See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation233662607 [626391]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/233662607
An Integrative Approach to University Visual Identity and Reputation
Article    in  Corpor ate Reput ation R eview · Dec ember 2006
DOI: 10.1057/p algr ave.crr.1550033
CITATIONS
85READS
1,264
3 author s, including:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
Social Media and Social Chang e View pr oject
Organiz ation-Public R elationships and R eput ation View pr oject
Sung-Un Y ang
Indiana Univ ersity Bloomingt on
34 PUBLICA TIONS    1,453 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
Dennis F . Kinse y
Syracuse Univ ersity
8 PUBLICA TIONS    309 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y Sung-Un Y ang on 03 April 2017.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 258–270© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 1363-3589 $30.00Corporate Reputation Review V olume 9 Number 4
258 www.palgrave-journals.com/crr ABSTRACT
This study focuses on the concepts of univer-
sity identity and university reputation as they relate to a large private university in the Northeast United States. In the first part of the study, the concept of university identity was investigated. We used methodology to find the most distinctive visual identities of the university among students. In the follow-up study, the authors explored the concept of uni-versity reputation, using survey methodology. The implications of the study on the practice of branding – specifically, branding a univer-
sity – are discussed.
Corporate Reputation Review (2006) 9, 258 – 270
doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550033

KEYWORDS: university visual identity ;
university image ; university reputation ;
organizational identity ; corporate identity
INTRODUCTION
In 1970, the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education developed a classifi cation
system for all US-based colleges and univer-sities in an attempt to name and classify all the various forms of higher education avail-
able. While the Carnegie Commission developed its system simply to further its own research and policy analysis, it in ad-ventently pitted schools against each other by grouping schools according to academic offerings. As a result, colleges and universities began to look at ‘ peer institutions ’ , and
schools around the country became increas-ingly aware of the need to differentiate themselves from the competitive pack in order to attract students – and donors
( Melewar and Akel, 2005 ). As a result of this
marketing mindset, the educational market has begun to behave like other commercial markets:
What used to be the knowledge business
has become selling an experience, an affi l-
iation, a commodity that can be manufac-tured, packaged, bought, and sold. Don ’ t
misunderstand, the intellectual work of universities is still going strong; in fact, it has never been stronger. Great creative acts still occur. Discoveries are being made. But the experience of higher education – the
accessories, the amenities, the aura – has An Integrative Approach to University Visual
Identity and Reputation
Sue Westcott Alessandri
Department of Public Relations & Advertising, S.I. Newhouse School of
Public Communications , Syracuse University, Syracuse , NY , USA
Sung-Un Yang
Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse School of Public
Communications , Syracuse University, Syracuse , NY , USA
Dennis F Kinsey
Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse School of Public
Communications , Syracuse University, Syracuse , NY , USA

Alessandri, Y ang and Kinsey
© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 Corporate Reputation Review 259
been commercialized, outsourced, fran-
chised, branded ( T witchell, 2004: 116 ).
The behavior T witchell discusses helps to
explain the tremendous expenditures made by universities in the recent past. Some top-tier universities, mostly those in the Ivy League, have begun to offer close to 100 per cent fi nancial aid for students from low-in-
come families ( Jaschik, 2006 ). Other expen-
ditures, however, have little to do with education. For example, the University of Houston built a $ 53m wellness center com-
plete with a climbing wall, and Washington State University boasts a 53-person Jacuzzi and the University of Southern Mississippi is planning a water park ( T witchell, 2004;
Winter, 2003 ).
Ultimately, all these efforts are intended
to fortify the school ’ s reputation as a place
where students can go not only to learn, but also to live well. Within the increased com-petition in collegiate education, the criteria on which schools are judged are changing. But while what goes into judging a school ’ s
reputation might continue to evolve, the building blocks to a school ’ s reputation –
namely its visual identity – remain constant.
Just as a corporation has an identity, so
does a college or university. Conceptually, a university ’ s identity is its strategically planned
and purposeful presentation of itself in order to gain a positive image in the minds of the public. The image, the public ’ s perception of
the university, is a direct result of the asso-ciations people have with the university ’ s
identity. Operationally, a university ’ s identity
is its visual presentation of itself, including – but not limited to – its name, logo, tagline,
color palette and architecture. It also includes the university ’ s public behavior ( Alessandri,
2001 ).
This study focuses on the visual identity
and reputation of Syracuse University, a large northeastern United States university. The identity – through visual images – that
students fi nd most appealing is explored, and the reputation of the university among the
same group of students is also explored sub-sequently.
In the following section, the authors
present the relevant literature on visual identity and reputation in the university setting. Also, they explain how these two concepts can be integrated in terms of the distinctiveness dimension of reputation. In the following section on research methods, the authors elaborate on how different methods (ie, Q methodology and survey research) were triangulated for the proposed research question. After reporting the results, they focus on the summary of key fi ndings
with limitations and implications of the
study.

University Identity
While academic literature on corporate
identity is plentiful, the literature on univer-sity identity is in short supply. There are a limited number of academic articles focused on university image (Arpan et al ., 2003 ;
Kazoleas et al ., 2001 ), and two case studies
focused on university visual identity (UVI) changes ( Baker and Balmer, 1997 ; Melewar
and Akel, 2005 ). In their case study of
Strathclyde University, Baker and Balmer
(1997) highlight both the importance of
visual identity in the context of strategy formulation and the inherent diffi culty of
establishing that a problem exists with a visual identity. In the case of Strathclyde, the university ’ s identity problem involved
a unit of the university that received tremen-dous attention in the media, but was never identifi ed as being affi liated with the
university. This was an identity problem as well as a strategy problem, since the university was not receiving the proper ‘ credit ’ for developing the expertise covered
by the media.
A majority of the literature, appears in
the popular press or trade publications focused on an academic audience. In addition, the body of academic literature on

University Visual Identity and Reputation
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 260
university branding is less theoretical and
empirical than anecdotal: it includes articles on best practices in branding of Asian universities (Gray et al ., 2003) and various
accounts of the tactics associated with universities ’ branding programs and activities.
Specifi cally, many of the stories focus on the
contentious debate over the use of Native American names and mascots, simple col-legiate name, logo or tagline changes ( Yang,
2004 ) or the ‘ naming rights ’ and activities
associated with college buildings, endowed chairs and athletic stadiums ( Rivkin and
Associates, 2004 ).
The larger body of literature that is rel-
evant to this study, however, is the work on corporate identity, since, like fi rms, universi-
ties are organizations with a range of publics. Universities are somewhat different than other organizations, however, in that many have two distinct identities: one that repre-sents the academic side of the institution and one that represents the athletic program. While few studies focused on university identity were found, a study by Treadwell
and Harrison (1994) focuses on the image
of a university among its faculty, staff and students. The authors recognize that the university ’ s image is likely to differ among
groups, since ‘ images are thought to be
related to members ’ and non-members ’
affective and behavioral responses to the organization ’ (p. 64). Melewar and Akel
(2005) also recognize the need for different
visual images for different university audi-ences. In studying the visual identity change implemented by the UK ’ s Warwick Univer-
sity, they write that the university crest, formerly part of the identity, was left out during the logo redesign, except ‘ where
the Britishness of the university is seen as a differential advantage ’ (p. 46).
Likewise, Bromley (2000) also contends
that an organization ’ s control of its identity
is due in some part to its recognition that it has multiple identities. He contends that or-ganizations – like people – have a number of different identities, which are contingent
on context, audience and how these organ-izations or people see themselves in relation to others. T oo often, however, as Melewar
and Saunders (1999) found, corporations
specifi cally, choose to standardize their visu-
al identities rather than localize them for international markets. While a standard visual identity is more cost effi cient and
involves fewer resources, a visual identity developed for specifi c markets can garner
goodwill by incorporating local knowledge and customs.
Similarly, Leitch and Motion (1999) in-
troduce the idea of multiplicity in corporate identity strategy, which refers to the idea that organizations develop differing images de-pending on the audience interpreting the corporate identity. Since most research stress-es the importance of presenting a consistent corporate identity in order to maintain a positive corporate image, Leitch and Motion
(1999) imagine corporate identity scholars
viewing the theory of multiplicity ‘ as the
enemy to be overcome. ’
Instead of an enemy, however, this study
posits that a multiplicity of identities is like-ly to occur at universities, since universities recognize diverse publics and the need to have a number of identities that appeal to these different audiences. Universities also recognize the need to nurture multiple iden-tities as a way of cultivating a positive repu-tation. Specifi cally, this study explores the
link between a university ’ s visual identity and
its reputation among the students of a large, private university in the northeastern part of the United States.
University Reputation
Organizational reputation is typically studied
within a business context – with the excep-
tion of Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) and
Theus (1993) – but the literature on corpo-
rate reputation can be useful in conceptual-izing university reputation, despite the contextual differences.

Alessandri, Y ang and Kinsey
© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 Corporate Reputation Review 261
Depending on the perspective, the con-
cept of organizational reputation has been defi ned, in general, as (a) assessments that
multiple stakeholders make about the company ’ s ability to fulfi ll its expectations
( Fombrun and Van Riel, 2003 ), (b) a collec-
tive system of subjective beliefs among members of a social group ( Bromley, 1993,
2000, 2002 ), (c) collective beliefs that exist
in the organizational fi eld about a fi rm ’ s
identity and prominence ( Rao, 1994 ; Rindo-
va and Kotha, 2001 ), (d) media visibility and
favorability gained by a fi rm ( Deephouse,
2000 ) and (e) collective representations
shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time ( Grunig and Hung,
2002 ; Yang and Grunig, 2005 ). The intersec-
tion between such defi nitions is that the
reputation of an organization refers to percep-
tions of the organization shared by its multiple constituents over time .
On the basis of such an intersection of
defi nitions of organizational and corporate
reputation, a university ’ s reputation can be
defi ned as collective representations that the
university ’ s multiple constituents – various
internal and external constituents, including the media – hold of the university over time.
Applying general principles of reputation formation ( Bromley, 1993, 2000 ; Caruana,
1997 ; Gotsi and Wilson, 2001 ; Fombrun
and Shanley, 1990 ; Grunig and Hung, 2002 ),
the researchers propose that a university ’ s
reputation can be formed on the basis of (a) direct or indirect / mediated experiences
and (b) information received through a
variety of channels of communication and symbols. Since information is acquired from university symbols (eg, logos, architecture and other visual attributes), in particular, a university ’ s reputation can be
signifi cantly related to the visual identity of
the university.
Visual Identity and University Reputation
Visual identity – a critical dimension of
organizational identity – and university reputation are strongly intertwined, as both
concepts deal with perceptions of the univer-
sity shared by internal and external constitu-
ents of the university.
According to previous academic literature,
the identity of an organization has an inseparable link with the organization ’ s
reputation ( Alessandri, 2001 ; Balmer and
Gray, 1999 ; Fombrun and Rindova, 2000 ;
Markwick and Fill, 1997 ; Van den Bosch
et al ., 2005 ). Alessandri (2001) , for example,
proposed the following conceptual model: (a) interaction with an organization-al identity can produce an organizational
image , and (b) repeated impressions of an
organizational image can form a reputation
of the organization over time. Along the same line, Balmer and Gray (1999) suggest-
ed corporate communication as a three-part process and maintained that the role of primary communication is to present a positive image of a fi rm for a strong
reputation.
More specifi cally, the visual identity
of an organization comprises all the symbols and graphical elements that express the essence of an organization ( Van den
Bosch et al. , 2005 ). Based on the fi ve dimen-
sions of corporate reputation (ie, visibility, distinctiveness, authenticity, transparency and consistency) proposed by Fombrun and
Van Riel (2003) , Van den Bosch et al . (2005)
proposed a close link between corporate visual identity and corporate reputation. They suggested that corporate visual iden-tity can support a corporate reputation by means of the quality of design, the range of its application and the condition of the carriers.
Among Fombrun and Van Riel’s
(2003) fi ve dimensions of corporate
reputation, it is the dimension of
distinctiveness that the researchers in this
present study are focusing on so as to delimit the scope of the study in exploring a link between UVI and reputation.

University Visual Identity and Reputation
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 262
First, distinctiveness refers to the unique
position of the organization in the minds of its strategic constituents ( Fombrun and Van
Riel, 2003 ). They noted that distinctiveness
can yield ‘ top-of-mind ’ awareness of an or-
ganization ’ s products and / or services in
stakeholders ’ minds, which in turn often
leads to a favorable reputation of the or-ganization.
Second, Van den Bosch et al . (2005)
claimed that the distinctive visual identity of an organization can be strongly related to such distinctiveness of the organization in the minds of its stakeholders. For example, the more distinctive the Nike or Apple Computer logos are to their stakeholders, the more distinctively positioned are the companies and their products / services
in the minds of stakeholders, which can contribute to favorable reputations of the companies.
Research Question
Based on previous literature, the researchers
propose a close conceptual link between UVI and university reputation. See Figure 1. And the researchers suggest the following research question for this current study:
RQ: What is the extent of the relationship
between a university ’ s visual identity
and the reputation of the university as perceived by its students?
METHODOLOGY
This study explores the link between UVI
and reputation. For this purpose, the re-searchers selected Syracuse University, a pri-vate university, located in the Northeast re-gion of the United States, as the research context and students of the university as the research participants.
In the initial portion of the current study,
the researchers investigated UVI using Q methodology to explore how the research
participants ( N = 48) perceived the distinc-
tiveness of the visual attributes that ranged from simple academic and athletic logos to university and community art and archi-tecture.
Q Methodology
Q technique and its methodology ( Stephen-
son, 1953 ) was the most suitable research
approach for this study. Q methodology is focused on studying subjectivity. Fundamen-tally, Q methodology involves a rank-ordering procedure in which participants rank order stimulus items (Q sample) to some condition of instruction, for example, from ‘ most representative ’ to ‘ most unrepre-
sentative ’ . Once participants have sorted
the Q sample, the resulting ‘ Q sorts ’ are
correlated and factor analyzed. People who have sorted the items in a similar manner will cluster together on a factor. A factor represents an attitude or point of view of those associated with the factor. For a detailed description of Q methodology, see Brown (1980, 1986) and McKeown and
Thomas (1988) .
Q Sample
A 38-item Q sample was drawn from
archival and new graphic elements and photographs from around the university and community. A structured, balanced Q sample of images representing six areas – Academics,
Athletics, Social Life, Art & Architecture,
People, and Symbols & Logos – was select-
ed and administered to 48 participants ( Table 1 ).
Participants
Eighty-one per cent of the research partici-
pants were female students ( n = 39) and 19
per cent were male students ( n = 9). These
students were students specializing in public relations or advertising, with the following varying years in school: 20.8 per cent of the

Alessandri, Y ang and Kinsey
© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 Corporate Reputation Review 263
participants were sophomores ( n = 10), 41.7
per cent were juniors ( n = 20), 22.9 per cent
were seniors ( n = 11) and 14.6 per cent were
graduate students pursuing a professional master ’ s degree ( n = 7). Condition of Instructions
Participants sorted the images to the
following condition of instruction: ‘ Which
images are most representative to most unrepresentative of your view of [this] Table 1 : Visual Images Used in Q Methodology
Art & Architecture
(academic) 1 People
(academic) 4 Symbols & Logos
(academic) 7
Art & Architecture
(athletics) 2 People
(athletics) 5 Symbols & Logos
(athletics) 8
Art & Architecture
(social life) 3 People
(social life) 6 Symbols & Logos
(social life) 9
Note : There are four images in each of nine quadrants and two images in the category of miscellaneous inputs. In
total, 38 images were sorted by the participants. The following is a sample of visual images used in the Q study.
Quadrant 1:
Quadrant 5:
Quadrant 4:
Quadrant 8:

University Visual Identity and Reputation
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 264
university? ’ Subjects were asked to sort the
statements in the following distribution:
Q sort distribution for university visual
identity study
Most unrepresentative Most representative
Value − 4 − 3 − 2 − 1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Frequency 2 3 5 6 6 6 5 3 2
All Q sorts were administered in person. The
48 Q sorts were correlated and factor ana-lyzed. Centroid extraction with varimax rotation was performed through the PCQ3 software program ( Stricklin, 1987 – 1996 ).
Survey of University Reputation
In the subsequent part of the study, after the
Q study was administered, the researchers asked the same research participants to an-swer a survey pertaining to university repu-tation. T o develop the survey, the researchers modifi ed an existing reputation scale con-
structed by Fombrun and Gardberg (2000)
for the Reputation Quotient.
A measurement model with three
dimensions
By adjusting Fombrun and Gardberg ’ s
scale for the university reputation context, the researchers conceptualized the following three dimensions of university reputation, with 11 items in total: (a) quality of academ-ic performance, (b) quality of external per-formance and (c) emotional engagement.
As the item of quality of athletic perform-
ance yielded a factor loading less than 0.3, the item was excluded. Figure 2 indicates
that the proposed three-factor model, with 10 observed indicators, resulted in a sound measurement model: for example, a parsimo-nious fi t index of chi-square / df is less than
3 (discrepancy = 1.93) and an incremental fi t
index of Comparative Fit Index (CFA) is greater than 0.95 (CFA = 0.98). Constructing composite variables
As multiple items were used to measure each
dimension of university reputation, the re-searchers had to construct composite varia-bles. T o do so, weights were given based on the factor loadings between the measured items and associated constructs in the CFA model (see Figure 2 ) . For example, the
composite variable of ‘ Quality of Academic
Performance ’ was constructed as the sum of
0.81 × education quality , 0.73 × student quality ,
0.67 × faculty quality , 0.43 × university vision and
0.55 × academic leadership .
Construct validity and reliability
According to Cohen’s (1988) guideline, con-
struct validity is moderate in terms of the amount of extracted variance in each dimen-sion of university reputation, which ranged from 0.31 to 0.43. (see Table 2 ). The dimen-
sions of ‘ Quality of Academic Performance ’
and ‘ Quality of External Performance ’ yield-
ed moderate reliability of 0.78 and 0.67, respectively, in terms of Alpha; however, the dimension of ‘ Emotional Engagement ’
yielded weak reliability of 0.44 in terms of
Distinctive
University Visual
IdentityFavorable
University
Reputation+Academic
Performance
External
Performance
Emotional
Engagement
Figure 1 : Conceptual model: The link between
UVI and university reputation. Note . Indicators
for university reputation dimensions were omitted for the sake of brevity. First, indica-tors for academic performance include edu-cation quality, student quality, faculty quality, university vision and university leadership. Second, indicators for external performance include perceptions of overall media reputa-tion and visibility and community responsibil-ity. Finally, indicators for emotional engage-ment include feeling and emotional tie to university.

Alessandri, Y ang and Kinsey
© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 Corporate Reputation Review 265
Alpha. Therefore, in both construct validity
and reliability, the third dimension of ‘ Emo-
tional Engagement ’ requires caution in data
analysis.
RESULTS
The purpose of this current study was
to explore the link between UVI (UVI) and reputation. And the delimited focus was the relationship between the extent of distinctiveness of UVI and the degree of
favorability of university reputation.
Q Results: Grouping of the Research
Participants
The initial part of this study, Q methodology,
identifi ed two factors of UVI, suggesting that
there are two groups of the research partici-pants who had variant perceptions in sorting visual attributes of the university. T wo factors accounting for 47 per cent of the variance emerged from the analysis of the 48 Q sorts. Nineteen participants were signifi cantly
loaded on Factor A; 18 on Factor B; four were confounded (loaded on both factors) and seven did not load ( Table 3 ).
These two factors represent a ‘ social ’
versus ‘ academic ’ view of the university. For
example, Factor A participants found ‘ repre-
sentative ’ those images that refl ected a more
social orientation. A signifi cant part of Factor
A ’ s visual image of the university focused on
places where people get together to socialize, eat or drinking, etc, as the scores for images 11, 22, 27 and 34 indicate (scores in paren-theses for Factor A and B, respectively):
Image 11 ( + 4, + 2) Crowd shot at a sporting
event
Image 22 ( + 3, − 3) Scene inside a bar,
students talking and drinking
Image 27 ( + 2, + 1) The student center
Image 34 ( + 2, − 3) A sign outside a local bar
Factor B expressed a more academic perspec-
tive on the university. For example, Factor B participants scored the classic university seal, written in Latin, quite high (image 2) and they focused more on the academic buildings representing major schools at the university (image 24 and 25). Scores in pa-rentheses for Factor A and B, respectively:
Image 2 (0, + 3) University seal, written in
Latin
Image 24 ( + 3, + 3) Image of building
housing the English Department ACA.65
EDU e1
.54
STU e2.73
.45
FAC e3.67
.18
VISION e4.43
EXT.50
MREP e6
.23
MVIS e7.70
.48.30
LEAD e5
.02
.53
CR e8.72
ENG.36
FEEL e9
.25
ETIE e10.60
.50.35
.15.81
.55
Figure 2 : Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
of reputation scale with standardized factor loadings. N = 48, df = 32, Chi-square = 61.766,
p = 0.002, CFI = 0.982. Note . A C A = Academic
performance; EXT = External performance;
ENG = Emotional engagement. EDU = Edu-
cation quality; STU = Student quality; FAC =
Faculty quality; VISION = Vision of academic
leadership; LEAD = Leadership of university
management; MREP = Media reputation;
MVIS = Media visibility; CR = Community re-
sponsibility; FEEL = Feeling; ETIE = Emotional tie.

University Visual Identity and Reputation
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 266
Image 25 (0, + 2) Image of building housing the
Music Department
Additionally, Factor B participants tended
to reject, or fi nd unrepresentative, those
images representing a more social aspect of the university. For example, images of the student gym, a fraternity house and a bar, were scored as unrepresentative of this Factor ’ s view of the university, as
scores for images 18, 38 and 34 indicated (scores in parentheses for Factor A and B, respectively):
Image 18 (0, − 2) Student gym
Image 38 (0, − 4) Fraternity house
Image 34 ( + 2, − 3) A sign outside a local
bar The results of the Q-method analysis sug-
gested the following three groups of research participants:
(a) the research participants who belonged to
a factor strongly related to social aspects of
visual attributes
(b) the research participants who belonged to
another factor strongly related to academic
aspects of visual attributes and
(c) In addition, the 14.6 per cent of the
research participants ( n = 7) who did not
belong to either of the two factors can be examined as another group.
Therefore, the researchers segmented three
groups of the research participants on the basis of the variant manner regarding how Table 2 : Means, Standard Deviations, Construct Validity and Reliability of University
Reputation Scale
V ariables M SD Construct
validity a Reliability b
Quality of academic performance 3.99 0.59 0.43 0.78
The university offers high quality education.
The university attracts highly motivated,
intelligent students.
The university has high quality faculty.
The university looks like a university with
strong prospects for future growth.
The university has excellent leadership.

Quality of external performance 2.78 0.61 0.41 0.67
The media reports of the university are in
general positive.
The university is visible in the mass media.
The university is a responsible member of
the community.

Emotional engagement 4.37 0.68 0.31 0.44
I have a good feeling about the university.
There is strong emotional tie between me
and the university.
a The average amount of extracted variance (ie, the average squared standardized loadings for each of the latent
variables).
b Cronbach’s Alpha.

Alessandri, Y ang and Kinsey
© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 Corporate Reputation Review 267
those participants perceived the distinctive-
ness of university visual attributes, for sub-sequent analysis.
The Results of the Relationship between
UVI and Reputation
Overall, the results of one-way analyses of
variance indicated that there was a strong relationship between UVI and reputation. Except on the dimension of ‘ Quality of
Academic Performance, ’ there were signifi –
cant differences in the perception of university reputation across the three groups of the research participants ( Table 4 ).
First, despite insignifi cant group difference
( F = 2.34, df = 2, Partial eta-squared = 0.094
and p = 0.108), the participants in Group B
(ie, those who perceived the distinctiveness of visual attributes on the basis of academic
aspects) reported the most favorable evalua-tion of the dimension of ‘ Quality of
Academic Performance ’ across the three
groups of participants (M = 13.41, SD = 1.66).
At the same time, the participants in Group C (ie, lacking distinctiveness in their percep-tion of the visual identity) reported the least favorable evaluation of this dimension (M = 11.73, SD = 2.74).
Second, in perceiving the quality of ex-
ternal performance of the university, there existed signifi cant group differences ( F = 4.77,
df = 2, Partial eta-squared = 0.175 and p = 0.013).
The participants in Group A (those who perceived the distinctiveness of visual at-tributes on the basis of social aspects) evalu-
ated this dimension of university reputation most favorably (M = 7.90, SD = 1.14), where-
as the participants in Group C evaluated this dimension most unfavorably (M = 6.59,
SD = 1.36).
Finally, regarding the dimension of emo-
tional engagement between university and students, once again, those in Group A eva-luated this dimension most favorably (M = 5.02, SD = 0.60). There also existed
signifi cant group difference in evaluating
this dimension across the three groups Table 3 : Factor Matrix of Q Analysis
Participant ID Factors
Factor A Factor B
1 0.69* 0.15
2 0.74* 0.39
3 0.24 0.74*
4 0.22 0.77*
5 0.24 0.65*
6 0.73* 0.15
7 0.69* 0.23
8 0.38 0.72*
9 0.82* 0.20
10 0.41 0.54*
11 0.52* 0.68*
12 0.19 0.77*
13 0.69* 0.11
14 0.73* 0.28
15 0.34 0.38
16 0.63* 0.19
17 0.57* 0.47*
18 0.71* 0.16
19 0.01 0.66*
20 0.32 0.09
21 0.65* 0.20
22 0.52* 0.61*
23 0.60* 0.16
24 0.51* 0.40
25 0.59* 0.37
26 0.37 0.37
27 0.67* 0.30
28 0.65* − 0.01
29 0.24 − 0.13
30 0.40 0.49*
31 0.33 0.69*
32 0.32 0.54*
33 0.36 0.29
34 0.45* 0.40
35 0.35 0.34
36 0.45* 0.22
37 0.26 0.63*
38 0.57* 0.24
39 0.33 0.61*
40 0.44* 0.59*
41 0.50* 0.36
42 0.17 0.81*
43 0.11 0.79*
44 0.24 0.71*
45 − 0.08 0.36
46 0.30 0.46*
47 0.23 0.84*
48 0.18 0.69*
Note . * p < 0.01. T wo factors accounting for 47 per
cent of the variance emerged from the analysis of the 48 Q sorts.

University Visual Identity and Reputation
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 268
( F = 3.26, df = 2, Partial eta-squared = 0.127
and p = 0.048).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this current study was to
explore the link between UVI and reputa-tion, with the delimitation on the relation-ship between the extent of distinctiveness of
UVI and the degree of favorability of uni-versity reputation.
T o conduct this present study, two differ-
ent methods were used. Q methodology was used to segment the research participants on the basis of their perceptions of the distinc-tiveness of UVI, followed by a survey of university reputation.
Q method yielded three groups of re-
search participants who had variant patterns in recognizing the distinctiveness of univer-sity visual attributes in the Q sample of 38 visual images. The fi rst group ’ s visual iden-
tity centered more on social aspects of the
university than the other two groups; the second group ’ s visual identity centered more
on academic aspects of the university than the
other two groups; and there were research participants who lacked distinctiveness in perceiving university visual attributes.
The university reputation measure turned
out to have three dimensions: quality of academic performance, quality of external performance and emotional engagement.
Then, the researchers explored whether
there were any signifi cant differences of uni-
versity reputation in those three dimensions by the three groups of the participants who had variant perceptions of UVI.
Overall, the results supported the litera-
ture of visual identity and reputation; there existed a close empirical link between UVI and university reputation in this study. The participants with a strong sense of academic aspects of UVI tended to most positively evaluate the dimension of quality of aca-demic performance. At the same time, it was the participants who most positively evalu-ated the dimension of emotional engage-ment who focused on the social aspect of UVI.
Also, it is interesting to note that those
participants who perceived no distinct visual identity generally reported a less favorable university reputation than those who per-ceived a distinct visual identity. This suggests a close link between UVI and reputation.
Academic and Managerial Implications
This study makes several contributions, both
to academia and to industry. The authors have fi lled a gap in the body of academic Table 4 : One-way Analyses of Variance for University Reputation Dimensions by Three
Groups with Variant Perceptions of University Visual Identity
Dimensions of university
reputation University Visual Identity (UVI)
Group A
(Social) Group B
(Academic) Group C
(None)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F df Partial
Eta-Squared Signifi cance
Quality of academic
performance 12.66 (1.64) 13.41 (1.66) 11.73 (2.84) 2.34 2 0.094 P = 0.108
Quality of external
performance 7.90 (1.14) 7.08 (0.97) 6.59 (1.36) 4.77 2 0.175 P = 0.013
Emotional engagement 5.02 (0.60) 4.47 (0.82) 4.53(0.67) 3.26 2 0.127 P = 0.048

Alessandri, Y ang and Kinsey
© 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 Corporate Reputation Review 269
literature by providing empirical evidence
associated with UVI. There are far too few empirical studies related to corporate iden-tity generally, and just a handful focused on the more specifi c topic of UVI. With the
increasingly competitive higher education landscape, there is likely to be increased in-terest in UVI in the future. This study pro-vides a good foundation on which other researchers can build.
In terms of contributions to industry, this
study provides evidence of an important phenomenon: the idea of multiplicity of images on the university level. Rather than using one specifi c visual to brand the uni-
versity, this study provides evidence of the effi cacy of using varying images depending
on the audience being addressed. On a practical level, this is positive news for colleges and universities embarking on visual identity campaigns or new branding initiatives. Rather than constrain the cam-paign with a specifi c graphical elements
meant to speak to a large general audience, colleges and universities can employ a vari-ety of graphical elements that truly speak to smaller, segmented audiences. This provides fl exibility in campaign development, but
also a more targeted approach to individual audiences.
Limitations and Future Research
In summary, the results of such analyses
suggest the following: (a) a stronger visual identity (ie, more distinctive perceptions of university visual attributes) resulted in a more favorable reputation of the university and (b) salient components of the visual identity (ie, the distinctiveness of certain visual attributes in the minds of the research participants) was strongly associated with similar aspects of the university ’ s reputa-
tion — a priming effect of visual identity in
the participants ’ cognitive representations, or
reputation. Future research can take a step further to examine this priming effect of visual identity on reputation in a much more controlled setting of research – for example,
experimental research – than this current
study.
In the measurement model of university
reputation, the dimension of emotional en-gagement yielded weak construct validity and reliability. The researchers consider that future research can improve a measurement model of university reputation by the inclu-sion of measurement items that are particu-larly relevant in the university setting. For example, the researchers propose that ath-
letic appeal (eg, athletic performance, manage-
ment of athletic programs and affections toward coaches and athletes) may be one of the key dimensions associated with student –
university emotional engagement.
Another limitation of this study is its small
sample size. The researchers believe the sam-ple size of 48 participants was adequate for the Q methodology, since generalization – or
ensuring external validity – is not the key
goal of Q methodology. Since this current study ’ s purpose was to link the results of Q
methodology and a survey, the same sample had to be used for both portions of the study.

REFERENCES
Alessandri , S . W . ( 2001 ) ‘ Modeling corporate identity:
A concept explication and theoretical explanation ’ ,
Corporate Communication: An International Journal ,
6 (4) , 173 – 182 .
Baker , M . J . and Balmer , J . M . T . ( 1997 ) ‘ Visual identity:
Trappings or substance ’ , European Journal of Market-
ing , 31 (5/6) , 366 – 382 .
Balmer , J . M . and Gray , E . R . ( 1999 ) ‘ Corporate
identity and corporate communications: Creating a competitive advantage ’ , Corporate Communications:
An International Journal , 4 (4) , 171 – 176 .
Bromley , D . B . ( 1993 ) Reputation, Image, and Impression
Management , John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK .
Bromley , D . B . ( 2000 ) ‘ Psychological aspects of
corporate identity, image, and reputation ’ , Corporate
Reputation Review , 3 (3) , 240 – 252 .
Bromley , D . B . ( 2002 ) ‘ Comparing corporate reputa-
tions: League tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? ’ Corporate Reputation Review , 5 (1) ,
35 – 50 .

University Visual Identity and Reputation
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 9, 4, 258–270 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 270
Brown , S . R . ( 1980 ) Political subjectivity: Applications of
Q Methodology in Political Science , Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT .
Brown , S . R . ( 1986 ) ‘ Q technique and method: Prin-
ciples and procedures ’ , In: W .D. Berry and M.S.
Lewis-Beck (eds.), New Tools for Social Scientists:
Advances and Applications in Research Methods , Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA , pp. 57 – 76 .
Caruana , A . ( 1997 ) ‘ Corporate reputation: Concept
and measurement ’ , Journal of Product & Brand
Management , 6 (2) , 109 – 118 .
Cohen , J . ( 1988 ) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behav-
ioral Science , 2nd edn., Academic Press, New Y ork .
Deephouse , D . L . ( 2000 ) ‘ Media reputation as a strate-
gic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories ’ , Journal of Management ,
26 , 1091 – 1112 .
Fombrun , C . J . and Gardberg , N . A ( 2000 ) ‘ Who’s tops
in corporate reputation? ’ Corporate Reputation
Review , 3 (1) , 13 – 17 .
Fombrun , C . J . and Rindova , V . ( 2000 ) ‘ The road to
transparency: Reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell , in M. Schultz, M.J. Hatch and M.H.
Larsen (eds.), The Expressive Organization: Linking
Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand, , Oxford
University Press, Oxford , pp. 77 – 96 .
Fombrun , C . and Shanley , M . ( 1990 ) ‘ What’s in a name?
Reputation building and corporate strategy ’ , Acad-
emy of Management Journal , 33 (2) , 233 – 258 .
Fombrun , C . J . and Van Riel , C . B . M . ( 2003 )
Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build
Winning Reputations , Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ .
Gotsi , M . and Wilson , A . M . ( 2001 ) ‘ Corporate reputa-
tion: Seeking a defi nition ’ , Corporate Communications:
An International Journal , 6 (1) , 24 – 30 .
Grunig , J . E . and Hung , C . F . ( 2002 ) ‘ The effect of re-
lationships on reputation and reputation on relation-ships: A cognitive, behavioral study ’ , Paper presented
at the PRSA Educator’s Academy 5th Annual Inter-national, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida, March .
Jaschik , S . ( 2006 ) (March 24) , ‘ Upping the ante ’ , In-
sidehighered.com. Available online at: 2006/03/24/
aid (Accessed 25th March, 2006) .
Leitch , S . and Motion , J . ( 1999 ) ‘ Multiplicity in cor-
porate identity strategy ’ , Corporate Communications:
An International Journal , 4 (4) , 193 – 199 .
Markwick , N . and Fill , C . ( 1997 ) ‘ T owards a framework
for managing corporate identity ’ , European Journal of
Marketing , 31 (5/6) , 396 – 409 .
McKeown , B . and Thomas , D . ( 1988 ) Q Methodology ,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA .
Melewar , T . C . and Akel , S . ( 2005 ) ‘ The role of corpo-
rate identity in the higher education sector: A case study ’ , Corporate Communications: An International
Journal , 10 (1) , 41 – 57 .
Melewar , T . C . and Saunders , J . ( 1999 ) ‘ International
corporate visual identity: Standardization or localiza-tion ’ , Journal of International Business Studies , 30 (3) ,
583 – 598 .
Nguyen , N . and LeBlanc , G . ( 2001 ) ‘ Image and
reputation of higher education institutions in students ’ retention decisions ’ , The International
Journal of Educational Management , 15 (6) ,
303 – 311 .
Rao , H . ( 1994 ) ‘ The social construction of reputation:
Certifi cation contests, legitimation, and the survival
of organizations in the American automobile indus-try: 1985 – 1912 ’ , Strategic Management Journal , 15 ,
29 – 44 .
Rindova , V . P . and Kotha , S . ( 2001 ) Accumulating
reputation through strategic action fl ows: Lessons from Amazon.com and its competitors in Internet retailing ,
Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland,
College Park .
Rivkin and Associates ( 2004 ) ‘ No one wants to sit in
Ken Lay’s chair , The Naming Newsletter. .
Stephenson , W . ( 1953 ) The Study of Behavior: Q-tech-
nique and its Methodology , University of Chicago
Press, Chicago .
Stricklin , M . ( 1987 – 1996 ) PCQ: Factor Analysis Pro-
grams for Q-technique [computer program] , Michael
Stricklin, Lincoln, NE .
Theus , K . T . ( 1993 ) ‘ Academic reputations: The process
of formation and decay ’ , Public Relations Review ,
19 (3) , 277 – 291 .
Treadwell , D . F . and Harrison , T . M . ( 1994 ) Conceptual-
izing and assessing organizational image: Model images, commitment, and communication , Communication
Monographs, v. (March) .
T witchell , J . B . ( 2004 ) Branded Nation: The Marketing of
Megachurch, College, Inc., and Museumworld , Simon &
Schuster, New Y ork .
Van den Bosch , A . L . M . , De Jong , M . D . T . and Elving ,
W . J . L . ( 2005 ) ‘ How corporate visual identity sup-
ports reputation ’ , Corporate Communications: An In-
ternational Journal , 10 (2) , 108 – 116 .
Winter , G . ( 2003 ) ‘ Jacuzzi U? A battle of perks to lure
students ’ , New York Times , 1 (October 5) .
Yang , E . ( 2004 ) ‘ Shining a light on USD;
Campaign seeks to raise profi le and promote
university’s values ’ , San Diego Union Tribune ,
September 21 .
Yang , S . U . and Grunig , J . E . ( 2005 ) ‘ The effects of
organization-public relationships outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and overall evaluations of organizational performance ’ ,
Journal of Communication Management , 9 (4) ,
305 – 326 .

View publication statsView publication stats