The roles of student trust, identity and commitment in the relationship between university reputation and behavioral intention

i

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
--------------------------------

BUI HUY KHOI

The roles of student trust, identity
and commitment in the relationship
between university reputation and
behavioral intention
A dissertation submitted for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration

Ho Chi Minh City – 2021


ii

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH
CITY
--------------------------------

BUI HUY KHOI

The roles of student trust, identity
and commitment in the relationship
between university reputation and
behavioral intention

Industry: Business Administration
Industry ID: 9340101
A dissertation submitted for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration
Academic Supervisors:

Dr. Nguyen Huu Lam
Dr. Dang Ngoc Dai

Ho Chi Minh City – 2021


i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I please declare that this submission is my work and except where due
reference is made; this dissertation contains no material previously published or
written by another person(s).
This dissertation does not contain material extracted in the whole or part
from the dissertation or report presented for another degree or diploma in University
of Economics Ho Chi Minh city or any other educational institution.

January 2021

Bui Huy Khoi


ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, this dissertation is dedicated to the thank of my wife-Nguyen Thi
Ngan, to my daughter-Bui Mai Anh (9 years), my daughter-Bui Mai Vy (6 years),
my son-Bui Minh Nhat (4 years), and to my son-Bui Minh Hoang (4 years). They
help me have many efforts to overcome difficulties in completing my dissertation. It
is the biggest achievement of my life.
Second, I would like to express my best gratitude to Ph.D. Nguyen Huu Lam
and Ph.D. Dang Ngoc Dai, who supervise and help me conduct my dissertation for
many years at University of Economics HCM City.
Third, I am deeply thankful to Prof. Vladik Kreinovich, University of Texas,
USA for supporting me to publish my paper related to my dissertation in the Scopus
system.
Especially, I would express my gratefulness to Ph.D. Ngo Quang Huan,
University of Economics HCM City and Ph.D. Nguyen Thanh Long, Industrial
University of HCM City who indirectly or directly support and help me conduct the
dissertation. Moreover, I am thankful to the board of professors in School of UEH
Graduate, the independent reviewers for their constructive reviewing and
comments.

Bui Huy Khoi


iii

TABLE OF CONTENT
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP.................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENT.................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................ ix

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ x
TÓM TẮT.............................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1. RESEARCH OVERVIEW................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Research background......................................................................................................... 1
1.3. The research gap identification...................................................................................... 9
1.4. Research object and scope............................................................................................. 10
1.4.1. Research object.............................................................................................................. 10
1.4.2. Research scope............................................................................................................... 11
1.5. Research aim....................................................................................................................... 11
1.6. The research questions.................................................................................................... 13
1.7. Methodology....................................................................................................................... 13
1.8. Dissertation contributions.............................................................................................. 14
1.8.1. Theory contributions.................................................................................................... 15
1.8.2. Practice implications.................................................................................................... 16


iv

1.9. Dissertation structure....................................................................................................... 17
1.10. Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 19
2.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 19
2.2. Reputation.................................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1. Student guidance.................................................................................................................... 28
2.2.2. Social contributions.............................................................................................................. 29
2.2.3. Environments.......................................................................................................................... 31
2.2.4. Leadership................................................................................................................................ 32
2.2.5. Funding...................................................................................................................................... 33
2.2.6. Research and development................................................................................................. 33

2.3. Student trust................................................................................................................................. 34
2.4. Student identity.......................................................................................................................... 35
2.5. Student commitment................................................................................................................ 37
2.6. Behavioral intention................................................................................................................. 38
2.7. Foundation theories.................................................................................................................. 43
2.7.1. Market signaling theory...................................................................................................... 43
2.7.2. The theory of planned behavior (TPB).......................................................................... 45
2.7.3. Theory of reasoned action (TRA) and extended valence framework................50
2.8. The research model and hypotheses................................................................................... 51
2.8.1. Factors affecting university reputation.......................................................................... 51
2.8.2. The roles of student trust, student identity, and student commitment...............53
2.9. Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 62


v

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 64
3.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 64
3.2. The research process................................................................................................................ 64
3.3. Sample and data collection.................................................................................................... 97
3.4. PLS-SEM................................................................................................................................... 100
3.5. Quantitative analysis frame................................................................................................. 104
3.6. Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 106
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS.............................................................................................................. 107
4.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 107
4.2. Internal consistency and convergent validity............................................................... 107
4.3. Indicator reliability................................................................................................................. 108
4.4. Discriminant validity............................................................................................................. 110
4.5. Collinearity issue..................................................................................................................... 112
4.6. The fitness of the structural model................................................................................... 113

4.7. Stability of parameter estimates........................................................................................ 116
4.8. Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 119
4.9. Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 120
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS..............121
5.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 121
5.2. Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 121
5.3. Key Contributions................................................................................................................... 122
5.4. Contributions to methodology............................................................................................ 124
5.5. New contribution to the measurement model............................................................... 125


vi

5.6. Implications............................................................................................................................... 126
5.6.1. Practical Implications........................................................................................................ 126
5.6.2. Implications for domestic manager.............................................................................. 128
5.6.3. Implications for university manager............................................................................ 128
5.7. Limitations and recommendations for further research........................................... 135
PUBLICATION................................................................................................................................ 137
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 138
APPENDIX........................................................................................................................................ 159
EDITED CONFIRMATION BY CAMBRIDGE................................................................ 187


vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
HEIs
PLS-SEM

UR
SG

Meanings
Higher education institutions
Partial least squares structural equation modelling
University Reputation
Student Guidance

SCN

Social Contributions

EN
LE
FU

Environments
Leadership
Funding

RD

Research and Development

ST

Student Trust

SI

Student Identity

SC

Student Commitment

BI

Behavioral Intention

H

Hypothesis

TRA

The theory of reasoned action

TBP

The theory of planned behavior

Pc

The composite reliability

Pvc

The average variance extracted

SRMR

The standardized root mean square residual

OL

Outer loading

VIF

Variance Inflation Factor


viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Variables and their proposing authors..................................................... 41
Table 2.2. Summary of the correlations in the model............................................ 61
Table 3.1. The discussion group code.......................................................................... 68
Table 3.2. Social Contributions’ items......................................................................... 75
Table 3.3. Environments’ items...................................................................................... 77
Table 3.4. Leadership’s items.......................................................................................... 78
Table 3.5. Funding’s items................................................................................................ 79
Table 3.6. Research and Development’s items......................................................... 81
Table 3.7. Student Guidance’s items............................................................................. 82
Table 3.8. Student Trust’s items...................................................................................... 83
Table 3.9. Student identity’s items................................................................................. 84
Table 3.10. Student Commitment’s items................................................................... 85
Table 3.11. Behavioral Intention’s items..................................................................... 86

Table 3.12. Items and factors in the reputation scale.............................................. 90
Table 3.13. Item and factor in the university reputation scale............................95
Table 3.14. University Reputation’s items.................................................................. 96
Table 3.15. Sample Statistics........................................................................................... 99
Table 4.1. Internal consistency and convergent validity..................................... 107
Table 4.2. Outer Loadings.............................................................................................. 109
Table 4.3. Fornell-Larcker Criterion.......................................................................... 111
Table 4.4. Inner VIF Values........................................................................................... 112
Table 4.5. Measurement of model PLS-SEM......................................................... 115
Table 4.6. Path Coefficients........................................................................................... 116
Table 4.7. f2 (effect size)................................................................................................ 117


ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Valence Framework Model........................................................................ 51
Figure 2.2. The model of Keh and Xie (2009)........................................................... 54
Figure 2.3. The model of Rather (2018)...................................................................... 55
Figure 2.4. The model of Heffernan et al. (2018)..................................................... 56
Figure 2.5. The model of Nuraryo et al. (2018)........................................................ 57
Figure 2.8. The theoretical model................................................................................... 61
Figure 3.1. The process of quantitative analysis.................................................... 105
Figure 4.1. Model Testing and Analysis.................................................................... 114


x

ABSTRACT
This dissertation aims to investigate and explore the roles of student trust

(ST), student identity (SI), and student commitment (SC) in a relationship between
the reputation of a university (UR) and its students’ behavioral intention (BI) in
Vietnam's higher education sector. The dissertation builds an empirically tested
model from a sample of 1,538 Vietnamese graduates. Its purpose determines the
factors affecting university reputation and the roles of student trust, student identity,
and student commitment in the relationship between university reputation and
behavioral intention to understand student choices of master’s programs. Next,
these factors will be measured by some analysis quantitative tools. Finally, this
dissertation will also give some implications to develop the relationship between
university reputation and behavioral intention in Vietnamese higher education. The
analysis results revealed that the tested relationship between university reputation
and behavioral intention to continue studying is positive. Twelve of the proposed
hypotheses were confirmed, including the direct relationship of the variables and
the mediating role of SI, SC, and ST in the model. The results suggest that a
university reputation can be a driving force toward students’ behavioral intention to
achieve positive goals in the development of their higher education. This
dissertation significantly contributes to the understanding of university reputation
and student behavioral intention in higher education. In both theory and practice, it
provides vital findings and suggestions to scientists, university administrators, and
strategic marketers applying in their working environment.
Keywords: University reputation, behavioral intention, student trust, student
identity, student commitment, higher education


xi

TĨM TẮT
Luận án này nhằm mục đích khám phá và kiểm tra vai trò của niền tin (ST),
nhận biết (SI) và cam kết (SC) của sinh viên trong mối quan hệ giữa danh tiếng
trường đại học (UR) và dự định hành vi của sinh viên (BI) tốt nghiệp đại học trong

bối cảnh giáo dục sau đại học tại Việt Nam. Luận án xây dựng một mơ hình được
kiểm nghiệm từ thực tế trong một mẫu nghiên cứu gồm 1.538 sinh viên tốt nghiệp
đại học ở Việt Nam. Mục đích của luận án là xác định các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến
danh tiếng trường đại học và vai trò của niền tin, nhận biết và cam kết của sinh viên
trong mối quan hệ giữa danh tiếng trường đại học và dự định hành vi để hiểu sự lựa
chọn của sinh viên đối với các chương trình đào tạo thạc sĩ. Ttiếp theo, các yếu tố
này sẽ được đo lường bằng một số cơng cụ phân tích định lượng. Cuối cùng, luận án
cũng sẽ đưa ra một số hàm ý quản trị nhắm phát triển mối quan hệ giữa danh tiếng
trường đại học và dự định hành vi trong giáo dục sau đại học tại Việt Nam. Kết quả
phân tích cho thấy mối quan hệ đã được kiểm định giữa danh tiếng trường đại học
và hành vi có dự định tiếp tục lựa chon việc học tập là tích cực. Mười hai giả thuyết
được đề xuất đã được xác nhận, bao gồm mối quan hệ trực tiếp của các yếu tố và vai
trò trung gian của niền tin (ST), nhận biết (SI) và cam kết (SC) của sinh viên trong
mơ hình cũng được xác nhận. Kết quả cho thấy danh tiếng trường đại học có thể là
động lực thúc đẩy dự định hành vi của sinh viên nhằm đạt được các mục tiêu tích
cực trong sự phát triển giáo dục sau đại học của họ. Luận án này góp phần đáng kể
vào sự hiểu biết về danh tiếng trường đại học và dự định hành vi của sinh viên trong
giáo dục sau đại học. Về cả lý thuyết và thực tế, nó cung cấp những phát hiện và đề
xuất quan trọng cho các nhà khoa học, các nhà quản trị trường đại học và các nhà
tiếp thị chiến lược ứng dụng vào mơi trường làm việc của mình.
Từ khóa: Danh tiếng trường đại học, dự định hành vi, niềm tin, nhận biết, cam
kết, giáo dục sau đại học



1

CHAPTER 1. RESEARCH OVERVIEW
1.1. Introduction
This dissertation shows the roles of student trust, identity and commitment in the

relationship between university reputation and behavioral intention in Vietnamese
higher education. I present standard information about the studied problem and
dissertation background, and I identify the dissertation’s aims and research questions.
This chapter also briefly describes the dissertation structure.

1.2.

Research background
QS University Rankings for Asian 2021 based on 11 different criteria to evaluate

one university, including academic reputation (30%), employer reputation (20%),
lecturer/ student ratio (10 %), percentage of lecturers with doctoral degrees (5%), ratio
of published papers per lecturer (5%), citations per paper (10%), international research
network (10%), international lecturer ratio (2.5%), international student rate (2.5%),
domestic exchange students (2.5%), and foreign exchange students (2.5%) (Duong
Tam, 2020). Vietnam has 11 universities participating in the QS University Rankings
for Asian 2021(QS, 2020). So, reputation is the most important key for ranking a
university and that is a reason which Vietnamese universities are creating, building,
and developing it.
Nowadays, the university operates in a highly competitive market (Del-CastilloFeito et al., 2020; Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando et al., 2018) where attracting resources
has become a complicated task. The current trends of globalization and
internationalization have led higher education institutions (HEIs) to receive increasing
interest from policymakers and educational leaders (Tran and Villano, 2017). This is
because a nation’s human resources significantly affect its socioeconomic development
(Agasisti and Pohl, 2012; Tran and Villano, 2017). The globalization of business


2

has been embraced by the higher education sector, in which education is seen as a

service that is marketable worldwide. Universities and other institutions of higher
education must compete to attract highly talented students, prestigious professors, and
effective employees (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2020; Hemsley-Brown et al, 2016;
Nuraryo et al., 2018; Plewa et al., 2016; Wilson, 2016). Some individuals credit the
globalization of universities to the many changes and difficulties that the educational
sector is now facing. Despite differences in opinion, school leaders and various other
commentators agree that competition between higher education institutions has
intensified over the last few years (Chen and Esangbedo, 2018; Plewa et al., 2016).
Education plays an enormous role in a country’s development, and its progress in a
given country partly symbolizes that country’s growth in general (Chen and
Esangbedo, 2018).
Higher education institutions play an important role in society: they are essential
partners of the knowledge-creation and knowledge-exchange networks, and they
catalyze innovation, supply tangible benefits of research, and provide consulting and
advisory services. Universities are meant to foster progress, build social capital,
prepare students for outside realities, provide access to knowledge, and extend the
bounds of justice, thereby contributing to the creation and maintenance of a democratic
and sustainable society. However, the increasingly competitive and dynamic nature of
educational environments raises many challenges, such as declining enrollment.
(Dzimińska et al., 2018).
Vietnam, a transitional economy in the Asia–Pacific region, has a population of
over 96 million people (Nguyen and McDonald, 2019). In background terms, it is
noteworthy that since the mid-1980s, Vietnam has been pursuing a path of marketoriented economic reform. This course of change has helped the economy to free itself
from absolute poverty and achieve substantial and sustainable economic growth.


3

RGDP of Vietnam was 2,563 U.S. dollars (USD) in 2018. In contrast to most other
ASEAN member states, their youth literacy rates are relatively high (Salmi, 2019). The

Vietnamese general education system is divided into three levels: primary education
(grades 1–5), lower secondary education (grades 6–9), and upper secondary education
(grades 10–12). Higher education in Vietnam consists of universities and academies,
which are classified into three categories: public-, private-, and foreign-related. In
2018, Vietnam had 454 HEIs, including 95 private universities and schools, and there
were 2.2 million students in higher education (MOET, 2019).
Vietnam's higher education environment has changed dramatically after two
decades of rapid growth. The number of students, institutions, and faculty members has
risen dramatically, and a further aspect of the system's evolution has been the advent of
a private education sector. Such improvements have significantly led to economic
growth and social progress. However, improvements have occurred more slowly in the
governance systems and leadership modes of the framework — a fact that presents
certain pressing issues for the future of the system (Salmi, 2019). As in other
developing nations, economic reforms in Vietnam (which began in 1986) are strongly
linked to the higher education sector. After 33 years of economic reform policy, the
master’s training program in Vietnam has increased remarkably quickly. Having begun
in 1976 (Hoang Thi Phuong Thao, 2014), the program now encompasses 105,000
students across 180 domestic universities and 212 programs with various joint-training
forms (bachelor’s and master’s degrees) and includes partnerships with many reputable
global universities and educational institutions (Chen et al., 2017).
Student decisions to continue their education at a particular university in the
desired field of study play an important role in their future success. When selecting a
university, many factors and possible consequences are part of the decision-making
process. If the reality of the university does not match student expectations, their


4

success becomes uncertain. Increasingly intense competition between institutions has
made every university aware of the need to fully exploit its assets, maximize

performance, and develop a competitive advantage. One way to achieve this has been
to develop a reputable name and build trust in the eyes of students (Harahap et al.,
2018). When a university has an excellent reputation, students will select that
university when enrolling in higher education.
In the competition between universities, reputation can be considered one of the
most vital issues because it is viewed as an upper hand that competitors can mimic only
with significant effort (Chun et al., 2005; Hall, 1992). It is believed that an enterprise’s
intangible attributes, such as reputation, are longer-term and more sustainable than the
qualities of products or services, and are thus more helpful in giving businesses a
competitive advantage. Reputation is one of the essential factors affecting customers'
attitudes and behaviors because what people know and believe regarding an
organization strongly affects their reactions to that organization. Because of
reputation’s importance as a valuable intangible asset, businesses must manage it
carefully, understanding both its strategic importance and the potential factors that
could enhance it (Berens and Van Riel, 2004).
The contemporary developments in the university system have made a
university’s reputation even more consequential. When certain characteristics of
universities were camouflaged or otherwise difficult to recognize (Aula, 2015;
Engwall, 2007), prospective students, future specialists, backers, and other partners
essentially based their discernments about universities on notoriety. Additionally,
reputation indicated enthusiasm for a greater number of colleges than beforehand. As
the matter of higher education has become increasingly open, state-funded universities
that had recently worked inside closed national frameworks began vying for assets. In
current higher education, reputation has translated to crucial enthusiasm for the


5

university (Aula, 2015). Hence, the question arises of how to best develop a solid
reputation in higher education.

Much research has been conducted on the influence of a university’s reputation.
This research showed that a college’s repute is the first mark of a school’s uniqueness
(Hemsley-Brown et al, 2016). With the verification of this “brand” theory, reputation
grows even more central to promoting a university’s identity and increasing its
attractiveness in globally competitive conditions.
Although the university’s reputation is becoming a necessary part of globalized
higher education, helping it attract students, staff, and research investments (Chen and
Esangbedo, 2018), the breadth of university reputation’s effect is a contested matter,
largely due to a lack of consensus regarding the relationship between reputation and
behavior.
Research about organizations’ reputations takes two directions. The first is
concerned with factors affecting the reputation itself, and the second is concerned with
the effects of reputation on other relationships.
Examples of research in the first direction include the work of Del-Castillo-Feito et
al. (2020), who showed that the university operates in a highly competitive market in
which the attraction of capital has become a dynamic activity. Intangible assets such as
reputation have been considered vital components of organizations' sustainability and
success. Del-Castillo-Feito et al. (2020) highlighted their relevance within the
literature, but the changes and relations among these factors remained uncertain.
Therefore, the researchers measured the relationships surrounding university
reputation. Student perceptions would be made considering the results because many
authors had previously highlighted the complexity, due to their diverse characteristics,
of handling the association between these crowds and attaining useful valuations. Their


6

results confirmed their proposed hypotheses on the relationships with university
reputation; nevertheless, the stakeholder group's moderating impact was not verified.
The discoveries of Del-Castillo-Feito et al. (2020) showed additional empirical

evidence has been given for the relationship between the variables considered, as well
as for the importance of taking more than one stakeholder group into account for
review. They indicated that university reputation was impacted by the following
factors: performance, innovation, citizenship, services, governance, and workplace
climate. This knowledge may be applied by administrators to boost the reputation of
their university.
A study conducted by Esangbedo and Bai (2019), additional research in the same
direction, tested reputation as a benchmark for universities’ continuous improvement.
In multicriteria decision making, the calculation of each criterion’s weight is essential
for the accurate evaluation of research outcomes. Esangbedo and Bai defined
university reputation, assigning it six components: social contributions, environments,
leadership, funding, R&D, and student guidance.
A third example is a research by Plewa et al. (2016), which highlighted the critical
role of a reputation for HEIs. The article offered insight into how brand prestige played
a key role in determining student–university identity. The more attractively the
university’s identity was by students, the more strongly they would identify with the
university, leading to goals, identities, and values shared between the university and the
students. The authors recommended that universities should engage in branding
activities that develop a strong student–university identity to enhance the students'
university-supportive behaviors (Plewa et al., 2016).
In the final study, more information on university reputation had become
available. Chen and Esangbedo (2018) demonstrated that six factors affected
universities: contributions, environments, leadership, funding, R&D, and student


7

guidance. The authors evaluated the reputation of Chinese universities through a
hierarchical model.
The second direction of research on organizations’ reputations also presents

several useful examples. One study indicated that the reputation of corporations
controls consumers’ behavioral intentions (Keh and Xie, 2009). This research proposed
a model with client trust, client identity, and client commitment as the fundamental
mediating factors between corporate reputation and customer buying intentions,
including eagerness to purchase at a premium cost. The authors tested the model by
utilizing the data of 351 customers of B2B administration firms, and the outcomes
indicated that reputation positively affected both customer trust and customer identity.
Client commitment mediated the relationships between customer trust, customer
identity, and behavioral intentions.
The study of Rather (2018) developed and empirically tested an integrative model
that reflects a complete opinion of the associations between customer brand
identification, agreement, trust, and commitment and their impact on brand
trustworthiness. Results demonstrated that consumer brand identity has an optimistic
impact on faithfulness, commitment, satisfaction, and trust. Commitment intermediates
the relations among consumer identity, trust, satisfaction, and brand trustworthiness.
Furthermore, consumer identity and commitment were strictly linked, but they
remained distinct concepts in friendliness backgrounds.
The research of Liu et al. (2019) proposed a new model based on organizational
identity. The model's hypotheses for the investigation were assembled from a literature
audit to perceive and extricate the determinants of adaptability and organizational
identity. The authors affirmed that commitment and trust had a significant positive
effect on the identity of an organization.


8

In Vietnam, Nguyen and Pham (2018) studied the effect of the image of a firm’s
country of origin on that firm’s reputation and the effect of such reputation, in turn, on
its perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR). Customer trust (CT) is assumed to
play a mediating role, and purchasing behavior (BI) is considered as the conclusive

outcome. The reputation of the firm had a positive, direct effect on the apparent CSR,
which made and sustains customer trust (CT). Under that control, the client would see
CSR in a positive light. What's more, the impact was seen as mostly affected by client
trust. Additionally, both CT and perceived CSR displayed an impact on BI.
The research of Khoi and Van Tuan (2019) investigated how reputation impacted
purchasing intention for imported goods in Vietnam. Survey data was collected from
345 consumers. They showed that purchase intention and reputation were related to
each other.
The paper of Khoi et al. (2019) explored the relationship between educational
service quality, the reputation of the university, and intention of behavior in Vietnamese
higher education research data was obtained from 550 students in Ho Chi Minh City
who graduated. The research model was focused on a study by some domestic and
foreign authors of the quality of education service, university reputation, and
behavioral purpose. Their findings from the study showed that the standard of
education service, university reputation, and behavioral intentions were related.
In Southeast Asia, in conditions similar to Vietnam, Nuraryo et al. (2018)
explained the influence of corporate identity, through corporate reputation and student
satisfaction, on student retention in one business school. The authors indicated that
corporate identity had a very significant influence on corporate reputation. Corporate
reputation also had a small influence on student behavior intention. This study
contributed to the studied university’s ability to increase student retention, which is


9

regarded as a factor of sustainability in the higher education sector (Nuraryo et al.,
2018).
The research of Harahap et al. (2018) aimed to analyze the influence of
university reputation on Indonesian students’ educational decisions. Results showed
that the reputation of the university had a limited but positive and meaningful effect on

student decisions to learn. In other words, prospective students considered university
reputation when determining a place to learn. Universities should do more
professionally to provide satisfying equipment and support and should enhance the
quality of instructors. The presence of intense competition requires universities to
consistently create an excellent reputation by making discoveries that could have a
high trading value or otherwise strengthen their reputation.

1.3. The research gap identification
This study begins with the desire to better understand the construction of university
reputation. The framework of university reputation and student behavioral intention is
formed by the relationship between student trust, student identity, and student
commitment. Vietnam's higher education sector plays an essential role in education;
this sector has been encountering various problems, and university reputation is a key
pillar in educational management theory.
As in the above research review, there are many types of reputation and behavior in
higher education; Esangbedo and Bai (2019), Chen and Esangbedo (2018), and Plewa
et al. (2016) indicated some factors affecting university reputation in higher education.
Rather (2018), Nuraryo et al. (2018), and Harahap et al. (2018) applied the model of
Keh and Xie (2009) from hotels to education; however, the authors did not prove that
reputation and behavioral intention are related to trust, identity, and commitment.
Research is lacking on reputation and student behavioral intention’s


10

relationship to student trust, student identity, and student commitment in a specifically
Vietnamese higher education context.
The quantity of literature on university reputation is nonetheless gradually rising. It
connects brand reputation and behavioral intention, and the writing can be isolated into
two floods of exploration. They contrast in their ontological and epistemological storm

cellars and, consequently, in the way university reputation and its development become
known.
In summary, there are two directions of research on university reputation: (1)
research concerned with factors affecting university reputation and (2) research
concerned with the roles of student trust, student identity, and student commitment in
mediating university reputation and student behavioral intention. Solutions that help
develop university reputation play a vital role in its future strategic development as the
level of competition in Vietnam education is only expected to increase. At the same
time, awareness of students’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors can affect the
competitiveness and sustainability of universities. Beginning from that urgent need, I
chose the following topic for a dissertation: The roles of student trust, identity, and
commitment in the relationship between university reputation and behavioral intention.

1.4. Research object and scope
1.4.1. Research object
According to the aims presented above, the research object of this dissertation is
the perception of students about university reputation and the relationships around it. In
particular, the factors that create university reputation are considered the premise such
as social contributions, leadership, environments, student guidance, funding, research,
and development. The roles of student trust, student identity, student commitment, and
student behavioral intention are regarded as a result of university reputation. Student


11

trust, student identity, and student commitment are considered to mediate the impact of
the reputation on students' behavioral intention. Summarily, there are eleven objects in
this research.
1.4.2. Research scope
1.4.2.1. Content scope

The research concepts are comprehensive, involving many different fields and
stakeholders. This study limits research on the reputation and its related factors to the
perceptions of university graduates in Vietnam. The components considered in the
model include social contributions, leadership, environments, student guidance,
funding, research and development, student trust, student identity, student commitment,
and university reputation, and behavioral intention.
1.4.2.2. Location scope
The research was conducted in the education sector of Vietnam. A survey of
university graduates was conducted to test the research issues in many representative
provinces and cities in the South of Vietnam. These are the nnational universities,
national key universities, private universities, emerging universities that may partially
represent higher education in Vietnam.
1.4.2.3. Time scope
The research was carried from 2015–2020, the period during which the
international economic integration roadmap requires Vietnam to increase the level of
competition in higher education.

1.5. Research aim
This research’s purpose determines the factors affecting university reputation and
the roles of student trust, student identity, and student commitment in the relationship