate future advances in technology, customer service and
30
production etc., and incorporate them into their game plans which will include but not
limited to the use of symbols.
Universities have become highly competitive and turbulent and are constantly changing.
Market conditions move from being simple to complex, from stable to dynamic, and from
tame to hostile (Neu and Brown, 2005). In response to changing market conditions,
universities have become more customer-centric and innovative in a way that customers
receive products/services that better fit their needs (Johnson and Selnes, 2004).
Customers have significantly differing views of product and service attributes, leading to
a situation in which organizations opt for various strategic options in order to satisfy their
underlying needs (Neu and Brown, 2005). Having said this, the university management
needs to market their institutions and establish a unique difference which highlights their
strength and give the students a reason to choose that particular university. Since higher
education institutions operate in a service environment, they also need to understand the
unique aspects of service marketing in order to accomplish the above goal and make their
institutions the top choice to all students.
USIU-Africa may have sought to differentiate itself on the basis of institutional
reputation, image and prestige with the recent rebranding. An effective image does three
things for a service, first, it conveys a singular message that establishes the product’s
character and value proposition, and secondly, it conveys this message in a distinctive
way so that it is not confused with similar messages from competitors. Third, it delivers
emotional power so that it stirs the hearts as well as the mind of the buyer. USIU-
Africa’s strategy in the re-branding effort was to meet its students needs more accurately
than other universities by providing “education to take you places” while making and
building up demand for potential students to choose it as their university of choice as well
contribute to Africa’s development agenda. The succeeding sections looked at specific
differentiation roles, the first one being that of creating a strong brand image.
2.5.1 To create a strong brand image
Anything an organization can do to create buyer value represents a potential basis for
differentiation. Organizations today recognize that they cannot appeal to all buyers in the
market place or at least not to all buyers in the same way. Buyers are too numerous, too
widely scattered, and too varied in their needs and buying practices. Moreover, the
31
organizations themselves vary widely in their abilities to serve different segments of the
market (Allen, 2006). Once an organization finds good sources of buyer value, it must
build the value-creating attributes into its product and/or services at an acceptable cost. A
differentiator can incorporate attributes that raise the product's performance or make it
more economical to use. Or a firm can incorporate features that enhance buyer
satisfaction in tangible or intangible ways during use (Porter, 1985). For example,
according to De Bortoli and Moroto (2001), the meanings associated with different colors
(on a package or symbol) are important to marketers because the tools used to
communicate brand image are mechanisms of meaning transfer. If consumers associate
specific meanings with individual colors and color combinations, managers can select the
colors that best fit their image strategy. The color on a university symbol may therefore
increase or decrease the desirability of an institution of learning thus influencing student
choice.
In recent years, more organization are beginning to recognize the benefits associated with
positive corporate image, it is not just for fascination but knowing the effect on
organizational survival and profitability (Ajedumo, Ogungbade & Akinbode, 2014).
Today, many organizations (including universities) need to project strong positive
reputation to their stakeholders, namely the employees, consumers, customers, investors
and the public in order to be reckoned with in the highly competitive market. Projecting
corporate image entails show casing what you are into and stands for as a business entity
which is an embodiment of the totality of your operations in business.
According to Ajedumo, Ogungbade and Akinbode (2014) the reality that a favorable
image can boost a firm's sales through increased customer satisfaction and loyalty, as well
as attract both investors and future employees while negative image will do otherwise.
Experts are of the opinion that one of the ways to form corporate image is through quality
advertising. Qualitative advertisement is often holistic as it will give stakeholders
necessary information about the company. It will build appropriate image of a company
in a convincing manner against assumption of what is imagined and heard from unreliable
sources. The methods of advertising varied but on a wide spectrum it involved both
electronic and print media. The visible manifestation of advertising to promote corporate
image varied but could involve the use of letters, symbols, logos and other design are
32
measures to promote corporate image of an organization (Ajedumo, Ogungbade &
Akinbode, 2014).
Developing a strong image requires creativity and a lot of hard work. This is because it is
difficult to implant it in the public’s mind overnight or by use of just one media vehicle.
Rather, according to Kotler (2009) the image must be conveyed through available
communication vehicle and disseminated continuously. If then USIU-Africa boasts of
providing “Education to take you places” this message must be communicated in
symbols, written and audio visual media, atmosphere and behavior. If a university is
inconsistent in conveying their message, they leave their students and potential students
confused and more vulnerable to campaigns by universities with stronger messages.
Although many studies have been carried out on corporate image in mainstream
organizations, sparse information is available on how symbols help improve a
university’s image, a gap this study sought to fill. The next specific role was that of
brand loyalty.
2.5.2 Brand Loyalty and Symbols for Differentiation
According to Gunelius (2015) brand loyalty is the consumer’s emotionally-charged
decision to purchase a specific brand again and again. The consumer perceives that the
brand meets their expectations and identifies with the consumer on a personal level.
According to the author, this buying behavior and decision-making process can be
conscious or unconscious, but it is always based in trust that the brand will deliver on the
consumer’s expectations for it (Gunelius, 2015). In the educational services, loyalty
requires developing a solid relationship with students who eventually provide the
financial basis for future university activities (Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen,
2001). According to Mendez, Parraga and Urutia, 2008 student loyalty is a sort of
strategic competitive advantage for any university because it is assumed that student
loyalty may pay off after graduation, as alumni continue supporting their academic
institution, not only by word of mouth but also through financial contributions as well as
job offers to new graduates. According to Farquar (1989), a corporate brand is “a name,
symbol, design or mark that enhances the value of a product beyond its functional value”
(pp.24). de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Rilley (1999) contend that “managers develop
structured and scientific logic for understanding brands, while consumers rely on raw
33
feelings”. For a student therefore, loyalty will be a result of how associating with a
particular university (brand) made them feel.
A successful product differentiation strategy creates brand loyalty among customers. The
same strategy that gains market share through perceived quality or cost savings may
create loyalty from consumers. The company must continue to deliver quality or value to
consumers to maintain customer loyalty. In a competitive market, when a product doesn't
maintain quality, customers may turn to a competitor (Kelchner, 2015). University
students are faced with a myriad of choices and the strategy the university uses to stand
out from the competition -including but not limited to the use of symbols, is as important
as the services it offers. Although numerous studies have been done on how
organizations can create loyalty with its customers, little research has been done on how
symbols help differentiate universities and influence student choice in the long run. This
is the gap this study wished to fill. The next section focused on the differentiation role of
logos.
2.5.3 Differentiation Role of Logos
Creating a logo design is an important task for a new company wishing to gain entry in a
particular industry sector. It requires an initial situation analysis that examines existing
logos within the sector. This information is then used to advise the creation of a new logo
design (O’Connor, 2011). This is not just unique to mainstream companies but also
institutions of higher learning like USIU-Africa. Differentiating your brand from others
is critical to business survival, so is communicating the benefits of the brand. Logos offer
a viable, albeit often neglected, means to help brand managers achieve these tasks. Park,
Eisingerich and Pol (2013) posit that the brand logo can be an integrator of the marketing
efforts of the brand, a reflector of such effort and the icon of what the brand means to its
customers. In other words, logos make it easier to identify a brand in the sea of
competing offerings which is very important for a university which desires to have
students choose her as the top university of choice. As the visual representation of a
brand, logos have the potential to communicate and reinforce a brand’s core values and
principles (symbolic benefits) (Park, Eisingerich and Pol, 2013). Logos thus play a
critical role in serving as a point of connection between a university and its customers.
34
Van Riel and Van de Ban (2001) assert that a quality logo is able to evoke essential
amount of desired organizational characteristics from customers only with the graphical
properties. Combined with a good brand name, the two symbols (name and logo)
contribute to the success of an organization (Etzel et al., 2007). Design properties of logo
form perceptions which can lead to liking or induce more intense aesthetic response such
as strong emotional reactions among customers (Pittard, Ewing and Jevons, 2007).
Considering consumers spend, on average, less than 15 seconds to make a purchase in
low-involvement, frequently purchased products (Kohli et al., 2002), the aesthetic
response attached to a symbol e.g. the colors used, graphics etc. in such instances is one
of the few clues that differentiate the brand (Pittard et al. 2007). Symbols used by a
university therefore need to be able to provoke an aesthetic response in order to resonate
in a student’s mind.
Overall, branding and/or rebranding initiatives in universities and the related redesign of
university symbols to take a branded, logo style are drawing on the assumption that
branding is a strategy to create differentiation and to claim value. Although competition
among universities is not a new phenomenon, branding is a recent fashion for universities
to position themselves in the field of higher education (Judson et al. 2004). Such recent
positioning is not only strategic in nature; most importantly, it attaches value (proceeds
and return) to what is otherwise university identification. Branding commodifies
education and research, creating visual and symbolic kernels of commercial property that
are subsequently marketed as products. According to Kotler (2009), a strong image
consists of one or more symbols that trigger company or brand recognition and eventual
choice. The brand symbols should be designed for instant recognition.
Effective branding as a means of differentiation in universities requires a critical
understanding of the perceptions of the key target markets such as students, employees,
employers, alumni, donors and the general public (Pesch et al., 2008). Intense
competition in the higher education market has forced institutions to modify elements of
their brands such as USIU-Africa did in order to differentiate them and make their
universities institutions of choice for top students. After the re-branding, there were
mixed feelings and reactions to the unveiled logo and name change. For some, the change
from the original logo was a good idea while for others; the change was not well received.
Following this mixed reaction, the researcher noted a gap that she sought to fill by finding
35
out the student’s reaction to the differentiated logo and brand name and if this reaction
influenced them to choose USIU-Africa.
2.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter summarized information from other researchers who carried their research in
the same field of study. The study evaluated the factors that influence students’ choice
when selecting a university using studies and literature from various authors. The specific
areas covered were based on the specific objectives given. The study sought to establish
the visual role of symbols in influencing student choice of universities, as well as
determining the communication role of symbols in influencing student choice. The
chapter also analyzed the differentiation role of symbols influencing student choice using
journals, books and various studies. Symbols are valuable company assets that firms
spend a great deal of time and money promoting. For a university, use of symbols is
nothing more than the total impression of images, emotions, experiences and facts that it
creates in the public mind. This study raised concerns about the different factors that
influence student choice as found by previous researchers when surveying students in
different countries.
Literature focusing on the visual role of symbols showed the importance of universities in
attempting to use symbols to inform, persuade and remind customers about them and to
ensure that they are top of the students mind while the communication role of symbols
showed the importance of ensuring that symbols used readily evoke the same intended
message and meaning across students. Further literature on the differentiation role
highlighted the fact that in this highly competitive sector, the need to be different cannot
be underplayed and that universities need to identify ways to differentiate themselves
from competition.
The next chapter discussed the research methodology applied in this study. It explained
the research design that adopted; the population, type of data that was collected, sample
and sample techniques. Data collection instrument and data collection procedures, data
analysis and presentation was also discussed.
36
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This study sought to analyze the role of symbols in influencing students’ choice of a
university. This chapter highlighted the overall methodology that was used to carry out
the research. This included the research design, population and sampling design, data
collection method, research procedures and the data analysis methods that was employed
in the study.
3.2 Research Design
Creswell (2009) defines research design as the framework or plan for the study used as a
guide in collecting and analysing data. It is the blueprint used to specify where the study
starts and where it ends. The research design that was employed in this study was
descriptive in nature. Cooper and Schindler (2010) describes a descriptive study as a
method that tries to discover answers to questions who, what, when, where and
sometimes how. It assists in describing a subject often by creating a profile of a group of
problems, people or events. It was useful for this study because it facilitated the collection
of in-depth information about the population under study and help answer the questions
under study. The descriptive design involves evaluating how different factors are
perceived by the students and how they influence their choices.
3.3 Population and Sampling Design
3.3.1 Target Population
A population refers to all the individuals or objects that meet certain requirements for
membership in the overall group. Those who qualify are then referred to as the population
elements (Churchill and Brown, 2007). According to Cooper and Schindler (2010), a
population is the total collection of elements about which one wishes to make inferences.
The target population was obtained from the United States International University –
Africa. The Registrars’ Department records currently show that there are 2498 freshmen
and sophomore students. Menon, Saiti and Socratous (2007) suggest that first and second
year students are considered to be suitable as they still have a relatively accurate
recollection of the decision-making process which had preceded their entry into
universities.
37
Table 3.1 Population Distribution
Student Category Number
Freshmen 1342
Sophomore 1156
Total 2498
Source (USIU Registrar’s Office, 2015)
3.3.2 Sampling Procedure
3.3.2.1 Sample Frame
A sampling frame is an objective list of the population from which the researcher makes
her selection. It also refers to the actual set of units from which a sample has been drawn
(Babbie, 2009). It should contain a complete, up to date list of all those that comprise the
population for research (Descombe, 2010). According to Cooper and Schindler (2010),
this list should be a complete and correct list of the population members only. The
sampling frame for this study was made of the freshmen and sophomore students of
United States International University - Africa. The interim student list of freshmen and
sophomores was obtained from the Registrar’s office.
3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique
Cooper and Schindler (2010) define sampling technique as the methods used in drawing
samples from a population in a way that the selected will help determine a stated
hypothesis in regard to the population. The study used both stratified and simple random
sampling techniques. Sarndal and Carl-Erick (2003) state that stratified random sampling
is a method of sampling that involves the division of a population into smaller groups
known as strata. The authors further state that the strata is formed based on members’
shared attributes and a random sample is taken in a number proportional to the stratum’s
size when compared to the population. According to Yates, David and Daren (2008),
simple random sampling is used when the population is small and readily available.
Further, they state that all sub-sets of the frame are given an equal probability. Simple
random sampling is carried out by assigning a number to each unit in the sampling frame
and using a table of random numbers or lottery system to determine which units are to be
selected.
38
Using stratified sampling, this researcher divided the undergraduate student population
into their respective year of study. Simple random sampling was then used to select 54
freshmen and 46 sophomores to represent the entire 100 students. This was done by
allocating each student within each group a numeric value from 1 to 54 for freshmen and
1 to 46 for sophomores. Menon, Saiti and Socratous (2007) suggest that first and second
year students are considered to be suitable as they still have a relatively accurate
recollection of the decision-making process which had preceded their entry into
universities thus the reason they were considered for this study. A table of random
numbers was generated for each group using Excel. The questionnaires were then
randomly distributed until the required sample size was arrived at.
3.3.2.3 Sample Size
Cooper and Schindler (2003) stated that the sample size is the selected element or subset
of the population that is to be studied. To ensure that the sample accurately represents the
population, they recommended that the researcher must clearly define the characteristic of
the population, determine the required sample size and choose the best method for
selecting the members of the sample from the larger population. Though several
techniques of selecting sample sizes exist, this study drew from the Yamane’s (1967)
concept that presents a simplified sampling formula that brings together the population
size and the preferred error term; either 5% or 10% depending on the researcher’s desired
level of confidence, to determine an appropriate sample size as illustrated below.
n = N/ 1+Ne²
Sample = Population/ (1 + [Population*sampling error²]
Where:
Where n represents the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of
precision.
N = total USIU-Africa population of freshmen and sophomore 2498 students
Assumed confidence level of 90%
e = precision level (in proportion ±10% which is (0.1)
2498
1+2498(0.1) 2
39
Therefore sample size is, 96.150
Rounded up to 100 students
Based on the above formula, a population of 2498 and a sampling error as 10% (one of
the two acceptable error values for social sciences), then n is 96.150, hence a round
sample size of 100 students was used to represent the estimated population; that is 3.8%
of the general population under study. It is important to note that given a certain range of
the population size, the formula provided may yield sample sizes of a similar nature. This
has been explained as a method to produce a sample size that is comfortable to study and
deemed appropriate for large populations that tend to behave in a fairly homogenous way.
Since the sample percentages are different, the ratio, 54% freshmen (54 freshmen): 46%
sophomore (46 sophomores) was applied to the sample so as to respect the distribution as
presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution
Student
Category
No. Per
Category
Calculations
(No. in per
category/Total number
in population *100)
Approximate
Percentage
No. of
respondents
Freshmen 1342 1342/2498*100 =
53.7
54% 54
Sophomore 1156 1156/2498 *100
= 46.2
46% 46
Total 2498 99.9 100% 100
3.4 Data Collection Methods
Primary data collection methods were applied in this study. Data was collected using
structured questionnaires. The questionnaire contained closed ended questions. The use of
a questionnaire ensured that the required information was collected in the shortest time.
Secondary data was obtained from the Registrar’s Department records. To improve the
response rate of the questionnaires the researcher appended a cover letter explaining the
importance of the research study.
40
The first portion of the questionnaire inquired about the respondents’ demographic profile
(general information). The second section examined the choice aspect of the study, third,
the visual role of symbols in influencing students’ choice of a university. The fourth
section examined the role of communication in a symbol and last the differentiation role
of symbols in influencing choice. The types of questions to be adopted were close-ended
in nature so as to guide the researcher with identifying factors important to the research
(Creswell, 2009). The questions were in relation to the research objectives and had a
likert scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was for those who strongly agree, 2–agree, 3-neutral, 4-
disagree and 5 for those who strongly disagree. Likert scaling is styled as a bipolar
scaling method, computing either positive (agree) or negative (disagree) response to a
statement.
3.5 Research Procedures
The researcher begun by seeking approval of the proposal for continuation, as well as
permission from the relevant authority to undertake the study in USIU-Africa. A letter
was sent to the research office in USIU-Africa to notify them about the undertaking of the
research. Research assistants were then recruited and trained to aid in data collection. A
list of all registered freshmen and sophomore students was obtained from the registrar’s
office to create strata within the population based on the students’ year of study.
A pilot test of the questionnaire was then conducted before the main research to enhance
the efficiency of the findings. A pre-test is conducted in order to detect weaknesses in the
design (Creswell, 2009). It will therefore draw subjects from the target population and
simulate the procedures and protocol that have been designated for data collection
(Cooper and Schindler, 2010). There was a two day pilot test conducted on 10 selected
students. The results from the pilot test helped in correcting and modifying the
questionnaire after which it was ready for use.
The selected respondents were briefed on the research and the need for all responses to
remain confidential. Consent was sought from them as the study was entirely on
voluntary basis. Data was then collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The
questionnaire was structured to ensure that relevant data was collected. The
questionnaires were administered by assigning a number to each unit in the sampling
frame and using a table of random numbers or lottery system to determine which units
41
were selected. The selected freshmen and sophomores were assisted by appointed
research assistants where they were not able to interpret the questions.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
The first step in the analysis involved cleaning of the collected questionnaires; ensuring
that all questions were answered, obtaining the number collected and ensuring all the
pages were intact. This was followed by coding the questionnaires into Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) then data entry and cleaning, to rectify any
incorrect entries. This was done to ensure accuracy of the data and its conversion from
raw to reduced and classified forms that are more appropriate for analysis (Cooper and
Schindler, 2010).
Descriptive statistics was done to get the mean, mode and median while inferential
statistics sought to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data alone.
Further, correlation coefficient was applied to determine the importance of each of the
roles. This was done in order to determine how each role affects the students’ choice of a
university (dependent variable). Data visualization was used to examine the data in
graphical format and to obtain additional insight regarding the messages within the data.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter discussed the general methodology that was used in the study. This included
the research design, population of the study, sampling procedures, data collection
methods, research procedures and data analysis and presentation. The target population
was made of the freshmen and sophomore students in USIU-Africa from whom 100
respondents was extracted for the study. A questionnaire was used to collect primary data
for the purpose of analyzing the role symbols play in influencing student choice of a
university. The succeeding chapter looked into the results and findings emanating from
the students in terms of demography, the response rates and in relation to the three
research questions in this chapter.
42
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
Chapter three presented the research methodology of the study and outlined the method
and procedures used to carry out the study. This chapter presents the results and findings
of the analyzed data on the role of symbols in influencing students’ choice of a university.
It presents results for the response rate, general information, choice of a university, the
visual role of the symbols, communication role of symbols, differentiation roles of
symbols and finally gives the chapter summary.
4.2 Response Rate
The researcher and her assistants handed out 100 questionnaires. From the collected
questionnaires, 18 were incomplete and in some cases contained more than one response
and were thus considered invalid. This meant that only 82 questionnaires were valid
giving the study a response rate of 82%.
4.3 General Information
In this section, a summary of the basic information from the respondents as per the
questionnaire is presented. This information is important in that it gives the study a
greater balance of the aspects that were being studied. The information sought includes;
sex and age bracket.
4.3.1 Sex
The respondents were asked to indicate their sex and from the results obtained, 72% were
female while 28% were male. These results show that USIU-A had a lot of female
students compared to their male counterparts pursuing their education at the institution.
4.3.2 Age Bracket
The respondents were asked to indicate their age bracket and from the results obtained,
74.4% were aged between 18-25 years and 25.6% were aged between 26-30 years. This
dimension was used to assess the diversity of the students in the university and the results
show that USIU-A students are young indicating that they started pursuing their education
at a very early age.
43
In summary, the findings on the general information show that the respondents were
conversant enough to contribute to the study with the majority being female whose age
bracket fell between 18 and 25 years old. The next section looks at students’ choice of a
university.
4.4 Choice of a University
Students have a myriad of reasons to choose one university from the other. The questions
in this section sought information on the general factors that would influence a student’s
choice of a university.
4.4.1 Student’s Choice of a University
The respondents were asked to rate several factors that would influence a student’s choice
of a university and the results were as shown on Table 4.1 below. Mean results of <2.5
show that most factors had a mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the
difference in response received was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.1 Student’s Choice of a University
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
I chose USIU-Africa because of its
good reputation
39 56.1 4.9 0 0 1.66 .571
I made the decision to join USIU-Africa
on my own
4.9 80.5 9.8 4.9 0 2.15 .569
The general image of the university
influenced my choice
14.6 80.5 0 4.9 0 1.95 .586
My parents greatly influenced my
choice of the university
0 40.2 50 4.9 4.9 2.74 .767
My parents occupation greatly
influenced my university choice
0 4.9 64.6 25.6 4.9 3.30 .642
My parents/guardians level of education
influenced my choice
0 9.8 80.5 4.9 4.9 3.05 .586
My friends influenced my choice of the
university
0 39 46.3 4.9 9.8 2.85 .904
44
Table 4.1 shows that students chose USIU-Africa because it had a good reputation as
agreed to by 95.1% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral and none disagreed; the
resulting mean of 1.66 shows that reputation was not quite a significant factor and the
standard deviation of 0.571 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The students made the decision to join USIU-Africa on their own as agreed to by 85.4%
of the respondents; 9.8% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.15
shows that personal decision was not quite a significant factor and the standard deviation
of 0.569 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The general image of the university influenced the student’s choice as agreed to by 95.1%
of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral and none disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.95
shows that the university’s general image was not quite a significant factor and the
standard deviation of 0.586 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The students’ parents greatly influenced the students’ choice of the university as agreed to
by 40.2% of the respondents while a significant number of 50% were neutral; the
resulting mean of 2.74 shows that parents’ influence was quite significant and the
standard deviation of 0.767 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The
parents’ occupation did not influence the students’ university choice since 64.6% of the
respondents were neutral; the resulting mean of 3.30 shows that parents’ occupation was
not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.642 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. The parents/guardians’ level of education did not influence the
students’ choice since 80.5% of the respondents were neutral; the resulting mean of 3.05
shows that parents’ level of education was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.586 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The students’ friends did not influence the students’ choice of the university since 46.3%
of the respondents were neutral and a significant number 39% agreed to being influenced;
the resulting mean of 2.85 shows that friends influence was not a significant factor and
the standard deviation of 0.904 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The next section presents correlation results for student’s choice of a university.
45
4.4.2 Correlation Results for Student’s Choice of a University
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors.
The correlation test was important in order to measure the strength of the relationship
between two variables. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000 –
0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.2 Correlations for Student’s Choice of a University
Student’s
decision
making
Good
reputation
Personal
decision
Uni’s
general
image
Parents
influence
Parents
occupation
Parents
level of
education
Friends
influence
Student’s
decision
making
1
Good
reputation
.353**
.001
1
Personal
decision
-.152
.173
.459**
.000
1
University’
s general
image
.049
.661
.392**
.000
.614**
.000
1
Parents
influence
.014
.902
-.202
.069
-.366**
.001
.082
.465
1
Parents
occupation
.245*
.026
.018
.872
-.124
.269
.040
.721
.763**
.000
1
Parents
level of
education
.335**
.002
-.392**
.000
-.614**
.000
-.281*
.011
.798**
.000
.748**
.000
1
Friends
influence
.344**
.002
.093
.405
.330**
.002
.639**
.000
.301**
.006
.503**
.000
.200
.072
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
46
Table 4.2 below shows that student choosing USIU-Africa because of its good reputation
was significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=0.353, p<0.01). Students
making the decision to join USIU-Africa on their own was insignificant to the students’
decision-making (r=-0.152, p>0.05). The general image of the university influencing the
students choice was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.049, p>0.05). The
students’ parents greatly influencing their choice of the university was insignificant to the
students’ decision-making (r=0.014, p>0.05). The parents’ occupation greatly influencing
the students’ university choice was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.245,
p<0.05). The parents/guardians’ level of education influencing the students’ choice was
significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.335, p<0.01). The students’ friends
influencing their choice of the university was significant to the students’ decision-making
(r=0.344, p<0.01).
4.4.2 Student’s Choice of a University and the Choice Theory
The respondents were asked to rate several factors that would influence a student’s choice
of a university using the choice theory and the results were as shown on table 4.3. Mean
results of <2.5 show that most factors had a mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5
shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.3 Student’s Choice of a University and the Choice Theory
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev. % % % % %
The perceived quality of service given to
students influenced my choice of USIU-Africa
25.6 54.9 4.9 14.6 0 2.09 .945
I chose USIU-Africa because of the quality of
education offered
25.6 69.5 4.9 0 0 1.79 .515
The cost of the education provided by USIU-
Africa influenced my choice.
0 35.4 54.9 4.9 4.9 2.79 .749
I chose USIU-Africa because it’s location is
convenient for me
50 30.5 9.8 4.9 4.9 1.84 1.105
The time required for the completion of the
degree program greatly influenced my choice of
USIU-Africa
61 14.6 14.6 9.8 0 1.73 1.043
I believe studying at USIU will increase my
career opportunities upon completion
59.8 35.4 4.9 0 0 1.45 .591
I chose USIU-Africa because I think I will get
value for my money
64.6 25.6 4.9 4.9 0 1.50 .805
47
Table 4.3 shows that the perceived quality of service given to students influenced their
choice of USIU-Africa as agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; the resulting mean of
2.09 shows that perceived quality of service was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.945 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Students chose USIU-Africa because of the quality of education offered as agreed to by
95.1% of the respondents; the resulting mean of 1.79 shows that quality of education
offered was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.515 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. The cost of the education provided by USIU-
Africa influenced the students’ choice as agreed to by 35.4% of the respondents while
54.9% were neutral; the resulting mean of 2.79 shows that cost of education was a
significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.749 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. Students chose USIU-Africa because of its location being
convenient for them as agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; the resulting mean of 1.84
shows that location convenience was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of
1.105 shows that the response statistically insignificant.
Table 4.3 further shows that, time required for the completion of the degree program
greatly influenced students’ choice of USIU-Africa as agreed to by 75.6% of the
respondents; the resulting mean of 1.73 shows that degree completion time was not a
significant factor and the standard deviation of 1.043 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. Students believe studying at USIU-A will increase their career
opportunities upon completion as agreed to by 95.2% of the respondents; the resulting
mean of 1.45 shows that career opportunities was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.591 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. Students chose
USIU-Africa because they thought they would get value for their money as agreed to by
90.2% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral and 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of
1.50 shows that students getting value for money was not a significant factor and the
standard deviation of 0.805 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
4.4.4 Correlation Results for Student’s Choice of a University and Choice Theory
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors.
The correlation test was important in order to measure the strength of a relationship
48
between two variables. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000 –
0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.4 Student’s Choice of a University and the Choice Theory
Students
choice
Perceived
service
quality
Education
quality
Cost of
education
Location
convenience
Degree
period
Career
opportunities
Value
for
money
Students
choice
1
Perceived
service
quality
-.053
.634
1
Education
quality
-.472**
.000
.341**
.002
1
Cost of
Education
-.024
.829
-.114
.307
.047
.674
1
Location
convenience
.161
.148
-.507**
.000
-.124
.269
.631**
.000
1
Degree
period
.125
.263
-.365**
.001
-.082
.465
.449**
.000
.916**
.000
1
Career
opportunity
.738**
.000
-.070
.533
-.054
.630
.074
.506
.243*
.028
.339**
.002
1
Value for
money
.367**
.001
.008
.942
-.015
.894
-.256*
.020
.076
.496
.323**
.003
.687**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.4 shows that perceived quality of service given to students influencing their
choice of USIU-Africa was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=-0.053,
p>0.05). Students choosing USIU-Africa because of the quality of education offered was
significant to the students’ decision-making (r=-0.472, p<0.01). The cost of the education
provided by USIU-Africa influencing students’ choice was insignificant to the students’
decision-making (r=-0.024, p>0.05). Students choosing USIU-Africa because its location
being convenient was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.161, p>0.05).
The time required for the completion of the degree program greatly influencing the
students’ choice of USIU-Africa was insignificant to the students’ decision-making
(r=0.125, p>0.05). Students believing studying at USIU would increase their career
opportunities upon completion was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.738,
49
p<0.01). Students choosing USIU-Africa because they think they will get value for their
money was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.367, p<0.01).
In summary, this section established that student chose USIU-Africa because of the
quality of education offered, the belief that studying at USIU-Africa will increase their
career opportunities upon completion and that they were getting value for their money.
The next section presents findings on the student decision making process.
4.4. Student’s Decision-Making Process
This section sought answers on the decision making process students went through when
selecting the university. The respondents were asked to rate several factors that would
influence a student’s decision-making process of a university and the results were as
tabled. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a mild impact and a standard
deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.5 Student’s Decision-Making Process
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev. % % % % %
I got the information about USIU-Africa
from the mass media
30.5 50 4.9 9.8 4.9 2.09 1.091
I got the information about the University
from its website
26.8 53.7 9.8 9.8 0 2.02 .875
My choice was influenced by the
university’s quality of the infrastructure
4.9 53.7 31.7 9.8 0 2.46 .740
I chose USIU-Africa because of its
prestige as a national and international
university
80.5 4.9 14.6 0 0 1.34 .724
The conducive learning environment at
USIU-Africa influenced my choice
59.8 30.5 9.8 0 0 1.50 .671
Table 4.5 shows that students got the information about USIU-Africa from the mass
media as agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral and 14.7% disagreed;
the resulting mean of 2.09 shows that getting information from the mass media was not a
significant factor and the standard deviation of 1.091 shows that the response was
50
statistically insignificant. Students got the information about the University from its
website as agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; 9.8% were neutral while 9.8%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.02 shows that accessing information from the website
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.875 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. Students’ choice was influenced by the university’s quality
of the infrastructure as agreed to by 58.6% of the respondents; 31.7% were neutral while
9.8% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.46 shows that infrastructure was not a significant
factor and the standard deviation of 0.740 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant.
Students chose USIU-Africa because of its prestige as a national and international
university as agreed to by 85.4% of the respondents; 14.6% were neutral while 0%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.34 shows that prestige was not a significant factor and
the standard deviation of 0.724 shows that the response was almost similar. The
conducive learning environment at USIU-Africa influenced students’ choice as agreed to
by 90.3% of the respondents; 9.8% were neutral while 0% disagreed; the resulting mean
of 1.50 shows that conducive environment was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.671 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. In summary, it
was established that most respondents got the information about USIU-Africa from the
mass media, its prestige as a national and international university and because it offered a
conductive learning environment for its students. The next section shows the results of the
correlation results for student’s decision-making process.
4.4.6 Correlation Results for Student’s Decision-Making Process
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors.
The correlation test was important in order to measure the strength of a relationship
between two variables. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000 –
0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.6 shows that students getting the information about USIU-Africa from the mass
media was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=-0.072, p>0.05). Students
getting information about the University from its website was insignificant to the
students’ decision-making (r=-0.177, p>0.05). Students’ choice being influenced by the
university’s quality of the infrastructure was insignificant to the students’ decision-
51
making (r=0.124, p>0.05). Students choosing USIU-Africa because of its prestige as a
national and international university was insignificant to the students’ decision-making
(r=0.032, p>0.05). The conducive learning environment at USIU-Africa influencing their
choice was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.440, p<0.01). The next
section presents the findings on the visual role of symbols in influencing student choice of
a university.
Table 4.6 Correlations for Student’s Decision-Making Process
Students
choice
Mass
media
University
website
Infrastructure
quality
Prestige Conducive
learning
environment
Students
choice
1
Mass media -.072
.521
1
University
website
-.177
.111
.839**
.000
1
Infrastructure
quality
.124
.267
.057
.608
-.132
.237
1
Prestige .032
.774
.713**
.000
.767**
.000
.254*
.021
1
Conducive
learning
environment
.440**
.000
.194
.081
.210
.058
.447**
.000
.661**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
4.5 Visual Role of the Symbols in influencing student choice of a university
The visual role of symbols involves providing communication that conveys an idea
through a visual aid and purely relies on vision. This section sought answers relating to
the extent the visual role of symbols plays in influencing student choice of a university.
52
4.5.1 Effect of Visual Role of the Symbols
The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the visual role of symbols involving and
providing communication to the students and the results were as tabled on Table 4.4 on
page 53. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a mild impact and a standard
deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
Table 4.7 Effect of Visual Role of the Symbols
SA A N D SD Men Std.
Dev. % % % % %
The symbols used by a university are important
tangible assets to the university.
11 79.3 9.8 0 0 1.99 .458
The university’s symbols capture and signal its
identity
11 69.5 14.6 4.9 0 2.13 .662
I chose the university because I easily
connected to the university slogan “Education
to take you places”
0 35.4 59.8 4.9 0 2.70 .560
The use of the Martial Eagle in the university
mascot greatly influenced my choice
0 15.9 69.5 9.8 4.9 3.04 .675
Table 4.7 shows that symbols used by the university are important tangible assets to the
university as agreed to by 90.3% of the respondents; 9.8% were neutral while none
disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.99 shows that symbols being intangible assets was not
a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.458 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. The university’s symbols capture and signal its identity as
agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; 14.6% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the
resulting mean of 2.13 shows that symbols capturing identity was not a significant factor
and the standard deviation of 0.662 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Students did not choose the university because they easily connected to the university
slogan “Education to take you places” since 35.4% of the respondents agreed; 59.8%
were neutral while4.9% agreed; the resulting mean of 2.70 shows that connecting to a
university slogan was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.560 shows
that the response was statistically insignificant. The use of the Martial Eagle in the
university mascot did not influence students’ choice since 69.5% of the respondents were
53
neutral; 14.7% disagreed while only 15.9% agreed; the resulting mean of 3.04 shows that
the use of a Martial Eagle was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.675
shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The next section shows the
correlation results for visual role of the symbols.
4.5.2 Correlation Results for Visual Role of the Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure the
strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered significant
ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was
considered insignificant.
Table 4.8 Correlations for Visual Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Symbols as
tangible assets
Symbols
capturing and
signaling
identity
Easy
connection to
the
university’s
slogan
Use of the
Martial
Eagle
mascot
Students
choice
1
Symbols as
tangible
assets
.507**
.000
1
Symbols
capturing
and signaling
identity
.390**
.000
.860**
.000
1
Easy
connection
to the
university’s
slogan
-.080
.474
.033
.765
.012
.916
1
Use of the
Martial
Eagle mascot
.135
.228
.521**
.000
.569**
.000
.324**
.003
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.8 shows that symbols used by a university being important tangible assets to the
university was significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=0.507, p<0.01). The
university’s symbols capturing and signaling its identity was significant to the students’
decision (r=0.390, p<0.01). Students choosing the university because they easily
connected to the university slogan “Education to take you places” was insignificant to the
54
students’ choice (r=0.080, p>0.01). The use of the Martial Eagle in the university mascot
greatly influencing students’ choice was insignificant to the students’ decision (r=0.228,
p>0.01).
In summary, this section sought to determine the correlation between the use of visual
role of symbols and choice of a university. It was established that symbols used by a
university are important tangible assets to the university and are significant in influencing
their choice. The symbols captured and signaled the university’s identity. The next
section covers the effect of visual identity in influencing student choice.
4.5.3 Effect of Visual Identity
This section sought students view on the extent visual identity influences student choice
of a university. The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the visual identity to the
students and the results were as shown on Table 4.5 below. Mean results of <2.5 show
that most factors had a mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.9 Effect of Visual Identity
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev % % % % %
The naturalness of the university logo
makes it easy to recognize
15.9 25.6 43.9 14.6 0 2.57 .930
The symbols used offer visual identity
system that unites the whole university
15.9 50 29.3 4.9 0 2.23 .775
The use of symbols increases USIU-
Africa recognition to both internal and
external customers.
30.5 54.9 14.6 0 0 1.84 .657
The symbols used by USIU-Africa serve
as a focal point of connection which
communicate the university’s core values
0 59.8 35.4 4.9 0 2.45 .591
Symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity
and intimate appeal to me as a student
15.9 48.8 30.5 4.9 0 2.24 .779
Table 4.5 shows that the naturalness of the university logo does not make it easy to
recognize since 43.9% were neutral; 14.6% disagreed while 41.5% of the respondents
agreed; the resulting mean of 2.57 shows that logo naturalness was not a significant factor
and the standard deviation of 0.930 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The symbols used offer visual identity system that unites the whole university as agreed
55
to by 65.9% of the respondents; 14.6% were neutral while none disagreed; the resulting
mean of 2.23 shows that symbols offering visual identity was not a significant factor and
the standard deviation of 0.775 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.9 shows that the use of symbols increases USIU-Africa recognition to both
internal and external customers as agreed to by 85.4% of the respondents; 14.6% were
neutral while none disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.84 shows that symbols increasing
recognition was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.657 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. The symbols used by USIU-Africa serve as a
focal point of connection which communicates the university’s core values as agreed to
by 59.8% of the respondents; 35.4% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting
mean of 2.45 shows that symbols being a focal point of connection was not a significant
factor and the standard deviation of 0.591 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant.
Symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity and intimate appeal to me as a student as agreed
to by 64.7% of the respondents; 30.5% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting
mean of 2.24 shows that symbols enhancing brand authenticity was not a significant
factor and the standard deviation of 0.779 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant. The next section shows the correlation results for visual identity role of the
symbols.
4.5.4 Correlation Results for Visual Identity Role of the Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure the
strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered significant
ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was
considered insignificant.
Table 4.10 shows that the naturalness of the university logo making it easy to recognize
was significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=-0.243, p<0.05). The symbols
used offering visual identity system that unites the whole university was insignificant to
the students’ decision (r=-0.031, p>0.05). The use of symbols increasing USIU-Africa
56
recognition to both internal and external customers was insignificant to the students’
decision to choose the university (r=0.143, p>0.05).
Table 4.10 Correlations for the Effect of Visual Identity
Students
choice
Naturalness
of the
university
logo
Visual
identity
system
Recognition to
both internal
and external
customers
Focal point
connection &
core values
Brand’s
authenticity
and
intimate
appeal
Students
choice
1
Naturalness of
the university
logo
-.243*
.028
1
Visual identity
system
-.031
779
.790**
.000
1
Recognition to
both internal
and external
customers
.143
.202
.494**
.000
.486**
.000
1
Focal point
connection &
core values
.548**
.000
.242*
.028
.524**
.000
.695**
.000
1
Brand’s
authenticity
and intimate
appeal
.284**
.010
.572**
.000
.581**
.000
.583**
.000
.750**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.10 also shows that the symbols used by USIU-Africa serving as a focal point of
connection which communicates the university’s core values was significant to the
students’ choice (r=0.548, p<0.01). Symbols enhancing a brand’s authenticity and
intimate appeal to students was significant to the students’ choice (r=0.284, p<0.01). In
summary, symbols used by USIU-Africa served as a focal point of connection to the
university and was significant in influencing students’ choice. The next section covers
the effect of cueing role of symbols.
57
4.5.5 Effect of Cueing Role of Symbols
This section sought answers on the cueing role of symbols. The concept of cueing is very
important in visual communication because much of past experiences are filed in memory
as a visual element. The respondents were asked to rate the effect of cueing role of
symbols involving and providing communication to the students and the results were as
shown table on 4.11 below. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a mild
impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
Table 4.11 Effect of Cueing Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev % % % % %
The name of the university captures my
attention whenever I see or hear of it.
75.6 19.5 4.9 0 0 1.29 .555
When someone speaks of USIU-A, I am able to
associate it with the images used on the symbols
0 59.8 35.4 4.9 0 2.45 .591
The symbols used continue to act as constant
reminders about the university I chose
0 90.2 4.9 4.9 0 2.15 .475
Table 4.11 shows that the name of the university captures students attention whenever
they see or hear of it as agreed to by 95.1% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral while
none disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.29 shows that the university capturing students
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.555 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. When someone speaks of USIU-A, students are able to
associate it with the images used on the symbols as agreed to by 59.8% of the
respondents; 35.4% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.45 shows
that ability to associate with university’s symbols was not a significant factor and the
standard deviation of 0.591 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The
symbols used continue to act as constant reminders about the university students chose as
agreed to by 90.2% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the
resulting mean of 2.15 shows that symbols being constant reminders was not a significant
factor and the standard deviation of 0.475 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant. The next section shows the results on the correlation results for cueing role
of symbols.
58
4.5.6 Correlation Results for Cueing Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000
– 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.12 Correlations for Effect of Cueing Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Name
capturing
attention
Name and symbols
association
Constant reminder
from symbols
Students choice 1
Name capturing
attention
.094
.402
1
Name and symbols
association
.548**
.000
.345**
.002
1
Constant reminder
from symbols
.292**
.008
.772**
.000
.642**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.12 shows that the name of the university capturing students attention whenever
they see or hear of it was insignificant to the students’ choice (r=0.094, p>0.01). When
someone speaks of USIU-A and students being able to associate it with the images used
on the symbols was significant to the students’ choice (r=0.548, p<0.01). The symbols
used continuing to act as constant reminders about the university students chose was
significant to the students’ choice (r=0.292, p<0.01). In summary, the symbols used
continue to act as constant reminders of the university. The next section shows the results
on the effect of the persuasion role of symbols.
4.5.7 Effect of Persuasion Role of Symbols
This section sought views on the persuasion role of symbols since visible symbols help to
elaborate the message one intended to send through to an audience and increase the
chance of persuading them. The respondents were asked to rate the effect of persuasion
role of symbols involving and providing communication to the students and the results
59
were as shown on Table 4.13 below. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a
mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
Table 4.13 Effect of Persuasion Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
The perception I formed after looking at
the symbols used by the university
persuaded me to choose the university
14.6 51.2 24.4 9.8 0 2.29 .839
I would choose a university if I consider
its logo colors appealing
0 50 40.2 4.9 4.9 2.65 .791
I have developed a good brand attitude
about USIU-Africa because of its symbols
0 54.9 40.2 4.9 0 2.50 .593
Table 4.13 shows that the perception students formed after looking at the symbols used
by the university persuaded them to choose the university as agreed to by 65.8% of the
respondents; 24.4% were neutral while 9.8% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.29 shows
that perceptions formed was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.839
shows that the response was statistically insignificant. Students would choose a university
if they consider its logo colors appealing as agreed to by 50% of the respondents; 40.2%
were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.65 shows that logo colors
being appealing was a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.791 shows that
the response was statistically insignificant. Students have developed a good brand attitude
about USIU-Africa because of its symbols as agreed to by 54.9% of the respondents; 40.2
were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.50 shows that students
developing a good brand attitude was a significant factor and the standard deviation of
0.593 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The next section shows the
correlation results for persuasion role of symbols.
4.5.8 Correlation Results for Persuasion Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000
– 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
60
Table 4.14 Correlations for Effect of Persuasion Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Perception for
the symbols
Appealing
logo colors
Brand attitude
resulting from
symbols
Students choice 1
Perception for the
symbols
.062
.579
1
Appealing logo colors -.056
.618
.753**
.000
1
Brand attitude resulting
from symbols
.071
.526
.496**
.000
.486**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.14 shows that the perception students formed after looking at the symbols used
by the university persuaded them to choose the university was insignificant to the
students’ choice of the university (r=0.062, p>0.01). Students being able to choose a
university if they consider its logo colors appealing was insignificant to the students’
choice (r=-0.056, p>0.01). Students having developed a good brand attitude about USIU-
Africa because of its symbols was insignificant to the students’ decision-making
(r=0.071, p>0.01). In summary, this section sought answers on the visual role of symbols
and looks at the specific roles of symbols i.e. visual identity, cueing and persuasion. In
summary, the study established that respondents agreed that symbols used by the
university are important tangible assets to the university which capture and signal its
identity. It also established that symbols used offer visual identity system that unites the
whole university and increases USIU-Africa recognition to both internal and external
customers. Further, the study found out that perception students formed after looking at
the symbols used by the university persuaded them to choose the university. The next
section shows results of the effect of logos in university selection.
4.5.9 Effect of Logos in University Selection
The respondents were asked to rate the effect of logos in university selection and the
results were as shown on Table 4.8. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a
61
mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant.
Table 4.15 Effect of Logos in University Selection
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev % % % % %
I believe the logo is the flagship image
of a brand and can influence a student’s
choice of a university
14.6 61 19.5 4.9 0 2.15 .722
I would consider joining a university
whose logo design and shape is
appealing
0 51.2 39 9.8 0 2.59 .666
A logo quickly speaks volume about
the business conducted by the
university
0 75.6 19.5 4.9 0 2.29 .555
I would choose a university whose logo
artwork is appealing to me
15.9 50 24.4 9.8 0 2.28 .850
The university colors (yellow and blue)
relate with the services offered
0 45.1 43.9 11 0 2.66 .671
Table 4.15 shows that students believe the logo is the flagship image of a brand and can
influence a student’s choice of a university as agreed to by 75.6% of the respondents;
19.5% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.15 shows that logos
being flagships was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.722 shows that
the response was statistically insignificant. Students would consider joining a university
whose logo design and shape is appealing as agreed to by 51.2% of the respondents; 39%
were neutral while 9.8% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.59 shows that logos being
appealing was a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.666 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. A logo quickly speaks volume about the business
conducted by the university as agreed to by 75.6% of the respondents; 19.5% were neutral
and 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.29 shows that logos speaking volumes about
a university was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.555 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. Students would choose a university whose logo
62
artwork is appealing to them as agreed to by 65.9% of the respondents; 24.4% were
neutral while 9.8% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.28 shows that a logo having an
appealing artwork was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.850 shows
that the response was statistically insignificant. The university colors (yellow and blue)
relate with the services offered as agreed to by 45.1% of the respondents; 43.9% were
neutral while 11% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.66 shows that logos relating with
services offered was a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.671 shows that
the response was statistically insignificant. The next section covers correlation results for
effect of logos in university selection.
4.5.10 Correlation Results for Effect of Logos in University Selection
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000
– 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.16 Correlations for the Effect of Logos in University Selection
Students
Choice
Flagship
image of
a brand
Appealing
logo
design and
shape
Logo
speaks
volume of
business
conducted
Appealing
logo artwork
University
colors
relate to
offered
services
Students choice 1
Flagship image of a
brand
.192
.084
1
Appealing logo design
and shape
-.181
.103
.744**
.000
1
Logo speaks volume of
business conducted
.094
.402
.384**
.000
.599**
.000
1
Appealing logo artwork -.063
.577
.415**
.000
.841**
.000
.661**
.000
1
University colors relate
to offered services
.091
.416
.155
.163
.315**
.004
.239*
.031
.581**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
63
Table 4.16 shows that students believing the logo is the flagship image of a brand and can
influence a student’s choice of a university was insignificant to the students’ choice
(r=0.192, p>0.05). Students considering joining a university whose logo design and shape
is appealing was insignificant to the students’ decision (r=-0.181, p>0.05). A logo quickly
speaking volume about the business conducted by the university was insignificant to the
students’ choice (r=0.094, p>0.05). Students choosing a university whose logo artwork is
appealing to them was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=-0.063, p>0.05).
The university colors (yellow and blue) relating with the services offered was
insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.091, p>0.05).
In summary, it was established that students believe the logo is the flagship image of a
brand and can influence a student’s choice of a university and that it quickly speaks
volumes about the business conducted by the university. However, students’ considering
joining a university whose logo design and shape is appealing was an insignificant factor
influencing their choice. The next section covers results of the communication role of
symbols.
4.6 Communication Role of Symbols
This section sought views on the communication role of symbols in influencing student
choice of a university. The communication role of symbols shows how universities share
their objectives and traditions by informing, persuading and reminding students about
them.
4.6.1 Effect of Communication Role of Symbols
The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the communication role of symbols
involving and providing communication to the students and the results were as tabled on
4.17 below. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors did not have an impact and a
standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
Table 4.17 shows that the symbols used by the university communicate the distinct
features of USIU-Africa as agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; 9.8% were neutral
while 9.8% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.13 shows that symbols communicating
distinct features was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.798 shows
that the response statistically insignificant.
64
Table 4.17 Effect of Communication Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev. % % % % %
The symbols used by the university
communicate the distinct features of
USIU-Africa
15.9 64.6 9.8 9.8 0 2.13 .798
The USIU-Africa symbols informed me
about the university
0 68.3 25.6 6.1 0 2.38 .601
The communication aspect of the
university symbols allows it to link its
brand to other people and places
0 73.2 26.8 0 0 2.27 .446
The table also shows that USIU-Africa symbols informed students about the university as
agreed to by 68.3% of the respondents; 25.6% were neutral while none disagreed; the
resulting mean of 2.38 shows that symbols informing students was not a significant factor
and the standard deviation of 0.601 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The communication aspect of the university symbols allows it to link its brand to other
people and places as agreed to by 73.2% of the respondents; 26.8% were neutral while
none disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.27 shows that symbols linking people and places
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.446 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. The next section covers the correlation results for effect of
communication role of symbols.
4.6.2 Correlation Results for Effect of Communication Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000
– 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.18 shows that symbols used by the university communicating the distinct features
of USIU-Africa was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=-0.381, p<0.01). The
USIU-Africa symbols informing students about the university was insignificant to the
students’ decision-making (r=0.050, p>0.01). The communication aspect of the university
symbols allowing it to link its brand to other people and places was insignificant to the
65
students’ decision-making (r=0.212, p>0.01). The next section covers the effect of social
cohesion role of symbols.
Table 4.18 Correlations for the Effect of Communication Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Communicati
on of distinct
features
Symbols inform
about the
university
Symbols allows
linkage of brand
to other people
& places
Students choice 1
Communication
of distinct
features
-.381**
.000
1
Symbols inform
about the
university
.050
.658
.614**
.000
1
Symbols allows
linkage of brand
to other people
& places
.212
.056
.384**
.000
.861**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
4.6.3 Effect of Social Cohesion Role of Symbols
This section sought views on the social cohesion role of symbols since the symbols play
important role in promoting understanding between social groups and building a sense of
unity in diverse societies (Heyneman, Kraice, Lesko and Bastedo, 2014). The respondents
were asked to rate the effect of the social cohesion role of symbols to the students and the
results were as tabled. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors did not have an impact
and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
66
Table 4.19 Effect of Social Cohesion Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev % % % % %
USIU-Africa symbols serve as the
university’s social business card
15.9 79.3 0 4.9 0 1.94 .595
The symbols used by USIU-Africa build a
sense of unity amongst the diverse
societies represented in the university
14.6 69.5 11 4.9 0 2.06 .673
The symbols used speak of the university’s
commitment and engagement to providing
quality education
14.6 40.2 40.2 4.9 0 2.35 .791
Table 4.19 shows that USIU-Africa symbols serve as the university’s social business card
as agreed to by 95.2% of the respondents while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of
1.94 shows that symbols serving as a social business card was not a significant factor and
the standard deviation of 0.595 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The
symbols used by USIU-Africa build a sense of unity amongst the diverse societies
represented in the university as agreed to by 84.1% of the respondents; 11% were neutral
while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.06 shows that symbols building a sense of
unity was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.673 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. The symbols used speak of the university’s
commitment and engagement to providing quality education as agreed to by 54.8% of the
respondents; 40.2% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.35 shows
that symbols speaking of the university’s commitment was not a significant factor and the
standard deviation of 0.791 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The
next section covers correlation results for effect of social cohesion role of symbols.
4.6.4 Correlation Results for Effect of Social Cohesion Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the visual role of symbols. Factors that were considered significant ranged between 0.000
– 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was considered insignificant.
67
Table 4.20 Correlations for the Effect of Social Cohesion Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Symbols as
social business
cards
Symbols build
a sense of
unity
Symbols speak
of commitment
and engagement
to quality
Students
choice
1
Symbols as
social business
cards
.202
.069
1
Symbols build
a sense of
unity
.281*
.011
.502**
.000
1
Symbols speak
of commitment
and
engagement to
quality
.198
.075
.125
.263
.724**
.000
1
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.20 shows that USIU-Africa symbols serving as the university’s social business
card was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.202, p>0.05). The symbols
used by USIU-Africa building a sense of unity amongst the diverse societies represented
in the university was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.281, p<0.05). The
symbols used speaking of the university’s commitment and engagement to providing
quality education was insignificant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.198, p>0.05).
In summary, USIU-Africa symbols serve as the university’s social business card. The
next section shows the effect of the marketing role of symbols.
4.6.5 Effect of Marketing Role of Symbols
This section sought answers on the marketing role of symbols. Marketing by the use
good symbols helps easily evoke the same intended meaning across consumers
(Henderson and Cote, 1998). The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the
marketing role of symbols to the students and the results were as shown on Table 4.21
below. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors did not have an impact and a standard
deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
68
Table 4.21 Effect of Marketing Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
The symbols chosen by USIU-Africa
should be used in all its promotional
materials
90.2 4.9 0 4.9 0 1.20 .675
The symbols used help me to have the
university convincingly positioned in
my mind
0 85.4 9.8 4.9 0 2.20 .508
The university symbols readily evoke
the same intended meaning across all
stakeholders
0 57.3 4.9 37.8 0 2.80 .961
Table 4.21 shows that symbols chosen by USIU-Africa should be used in all its
promotional materials as agreed to by 95.1% of the respondents while 4.9% disagreed;
the resulting mean of 1.20 shows that symbols being used in all promotional materials
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.675 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. The symbols used help students to have the university
convincingly positioned in their mind as agreed to by 85.4% of the respondents; 9.8%
were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.20 shows that symbols having
the university convincingly in their minds was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.508 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The university
symbols readily evoke the same intended meaning across all stakeholders as agreed to by
57.3% of the respondents;4.9% were neutral while 37.8% disagreed; the resulting mean
of 2.80 shows that symbols evoking same meaning across stakeholders was a significant
factor and the standard deviation of 0.961 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant. The next section shows the results correlation results for the marketing role
of symbols.
4.6.6 Correlation Results for the Marketing Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the marketing role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure the
strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered significant
69
ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the threshold was
considered insignificant.
Table 4.22 Correlations for Marketing Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Use in all
promotional
materials
Symbols
convincingly
position brand
Symbols
readily evoke
intended
meaning
Students choice 1
Use in all
promotional
materials
.329**
.003
1
Symbols
convincingly
position brand
.216
.051
.897**
.000
1
Symbols readily
evoke intended
meaning
-.260*
.018
.212
.056
.180
.105
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.22 shows that symbols chosen by USIU-Africa being used in all its promotional
materials was significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=0.329, p<0.01). The
symbols used helping students to have the university convincingly positioned in their
mind was insignificant to the students’ choice (r=0.216, p>0.05). The university symbols
readily evoking the same intended meaning across all stakeholders was significant to the
students’ choice (r=-0.260, p<0.05). The next section shows the effect of identification
role of symbols.
4.6.7 Effect of Identification Role of Symbols
This section sought to know whether the ease of identification of a symbol influences
student choice of symbols. The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the
identification role of symbols to the students and the results were as shown on Table 4:12
below. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors did not have an impact and a standard
deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
70
Table 4.23 Effect of Identification Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev % % % % %
I am able to easily identify the USIU symbols 36.6 54.9 8.5 0 0 1.72 .614
The symbols constantly remind me of the
existence of the university
20.7 61 18.3 0 0 1.98 .628
The university symbols provoke a sense of
distinction and prestige to its stakeholders
37.8 57.3 0 4.9 0 1.72 .708
Positive experiences with the symbols
increases effective commitment to the
university
22 48.8 24.4 4.9 0 2.12 .807
Table 4.23 shows that students being able to easily identify the USIU symbols as agreed
to by 91.5% of the respondents; 8.5% were neutral while none disagreed; the resulting
mean of 1.72 shows that a student being able to easily identify logos was not a significant
factor and the standard deviation of 0.614 shows that the response was statistically
insignificant. The symbols constantly remind students of the existence of the university as
agreed to by 81.7% of the respondents; 18.3% were neutral while none disagreed; the
resulting mean of 1.98 shows that symbols constantly reminding students was not a
significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.628 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. The university symbols provoke a sense of distinction and
prestige to its stakeholders as agreed to by 95.1% of the respondents; while 4.9%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.72 shows that symbols provoking a sense of distinction
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.708 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. Positive experiences with the symbols increases effective
commitment to the university as agreed to by 70.8% of the respondents; 24.4% were
neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.12 shows that positive experiences
with symbols was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.807 shows that
the response was statistically insignificant. The next section shows the correlation results
for the identification role of symbols.
4.6.8 Correlation Results for the Identification Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the identification role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure
71
the strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered
significant ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the
threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.24 Correlations for the Effect of Identification Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Symbols
identification
Constant
reminder
Sense of
distinction
and prestige
to
stakeholders
Positive
symbols
experience
equal brand
commitment
Students choice 1
Symbols
identification
.224*
.043
1
Constant reminder .202
.069
.750**
.000
1
Sense of
distinction and
prestige to
stakeholders
-.124
.269
.555**
.000
.346**
.001
1
Positive symbols
experience equal
brand commitment
.433**
.000
.792**
.000
.493**
.000
.515**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.24 shows that students being able to easily identify the USIU symbols was
significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=-0.224, p<0.05). The symbols
constantly reminding students of the existence of the university was insignificant to the
students’ choice (r=0.202, p>0.05). The university symbols provoking a sense of
distinction and prestige to its stakeholders was insignificant to the students’ decision to
choose the university (r=-0.124, p>0.05). Positive experiences with the symbols
increasing effective commitment to the university was significant to the students’ choice
(r=0.433, p<0.01).
In summary, the information sought in this section was the communication role of
symbols in influencing student choice of a university. The answers were in relation to the
three specific roles of communication i.e. social cohesion, marketing and identification.
The study established that the symbols used by the university communicate its distinct
72
features. The communication aspect of the university symbols allows it to link its brand
to other people and places. Most respondents agreed that symbols chosen by USIU-
Africa should be used in all its promotional materials since symbols used help students to
have the university convincingly positioned in their mind thus play a significant role in
influencing their choice. Further, it was established that students are able to easily
identify the USIU symbols and that reminds them of its existence. The symbols also
provoke a sense of distinction and prestige amongst its stakeholders. The next section
shows the effect of the role of logos in communication.
4.6.9 Effect of the Role of Logos in communication
This section sought views on the role of logos in communication. Symbols and especially
the logo serve as its social business card, expressing membership to a certain group
(Kohli, Suli and Thakor, 2002). The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the
recognition role of symbols to the students and the results were as shown on Table 4:13.
Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors did not have an impact and a standard
deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
Table 4.25 Role of Logos in communication
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
I feel that the university symbols
contribute to its success
20.7 70.7 0 8.5 0 1.96 .744
The USIU logo helps to speed up my
recognition of the university
31.7 63.4 4.9 0 0 1.73 .545
I believe that the university’s re-branding
effort has had a positive impact in
influencing students to choose it among
many alternatives.
14.6 35.4 41.5 3.7 4.9 2.49 .959
The message communicated by the
university symbols are unambiguous
(clear)
0 59.8 35.4 0 4.9 2.50 .741
Table 4.25 shows that students feel that the university symbols contribute to its success as
agreed to by 91.4% of the respondents while 8.5% disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.96
73
shows that university symbols contributing to its success was not a significant factor and
the standard deviation of 0.744 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The
USIU logo helps to speed up students’ recognition of the university as agreed to by 95.1%
of the respondents while 4.9% were neutral; the resulting mean of 1.73 shows that logos
speeding up recognition was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.545
shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Students believe that the university’s re-branding effort has had a positive impact in
influencing students to choose it among many alternatives as agreed to by 50% of the
respondents; 41.5% were neutral while 8.6% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.49 shows
that rebranding efforts by the university was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.959 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The message
communicated by the university symbols are unambiguous (clear) as agreed to by 59.8%
of the respondents; 35.4% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.50
shows that symbols being clear was a significant factor and the standard deviation of
0.741 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The next section shows the
correlation results for the role of logos in communication.
4.6.10 Correlation Results for the Role of Logos in Communication
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the recognition role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure
the strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered
significant ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the
threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.26 shows that students feeling that the university symbols contribute to its
success was insignificant to the students’ choice (r=-0.122, p>0.01). The USIU logo
helping to speed up students recognition of the university was significant to the students’
decision to choose the university (r=-0.380, p<0.01). Students believing that the
university’s re-branding effort has had a positive impact in influencing students to choose
it among many alternatives was significant to the students’ decision-making (r=0.403,
p<0.01). The message communicated by the university symbols being unambiguous
(clear) was significant to the students’ choice (r=0.702, p<0.01).
74
Table 4.26 Correlations for the Effect of Role of Logos in Communication
Students
choice
Symbols
contribute to
success
Logos speed
up
recognition
Re-branding
has a
positive
impact
Symbols are
unambiguous
(clear)
Students choice 1
Symbols
contribute to
success
-.122
.275
1
Logos speed up
recognition
-.380**
.000
.614**
.000
1
Re-branding has
a positive
impact
.403**
.000
.423**
.000
.230*
.038
1
Symbols are
unambiguous
(clear)
.702**
.000
.414**
.000
-.092
.413
.608**
.000 1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
In summary, respondents felt that the university symbols contribute to its success. The
section next covers the differentiation roles of symbols.
4.7 Differentiation Roles of Symbols
This section sought answers on the differentiation role of symbols. Universities have
become highly competitive and differentiation helps a university create meaningful
differences to distinguish itself from competitors (Kotler et. al, 2009).
4.7.1 Effect of Differentiation Roles of Symbols
The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the differentiation role of symbols
involving and providing communication to the students and the results were as tabled in
4:14. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a mild impact and a standard
deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was almost similar.
Table 4.27 shows that the colors used on the symbols differentiate USIU-A from other
institutions of higher learning as agreed to by 86.5% of the respondents; 4.9% were
neutral while 8.5% disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.76 shows that symbols
differentiation was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.897 shows that
the response was statistically insignificant. Students find the image used for the university
symbol unique and distinct compared to other universities symbols as agreed to by 80.5%
75
of the respondents; 6.1% were neutral while 13.4% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.12
shows that symbols being unique from others was not a significant factor and the standard
deviation of 0.894 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.27 Effect of Differentiation Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
The colors used on the symbols
differentiate USIU-A from other
institutions of higher learning.
46.3 40.2 4.9 8.5 0 1.76 .897
I find the image used for the university
symbol unique and distinct compared to
other universities symbols.
20.7 59.8 6.1 13.4 0 2.12 .894
USIU-A symbols offer meaningful
differences to distinguish the university’s
from competitors
0 80.5 9.8 9.8 0 2.29 .638
Symbols act as tools of organizational
survival and profitability
0 4.9 90.2 4.9 0 3.00 .314
A favorable image created by the use of
symbols can boost a university’s
student’s intake
29.3 65.9 4.9 0 0 1.80 .675
USIU-Africa symbols offer meaningful differences to distinguish the university’s from
competitors as agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; 9.8% were neutral while 9.8%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.29 shows that symbols offering distinct differences was
not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.638 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. Symbols do not act as tools of organizational survival and
profitability since 90.2% of the respondents were neural; 4.9% agreed while 4.9%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 3.0 shows that symbols not acting as organizational
survival tool was a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.314 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. A favorable image created by the use of symbols
can boost a university’s student’s intake as agreed to by 95.2% of the respondents; 4.9%
were neutral while none disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.80 shows that symbols
boosting students’ intake was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.675
76
shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The next section presents the
correlation results for the differentiation role of symbols.
4.7.2 Correlation Results for the Differentiation Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the differentiation role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure
the strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered
significant ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the
threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.28 Correlations for the Effect of Differentiation Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Symbols
differentiate
brands
Symbol
unique and
distinct
Symbols
offer
meaningful
differences
Symbols as
tools of
survival and
profitability
Favorable
image boosts
brand intake
Students choice 1
Symbols
differentiate
brands
-.247*
.025
1
USIU-A
symbol unique
and distinct
.014
.902
.792**
.000
1
USIU-A
symbols offer
meaningful
differences
.082
.466
.774**
.000
.867**
.000
1
Symbols act as
tools of
organizational
survival and
profitability
.358**
.001
-.175
.115
.000
1.000
.000
1.000
1
Favorable
image boosts
brand intake
.504**
.000
.328**
.000
.367**
.001
.593**
.000
.466**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
77
Table 4.28 shows that the colors used on the symbols differentiating USIU-A from other
institutions of higher learning was significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=-
0.247, p<0.05). Students finding the image used for the university symbol unique and
distinct compared to other universities symbols was insignificant to the students’ choice
of the university (r=0.014, p>0.05). USIU-A symbols offering meaningful differences to
distinguish the university’s from competitors was insignificant to the students’ decision
(r=0.082, p>0.05). Symbols acting as tools of organizational survival and profitability
was significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=0.358, p<0.01). A favorable
image created by the use of symbols boosting a university’s student’s intake was
significant to the students’ choice of the university (r=0.504, p<0.01). The section after
Table 4.28 covers the effect of brand image role of symbols.
4.7.3 Effect of Brand Image Roles of Symbols
Having a strong brand image has an effect on a university’s survival and profitability
(Ajedumo, Ogungbade and Akinbode, 2014). In this section, the respondents were asked
to rate the effect of the brand image role of symbols involving and providing
communication to the students and the results were as tabled. Mean results of <2.5 show
that most factors had a mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the
response was almost similar.
Table 4.29 shows that students feel that USIU-Africa symbols create a good brand image
for the university as agreed to by 95.2% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral while none
disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.68 shows that symbols creating a good brand image
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.718 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. The good brand image created by the university symbols
contribute to its overall success as agreed to by 91.4% of the respondents; 3.7% were
neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.99 shows that symbols contributing
to the overall success was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.619
shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
78
Table 4.29 Effect of Brand Image Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
I feel that USIU-Africa symbols create a
good brand image for the university
41.5 53.7 4.9 0 0 1.68 .718
The good brand image created by the
university symbols contribute to its
overall success
14.6 76.8 3.7 4.9 0 1.99 .619
A lot of creativity and hard work is
required in developing strong symbols
such as those in USIU-Africa
14.6 51.2 29.3 4.9 0 2.24 .763
The graphical properties of the symbol
show the university’s characteristics
0 35.4 40.2 24.4 0 2.89 .770
The aesthetic response attached to
symbols is one of the clues that
differentiate it
59.8 20.7 14.6 4.9 0 1.65 .908
A lot of creativity and hard work is required in developing strong symbols such as those
in USIU-Africa as agreed to by 65.8% of the respondents; 29.3% were neutral while 4.9%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.24 shows that hard work being used in developing
symbols was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.763 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. The graphical properties of the symbol do not
show the university’s characteristics since 40.2% of the respondents were neutral and
only 35.4% agreed while 24.4% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.89 shows that
graphical properties not indicating a university’s characteristics was a significant factor
and the standard deviation of 0.770 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
The aesthetic response attached to symbols is one of the clues that differentiate it as
agreed to by 80.5% of the respondents; 14.6% were neutral while 4.9% disagreed; the
resulting mean of 1.65 shows that aesthetic response attached to symbols was not a
significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.908 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. The next section covers the correlation results for the brand
image role of symbols.
4.7.4 Correlation Results for the Brand Image Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
79
the brand image role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure
the strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered
significant ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the
threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.30 Correlations for Effect of Brand Image Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Symbols
create
good
brand
image
Brand
image
contributes
to overall
success
Development
of strong
symbols
require
creativity and
hard work
Graphical
properties of
symbols show
the
university’s
characteristics
Aesthetic
response
attached to
symbols is
the clue that
differentiate
it
Students choice 1
Symbols create
good brand
image
.378**
.000
1
Brand image
contributes to
overall success
.375**
.001
.770**
.000
1
Development of
strong symbols
require creativity
and hard work
.548**
.000
.413**
.000
.504**
.000
1
Graphical
properties of
symbols show
university’s
characteristics
.048
.671
.763**
.000
.516**
.000
.214
.053
1
Aesthetic
response attached
to symbols is the
clue that
differentiate it
.323**
.003
.432**
.000
.674**
.000
.750**
.000
.244*
.027
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
80
Table 4.30 shows that students feeling that USIU-Africa symbols create a good brand
image for the university was significant to the students’ choice (r=-0.378, p<0.01). The
good brand image created by the university symbols contributing to its overall success
was significant to the students’ choice (r=-0.375, p<0.01). A lot of creativity and hard
work being required in developing strong symbols such as those in USIU-Africa was
significant to the students’ choice (r=-0.548, p<0.01). The graphical properties of the
symbol showing the university’s characteristics was insignificant to the students’
decision-making (r=-0.048, p>0.01). The aesthetic response attached to symbols being
one of the clues that differentiates it was significant to the students’ decision to choose
the university (r=-0.323, p<0.01).
4.7.5 Effect of Brand Loyalty Roles of Symbols
This section shows the brand loyalty role of symbols. According to Gunelius (2015)
brand loyalty is the consumer’s emotionally charged decision to purchase a specific brand
again and again. The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the brand loyalty of
symbols involving and providing communication to the students and the results were as
tabled on 4.31 below. Mean results of <2.5 show that most factors had a mild impact and
a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was statistically insignificant.
Table 4.31 Effect of Brand Loyalty Role of Symbols
SA A N D SD Mean Std.
Dev % % % % %
The colors used on the USIU-Africa
symbols give an “approach” signal
50 26.8 18.3 4.9 0 1.78 .917
I strongly associate the symbols used
to USIU-Africa’s culture
0 35.4 59.8 4.9 0 2.70 .560
The symbols used in USIU evoke a
strong emotional reaction and would
influence me to choose the university
over and over again
0 58.5 36.6 4.9 0 2.46 .592
Table 4.31 shows that the colors used on the USIU-Africa symbols give an “approach”
signal as agreed to by 76.8% of the respondents; 18.3% were neutral while 4.9%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.78 shows that symbols giving an approach signal was
not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.917 shows that the response was
81
statistically insignificant. Students did not strongly associate the symbols used to USIU-
Africa’s culture since 59.8% of the respondents were neutral; 35.4% agreed while 4.9%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.70 shows that students not associating culture and
symbols was a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.560 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. The symbols used in USIU evoke a strong
emotional reaction and would influence students to choose the university over and over
again as agreed to by 58.5% of the respondents; 36.6% were neutral while 4.9%
disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.46 shows that symbols evoking strong feelings in
students was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.592 shows that the
response was statistically insignificant. The next section shows correlation results for the
brand loyalty role of symbols.
4.7.6 Correlation Results for the Brand Loyalty Role of Symbols
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the brand loyalty role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to measure
the strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were considered
significant ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above the
threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.32 Correlations for the Effect of Brand Loyalty Role of Symbols
Students
choice
Symbols give
an
“approach”
signal
Symbols used to
associate with
organizational
culture
Symbols evoke
strong emotional
reaction
Students choice 1
Symbols give an
“approach” signal
.233*
.035
1
Symbols used to associate
with organizational culture
.271*
.014
.758**
.000
1
Symbols evoke strong
emotional reaction
.488**
.000
.827**
.000
.730**
.000
1
** Correlation is Significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
82
Table 4.32 shows that colors used on the USIU-Africa symbols giving an “approach”
signal was significant to the students’ choice (r=-0.233, p<0.05). Students strongly
associating the symbols used to USIU-Africa’s culture was significant to the students’
choice of the university (r=-0.271, p<0.05). The symbols used in USIU-A evoking a
strong emotional reaction and would influence students to choose the university over and
over again was significant to the students’ choice (r=-0.488, p<0.01). The next section
shows the effect of the differentiation role of Logos.
4.7.7 Effect of Differentiation Role of Logos
This section sought answers on the brand identification role of logos. Logos make it easy
to identify a brand and offer a viable means to help managers in differentiating their
organizations (O’Connor, 2011). The respondents were asked to rate the effect of the
brand identification role of symbols involving and providing communication to the
students and the results were as tabled in 4.33. Mean results of <2.5 show that most
factors had a mild impact and a standard deviation of <1.5 shows that the response was
almost similar.
Table 4.33 Effect of the Differentiation Role of Logos
SA A N D SD Mean Std
Dev % % % % %
I find the shape of the symbols used by
USIU-Africa unique compared to those
of other universities
45.1 41.5 4.9 8.5 0 1.77 .893
I feel that the symbols used shape the
public’s image of USIU-Africa
15.9 53.7 25.6 4.9 0 2.20 .761
Logos make it easier to identify USIU-
Africa in the sea of competing offerings
30.5 64.6 4.9 0 0 1.74 .540
The size of the USIU-Africa logo is very
unique.
0 30.5 41.5 28 0 2.98 .769
I consider simple symbol elements easier
to remember more than complex ones
15.9 19.5 64.6 0 0 2.49 .758
The USIU-Africa logo plays a critical
role in serving as a point of connection
between the university and its customers
15.9 14.6 69.5 0 0 2.54 .757
83
Students find the shape of the symbols used by USIU-Africa unique compared to those of
other universities as agreed to by 86.6% of the respondents; 4.9% were neutral while
8.5% disagreed; the resulting mean of 1.77 shows that students finding symbols unique
was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.893 shows that the response
was statistically insignificant. Students feel that the symbols used shape the public’s
image of USIU-Africa as agreed to by 69.6% of the respondents; 25.6% were neutral
while 4.9% disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.20 shows that students feeling that
symbols shape the image was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.761
shows that the response was statistically insignificant. Logos make it easier to identify
USIU-Africa in the sea of competing offerings as agreed to by 95.1% of the respondents
while 4.9% were neutral; the resulting mean of 1.74 shows that logos facilitating easier
identification was not a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.540 shows that
the response was statistically insignificant.
The size of the USIU-Africa logo was not very unique since 41.5% of the respondents
were neutral, 28% disagreed and 30.5% agreed; the resulting mean of 2.98 shows that
size of logo not being unique was a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.769
shows that the response was statistically insignificant. Students did not consider simple
symbol elements easier to remember more than complex ones since 64.6% of the
respondents were neutral; 35.4% agreed while none disagreed; the resulting mean of 2.49
shows that simple elements being easy to remember was not a significant factor and the
standard deviation of 0.758 shows that the response was statistically insignificant. The
USIU-Africa logo does not play a critical role in serving as a point of connection between
the university and its customers since 69.5% of the respondents were neutral, and 30.5%
agreed; the resulting mean of 2.54 shows that logos not serving as connection points was
a significant factor and the standard deviation of 0.757 shows that the response was
statistically insignificant. The next section shows the correlation results for the
differentiation role of logos.
4.7.8 Correlation Results for the differentiation Role of Logos
A Pearson correlation test was carried out to determine the significance of the factors of
the brand identification role of symbols. The correlation test was important in order to
measure the strength of a relationship between two variables. Factors that were
84
considered significant ranged between 0.000 – 0.05. Any factor whose p value was above
the threshold was considered insignificant.
Table 4.34 Correlations for the Effect of Brand Identification Role of Symbols
Students
choice
USIU-A
symbols
are
unique
Symbols
shape the
public’s
image
Logos
make it
easier to
identify
brands
The size
of the
USIU-
Africa
logo is
very
unique
Simple symbol
elements are
easy to
remember than
complex ones
USIU’s logo
serves as a
point of
connection
Students choice 1
USIU-A
symbols are
unique
.122
.276
1
Symbols shape
the public’s
image
-.041
.718
.231*
.037
1
Logos make it
easier to
identify brands
.228*
.039
.311**
.005
.754**
.000
1
The size of the
USIU-Africa
logo is very
unique
-.018
.874
.549**
.000
.704**
.000
.490**
.000
1
Simple symbol
elements are
easy to
remember than
complex ones
.028
.802
.041
.712
.540**
.000
.460**
.000
.381**
.000
1
USIU-Africa
logo serves as a
point of
connection
-.010
.929
.314**
.004
.717**
.000
.854**
.000
.532**
.000
.701**
.000
1
* Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 Level (2-tailed)
Table 4.34 shows that students finding the shape of the symbols used by USIU-Africa
unique compared to those of other universities was insignificant to the students’ choice
(r=0.122, p>0.05). Students feeling that the symbols used shape the public’s image of
USIU-Africa was insignificant to the students’ decision (r=-0.041, p>0.05). Logos
85
making it easier to identify USIU-Africa in the sea of competing offerings was significant
to the students’ choice (r=0.228, p<0.05). The size of the USIU-Africa logo being very
unique was insignificant to the students’ choice (r=-0.018, p>0.05). Students considering
simple symbol elements easier to remember more than complex ones was insignificant to
the students’ choice of the university (r=0.028, p>0.05). The USIU-Africa logo playing a
critical role in serving as a point of connection between the university and its customers
was insignificant to the students’ decision to choose the university (r=-0.010, p>0.05).
In summary, the information sought in this section was the differentiation role of symbols
in influencing student choice of a university. The answers were in relation to the three
specific roles of differentiation i.e. brand image, brand loyalty and differentiation. The
study established that a university differentiating itself has a positive correlation with the
students’ choice of the said university. The next section shows the results for the public
and private universities students considered before settling for USIU-Africa.
4.7.9 Public University Selection
This section captured the number of public universities students considered before
settling for USIU-Africa. The respondents were asked to indicate the number of public
universities they had selected before settling for USIU-Africa, and from the results
obtained, 34.1% had selected 4 universities, 25.6% had selected 2 universities, 19.5% had
selected 5 universities, 15.9% had selected 3 universities, and 4.9% had not selected any
other university. This shows the importance of a brand even in university selection.
Figure 4.1 Public University Selection
86
4.7.10 Private University Selection
In this section the respondents were asked to indicate the number of private universities
they had to select from before settling for USIU-A, and from the results obtained, 35.4%
had selected 3 universities, 34.1% had selected 5 universities, 19.5% had selected 2
universities, and 11% had not selected any other university. This shows the importance of
brand in university selection.
Figure 4.2 Private University Selection
4.7.11 Other Factors
The respondents were asked to indicate other factors that would influence their decision-
making when selecting a university and they stated that: security, courses offered, sports
available, public image, friendships, student life, university culture, interaction between
staff and students, university environment, university facilities, quality of education,
location of the university and the student life would greatly influence them.
4.8 Chapter Summary
The chapter has presented the results of the analyzed data. Descriptive statistics were used
to describe the results received and correlations were used to show the relationship
between the study variables. The next chapter concludes the study.
The chapter presented the results and findings of the study on the role of symbols in
influencing student choice of a university. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the
results received and correlations were used to show the relationship between the study
87
variables. Findings on the general information indicated that the respondents were
knowledgeable enough to contribute positively to the study and that the majority of the
respondents were female. The study further revealed that the majority of the respondents
were aged between 18 and 25 years.
The study established that the general image of the university had a key influence on their
choice. Other factors that significantly influenced their choice included their guardians’
level of education, the quality of infrastructure and facilities at USIU-Africa, the quality
of service and education given, a conducive learning environment, the fact that they were
getting value for their money, the time required for degree completion as well as the
increase in their career opportunities on completion of their programs.
The respondents’ level of agreement with several statements relation to the visual role of
symbols showed that there exist a positive correlation between this role and student’s
choice of a university. The study also sought the views of the respondents on the
communication role of the symbols with most of them agreeing that the university
symbols should be used in all its promotional materials, it should speak of the university’s
commitment and engagement, the message communicated should be unambiguous and be
able to promote unity amongst diverse societies. On the differentiation role of symbols
the study established that a university differentiating itself has a positive correlation
student’s choice of the said university. The next chapter covers the discussions,
conclusions and recommendations of the study.
88
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the study by providing the study discussions, conclusions and
recommendations. These sections are guided by the study objectives that were aimed at
providing an answer to the role of symbols in influencing students’ choice of a university.
5.2 Summary
Marketing managers in universities are struggling to adapt to the fast changing
environment and stiff competition in the education sector. These institutions are facing
stiff competition and therefore must aim at remaining competitive yet profitable.
University branding and the use of symbols are about aligning existing and potential
students, as well as employee behavior with brand values.
This study was governed by three specific objectives: the visual role of symbols; the
communication role; and the differentiation role and how these key areas influence
students’ choice of a university. The study employed a descriptive design. Descriptive
research was chosen because it enabled the study to generalize the findings to a larger
population. The target respondents for the study were the freshmen and sophomore
students of the United States International University - Africa. This study adopted a
stratified sampling technique to select 100 students. Simple random sampling was then be
used to select 54 freshmen and 46 sophomores to represent the entire 100 students. This
was done by allocating each student within each group a numeric value from 1 to 54 for
freshmen and 1 to 46 for sophomores. A table of random numbers was generated for each
group using Excel. The study used questionnaires to obtain primary data. Data obtained
from the questionnaires was then cleaned, coded and keyed in. It was then analyzed using
descriptive analysis (mean, median, standard deviation) through the use of the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and later subjected to interpretation. The
tests were conducted at 95% level of confidence (α=0.05).
The study showed that students chose USIU-Africa because it had a good reputation, and
they also made the decision to join USIU-Africa on their own. The general image of the
university influenced the student’s choice, and the students’ parents greatly influenced the
students’ choice of the university. The study showed that the perceived quality of service
89
given to students influenced their choice of USIU-Africa as well as the quality of
education offered. The cost of the education provided by USIU-Africa influenced the
students’ choice of the university and they also chose USIU-Africa because of its location
being convenient for them. The study established a correlation value of 0.353 between
student choice of USIU-Africa and its good reputation. From the findings, the study
established that the reputation of a university greatly influences student choice.
The study showed that symbols used offer visual identity system that unites the whole
university. The study revealed that the use of symbols increases USIU-Africa recognition
to both internal and external customers and that the symbols used by USIU-Africa serve
as a focal point of connection which communicate the university’s core values. The study
showed that symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity and intimate appeal to students. The
study showed that the name of the university captures students’ attention whenever they
see or hear of it and that when someone spoke of USIU-A, students were able to associate
it with the images used on the symbols. The study established a correlation value of 0.292
between symbols used continuing to act as constant reminders about the university and
students’ choice.
The symbols used by USIU-Africa build a sense of unity amongst the diverse societies
represented in the university and they were also used to speak of the university’s
commitment and engagement to providing quality education. The study showed that the
symbols chosen by USIU-Africa were used in all its promotional materials and they
helped students to have the university convincingly positioned in their mind. The study
showed that the university symbols readily evoked the same intended meaning across all
stakeholders. The study showed that students were able to easily identify the USIU
symbols and that the symbols constantly reminded students of the existence of the
university. The good brand image created by the university symbols contributing to its
overall success and was significant to the students’ choice as shown by a correlation value
of 0.375. The university symbols provoked a sense of distinction and prestige to its
stakeholders and the positive experiences with the symbols increased effective
commitment to the university. The symbols used in USIU-A evoking a strong emotional
reaction and influencing students to choose the university over and over again was
significant to the students’ choice as established by a correlation value of 0.488.
90
The study showed that students felt that USIU-Africa symbols created a good brand
image for the university and also contributed to its overall success. The study showed the
uniqueness of the shape of the symbols used by USIU-Africa compared to those of other
universities was insignificant to their choice as shown by a correlation value of 0.122.
The study showed that a lot of creativity and hard work was required in developing strong
symbols such as those in USIU-Africa, and the graphical properties of the symbol did not
show the university’s characteristics. The study also revealed that the aesthetic response
attached to symbols was one of the clues that differentiated it. The study showed that the
colors used on the USIU-Africa symbols gave an “approach” signal and that, students did
not strongly associate the symbols used to USIU-Africa’s culture, and that the symbols
used in USIU evoked a strong emotional reaction and would influence students to choose
the university over and over again. The next section is a presentation of the discussions.
5.3 Findings
5.3.1 Student’s Choice of a University
This study sought to establish the factors that influence students’ choice of a university.
It looked at the respondents’ level of agreement with several statements. The study
showed that students chose USIU-Africa because it had a good reputation, agreeing with
Ciriaci and Muscio (2011) who suggested that the reputation of the institution was the
most significant factor in a student’s decision to join an institution of higher learning. The
parents’ occupation did not influence the students’ choice of the university and neither
did the parents/guardians’ level of education nor the students’ friends influence the
students’ choice of the university. The study showed that the perceived quality of service
given to students influenced their choice of USIU-Africa as well as the quality of
education offered. The cost of the education provided by USIU-Africa influenced the
students’ choice of the university and they also chose USIU-Africa because of its location
being convenient for them. The study showed that students got the information about
USIU-Africa from the mass media and they got the information about the University from
its website. The study also showed that students’ choice was influenced by the
university’s quality of the infrastructure as well as its prestige as a national and
international university which was in agreement with Johnson and Ford (2007) who posit
that student choice is influenced by physical aspects of the campus such as the quality of
infrastructure and services, location of the university and time required for completion.
The study revealed that the conducive learning environment at USIU-Africa also
91
influenced students’ choice of the university. The study findings are in agreement with
Kitswad (2013) that university choice is a complicated process that involves a wide range
of individuals and factors. It is also in agreement with Kotler (2009) decision making
process. The next section is a discussion of the visual role of symbols.
5.3.2 The Visual Role of the Symbols
The section sought to establish the visual role of symbols in influencing student choice.
The study showed that symbols used by the university are important tangible assets to the
university and the university’s symbols capture and signal its identity which was in
agreement with Borja de Mozata (2013) that the visual expression in a symbol captures
the essence of the university. The study showed that the students did not choose the
university because they easily connected to the university slogan “Education to take you
places”, and the use of the Martial Eagle in the university mascot did not influence
students’ choice of the university.
The study showed that the naturalness of the university logo does not make it easy to
recognize and the symbols used offer visual identity system that unites the whole
university. The study revealed that the use of symbols increases USIU-Africa recognition
to both internal and external customers and that the symbols used by USIU-Africa serve
as a focal point of connection which communicate the university’s core values. The study
showed that symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity and intimate appeal to students in
agreement with Henderson and Cote (1998). The study showed that the name of the
university captures students’ attention whenever they see or hear of it and that when
someone spoke of USIU-A, students were able to associate it with the images used on the
symbols. The study showed that the symbols used continue to act as constant reminders
about the university students’ choice.
The study showed that the perception students formed after looking at the symbols used
by the university persuaded them to choose the university and that students would choose
a university if they considered its logo colors to be appealing. This was in agreement with
Jeong (2006) that visible symbols help to elaborate the message intended to send through
to an audience and increases the chance of persuading them. The study showed that
students have developed a good brand attitude about USIU-Africa because of its symbols
and that students believe the logo is the flagship image of a brand and can influence a
92
student’s choice of a university. The study showed that students would consider joining a
university whose logo design and shape was appealing and that the logo quickly spoke
volumes about the business conducted by the university. The study also showed that the
students would choose a university whose logo artwork was appealing to them and the
university colors (yellow and blue) related with the services offered by the university.
The next discussion is on the communication role of symbols.
5.3.3 The Communication Role of Symbols
The study showed that the symbols used by the university communicated the distinct
features of USIU-Africa and that the USIU-Africa symbols informed students about the
university. The study showed that the communication aspect of the university symbols
allowed it to link its brand to other people and places and that the symbols served as the
university’s social business card.
The symbols used by USIU-Africa build a sense of unity amongst the diverse societies
represented in the university. The findings were in agreement with Heyneman, Kraice
and Bastedo (2014) that higher education can play an important role in promoting
understanding between social groups and building a sense of unity in diverse societies.
The study showed that the symbols chosen by USIU-Africa were used in all its
promotional materials and they helped students to have the university convincingly
positioned in their mind. The study showed that the university symbols readily evoked the
same intended meaning across all stakeholders. The study showed that students were able
to easily identify the USIU symbols and that the symbols constantly reminded students of
the existence of the university. The university symbols provoked a sense of distinction
and prestige to its stakeholders and the positive experiences with the symbols increased
effective commitment to the university. This was in agreement with Japutra, Keni Keni
and Nguye (2016) who stated that positive experiences with symbols can increase
consumers’ commitment to a brand.
The study showed that students felt that the university symbols contributed to its success
and the logo helped to speed up students’ recognition of the university. The study showed
that students believed that the university’s re-branding effort has had a positive impact in
influencing students to choose it among many alternatives, and the message
93
communicated by the university symbols were unambiguous (clear). The next section is a
discussion on the differentiation role of symbols.
5.3.4 The Differentiation Roles of Symbols
The study showed that the colors used on the symbols differentiated USIU-A from other
institutions of higher learning and students found the image used for the university
symbol unique and distinct compared to other universities symbols. This is in agreement
to De Bortoli and Moroto (2001), the meanings associated with different colors are
important to marketers because they are used to communicate brand image. The study
showed that USIU-A symbols offered meaningful differences to distinguish the
university’s from competitors, but the symbols did not act as tools of organizational
survival and profitability. The study showed that favorable image created by the use of
symbols could boost a university’s student’s intake.
The study showed that students felt that USIU-Africa symbols created a good brand
image for the university and also contributed to its overall success. This is in agreement
with Gunelis (2015) who said that in education services, loyalty requires developing a
solid relationship with students who eventually provide the financial basis for future
university activities. The study showed that a lot of creativity and hard work was required
in developing strong symbols such as those in USIU-Africa, and the graphical properties
of the symbol did not show the university’s characteristics. The study also revealed that
the aesthetic response attached to symbols was one of the clues that differentiated it. The
study showed that the colors used on the USIU-Africa symbols gave an “approach” signal
and that, students did not strongly associate the symbols used to USIU-Africa’s culture,
and that the symbols used in USIU evoked a strong emotional reaction and would
influence students to choose the university over and over again.
The study showed that students found the shape of the symbols used by USIU-Africa
unique compared to those of other universities and they felt that the symbols used shaped
the public’s image of USIU-Africa. The study revealed that logos made it easier to
identify USIU-Africa in the sea of competing offerings. This is in agreement with the
study by Park, Eisingerich and Pol (2013) who posit that as the visual representation of a
brand, logos have the potential to communicate and reinforce a brand’s core values and
principles. The study showed that, students did not consider simple symbol elements
94
easier to remember more than complex ones, and that the USIU-Africa logo did not play a
critical role in serving as a point of connection between the university and its customers.
The next section concludes this study.
5.4 Conclusions
5.4.1 Student’s Choice of a University
The study concludes that the university’s good reputation and general image played a
major role in influencing students’ choice. It further concluded that the perceived quality
of service given to students, the cost of the education provided and the university’s
convenient location also influenced students’ choice of USIU-Africa. This study therefore
concluded that a university having living facilities such as dorms or apartments in the
university would greatly influence student choice.
5.4.2 The Visual Role of the Symbols
The study concludes that symbols used offer visual identity system that unites the whole
university. The study revealed that the use of symbols increases USIU-Africa recognition
to both internal and external customers and that the symbols used by USIU-Africa serve
as a focal point of connection which communicate the university’s core values. In
conclusion it is therefore important for the university to seek ways to enhance the
symbols used so as to continue appealing to potential customers. The study further
concludes that symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity and intimate appeal to students.
The study also concludes that the name of the university captures students’ attention
whenever they see or hear of it and that when someone spoke of USIU-Africa, students
are able to associate it with the images used on the symbols. It is therefore necessary that
the university ensures that the symbols used continue to act as constant reminders about
the university students’ choice.
5.4.3 The Communication Role of Symbols
This study concludes that symbols used by USIU-Africa built a sense of unity amongst
the diverse societies represented in the university and were used to speak of the
university’s commitment and engagement to providing quality education. The study
further underlined the importance of the symbols chosen being used in all its promotional
materials. The study therefore concludes that symbols helped students to have the
university convincingly positioned in their mind which is important in drawing more
95
numbers. Students were able to easily identify the USIU symbols and that the symbols
constantly reminded students of the existence of the university. The university symbols
provoked a sense of distinction and prestige to its stakeholders and the positive
experiences with the symbols increased effective commitment to the university. The study
thus concludes that it is what people think when they see the symbols, the reputation
when they hear the university’s name and even the desire of former students to be
associated with it that creates that commitment. It is important therefore for the
university to guard the brand and make continues improvements to the symbols.
5.4.4 The Differentiation Roles of Symbols
The study concludes that students felt that USIU-Africa symbols created a good brand
image for the university and also contributed to its overall success. A lot of creativity and
hard work was required in developing strong symbols such as those in USIU-Africa. The
study also revealed that the aesthetic response attached to symbols was one of the clues
that differentiated it. In conclusion, symbols used in USIU evoke a strong emotional
reaction and would influence students to choose the university over and over again
therefore more ways should be sought to differentiate the university from the others.
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement
5.5.1.1 Student’s Choice of a University
There being significant factors used to choose institutions of higher learning among
students, the study recommends that USIU-A should ensure that it advertises itself by
indicating the availability of what students are looking for. The institution should
leverage itself on factors like location, security, the facilities it has, its uniqueness in
terms of education offered and the opportunity to pursue a career both in Kenya and the
United States of America to attract students. The study therefore recommends provision
of living facilities on campus so as to more out of town and international students.
5.5.1.2 The Visual Role of the Symbols
The study recommends that management treat branding as a strategic issue and that they
employ the use of a wide approach to quality service delivery is needed if the university is
to be perceived favorably by the students. The study recommends that a university choice
model be created that will be sensitive to the visual processes experienced by students
96
from all socioeconomic backgrounds. The study also recommends enhancement of the
available symbols so as to create an intimate appeal to current and potential students.
5.5.1.3 The Communication Role of Symbols
The study recommends the university to design a common communication strategy to
recruit students in order to overcome the decentralization of the university. Close
cooperation between the marketing department and public relation and other departments
will be important to tackle this issue. The first step for the university to improve their
communication with prospective students will be to provide unique logos and symbols
that will be recognizable.
5.5.1.4 The Differentiation Roles of Symbols
The study recommends USIU-A to ensure that the articulation of its brand is supported by
qualitative and quantitative research that should be conducted on their behalf by a well
known branding agency with experience in higher education issues. This organization
should be given the task of ensuring that the university symbols and colors are
differentiated from the existing ones and all the insights gained be used to help students in
their decision making process.
5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies
This study identified factors that influence students’ decision of university as influenced
by university symbols. The study was limited to USIU-Africa. A single case study
approach was used in this study, so it is recommended that this study be carried on a
broader scale. Qualitative research has been used to identify the key variables that drive
student’s choice of a university. Further, research can be done to test and validate these
findings using a quantitative approach.
97
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, D., & Joachimstahler, E. (2000). Brand Leadership. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Aaker, D.A. (2014). Branding: 20 Principles That Drive Success. New York, NY: The
Free Pres.
Adcock D., Halborg A., & Ross C. (2003). Marketing Principles and Practice. London,
UK: Prentice Hall.
Adejumo, D. A., Ogungbade, D.R., & Akinbode, J.O. (2014) The Effect of Advertising
on Corporate Image: a Study of International Breweries Plc. Ilesa, Osun State,
Nigeria. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research Vol.5, 2014
Ancheh, K.S.B., Krishnan, A., & Nurtjahja, O. (2007). Evaluative criteria for selection of
private universities and colleges in Malaysia. Journal of International
Management Studies, 2(1), 1-11.
Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2007). Marketing: An introduction. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Aula, H.M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming “world‑class”? Reputation‑building in a
university merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7-29.
Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T.R. (2005). Human resource management’s role
in internal branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(3), 163-169.
Baharun R., Shahrin E.S., & Zubaidah, A. (2012). Changing skills required by industries:
Perceptions of what makes business graduates employable. African Journal of
Business Management, 6(30), 12-35.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2000). The ACID test of corporate identity. Corporate Reputation
Review, 4(1), 11‐22.
Balmer, J., & Gray, E. (2000). Corporate identity and corporate communications:
Creating A competitive advantage. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(7),
256- 261.
Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary
Education and Management, 8(3), 217-230.
98
Bo van, G., & Enny, D. (2014). Logo design in marketing communications: Brand logo
complexity moderates exposure effects on brand recognition and brand Attitude.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 2(7), 111-96.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design Management: Using design to build brand value and
corporate innovation. New York, NY: Allworth Press.
Brooking, K., Gardiner, B., & Calvert, S. (2009). Background of students in alternative
education: Interviews with a selected 2008 cohort. New Zealand: Ministry of
Education
Chimombo J. P. G.,(2005) Issues in Basic Education in Developing Countries: An
Exploration of Policy Options for Improved Delivery. Journal of International
Cooperation in Education,Vol.8, No.1, (2005) pp.129-152
Christie, M. (2014). The psychology of logo shapes: a designer's guide. Creative Bloq.
Churchill, A., Suter, A., & Brown, T. (2014). Basic Marketing Research. (8th Ed.). New
Jersey, NJ: South- Western College Pub.
Ciriaci, D., & Muscio, A. (2011). University choice, research quality and graduates'
employability: Evidence from Italian national survey data. Journal of
International Management Studies, 2(1), 1-11.
Collins, J.C., & Porras, J.I. (1996). Built to Last. Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies. London: HarperCollins.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound presence and power: Students voice in educational
research and reform. Curriculum Enquiry, 36.
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2010). Business Research Methods. (11th Ed.). McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand
identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 157-79.
Descombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research
Projects. (4th Ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Doyle, L. (2006). GCI Magazine. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from
www.GCImagazine.com (Accessed 11/03/2015).
Etzel, M, Walker, B., and Stanton, W. (2007). Marketing. (14th Ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical
underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30.
Gerald, W. (2008). Globalisation and higher education funding policy shifts in Kenya.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 330(3), 215-229.
99
Gibbs, P., and Knapp, M. (2002). Marketing Higher and Further Education: an
Educator's Guide to Promoting Courses, Departments and Institutions. London:
Kogan Page.
Hagtvedt, H.,& Patrick, V.M. (2008). Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on the
Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products. Journal of Marketing Research,
379-389.
Hill, A. (2011). Beauty Packaging Identity Trends. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from GCI
Magazine: http//www.GCImagazine.com (Accessed 11/03/2015).
Holbrook, M. (2005) Marketing education as bad medicine for society: the gorilla dances.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 24(1), 134-145.
Judson, K.M., Gorchels, L., & Aurand, T.W. (2006). Building a University Brand from
Within: A Comparison of Coaches’ Perspectives of Internal Branding. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 16(1), 97-114.
Keller, K.L., & Lehmann, D.R. (2003). The brand value chain: Optimizing strategic and
financial brand performance. Marketing Management, 26-31.
Khouw, N. (2002). The meaning of color for gender”, Colors Matters – Research.
Sourced from: www.colormatters.com (Accessed 11/03/2015).
King, F. (1991). Brand building in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management, 7, 3‐13.
Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: the Marketing of Higher
Education. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. (2nd Ed.). New
Age International.
Kotler, P., & Keller, F. (2006). Marketing Management. (12th Ed.). New Jersey, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Kotler, P., & Amstrong, G. (2009). Principles of Marketing. New Delhi, India: Prentice
Hall.
Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V.K., & Perera, N. (2010). University marketing and
consumer behaviour concerns: the shifting preference of university selection
criteria in Indonesia. Asian Studies Association of Australia 18th Biennial
Conference (pp. 1-16). Adelaide, South Australia.
Levy, D. (2006). Market university? Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 113-124.
Madden, J.T., Hewett, K., & Roth, M.S. (2000). Managing images in different cultures:
across-national study of colour meaning and preferences. Journal of International
Marketing, 8(4), 90-107.
100
Mehta, R.P., & Zhu, R. (2009). Blue or Red? Exploring the Effect of Colour on Cognitive
Task Performances. Advances in Consumer Research, 1045-1046.
Melewar, T.C., & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education
sector. Corporate Communications, 10, 41-45.
Ng’ang’a, G. (2013). Plans for 15 new public universities to boost places. University
World News, Issue No: 258.
Oketch, M.O. (2003). The Growth of Private University Education in Kenya: Promise and
Challenge. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(2), 18-40.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B., Pol, G. and Park, J.W. (2013b) The role of brand logos in
firm performance. Journal of Business Research 66(2): 180–187.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B., Pol, G. and Park, J.W. (2014) The power of a Good Logo.
Management Review. Winter 2014 Issue.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The Stopping Power of Advertising: Measures
and Effects of Visual Complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48-60.
Pittard N., Ewing, M., & Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design: examining
consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review,
24(4), 457-473.
Price, I.F., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Aghai, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on
student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212-230.
Satyendra, S. (2006). Impact of color on marketing. Management Decision, 44(6), 783-
789
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in
banks: replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 423-33.
Sharrock, G. (2000). Why students are not ‘just’ customers. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 22(2), 149-164.
Singh, A. S., & Masuku, M. B. (2014). Sampling Techniques and Determination of
Sample Size In Applied Statistics Research. International Journal of Economics,
Commerce and Management, 1-22.
Smyth, J. (2012). Doing research on student voice in Australia: Management in Education
the journal of professional practice.
Tutssel, G. (2000). But you can judge a brand by its color. Brand Strategy, November,
pp. 8‐9.
101
Van den Bosch, A.L.M, De Jong, M.D.T., & Elving, W.J.L. (2005). How corporate visual
identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 10(2), 108-116.
Van Riel, C.B.M., & Van de Ban, A. (2001). The added value of corporate logo: An
empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 428-440.
Walliman, N. (2011). Your Research Project: Designing and Planning Your Work.
London: Sage Publishers.
Westerman, S.J., Sutherland, E.J., Gardner, P.H., Baig, N., Critchley, C., Hickey, C.,
Mehigan, S., Solway, A., & Zervos, Z. (2013). The design of consumer
packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of
graphical forms on consumer’s assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 8-
17.
102
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Jane K. Nyaga
United States International University
P O Box 14634 00800
NAIROBI
Dear Respondent,
RE: KIND REQUEST TO FILL THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
I am a Masters of Business Administration student at The United States International
University – Africa and one of the requirements for the degree completion is to write a
research project. I am writing this letter to kindly request you to fill the attached
questionnaire that seeks your perceptions on the role of symbols in influencing students’
choice of a university.
I would appreciate if you would complete the questionnaire as best and honestly as
possible. Please note that any information provided will be treated with utmost
confidentiality and no single response will be reported on its own but as a summation of
the responses received.
Thanking you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Jane K. Nyaga
Telephone No. 0720752109
USIU-Africa.
103
APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE
ROLE OF SYMBOLS IN A UNIVERSITY
The questionnaire below has been set in relation to the objectives of the study. All the questions
seek to analyze the role of symbols in influencing students’ choice of a university.
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
This section is about your personal information. Kindly answer all the questions by ticking in the
boxes provided.
Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female
Kindly indicate your age in the age brackets below:
[ ] 18 -25 years [ ] 25-30 years [ ] 30-35 years
[ ] 40 and above
SECTION 2
A. Choice of a University
This section is about the general factors that would influence a student’s choice of a university
and is divided into three section, choice of a university, the choice theory and the decision making
process. For each of the statements, please use the scale given below to indicate your level of
agreement by ticking each of the given statements.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree
Choice of a university 1 2 3 4 5
I chose USIU-Africa because of its good reputation
I made the decision to join USIU-Africa on my own
The general image of the university influenced my
choice
My parents greatly influenced my choice of the
university
My parents occupation greatly influenced my
university choice
My parents/guardians level of education influenced
my choice
My friends influenced my choice of the university
104
Choice Theory
Choice theory was developed by Glasser in 1998. This section seeks to show how students’
behavior when making choices vary.
Choice Theory
1 2 3 4 5
The perceived quality of service given to students
influenced my choice of USIU-Africa
I chose USIU-Africa because of the quality of education
offered
The cost of the education provided by USIU-Africa
influenced my choice.
I chose USIU-Africa because it’s location is convenient
for me
The time required for the completion of the degree
program greatly influenced my choice of USIU-Africa
I believe studying at USIU will increase my career
opportunities upon completion
I chose USIU-Africa because I think I will get value for
my money
Decision Making
This section contains questions that seek to establish the process which prospective students go
through before selecting a university of their choice.
Decision Making Process 1 2 3 4 5
I got the information about USIU-Africa from the mass
media
I got the information about the University from its
website
My choice was influenced by the university’s quality of
the infrastructure
I chose USIU-Africa because of its prestige as a national
and international university
The conducive learning environment at USIU-Africa
influenced my choice
SECTION 3: Visual role of the Symbols
Symbols are used as visual representatives of a university. The visual role of symbols involves
providing communication that conveys an idea through a visual aid and purely relies on vision.
This section involves questions relating to the extent the visual role of symbols plays in
influencing student choice of a university and is divided into various sections; the visual role of
symbols, visual identity, cueing, persuasion and the role of logos in university selection. Please
tick the numeric value corresponding to your personal opinion for each statement.
105
Visual Role of Symbols in influencing student choice 1 2 3 4 5
The symbols used by a university are important tangible
assets to the university.
The university’s symbols capture and signal its identity
I chose the university because I easily connected to the
university slogan “Education to take you places”
The use of the Martial Eagle in the university mascot
greatly influenced my choice
Visual Identity
This section involves questions relating to the extent visual identity role of symbols plays in
influencing student choice of a university
Visual Identity
1 2 3 4 5
The naturalness of the university logo makes it easy to
recognize
The symbols used offer visual identity system that unites
the whole university
The use of symbols increases USIU-Africa recognition to
both internal and external customers.
The symbols used by USIU-Africa serve as a focal point of
connection which communicate the university’s core values
Symbols enhance a brand’s authenticity and intimate
appeal to me as a student
Cueing
This section involves questions relating to the extent the cueing aspect of symbols plays in
influencing student choice of a university
Cueing 1 2 3 4 5
The name of the university captures my attention whenever
I see or hear of it.
When someone speaks of USIU-A, I am able to associate it
with the images used on the symbols
The symbols used continue to act as constant reminders
about the university I chose
106
Persuasion
This section involves questions relating to the extent the persuasion aspect of symbols play in
influencing student choice of a university
Persuasion 1 2 3 4 5
The perception I formed after looking at the symbols used
by the university persuaded me to choose the university.
I would choose a university if I consider its logo colors
appealing
I have developed a good brand attitude about USIU-Africa
because of its symbols
Role of Logos in University Selection
This section involves questions relating to the role of logos in university selection.
Role of Logos in University Selection 1 2 3 4 5
I believe the logo is the flagship image of a brand and can
influence a student’s choice of a university
I would consider joining a university whose logo design
and shape is appealing
A logo quickly speaks volume about the business
conducted by the university
I would choose a university whose logo artwork is
appealing to me
The university colors (yellow & blue) relate with the
services offered
SECTION 4: The Communication Role of Symbols
The communication role of symbols involves identifying how universities communicate quality
effectively in order to inform, persuade and remind students about them. This section involves
questions relating to the communication role of symbols in influencing student choice of a
university and is divided into the communicate role, social cohesion, marketing, identification and
the role of logos in communication. Please tick the numeric value corresponding to your personal
opinion for each statement.
Communication Role 1 2 3 4 5
The symbols used by the university communicate the distinct
features of USIU-Africa
The USIU-Africa symbols informed me about the university
The communication aspect of the university symbols allows it
to link its brand to other people and places
107
This section contains questions relating to the extent the social cohesion aspect of communication
of symbols play in influencing student choice of a university
Social Cohesion 1 2 3 4 5
USIU-Africa symbols serve as the university’s social
business card
The symbols used by USIU-Africa build a sense of unity
amongst the diverse societies represented in the university.
The symbols used speak of the university’s commitment and
engagement to providing quality education
This section contains questions relating to the extent the marketing aspect of communication of
symbols play in influencing student choice of a university
Marketing 1 2 3 4 5
The symbols chosen by USIU-Africa should be used in all its
promotional materials
The symbols used help me to have the university
convincingly positioned in my mind
The university symbols readily evoke the same intended
meaning across all stakeholders.
This section contains questions relating to the extent the identification aspect of communication
of symbols play in influencing student choice of a university
Identification 1 2 3 4 5
I am able to easily identify the USIU symbols
The symbols constantly remind me of the existence of the
university
The university symbols provoke a sense of distinction and
prestige to its stakeholders
Positive experiences with the symbols increases effective
commitment to the university
This section involves questions relating to the role of logos in communication
Role of Logos in communication 1 2 3 4 5
I feel that the university symbols contribute to its success
The USIU logo helps to speed up my recognition of the
university
I believe that the university’s re-branding effort has had a
positive impact in influencing students to choose it among
many alternatives.
The message communicated by the university symbols are
unambiguous (clear)
108
SECTION 5: Differentiation role of the symbols
The differentiation role of symbols refers to the extent the university distinguishes itself from its
competitors. This section involves questions relating to the differentiation role of symbols in
influencing students’ choice of a university. Please tick the numeric value corresponding to your
personal opinion for each statement
(Please tick where appropriate)
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5
Differentiation Role of a Symbol
The colors used on the symbols differentiate USIU-A from
other institutions of higher learning.
I find the image used for the university symbol unique
and distinct compared to other universities symbols.
USIU-A symbols offer meaningful differences to distinguish
the university’s from competitors
Symbols act as tools of organizational survival and
profitability
A favorable image created by the use of symbols can
boost a university’s students intake
This section involves questions relating to the extent the brand image aspect of differentiation
plays in influencing student choice of a university
Brand Image 1 2 3 4 5
I feel that USIU-Africa symbols create a good brand image
for the university
The good brand image created by the university symbols
contribute to its overall success
A lot of creativity and hard work is required in developing
strong symbols such as those in USIU-Africa
The graphical properties of the symbol show the
university’s characteristics
The aesthetic response attached to symbols is one of the
clues that differentiate it
109
This section involves questions relating to the extent the brand loyalty aspect of differentiation
plays in influencing student choice of a university
Brand Loyalty 1 2 3 4 5
The colors used on the USIU-Africa symbols give an
“approach” signal
I strongly associate the symbols used to USIU-Africa’s
culture
The symbols used in USIU evoke a strong emotional
reaction and would influence me to choose the
university over and over again.
This section involves questions relating to the differentiation role of logos in influencing student
choice of a university
Differentiation Role of Logos
I find the shape of the symbols used by USIU-Africa
unique compared to those of other universities
I feel that the symbols used shape the public’s image of
USIU-Africa
Logos make it easier to identify a brand (e.g. USIU-
Africa) in the sea of competing offerings
The size of the USIU-Africa logo is very unique.
I consider simple symbol elements easier to remember
more than complex ones
The USIU-Africa logo plays a critical role in serving as
a point of connection between the university and its
customers
How many public universities did you have to choose from before selecting USIU-Africa?
[2] [3] [4] [5]
How many Private universities did you have to choose from before selecting USIU-Africa?
[2] [3] [4] [5]
In your own words, please state any other factors that would influence your decision when
choosing a university.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation.
