Content uploaded by Ahmad Juhaidi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ahmad Juhaidi on Dec 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Regular Article
Examining factors inuencing enrolment intention in Islamic higher
education in Indonesia, does Islamic senior high school matter?
Ahmad Juhaidi
*
, Analisa Fitria, Noor Hidayati , Rinda Azmi Saputri
Antasari State Islamic University Banjarmasin, Indonesia
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Brand awareness
Brand trust
Enrolment intention
Family socio-economic background
Promotion
ABSTRACT
In order to attract potential students, both mainstream non-religious/general higher education (GHE) and Islamic
higher education (IHE) institutions have employed efcient promotional techniques due to their competitive
nature. This study examines the effects of gender, family socioeconomic background, type of school, university
promotion, brand awareness (BA), and brand trust (BT) on enrolment intention (EI). This study is a quantitative
survey design to examine correlational causality between variables. We employed Partial Least Squares-
Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) for data analysis. We selected 502 students for this study using con-
venience techniques and snowball sampling. This study nds that while promotional efforts have a limited
impact on enrolment intention, brand awareness signicantly inuences both brand trust and enrolment
intention. Furthermore, BA signicantly inuences EI, both directly and indirectly, through BT as a mediator.
Additionally, the inuence of promotions, type of schools, and other exogenous variables is negligible. The study
recommends that IHE administrators and marketing managers enhance the quality and implement long-term,
comprehensive, and sustainable promotional mix strategies and other marketing mix components.
1. Introduction
States Islamic universities (UIN) in Indonesia encounter signicant
competition from non-religious public universities in attracting pro-
spective students. The declining trend in new student enrollment has
prompted UIN to implement a variety of strategies to attract potential
students. Promotion is a key strategy aimed at enhancing competitive-
ness and increasing new student enrollment (Guilbault, 2016). Univer-
sities place an emphasis on promoting new student admissions before
each academic year. Promotion is a critical component of the marketing
mix, signicantly inuencing enrollment decisions. The foundational
4Ps framework (product, price, place, and promotion) is expanded to
7Ps by including people, processes, and physical evidence (Das et al.,
2021). Historically, promotion has been a cornerstone of the 4Ps mar-
keting mix.
Research within the business domain has demonstrated the effec-
tiveness of diverse promotional channels in shaping consumer purchase
intentions (Hanaysha et al., 2021; Septa Diana Nabella, 2021). In higher
education (HE) sector, the dissemination of information regarding
institutional offerings, academic outcomes, and post-graduation
employment prospects signicantly inuences college selection (Baker
et al., 2018). Financial considerations and post-graduation benets also
play a crucial role in university enrollment decisions (Ballarino et al.,
2022). Therefore, promotion is a focal point for universities competing
for prospective new students.
In Indonesia, the competition between Islamic higher education
(IHE) and non-religious/general higher education (GHE) for student
enrolment stems from their shared target, particularly graduates from
Islamic senior high schools/madrasah aliyah (IHS/MA) or general senior
high schools (GHS/SMA). Each year, universities engage in rigorous
promotional activities before the commencement of new student ad-
missions (PMB). Research into the dynamics of new student recruitment
has yielded multifaceted insights across diverse contexts. In the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), Meraj et al. (2016) found that promotional en-
deavours had negligible inuence on prospective students’ decisions
regarding enrolment in a Master of Business Administration (MBA)
program.
Furthermore, Rosyidah et al. (2020) proposed promotion strategies
to support universities in global competition. From a marketing mix
perspective, product elements, location, promotion, and cost correlate
with interest in HE (Fadhli et al., 2023). Another study showed that
promotion did not affect the interest of prospective new students
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmadjuhaidi@uin-antasari.ac.id (A. Juhaidi).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Social Sciences & Humanities Open
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-sciences-and-humanities-open
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101243
Received 3 July 2024; Received in revised form 2 December 2024; Accepted 2 December 2024
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
Available online 10 December 2024
2590-2911/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
(Triyono et al., 2021). Direct marketing strategies, such as exhibition
events and school visits, increased the number of new students (Sari &
Wijaya, 2020). Private universities primarily utilize social media and
websites for promotion (Fitriani et al., 2021). Most students received
information through brochures as well as from family and friends
(Alhapizi et al., 2020). Accreditation and promotion signicantly
inuenced prospective students’ interest in IHE (Bakar et al., 2022).
Traditional and social media promotion, mediated by institutional
image, affected students’ university choices (Kango et al., 2021).
Research conducted in the eld of education has also demonstrated
that BA has a substantial impact on the decision to enrol and the overall
reputation of universities Noor et al., 2019). BT exerts a substantial in-
uence on student loyalty to the institution (Rew et al., 2023), electronic
word-of-mouth (Juhaidi, Syaifuddin, et al., 2024), and the reputation of
the university (Qazi et al., 2022). The reputation element is a deter-
mining factor for students selecting IHE (Juhaidi, 2024b). Furthermore,
the selection of HE institution is inuenced by socioeconomic level and
gender (Leppel et al., 2001).
Within the industrial sector, many forms of promotion have a sig-
nicant impact on shaping attitudes and decisions to purchase products
or services (Llopis et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2020; K. Wang et al., 2022;
Young-Jin et al., 2019). In addition to promotion, brand awareness (BA)
and brand trust (BT) play a role in increasing purchasing intention. BA
has a signicant effect on purchasing intention and acts as a mediator
(Krisnawan & Jatra, 2021; Laveen Kumar & Anjani Devi, 2024; Rahmi
et al., 2022; Tsabitah & Anggraeni, 2021). BT affects purchasing
intention product skincare (Ellitan et al., 2022), computers, televisions,
clothing, shoes, cars, etc. (P. Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013), online
shopping (Hariyanti et al., 2024), and luxury brands (Husain et al.,
2022). On the other hand, BA and BT affect purchase intention and
brand loyalty (Boonsiritomachai & Sud-On, 2020; Gong et al., 2023). BA
is a mediator of BT’s and social media marketing on purchasing inten-
tion (Salhab et al., 2023). In addition, socioeconomic status and gender
also have an effect on the intention to buy products or services (A. Joshi
et al., 2024; Y. Liu & Du, 2020; Maduku & Mbeya, 2024; Meet et al.,
2024; Rahman & Thill, 2024; Sun & Liang, 2020).
While these previous research has examined the impact of socio-
economic, gender, promotion, BA, BT, and their correlation with
enrolment intention, there remains a theoretical gap in the specic
context of HE in Indonesia, which consists of two types of schools:
religious and non-religious. Thus, a signicant deciency in the existing
body of knowledge is the absence of thorough research examining the
collective impact of gender, family socioeconomic status, school type,
promotional activities, brand awareness, and brand trust on students’
intentions to enrol at IHE. While studies in the business sector have
established the importance of BA and BT in inuencing purchasing in-
tentions, their role in the educational sector—specically within
IHE—remains underexplored. Moreover, the inuence of socio-
economic factors, such as family background and gender, school type
on enrolment intentions in IHE has not been adequately addressed.
Therefore, this study aims to ll this gap by exploring how these factors
interact and affect the enrolment decisions of prospective students,
providing a more nuanced understanding of student recruitment in IHE
institutions in Indonesia.
Our study aims to bridge this gap by examining the interplay of these
elements and their inuence on potential students’ enrolment in-
tentions, thereby providing a more rened understanding within the
context of IHE establishments in Indonesia. Furthermore, the focus of
our study is on answering the following research question.
RQ1: What is the direct effect of gender on the enrolment intention of senior high
school students at IHE?
RQ2: What is the direct effect of family socioeconomic background (family income
and parental education) on the enrolment intention of senior high school
students at IHE?
RQ3: What is the direct effect of admission promotion interventions on the
enrolment intention of senior high school students at IHE?
(continued on next column)
(continued)
RQ4: What is the direct effect of brand awareness on the enrolment intention of
senior high school students at IHE?
RQ5: What is the direct effect of trust on the enrolment intention of senior high
school students at IHE?
RQ6: What is the indirect effect of gender on enrolment intention at IHE, mediated
by brand awareness and trust?
RQ7: What is the indirect effect of family socioeconomic background (family
income and parental education) on enrolment intention at IHE, through
brand awareness and trust as mediators?
RQ8: What is the indirect effect of admission promotion interventions on
enrolment intention at IHE, through brand awareness and trust as mediators?
RQ9: What is the indirect effect of brand awareness on enrolment intention at IHE,
through brand trust as mediators?
Therefore, the objective of this research is to examine the direct and
indirect effects of various factors on senior high school students’
enrolment intentions at IHE in Indonesia. Specically, the study is
designed to.
RO1 Examine the direct effects of gender, family socioeconomic background
(family income and parental education), admission promotion interventions,
brand awareness, and trust affect enrolment intentions.
RO2 Investigate the indirect impacts of gender, family socioeconomic background,
and admission promotion interventions on enrolment intentions through
brand awareness and trust as mediators.
RO3 Assess the indirect impacts of brand awareness on enrolment intentions
through trust as mediators.
Therefore, this research provides both theoretical and practical
contributions. The theoretical contribution extends beyond academic
discourse, inuencing the practical domain of marketing management
in HE institutions. Further, our study offers IHE administrators evidence-
based insights for developing effective promotional campaigns that
correspond with the unique ethos of IHE institutions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Enrolment intention (EI)
Enrolment intention (EI) is rooted in Ajzen’s Planned Behaviour
(TPB) Theory. According to Ajzen, intention represents a motivational
factor that has the potential to inuence behaviour signicantly and
reects a concerted effort to act with the purpose (Ajzen, 1991)
Furthermore, according to Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour, the
inuence of intentions on behaviour is mediated by behaviour control.
In this context, actual behavioural control is determined by both internal
and external factors. The internal factors include skills, knowledge,
physical stamina, and intelligence, whereas external barriers include
rules, nancial resources, equipment, and cooperation. Therefore, an
individual’s ability to execute a particular behaviour is directly pro-
portional to the level of control over the internal and external factors
that inuence that behaviour (Ajzen, 2020). The TPB is widely used to
predict purchase intentions in the business sector.
Furthermore, The TPB explains that behavioural intention refers to a
person’s motivation in terms of their conscious plan, decision, or self-
directed guidance to put in effort toward performing a specic behav-
iour (Conner, 2020). According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB), the direct precursor to a behaviour is the intention to carry out
that behaviour. The stronger the intention, the more likely it is that the
behaviour will actually occur (Ajzen, 2020).
The TPB posits that enrolling in a university generally fulls the
desire to do so. The intention to apply as a student indicates future
enrolment. A heightened intention of enrolling is associated with a
greater probability of student enrolment.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
2
2.2. Brand trust
Brand Trust (BT) refers to an individual’s condence in a brand’s
ability to full its promises and maintain its commitments, notably when
the individual lacks agency (Leite & Baptista, 2022). According to
Huaman-Ramirez (2019), brand trust is characterized by the expectation
that a brand will consistently deliver its pledges related to competence,
integrity, and benevolence. It reects the willingness of customers or
prospective customers to place their trust in a brand’s capabilities. It
reects the willingness of customers or prospective customers to place
their trust in a brand’s capabilities (Ha & Perks, 2005). In the context of
IHE, brand trust takes the form of assurance and a willingness to believe
that IHE will meet students’ expectations as they embark on their aca-
demic journey.
In the education sector, empirical evidence underscores the pivotal
role of fostering BT among prospective students. Studies have veried
the direct effects of BT on intention to enrol in college (Ben Cheikh &
Ferchichi, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2001; Kuznetsov, 2024). Nonetheless,
previous research has not substantiated the impact of trust on an
intention to enrol within the framework of IHE in Indonesia. Conse-
quently, this study proposes the hypotheses outlined in Table 1.
2.3. Brand awareness
Brand awareness (BA) holds paramount signicance within the
brand equity domain, as experts acknowledged (Rojas-Lamorena et al.,
2022). It perennially remains a cornerstone element of brand equity
across various contexts, representing the depth of a customer’s or po-
tential customer’s memory of a brand. Brand awareness encapsulates the
extent to which customers are cognizant of or unfamiliar with a brand
(Bohrer, 2007). Brand awareness delineates the degree of familiarity
customers possess with a brand, product, or service (Shamsudin et al.,
2022), often exemplied by the university students rst recollect
(Hakala et al., 2012). The assessment of brand awareness hinges upon
whether a student acknowledges and identies the HE institutions (E.
S.-T. Wang, 2019).
BA serves as the primary objective of marketing communications,
constituting the initial stride in establishing brand value in the eyes of
consumers (Azzari & Pelissari, 2020). Elevating BA facilitates value
co-creation (L. H. Le et al., 2021). Elevating BA facilitates value
co-creation (Tran et al., 2020) and affects BT (Hou & Wonglorsaichon,
2011; Sastika et al., 2016). In business sector, both brand awareness BA
and BT have an impact on purchasing intention (Baltaci et al., 2024;
Chen-Yu et al., 2016; Q. Liu & Wang, 2023; M. Anwarul Islam et al.,
2023a; Pratama et al., 2023; Tariq et al., 2017; Wibowo et al., 2020, pp.
1–5; Benhardy et al., 2020; Cuong, 2020b; Hanaysha, 2022). In the
education industry, studies have demonstrated that brand awareness, as
a component of brand equity, inuences trust (Chung, 2009, p. p3) and
enrolment intention (Bohara et al., 2022; Pradhan & Piriyapada, 2023;
Shamsudin et al., 2022). However, studies examining BA within HE,
especially in IHE, are still lacking.
Thus, this study presents the hypothesis detailed in Table 2.
2.4. Promotion
Promotion is one element of the marketing mix. Promotion consists
of several elements called promotion mix: advertising, sponsorship,
sales promotion, and public relations (G. Armstrong & Kotler, 2003).
Each element of the promotion mix is essential in introducing and
marketing the college. Promotion is persuasive communication that
conveys product information through brochures, advertisements,
cooperation and other media to the public to inuence buying attitudes
and behaviour (Abdelhady et al., 2019). In addition to traditional print
and face-to-face communication, social media such as Facebook, Insta-
gram, and Twitter are very useful for reaching potential customers
cheaply and quickly. Lecturers and alums are also encouraged to
communicate with the university through social media actively. Social
media is essential in increasing intention to enrol in university (Juhaidi,
Fuady, et al., 2024).
Promotion is intrinsically linked to the sharing of information
regarding universities that fosters awareness of the brand. In the busi-
ness sector, promotion through advertising and sponsorship affects all
elements of brand equity, including brand awareness (S. Kumar & Patra,
2017; Lang et al., 2022). Conversely, trust is shaped not only by product
usage experience but also by advertising and word-of-mouth commu-
nication (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alem´
an,
2005Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alem´
an, 2005). Advertising,
word of mouth, and product quality affect brand awareness (Nguyen
Viet & Nguyen Anh, 2021), customer attention, and purchasing inten-
tion (Cheung et al., 2023). Moreover, research in the business domain
demonstrates that promotions in many methods enhance purchase
intention (Cuong, 2021; Lang et al., 2022; Ravangard et al., 2020; Zhu
et al., 2020). Similarly, advertising does not inuence private label
brand equity (Abril & Rodriguez-C´
anovas, 2016), and purchasing
behaviour in traditional markets is unaffected by promotion
(Wongleedee, 2015). Moreover, promotion has no impact on purchasing
behaviour among low-income groups (H. Ma, Mo, et al., 2023).
Furthermore, in HE industry, studies on the role of promotion for
brands and enrolment show variances. Researcher also prove that
appropriate promotional interventions will have an effect on improving
reputation and enrolment (Gauatm, 2011; Jeptepkeny & Julius, 2012;
Peter et al., 2021; Secore, 2018; Xie & Teo, 2020). Evans et al. (2024)
explain that, in USA, information showing racial and ethnic diversity is
crucial in the recruitment campaign for new student admissions. Other
studies suggest that promotion plays a signicant role in inuencing
students’ decisions to choose a university, serving as both a source of
information and a key element of the marketing mix (Azzone & Soncin,
2020; Nuseir & El Refae, 2022; Onsardi et al., 2021). Telemarketing
efforts initiated through school visits have a signicant impact on
increasing interest in private colleges (Nasib et al., 2022). Promotion, as
an element of the marketing mix, serves as one of the key factors
inuencing the decision to choose a private university (Lestari & Mis-
wan, 2022).
In contrast, the studies also revealed that promotion does not
signicantly inuence university choice. King found no correlation be-
tween promotion and university branding or choice decisions. Another
study in Indonesia demonstrated that promotion, a component of the
marketing mix, exerted no effect on the decision to select a HE institu-
tion (Simanjuntak et al., 2024). In Indiana USA, study found that there is
no signicant difference between the groups exposed to promotional
efforts and those that were not (Landrum, 2018). This nding suggests
that promotions have no impact on university selection decisions.
Table 1
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical basis
H1: Brand trust has a signicant
positive impact on enrolment
intention at IHE.
Brand trust inuences intention to enrol
in college. (Ben Cheikh & Ferchichi,
2023; Ghosh et al., 2001; Kuznetsov,
2024).
Table 2
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical basis
H2: Brand awareness has a signicant
positive impact on brand trust.
Brand awareness, inuences trust (
Chung, 2009, p. p3) and
H3: Brand awareness has a signicant
positive impact on enrolment
intention at IHE.
Brand awareness inuences
enrolment intention (Bohara et al.,
2022; Pradhan & Piriyapada, 2023;
Shamsudin et al., 2022).
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
3
Similarly, a study conducted in Kathmandu demonstrated that univer-
sity promotions are not the primary source of information when
choosing a university (Pokhrel et al., 2016). In Texas, USA, J. J. Arm-
strong and Lumsden (2000) found that high school students tend to be
unaffected by promotional materials they receive. Even parents in the
United States are inclined to view university promotions with scepti-
cism, particularly when such promotions engage in paid advertising
(Lee, 2019).
These studies highlight varying effects of promotion across different
contexts. Although the impact of promotion remains a subject of debate,
we conclude that the information conveyed through promotional ac-
tivities inuences awareness, trust, and the intention to enrol. However,
we have yet to thoroughly verify these effects, especially in the context
of IHE in Indonesia.
Therefore, we put forth the hypothesis provided in Table 3.
2.5. Gender, socioeconomic background, and school type effect
Research has demonstrated that gender, socioeconomic status, and
the type of school inuence the behaviour of students regarding brands.
Veloutsou et al. (2005) discovered that male and female behaviours
diverge in their information-seeking processes about institutions. This
signies a disparity in brand awareness between the genders.
Besides gender, the family’s socioeconomic status also impacts brand
awareness. Systematic study in the business sector has shown that the
socioeconomic status of a family, as evaluated by the level of education
and income of parents, signicantly impacts the level of brand aware-
ness (Bansal et al., 2005; Valkenburg & Buijzen, 2005). Within the realm
of HE, parents are more inclined to allocate resources towards their
children’s education at HE institutions that offer better employment
opportunities (Mourad et al., 2020). Pressure exerted by family, friends,
and communities on high socioeconomic households is more strongly
associated with their educational decisions (Yang et al., 2020). The in-
vestment carries a certain level of risk, and the pressure motivates
parents with advanced education and substantial means to actively seek
information about institutions in order to enhance their awareness.
Conversely, the proximity of fathers and mothers to their children can
vary, resulting in variations in their respective roles for the children’s
development (Brown & Aytuglu, 2020; Papaleontiou - Louca & Al
Omari, 2020). It can be concluded that family income, the father’s and
mother’s educational attainment each have distinct inuences on stu-
dents’ awareness of IHE. The father’s educational attainment may have
a different impact compared to the mother’s, indicating that each par-
ent’s educational background plays a unique role in shaping students’
awareness.
Another determinant inuencing the brand awareness of IHE is the
type of the educational institution. Students in madrasahs possess a
greater awareness of IHE compared to their school counterparts. The
structural similarities between madrasas and IHE institutions and the
fact that most educators are IHE graduates explain this. This aligns with
the purpose of the IHE’s establishment, which is to train instructors at
Islamic educational institutions (Nakamura & Nishino, 1993). Hence,
IHS students have a higher level of awareness of IHE compared to GHS
students.
Therefore, this study shows the hypotheses provided in Table 4.
Within the business sector, trust in other individuals, products, or
services is inuenced by gender and socioeconomic background
(G¨
achter et al., 2004; Khan & Rahman, 2016). Trust is inuenced by the
level of education (Aslam & Ghouse, 2022). In global context, economic
inequality exerts a pronounced negative impact on trust in public in-
stitutions (Palmisano & Sacchi, 2024). Furthermore, trust in schools is
shaped by the specic type of school and the socioeconomic background
of the students (Molina & Lamb, 2023). Conversely, the brand experi-
ence of IHE for students in IHS is superior to that of students in the GHS.
Akoglu and ¨
Ozbek (2022) found that the brand experience signicantly
inuences BT. Therefore, we posit that the type of schools, notably IHS
and GHS, contributes to trust in IHE.
Consequently, we formulate the hypothesis presented in Table 5.
Furthermore, studies of college choice show differences between
genders. Women and men exhibit different preferences when selecting
college elds of study, reecting broader gender-based career choice
patterns. Male students pay attention to the value of work after gradu-
ation, but women’s work is based more on perceptions of their self-
competence (Van Der Vleuten et al., 2016). The choice of major when
enrolling in college differs between females and males (L¨
orz et al., 2011;
Philipp, 2023; Porter & Serra, 2020). It is also related to differences
between women’s career choices and men’s (Barone & Assirelli, 2020;
Gavinski et al., 2021). Women tend to choose the eld of biology, and
men prefer physics and chemistry (Verdugo-Castro et al., 2022). This
shows that gender has an effect on educational choices.
By altering the business sector’s purchasing intention construct, so-
cioeconomic background inuences enrolment intention as well. Gha-
li-Zinoubi (2021) and Y. Liu and Du (2020) provide evidence that
socioeconomic factors inuence the likelihood of making a purchase. In
the realm of education, the choice of a university is shaped by socio-
economic status and the nature of the educational institution (Kosunen
et al., 2020; Mateos-Gonz´
alez & Wakeling, 2022; Morgan et al., 2022;
Usala et al., 2023). Parents’ educational attainment inuences the
Table 3
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical basis
H4: University promotion has a
signicant positive impact on
brand awareness.
Promotion through advertising and
sponsorship affects all elements of
brand equity, including brand
awareness (S. Kumar & Patra, 2017;
Lang et al., 2022).
H5: University promotion has a
signicant positive impact on
brand trust.
Trust is shaped advertising and word-of-
mouth communication (Delgado-
Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alem´
an, 2005
Delgado-Ballester & Luis
Munuera-Alem´
an, 2005).
H6: University promotion has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE.
Promotions in many methods enhance
purchase intention (Cuong, 2021; Lang
et al., 2022; Ravangard et al., 2020; Zhu
et al., 2020), reputation, and enrolment
(Gauatm, 2011; Jeptepkeny & Julius,
2012; Peter et al., 2021; Secore, 2018;
Xie & Teo, 2020).
Table 4
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical basis
H7: Gender has a signicant impact on
brand awareness.
Male and female behaviours diverge
in their information-seeking processes
about institutions (Veloutsou et al.,
2005).
H8: Family economic background has
a signicant positive impact on
brand awareness.
The socioeconomic status of a family,
as evaluated by the level of education
and income of parents, signicantly
impacts the level of brand awareness (
Bansal et al., 2005; Valkenburg &
Buijzen, 2005).
H9: The father’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
brand awareness.
The proximity of fathers and mothers
to their children can vary, resulting in
variations in their respective roles for
the children’s development (Brown &
Aytuglu, 2020; Papaleontiou - Louca
& Al Omari, 2020).
H10: The mother’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
brand awareness.
H11: School type has a signicant
positive impact on brand
awareness.
Students in madrasahs (Islamic
school) possess a greater awareness of
IHE due to the purpose of the IHE’s
establishment, which is to train
instructors at Islamic educational
institutions (Nakamura & Nishino,
1993).
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
4
educational decisions of their children (Davis-Kean et al., 2021; Idris
et al., 2020; Sewell & Shah, 1968). The educational background of
parents exerts an inuence on the language literacy, mathematics, and
cognitive development of children (Gonz´
alez et al., 2020; Lenes et al.,
2022; Lyesmaya et al., 2022). In other words, as Khelfaoui et al. (2022)
state that more educated people make better life decisions, which leads
to better outcomes. Thus, parents with higher levels of education tend to
be more concerned about their child’s education. Although the previous
studies are not directly relevant to the university selection process, it
suggests that the attitudes and behaviours of students towards the
educational process, including university choice, are inuenced by the
role of father and mother (Eldegwy et al., 2022).
Additional research have corroborated the impact of school type on
students’ academic performance and decisions in determining their ca-
reers (Chen et al., 2021; Suna, 2020). This inuence will affect the se-
lection of academic disciplines in HE. Another study also determined
that The selection of a university is intricately connected to the inu-
ential role of the school (Motsepe et al., 2024; Wilkins & Huisman,
2015). The school inuences student achievement, environmental
perception, and university choice (Theule Lubienski et al., 2008; New-
house & Beegle, 2006; Raudenbush & Willms, 1995; Theule; Tuncer
et al., 2005). IHE in Indonesia were founded with the aim of offering
prospects for graduates of Islamic schools (madrasahs) and Islamic
boarding schools (pesantren) who aspire to pursue further education
(Afrizal, 2022; Nakamura & Nishino, 1993). Consequently, madrassah
and pesantren students are more likely to attend IHE. We ascertain that
the selection of a university by students is inuenced by school type.
Therefore, in this work, we formulate the hypothesis presented in
Table 6.
2.6. Brand awareness and trust as mediator
We have presented studies that demonstrate the inuence of gender,
socioeconomic background, and promotion on brand awareness (BA),
brand trust (BT), and enrolment intention (EI). Furthermore, we have
shown that BA and BT signicantly impact EI. Considering these nd-
ings, BA may mediate the relationship between these variables and EI.
For instance, students’ socioeconomic background inuences BA, which
in turn affects EI. Consequently, we predict that students’ socioeconomic
background impacts EI, with BA acting as a mediating variable.
Furthermore, previous studies have veried the role of BA as medi-
ators in the relationship between various variable. Men, who often
perceive themselves as having higher brand awareness of wines, are
more motivated to purchase and rely less on personal information
sources compared to women (Marques & Guia, 2018). In the retail
sector, BA serves as a signicant mediator in the effect of store brand
image on purchasing intention (Graciola et al., 2020). Promotional
advertising affects customer behaviour in the cosmetics industry, with
brand awareness acting as a mediator (Zhao et al., 2022).
In HE industry, BA mediates the inuence of brand image on uni-
versity brand equity (Zia et al., 2021) and the relationship between B2C
and C2C value co-creation in universities (L. H. Le et al., 2021). Female
and male exhibit differing levels of awareness regarding specic elds,
which inuences their decisions when selecting a university (De Las
Cuevas et al., 2022). Hastings et al. (2016) emphasize that students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds seek information about universities
differently than their peers, which subsequently inuences their uni-
versity selection decisions. Promotion-related marketing has an impact
on enrolment intention, with brand awareness acting as a mediator
(Shabbir et al., 2010). Parental education inuences the information
students receive regarding colleges, which in turn affects their university
choices (Peter et al., 2021). Schools also play a signicant role in
inuencing university choice through the information provided by
teachers and educational consultants (Bao, 2022). Therefore, it indi-
cated that BA may act as mediators, linking the effects of variables such
as gender, paternal education, maternal education, economic status, and
promotion with the intention to enrol in IHE.
Thus, we put proposed the hypothesis presented in Table 7.
Trust serves as a robust mediating variable in the relationship be-
tween social media promotion and purchasing decisions (Asmin
Rahayaan, 2023; Zanjabila et al., 2023). BT also mediates the inuence
of service quality and corporate social responsibility on university loy-
alty (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021; Rew et al., 2023; Tammubua, 2021).
Females tend to trust institutions more than males, making them more
likely to utilize the services offered by those institutions (Heyert & Weill,
2023). Qi et al. (2018) found individuals with higher incomes tend to
exhibit greater trust in facial cues, which impacts their actions, such as
making charitable donations. In other words, economic status can in-
uence trust, which in turn affects behaviour. Furthermore, parental
education can inuence trust, which may subsequently affect their
recommendations for university selection for their children (Davis-Kean
et al., 2021). In politics, a person’s level of education inuences their
level of trust in meritocracy, which in turn inuences their political
Table 5
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical Basis
H12: Gender has a signicant impact
on brand trust.
Trust in other individuals, products, or
services is inuenced by gender and
socioeconomic background (Aslam &
Ghouse, 2022; G¨
achter et al., 2004;
Khan & Rahman, 2016).
H13: Family economic background has
a signicant positive impact on
brand trust.
Economic inequality exerts a
pronounced negative impact on trust in
public institutions (Palmisano &
Sacchi, 2024).
H14: The father’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
brand trust.
Trust is inuenced by the level of
education (Aslam & Ghouse, 2022).
H15: The mother’s education level has
a signicant positive impact on
brand trust.
Trust is inuenced by the level of
education (Aslam & Ghouse, 2022).
H16: School type has a signicant
impact on brand trust.
Trust is shaped by the specic type of
school (Molina & Lamb, 2023).
Table 6
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical Basis
H17: Gender has a signicant impact on
enrolment intention at IHE.
The choice of major when enrolling in
college differs between females and
males (L¨
orz et al., 2011; Philipp,
2023; Porter & Serra, 2020).
H18: Family economic background has
a signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
The choice of a university is shaped by
socioeconomic status and the nature
of the educational institution (
Kosunen et al., 2020;
Mateos-Gonz´
alez & Wakeling, 2022;
Morgan et al., 2022; Usala et al.,
2023).
H19: The father’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE.
Parents’ educational attainment
inuences the educational decisions
of their children (Davis-Kean et al.,
2021; Gonz´
alez et al., 2020; Idris
et al., 2020; Lenes et al., 2022;
Lyesmaya et al., 2022; Sewell & Shah,
1968)
H20: The mother’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
Parents’ educational attainment
inuences the educational decisions
of their children (Davis-Kean et al.,
2021; Gonz´
alez et al., 2020; Idris
et al., 2020; Lenes et al., 2022;
Lyesmaya et al., 2022; Sewell & Shah,
1968)
H21: School type has a signicant
impact on enrolment intention at
IHE.
The selection of a university is
intricately connected to the inuential
role of the school (Motsepe et al.,
2024; Wilkins & Huisman, 2015).
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
5
elections (Ugur-Cinar et al., 2020). School programs can inuence stu-
dents’ irrational beliefs, which may subsequently affect their career
choices (Kutlu & Bedel, 2021). Awareness can enhance trust in a uni-
versity, which subsequently inuences the decision to choose that
institution (H. Q. Le, 2020). Further, previous investigations have vali-
dated the role of BT as mediators in the effect of perceived quality (Sun
et al., 2022), brand satisfaction (Cuong, 2020b), interactivity and
informativeness of social media marketing (SMM) activities (Hanaysha,
2022) on purchase decision. Benhardy et al. (2020) found that image
and perceived price inuence the intention to participate in online
learning, with brand trust serving as a mediating factor.
These studies have conrmed that BT serves as a well-established
mediator, strengthening the relationships between various antecedent
factors and outcomes. The constant validation of BT as mediators in
many research highlights their essential functions in enhancing the in-
uence of several variables on customer behaviour.
Therefore, we presented our hypothesis in Table 8.
2.7. Conceptual model
The relationships between the variables outlined in the hypotheses
are illustrated in the conceptual model, as depicted in Fig. 1 below.
Note: Father’s edu =father’s education; Mother’s edu =mother’s
education; Family eco. =Family economy background; School type =
non-religious school and madrasah (Islamic school).
3. Method
3.1. Research design
This research was a quantitative study that employed a causal
correlational approach and was conducted through a survey method (L.
Cohen et al., 2007; Curtis et al., 2016; Parylo, 2012). The survey design
was chosen due to the large number of participants involved in the study
(Cook & Cook, 2008). In this study, we examined the inuence of
exogenous latent variables on endogenous latent variables without
intervening in the exogenous variables (Walker, 2005).
The study employed the partial least squares structural equation
modelling approach (PLS-SEM). We selected PLS-SEM due to its suit-
ability for complex models containing over six constructs, including
latent variables and single items, and it does not require normal data.
(Ali et al., 2018; J. Hair et al., 2017). We employed PLS SEM due to the
latent nature of the variables, the complexity of the models, and its
capability to compute both single and multi-item measures (J. F. Hair
et al., 2011, 2019, 2022). This study avoided the Covariance-Based SEM
(CB-SEM) approach due to its requirement for large sample sizes, con-
straints in assessing complex models, and dependence on established
theoretical frameworks (Henseler et al., 2014). Further, CB-SEM,
particularly when using Linear Structural Relations (LISREL), is less
sensitive to formative indicators (Goodhue & Thompson, 2012).
Conversely, traditional regression analysis, typically conducted using
SPSS, is incapable of examining latent variables, managing single-item
measurements, or resolving collinearity issues (Ramli et al., 2018).
Furthermore, PLS-SEM has signicant potential for advancing studies,
particularly in the elds of marketing and information systems man-
agement (J. F. Hair et al., 2011). The analysis procedure was facilitated
using the SmartPLS version 4.0.9.9 for Mac, which is widely recognized
as the leading application in PLS-SEM (Zeng et al., 2021).
3.2. Participants
The study encompassed a population of 157,162 students, specif-
ically encompassing those in grades 10 and 12 of GHS/SMA and IHS/MA
in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Our study consisted of a total of 502
student research participants (Table 1). They provided written consent
as respondents on the questionnaire. This study’s sample size exceeds
the minimum sample size recommended by L. Cohen et al. (2007) and G
×Power. According to Cohen, the minimum sample size required for the
20,000 population is 383 participants (N =383), with a 95% condence
Table 7
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical Basis
H22 Gender has a signicant impact on
enrolment intention at IHE through
BA as a mediator.
Female and male exhibit differing
levels of awareness regarding specic
elds, which inuences their
decisions when selecting a university
(De Las Cuevas et al., 2022).
H23 Family economic background has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE through
BA as a mediator.
Hastings et al. (2016) emphasize that
students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds seek information about
universities differently than their
peers, which subsequently inuences
their university selection decisions.
H24 The father’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE through
BA as a mediator.
Parental education inuences the
information students receive
regarding colleges, which in turn
affects their university choices (Peter
et al., 2021).H25 The mother’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE through
BA as a mediator.
H26 School type has a signicant
positive impact on enrolment
intention at IHE through BA as a
mediator.
Schools also play a signicant role in
inuencing university choice through
the information provided by teachers
and educational consultants (Bao,
2022).
H27 University promotion has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE through
BA as a mediator.
Promotion-related marketing has an
impact on enrolment intention, with
brand awareness acting as a mediator
(Shabbir et al., 2010). Promotional
advertising affects customer
behaviour in the cosmetics industry,
with brand awareness acting as a
mediator (Zhao et al., 2022).
Table 8
Hypothesis and theoretical basis.
Hypothesis Theoretical Basis
H28 Gender has a signicant impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
through BT as a mediator.
Females tend to trust institutions more
than males, making them more likely
to utilize the services offered by those
institutions (Heyert & Weill, 2023).
H29 Family economic background has
a signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
through BT as a mediator.
Qi et al. (2018)found individuals with
higher incomes tend to exhibit greater
trust in facial cues, which impacts their
actions, such as making charitable
donations.
H30 The father’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
through BT as a mediator.
Parental education can inuence trust,
which may subsequently affect their
recommendations for university
selection for their children (
Davis-Kean et al., 2021)H31 The mother’s education level has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
through BT as a mediator.
H32 School type has a signicant
positive impact on enrolment
intention at IHE through BT as a
mediator.
School programs can inuence
students’ irrational beliefs, which may
subsequently affect their career
choices (Kutlu & Bedel, 2021).
H33 University promotion has a
signicant positive impact on
enrolment intention at IHE
through BT as a mediator.
Trust serves as a robust mediating
variable in the relationship between
social media promotion and
purchasing decisions (Asmin
Rahayaan, 2023; Zanjabila et al.,
2023).
H34 BA has a signicant positive
impact on enrolment intention at
IHE through BT as a mediator.
Awareness can enhance trust in a
university, which subsequently
inuences the decision to choose that
institution (H. Q. Le, 2020).
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
6
level and a 0.5% margin error. We utilized power analysis with the G ×
Power tool to determine the sample size needed to meet the statistical
power criterion of 0.90, with an effect size of 0.2, probability error 0.05,
and 8 predictor factors. We employed power analysis to conrm that the
sample size will yield a power statistic over the threshold of 0.8 and cost
effectiveness (J. Cohen, 1992; Lan & Lian, 2010; O’Keefe, 2007). The
analytical results demonstrated that the ideal sample size was 104 par-
ticipants to provide a 95.02% likelihood of the study conforming with
the facts. The outcomes of the power analysis are.
F tests - Linear multiple regression: Fixed model, R2 deviation from zero
Analysis: A priori: Compute required sample size
Input: Effect size f
2
=0.2
α
err prob =0.05
Power (1-β err prob) =0.90
Number of predictors =8
Output: Noncentrality parameter λ =20.8000000
Critical F =2.0373705
Numerator df =8
Denominator df =95
Total sample size =104
Actual power =0.9020119
We utilized a convenience sampling method combined with a
snowball sampling technique to identify the sample. This study involved
the students who voluntarily answered the given questionnaire as the
sample. We requested participants to distribute a questionnaire to their
friends. The wide geographic spread of participants, geographical con-
straints, and time limitations require the utilization of both convenience
and snowball sampling techniques. Convenience sampling methods are
employed due to their cost-effectiveness, efciency, dan simplicity
(Andrade, 2021; Stratton, 2021). Moreover, snowball sampling enables
us to augment the participant count by helping the current participants,
even in cases when access to them is not feasible (Ahmed et al., 2023;
Emerson, 2015; Leighton et al., 2021) (see Table 9).
The study comprised GHS students (23.7%) and IHS students
(76.3%). The number of IHS participants who had parents with uni-
versity degrees was lower than that of GHS students. However, IHS
students show a higher proportion of parents with only a high school
education or less. In this study, the parents of the participants were
primarily fathers with a high school education and mothers with an
education level below high school. Moreover, GHS students are more
inclined to have parents from upper-middle-income backgrounds in
comparison to IHS children. Overall, a substantial percentage of par-
ticipants originated from lower middle-class households. Their monthly
allowances varied from USD 1299 to slightly below 1,949, providing a
greater insight into the nancial environment they traverse. This in-
formation elucidates their family economic background and establishes
a framework for comprehending their consumer behaviour and
decision-making tendencies within the study’s circumstances. Thus, our
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
Table 9
Demographic characteristics (N =502).
GHS (N =119) IHS (N =383) Overall (%)
N Share (%) N Share (%)
Gender
Female 80 67.23 246 64.23 65.73
Male 39 32.77 137 35.77 34.27
Fathers education
Under High school 46 38.66 125 32.64 35.65
High school 39 32.77 166 43.34 38.06
University 34 28.57 92 24.02 26.30
Mothers education
Under High school 50 42.02 142 37.08 39.55
High school 35 29.41 146 38.12 33.77
University 34 28.57 95 24.8 26.69
Allowance/day
<USD 0.650 14 11.76 28 7.31 9.54
USD 0.650 - <1.299 32 26.89 125 32.64 29.77
USD 1.299 - <1.949 41 34.45 154 40.21 37.33
USD 1.949 - <2.598 16 13.45 38 9.92 11.68
USD 2.598 - <3.897 11 9.24 34 8.88 9.06
USD 3.897–6.496 3 2.52 2 0.52 1.52
>USD 6.496 2 1.68 2 0.52 1.10
Note: USD 1 =IDR 15,395.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
7
ndings could potentially apply primarily to the population from lower-
middle socioeconomic backgrounds.
3.3. Measurement
The exogenous variables in this study included gender, socio-
economic background, type of school (IHS and GHS), new student
admission promotion, brand awareness (BA), and brand trust (BT),
whereas the endogenous variable was enrolment intention (EI). The type
of school attended, such as GHS-score 1 and IHS -score 2, is also
considered in this study. Students’ participation in the university’s
promotional initiatives is a key indicator of promotion. IHS students
who received a visit from the university team or participated in the
Campus Expo received a score of 2, while those who did not received a
score of 1.
We adapted the indicator to assess BA and EI constructs from the
work of Martins et al. (2019). The assessment of brand trust incorporates
the studies adapted indicators from the work of Ebrahim (2020),
Guerreiro and Pacheco (2021), and Martins et al. (2019). The BA
construct consists of ve indicators; the BT construct consists of four
indicators; and the IE construct consists of four indicators. Responses
were measured using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 4 (strongly agree). The questionnaire underwent translation into the
Indonesian language and was subsequently adjusted to suit the partic-
ular Indonesian setting. Furthermore, ve students reviewed the surveys
to conrm their comprehension of the questions’ content.
3.4. Procedure
During phase 1, the IHE took part in an educational fair called
Campus Expo at The State Islamic Senior High School (IHS/MAN) 1
Banjarmasin City on February 27–28, 2024. In the exhibition, several
events were conducted, including presentations, the distribution of
brochures, posters, and calendars, entertainment activities, and the de-
livery of information through social media and websites. Additionally,
other universities participated during the campus fair, not only IHE.
Furthermore, the university team also visited many IHS in South Kali-
mantan and delivered presentations to the students. The university’s
marketing team delivered a presentation to students and distributed
brochures and other promotional materials. The presentation was not
conducted in all the visited madrasas as the 12th grade students had
already graduated and were not present at the madrasah aliyah. The
school visits to MAN 1 and MAN 2 Tapin Indonesia, as well as MAN 2
Hulu Sungai Utara Indonesia, involved delivering presentations to the
pupils. We identied them as a cohort of students who received a school
visit intervention (score 2).
During the subsequent phase, various tests are conducted to get
measurements. Measurements were conducted following the imple-
mentation of the university’s intervention. Stage 3 is the phase dedi-
cated to the examination and interpretation of data. The subsequent
phase involves the examination of data obtained from all participants,
including senior high school pupils. Stage 4 of the analysis employs
partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The
estimation of exogenous factors’ direct and indirect effects is performed
at this stage by executing bootstrapping applying 15,000 samples. A
substantial dataset acquired by bootstrapping will yield unbiased and
efcient regression estimations (Ahmed & Yuantao, 2021).
4. Result
4.1. Outer loading (construct reliability and validity, dan discriminant
validity)
In order to establish the reliability and validity of a construct, we
used measures such as Cronbach’s alpha (
α
), composite reliability (CR),
and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Cronbach’s alpha (
α
) score is
used to determine the consistency of a construct in measuring the same
variable. Construct reliability and validity can be seen in Table 10.
All items, with the exception of BA_1 and BA_3, satisfy the re-
quirements for construct reliability and validity (outer loading>0.7;
α
>
0.7; CR >1.96; AVE>0.5). This demonstrates that indicators will exhibit
consistency in measuring the variables being tested. Indicators have also
been proven to be used to assess the construct under investigation. On
the other hand, the VIF score did not indicate any presence of collin-
earity (VIF<5).
We assessed the discriminant validity by calculating the Heterotrait-
Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). The test ndings indicated that the constructs
accurately reect the desired notions they are designed to assess. All
HTMT values observed were below or equal 0.900 (HTMT≤0.9) sug-
gesting that the constructs have adequately fullled the necessary re-
quirements for discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015; Ringle et al.,
2023; Roemer et al., 2021). The outcomes of HTMT test are presented in
Table 11 below.
4.2. Hypothesis verication
The outcomes of the PLS-SEM analysis demonstrated that gender,
family economic background, and father’s education did not have a
statistically signicant impact on BA, BT, and EI, as indicated by the T
statistic and P Value (t <1.96; p >0.05). Further, the educational
attainment of the mother has a substantial impact on BT, the type of
school has a notable inuence on BA, and promotion has a considerable
effect on EI (t >1.96; p <0.05). Furthermore, the condence interval
bias corrected value supports this claim. For example, in the condence
limit of 2.5%–97.5%, the condence interval is [0.035; 0.213]; [0.033;
0.22], respectively, suggesting a statistically signicant impact. An ef-
fect is considered signicant when the interval between 0.035 and 0.213
does not include zero (J. F. Hair et al., 2022). Nevertheless, the impact of
these variables falls within a very small size effects (f2 <0.02).
Additionally, this study demonstrated that BA had a notable impact
on BT and EI, and BT had a noteworthy impact on EI. The impact of BA
on BT and EI is in the large effect size category, whereas the inuence of
BT on EI is small. Table 12 displays the results.
The aforementioned ndings demonstrated the pivotal role of brand
awareness in establishing the IHE brand. The path coefcient (β) and
effect size (f
2
) indicate the magnitude and extent of the impact of these
factors on BT and EI. BA has a signicant and large impact on BT (β =
0.631, f
2
=0.630). Similarly, BA also has a large positive effect on EI
with a β of 0.686 and a f
2
of 0.800. Essentially, the inclusion of BA will
result in a rise in BT and EI. Modications to BA will exert a robust and
noteworthy impact on the rise of BT and EI. However, other external
factors, such as mother’s education, school type, and promotion, had a
weak and small impact on BT and EI (β <0.3), despite their signicant
Table 10
Construct reliability and validity.
Construct Outer
loadings
α
CR AVE VIF
Brand awareness
(BA)
BA_1
*
0.602 0.832 0.900 0.752 1.383
BA_2 0.942 3.363
BA_3* 0.692 1.581
BA_4 0.735 1.412
BA_5 0.929 3.439
Brand trust (BT) BT_1 0.792 0.891 0.924 0.753 1.939
BT_2 0.871 2.626
BT_3 0.899 3.062
BT_4 0.904 3.083
Enrolment
intention (EI)
EI_1 0.936 0.909 0.943 0.846 3.658
EI_2 0.918 3.158
EI_3 0.906 2.656
Note: *Outer loading <07 is eliminated, and the calculating process is restarted.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
8
inuence (t >1.96; p <0.05). This impact does not match the minimal
criterion for path coefcient, which requires a value greater than 0.3 (β
>0.3) or at least 0.2 (Chin, 1998a).
Both BA and BT act as mediators in the impact of exogenous variables
on EI. The relationship between school type and EI was signicantly
mediated by BA (t >1.96); p <0.05). Furthermore, the impact of the
educational level of the mother and BA on EI, with BT acting as a
mediator, was found small (β <0.3). The rise in EI was mostly attributed
to the low impact of school type, with BA acting as a mediator (0.023 <
0.3). Table 13 illustrates the mediatory functions of BA and BT.
4.3. Structural model
A chi-square value of 505.143 and a Normed Fit Index (NFI) of 0.886
indicate the quality of the model. The value of the chi-square exceeds the
standard of the t model, but we tend to ignore it because the chi square
is not credible when used on a large sample (Hooper et al., 2008).
Moreover, the criterion for a favourable t model is an NFI value above
0.90 or reaching 1, indicating a higher level of t (Ringle & Becker,
2024). The NFI value indicates that the model’s t has increased by
88.6% compared to the null model (Yusif et al., 2020). However, the t
model must also take into account other sizes, as the number of samples
exceeding 200 signicantly inuences the NIF (Dash & Paul, 2021;
Hooper et al., 2008).
The model’s accuracy is validated with an SRMR value of 0.048,
indicating good t. The model effectively explains the relationships
among variables, demonstrating its credibility and reliability. The
proposed model, of intermediate complexity, shows a 65% impact on
enrolment intention (EI) and 38.7% on brand trust (BT). Additional
variables may inuence BT by 35% and EI by 61.3%. The model
affecting brand awareness (BA) is weak, explaining only 3.3% of the
variance. The model’s quality is shown in Table 14.
The research structural model describes the relationship between the
variables measured. From the model suggested, it can be seen that the
direct and indirect inuence of one variable on another variable. The
model can be seen in Fig. 2 below.
Note: Father’s edu =father’s education; Mother’s edu =mother’s
education; Family eco. =Family economy background; School type =
non-religious school and madrasah (Islamic school).
5. Discussion and implication
5.1. Discussion
The main nding of this study indicates that promotional activities
have a signicant yet marginal effect on enrolment intentions, which, in
some cases, may even be negligible. However, this is consistent with
previous research that suggests that promotional activities have an
impact on customer behaviour. It support previous researches suggest-
ing that promotional activities had a noticeable inuence on consumer
behaviour. In HE sector, according to Berger and Wallingford (1997),
promotional activities in educational services have an impact on the
process of selecting a college.
Ofine and online promotion is one of the factors inuencing
Table 11
Discriminant validity heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
BA BT Eco. G EI Fat_edu Mot_edu Pr. School type
BA
BT 0.715
Eco. Family 0.104 0.049
G 0.045 0.026 0.013
EI 0.900 0.639 0.111 0.033
Father’s education 0.038 0.033 0.204 0.118 0.053
Mother’s education 0.076 0.052 0.242 0.14 0.031 0.618
Promotion 0.148 0.05 0.04 0.101 0.173 0.072 0.041
School type 0.192 0.06 0.069 0.027 0.174 0.015 0.02 0.423
Note: The SmartPLS version 4.0.9.9 calculation result.
Table 12
Direct effect of exogenous variable.
Condence intervals bias corrected βf2 t p Hypothesis
2.5% 97.5%
BT - >EI 0.077 0.232 0.157 0.043 3.976 0.000 H1 was supported
BA - >BT 0.566 0.687 0.631 0.630 20.587 0.000 H2 was supported
BA - >EI 0.612 0.754 0.686 0.800 18.779 0.000 H3 was supported
Promotion - >BA −0.011 0.175 0.083 0.006 1.760 0.078 H4 was rejected
Promotion - >BT −0.115 0.031 −0.041 0.002 1.090 0.276 H5 was rejected
Promotion - >EI 0.008 0.126 0.066 0.010 2.164 0.030 H6 was supported
Gender - >BA −0.110 0.072 −0.019 0.000 0.402 0.688 H7 was rejected
Family eco. - >BA −0.188 0.019 −0.091 0.008 1.702 0.089 H8 was rejected
Father’s education - >BA −0.126 0.098 −0.017 0.000 0.298 0.766 H9 was rejected
Mother’s education- >BA −0.121 0.108 −0.002 0.000 0.041 0.967 H10 was rejected
School type - >BA 0.033 0.229 0.132 0.015 2.610 0.009 H11 was supported
Gender - >BT −0.046 0.091 0.022 0.001 0.635 0.526 H12 was rejected
Family eco. - >BT −0.111 0.111 0.004 0.000 0.063 0.950 H13 was rejected
Father’s education - >BT −0.167 −0.000 −0.084 0.007 1.938 0.053 H14 was rejected
Mother’s education- >BT 0.035 0.213 0.124 0.015 2.713 0.007 H15 was supported
School type - >BT −0.112 0.059 −0.027 0.001 0.626 0.531 H16 was rejected
Gender- >EI −0.062 0.050 −0.007 0.000 0.235 0.814 H17 was rejected
Family eco.- >EI −0.086 0.033 −0.027 0.002 0.876 0.381 H18 was rejected
Father’s education - >EI −0.103 0.040 −0.032 0.002 0.887 0.375 H19 was rejected
Mother’s education- >EI −0.059 0.077 0.008 0.000 0.221 0.825 H20 was rejected
School type - >EI −0.053 0.069 0.008 0.000 0.243 0.808 H21 was rejected
Note: T statistic>1.96; P value <0.05; f
2
>0.02 small effect size, f
2
>0.15 medium effect size, f
2
>0.35 large effect size (J. Cohen, 1988).
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
9
students’ choice of universities in the UAE (Nuseir & El Refae, 2022). As
a component of the marketing mix, studies conducted in Indonesia have
also demonstrated that promotion signicantly impacts students’ de-
cisions to select a university (Lestari & Miswan, 2022; Onsardi et al.,
2021). Without explicitly referring to promotion, a study in Italy high-
lighted the importance of information in shaping university choices
(Azzone & Soncin, 2020). Therefore, promotional efforts that provide
relevant information aligned with prospective students’ expectations are
likely to inuence their decision to enrol in a particular university.
Conversely, our ndings challenge those of Heng et al. (2024), who
argue that university reputation, professor quality, and campus facilities
signicantly inuence students’ college choices, whereas promotional
activities do not. Similarly, in Indonesia, Simanjuntak et al. (2024) re-
ported that traditional promotional tools, such as brochures, banners,
billboards, and radio commercials, have a minimal impact on students’
decision-making processes when selecting a college.
Moreover, our study does not support ndings suggesting that
promotion as a hedonic element has no effect on university branding in
Malaysia (Lim, 2020). Researchers have found that word-of-mouth
(WoM) has a stronger inuence on university selection decisions than
promotional activities carried out by universities (T. D. Le et al., 2020;
Rehman et al., 2022). Qasim et al. (2021)conducted a study in Iraq that
did not identify promotion as a factor inuencing university choice.
Furthermore, studies have shown that information about academic
disciplines does not signicantly inuence students’ decision-making (L.
Ma, Li, et al., 2023). In other words, promotional efforts emphasizing
information about academic disciplines are unlikely to inuence stu-
dents’ choices.
The limited effectiveness of promotional efforts provides two key
insights. First, it indicates that other factors have a stronger inuence on
enrollment decisions than promotional interventions. John and Noell
(1989) found that providing nancial aid positively inuences enroll-
ment decisions across various socio-economic groups, resulting in
higher enrollment rates among ethnic and racial minorities. From a
marketing mix viewpoint, it is evident that features of the product, such
as the quality of lectures, have a greater impact on students’ choice of
institution (Sudsawart et al., 2019, pp. 106–110). Career opportunities
are the most signicant factor inuencing students when choosing the
eld of economics (T. L. Nguyen et al., 2023). Cost, on the other hand, is
the most critical consideration for Malaysian students when selecting
international universities (Kamal Basha et al., 2019). On the other hand,
increasing tuition fees have a minimal impact on decreasing the number
of economically disadvantaged students who enrol in college (Declercq
& Verboven, 2015). The decision to attend college is greatly inuenced
by familial or peer factors (Barrios-Fern´
andez, 2022), WoM (Spearman
et al., 2016) and university reputation (Juhaidi, 2024b). Valitov (2014)
argues that university rankings reect the institution’s reputation.
Accreditation is one of the key factors that enhance a university’s
reputation and ranking (Ngoc et al., 2023; Romanowski, 2022). In the
context of Peru, Acevedo-De-los-Ríos and Rondinel-Oviedo (2022)
concluded that accreditation improves the quality of learning, university
rankings, and institutional reputation. Similarly, a study in India
demonstrated that university accreditation could increase student
enrolment (P. Kumar et al., 2020). However, lenient accreditation
evaluations have contributed to Indian universities lagging behind in
global rankings (Fernandes & Singh, 2022). Research in Poland also
highlights the impact of accreditation processes on national university
rankings (Rybinski, 2020). In the context of business schools in France,
accreditation inuences students’ decisions when selecting HE in-
stitutions (Jacqmin & Lefebvre, 2021). In Indonesia, Wulandari et al.
(2022) found that program accreditation and promotional efforts affect
students’ choices of universities. Furthermore, international accredita-
tion enhances public trust and adds value to graduates, making them
more competitive in the job market (Pribadi et al., 2024).
Second, the implementation of an ineffective promotional interven-
tion strategy. Previous studies have identied factors that can inuence
the effectiveness of promotional strategies. S. Kumar and Patra (2017)
emphasized that promotions cantered on price, such as reduced tuition
fees, can potentially diminish the perceived value and reputation of the
brand. Integrated marketing communication aligns and coordinates
several components of the promotional mix, such as advertising, spon-
sorship, personal selling, public relations, direct marketing, sales pro-
motion, and social media (G. Armstrong & Kotler, 2003; Mangold &
Faulds, 2009). The elements of the marketing mix on IHE’s social media
content are quantitatively imbalanced (Juhaidi, 2024a). Promotional
techniques should improve potential students’ comprehension of a
program’s image and positioning, emphasize the university’s excellence,
and showcase its diversity (Berger & Wallingford, 1997; Frølich &
Stensaker, 2010). Lysonski et al. (2017) suggest that promotions high-
lighting affordability may exert negligible inuence on materialistic
students, who are more attracted to promotions that underscore pres-
tige, merit, and aesthetic allure.
The impact of social media marketing (SMM) on enrolment remains a
Table 13
Indirect effect of exogenous variable.
Condence
intervals bias
corrected
βt p Hypothesis
2.5% 97.5%
Gender - >BA
- >EI
−0.075 0.050 −0.013 0.402 0.688 H22 was
rejected
Family eco- >
BA - >EI
−0.131 0.012 −0.062 1.693 0.091 H23 was
rejected
Father’s
education - >
BA - >EI
−0.088 0.067 −0.012 0.298 0.766 H24 was
rejected
Mother’s
education - >
BA - >EI
−0.083 0.076 −0.002 0.041 0.967 H25 was
rejected
School type -
>BA - >EI
0.023 0.158 0.090 2.591 0.010 H26 was
supported
Promotion - >
BA - >EI
−0.007 0.120 0.057 1.756 0.079 H27 was
rejected
Gender - >BT
- >EI
−0.007 0.017 0.003 0.601 0.548 H28 was
rejected
Family eco- >
BT - >EI
−0.020 0.017 0.001 0.061 0.952 H29 was
rejected
Father’s
education - >
BT - >EI
−0.032 −0.001 −0.013 1.714 0.087 H30 was
rejected
Mother’s
education - >
BT - >EI
0.005 0.041 0.019 2.130 0.033 H31 was
supported
School type -
>BT - >EI
−0.020 0.009 −0.004 0.595 0.552 H32 was
rejected
Promotion - >
BT - >EI
−0.022 0.004 −0.006 0.988 0.323 H33 was
rejected
BA - >BT - >
EI
0.050 0.148 0.099 3.939 0.000 H34 was
supported
Note: Criteria β >0.3; T statistic>1.96; P value <0.05.
Table 14
R-square of model.
R
2
R
2
adjusted
SRMR Chi-
Square
NFI Model
quality
Brand
awareness
(BA)
0.044 0.033 0.048 Very weak
Brand trust
(BT)
0.396 0.387 505.143 0.886 Moderate
Enrolment
intention (EI)
0.655 0.650 Moderate
Note: R
2
<0.19 very weak; 0.19 ≤R
2
<0.33 weak; 0.33 ≤R
2
<0.67 moderate;
R
2
>0.67 substantial(Chin, 1998b), SRMR 0.048 <0.08 (Schuberth et al.,
2023).
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
10
topic of ongoing debate. A study of sixteen universities in the United
States revealed that social media platforms used by institutions often do
not align with those preferred by prospective students, rendering SMM
ineffective (Thornton, 2017). Similarly, Kimani and Obwatho (2020)
found no impact of SMM through platforms like Facebook and Quora on
enrolment in Kenya’s private universities. In contrast, research in the
Philippines demonstrated that SMM increases the interest of prospective
students, which positively inuences enrolment in tertiary education
institutions (Labausa et al., 2023). Studies from both the Philippines and
the United States highlight the use of various strategies, including social
media, websites, and yers, to attract students by emphasizing the
relevance of the institution to their career aspirations (Cabeliza, 2023).
While Facebook SMM has been shown to build trust, it does not
directly inuence enrollment intentions in North Cyprus (Nevzat, 2018).
In Indonesia, Instagram SMM impacts the enrolment intentions of fol-
lowers, with engagement serving as mediator (Juhaidi, Fuady, et al.,
2024). However, Elken (2020) highlights the long-term prestige of
universities, which is reected in world rankings, as a signicant
competitive advantage in the HE market, without focusing on promo-
tional strategies. This aligns with ndings by Juhaidi, Yaqin, et al.
(2024), who reported that Instagram SMM does not affect the interna-
tional reputation of top global universities. Additionally, Park et al.
(2020) found that social media could diminish psychological proximity
to the brand. The promotion of universities in the UAE through ofine
channels is as important as through online platforms (Nuseir & El Refae,
2022). This suggests that both social media and traditional channels are
critical avenues that HE institutions must strategically prioritize in their
promotional efforts.
Our nding afrms that choosing a HE institution is a complex and
multifaceted process. As T. D. Le et al. (2020) noted, selecting a uni-
versity is a high-stakes and intricate decision. Consequently, promo-
tional efforts can have both positive and negative impacts on
institutions. For HE institutions with established reputations, promo-
tional activities may inadvertently harm their brand image.
Furthermore, this study revealed that the type of educational insti-
tution had a signicant inuence on BA. Students in madrasah demon-
strate a heightened level of awareness regarding IHE. This is to be
expected, as the purpose of IHE was to provide advanced education for
students from madrasahs/pesantrens (Islamic boarding schools) and to
train religious teachers for madrasas (Kraince, 2007). Moreover, a
signicant proportion of teachers in madrassas are graduates of IHE,
which leads to a higher level of receptiveness among students towards
the information of IHE.
This inclination also coincides with the characteristics of the study
participants. IHS students originate from lower-income backgrounds
and have parents with comparatively less education than GHS pupils.
Consequently, they exhibit a stronger afliation with IHE, which is
perceived as an inexpensive institution. This is evident from the sub-
stantially lower amount of IHE tuition fee compared to GHE (Juhaidi,
2024b).
Brand awareness accounts for this difference effect on EI. A strong
reputation that aligns with student expectations positively inuences
enrolment decisions. Conversely, when the perceived quality and
reputation of a university do not meet expectations, it discourages
enrolment intention. Specically, students acknowledge the excellent
reputation of IHE in Islamic studies but feel that its reputation does not
align with their professional goals, leading to a reluctance to enrol. In
other words, although prospective students may have a high level of
awareness as a result of its promotional efforts, they are unlikely to
choose it if they perceive that it does not align with their career
expectations.
The association between promotion, BA, BT, and EI is shown in
Fig. 3. It shows that BA and BT aligned with career expectation boost EI.
Thus, HE institutions must prioritize quality and reputation to meet
potential students’ needs.
5.2. Implication
5.2.1. Theoretical implication
The ndings of this study make several theoretical contributions to
the existing literature on HE marketing and consumer behaviour, spe-
cically focusing on gender relations, socioeconomic background, pro-
motion, BA, BT, and EI in the context of IHE in Indonesia. These
contributions expand the current perspectives and offer new insights
into the eld.
First, The study’s ndings indicate that IHS and GHS students show
no signicant differences in their university selection preferences. This
discovery presents a new perspective, highlighting that the type of
school does not signicantly inuence university selection. This study
presents a theoretical contribution demonstrating that madrasah
Fig. 2. Structural model.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
11
students exhibit a limited tendency to choose an IHE for their subse-
quent studies.
Second, the study conrms the negligible inuence of promotional
efforts on the enrolment intentions. Our ndings theoretically suggest
that promotions in the education sector do not signicantly inuence
the choices of prospective students. In other words, prospective students
are less likely to change their choice even though they have received
promotional interventions from other universities.
Third, the ndings contribute to a deeper understanding of the
complex factors inuencing students’ IHE choices. The decision to select
a college is inherently complex and challenging to predict due to its
associated risks and the multitude of inuencing factors. Therefore, we
propose a theoretical explanation that suggests factors such as alignment
with career expectations may play a more substantial role in shaping BA,
BT, and students’ enrolment intentions.
5.2.2. Managerial implications
The results of this study present numerous managerial implications
for administrators and marketing manager of IHE. First, the impact of BT
on EI, demonstrated in this study, serves as a foundation for recom-
mending that IHE administrators emphasize enhancing the IHE brand’s
reputation through quality improvement initiatives. IHE management
diminished their emphasis on promotional activities to recruit new
students. An enhanced reputation will bolster trust in the university and
encourage loyalty.
Second, our ndings indicate that promotion has a small impact on
EI, urging IHE administrators to explore alternate marketing strategies.
We advise IHE marketing manager to implement a holistic approach that
encompasses all elements of the promotional mix, including advertising,
public relations, personal selling, traditional direct marketing, and
digital marketing, for the long term. The promotion mix will enhance
brand awareness.
Third, our investigation indicates that EI is unaffected by gender,
socioeconomic level, or school type, reinforcing our proposal for IHE
marketing manager to broaden their target market outside madrasahs.
IHE marketing manager must take into account the demands of wide
markets, especially the career-related needs of GHS students. Therefore,
IHE should integrate STEM elds with Islamic studies.
6. Limitations and future research
This study faces several limitations. First, we employed a non-
probability sampling method to select participants, which may not
accurately represent the wider population. Furthermore, we drew the
sample from a single province region and associated it with an IHE. As a
result, the sample may not accurately represent the broader population
due to the sampling technique employed. Additionally, the snowball
sampling method excluded students without access to the WhatsApp
application from the study, potentially introducing sampling bias and
limiting the generalizability of the ndings. Consequently, prudence
must be observed when extrapolating the ndings to different pop-
ulations. Second, we limited the study to specic exogenous variables,
such as demographics, school type, promotion, BA, and BT as factors
inuencing educational institution choice. Consequently, other factors
inuencing BA, BT, and EI remain unmeasured.
To address these limitations, we recommend that future research
should use probability sampling techniques, such as random sampling,
to improve the generalizability of the ndings. We also suggest that
upcoming studies utilize a broader and more diverse sample at the
country level, including a wider range of HE institutions, not just those
related to IHEs. Such studies could compare student behaviour in
choosing between IHE and GHE institutions.
Moreover, we advocate for a deeper and more comprehensive
exploration of the factors inuencing the decision to choose a HE
institution. We need to further investigate factors underexplored in
relation to EI, such as customer value, hedonic and utilitarian value,
eWoM, and brand attachment. An examination of these diverse factors
would offer a clearer understanding of the complex and high-risk deci-
sion-making involved in selecting a HE institution.
7. Conclusion
Our study reveals that BA has a direct large impact on EI but has a
low effect on BT. In contrast, it is unexpected that university promotion
has no substantial impact on BA and has a weak effect on EI, rendering
its inuence negligible. This nding indicates that university promotion
does not effectively enhance students BA. Additionally, the mother’s
educational attainment has a negligible effect on BT. Meanwhile, the
type of school also has a weak inuence on BA and has no effect on BT
and EI. Furthermore, empirical studies conrm that gender, economic
family background, and father’s educational attainment have no sig-
nicant inuence on BA, BT, and EI, directly and indirect. However, the
mother’s educational attainment has a low indirect effect on EI, with BT
acting as a mediator. Likewise, school type has a low indirect effect on EI
through BA as a mediator.
Furthermore, this study concluded that the determinants of the de-
cision to enrol in IHE are more complex and diverse than those driving
the selection of other service-oriented products. Furthermore, the results
strengthen the view that choosing an IHE carries a signicant level of
uncertainty. It emphasizes the need for students and parents to carefully
assess several factors before making a well-informed decision. Conse-
quently, IHE institutions must formulate diverse marketing strategies to
effectively compete and attract new students in the HE market.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ahmad Juhaidi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Analisa
Fitria: Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Data curation.
Noor Hidayati: Visualization, Software, Project administration,
Fig. 3. Proposed model.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
12
Investigation, Data curation. Rinda Azmi Saputri: Supervision, Re-
sources, Data curation.
Institutional review board statement
The Ethical Committee of the Research and Community Service
Institute of Antasari State Islamic University Banjarmasin approved this
study (Approval Number: B-0072/Un.14/V.2/PP.00.9/03/2024). Writ-
ten consent was obtained from all participants.
Transparency
The authors conrm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and
transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have
been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have
been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing.
Data availability statement
The raw data required to reproduce the above ndings are available
and will be provided upon request.
Funding
The research leading to these results was funded by the Litapdimas
Program under the Research and Community Service Institute of Anta-
sari State Islamic University Banjarmasin, xLitapdimas Program under
the Research and Community Service Institute of Antasari State Islamic
University Banjarmasin (Grant Number 208, Year 2024).
Declaration of competing interest
No conict of interest exists. We wish to conrm that there are no
known conicts of interest associated with this publication and there has
been no signicant nancial support for this work that could have
inuenced its outcome.
Acknowledgement
We extend our profound gratitude to the Litapdimas Program under
the Research and Community Service Institute of Antasari State Islamic
University Banjarmasin, Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Republic of
Indonesia, for their invaluable support and contributions to this research
(Grant Number 208, Year 2024). Our sincere thanks also go to the
dedicated teachers who generously facilitated the distribution of the
online questionnaire across their schools and madrasahs, signicantly
contributing to the success of this study.
References
Abdelhady, M. R. R., Fayed, H. A. K., & Fawzy, N. M. (2019). The inuence of airlines’
marketing mix elements on passengers’ purchasing decision- making: The case of
FSCs and LCCs. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Systems, 12(2), 1–16
(Hospitality & Tourism Complete).
Abril, C., & Rodriguez-C´
anovas, B. (2016). Marketing mix effects on private labels brand
equity. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 25(3), 168–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redeen.2016.09.003
Acevedo-De-los-Ríos, A., & Rondinel-Oviedo, D. R. (2022). Impact, added value and
relevance of an accreditation process on quality assurance in architectural higher
education. Quality in Higher Education, 28(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13538322.2021.1977482
Afrizal, A. (2022). Perkembangan Perguruan Tinggi Islam di Indonesia (Kasus STAIN,
IAIN, UIN Dan Perguruan Tinggi Islam). Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan, 2(1), 18–32.
https://doi.org/10.51214/bip.v2i1.378
Ahmed, D., Xuhua, H., Xie, Y., Abdel-Haq, M., & Lijuan, Z. (2023). Custodian of wealth:
An assessment of insurers’ risk management practices. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraˇ
zivanja, 36(3), Article 2175006. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1331677X.2023.2175006
Ahmed, D., & Yuantao, X. (2021). Investor’s sentiment and non-life insurance demand
during economic impairment: A big dataset analysis. In H. Yu, Y. Zhu, & V. Chang
(Eds.), Second international conference on industrial IoT, big data, and supply chain (p.
15). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2624180
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human
Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hbe2.195
Akoglu, H. E., & ¨
Ozbek, O. (2022). The effect of brand experiences on brand loyalty
through perceived quality and brand trust: A study on sports consumers. Asia Pacic
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(10), 2130–2148. https://doi.org/10.1108/
APJML-05-2021-0333
Alhapizi, M. R., Nasir, M., & Effendy, I. (2020). Penerapan data mining menggunakan
algoritma K-means clustering untuk menentukan strategi promosi mahasiswa baru
universitas bina darma palembang. Journal of Software Engineering Ampera, 1(1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.51519/journalsea.v1i1.10
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Ryu, K. (2018). An assessment
of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in
hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30
(1), 514–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568
Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples.
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0253717620977000
Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing: An introduction. Pearson Educaci´
on.
Armstrong, J. J., & Lumsden, D. B. (2000). Impact of universities’ promotional materials
on college choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(2), 83–91. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J050v09n02_05
Aslam, A., & Ghouse, G. (2022). The socio-economic determinants of interpersonal trust
levels. International Journal of Management Research & Emerging Sciences, 12(3).
https://doi.org/10.56536/ijmres.v12i3.268
Asmin Rahayaan. (2023). The inuence of promotion through social media on
purchasing decisions with trust as a moderation variable. Journal of Management
Research and Studies, 1(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.61665/jmrs.v1i2.42
Azzari, V., & Pelissari, A. (2020). Does brand awareness inuences purchase intention?
The mediation role of brand equity dimensions. Brazilian Business Review, 17(6),
669–685. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2020.17.6.4
Azzone, G., & Soncin, M. (2020). Factors driving university choice: A principal
component analysis on Italian institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12),
2426–2438.
Bakar, A., Butarbutar, D. J. A., Hasanudin, A., Mukhlishah, N., & Sakianah, D. (2022).
Pengaruh promosi dan akreditasi terhadap minat mahasiswa baru. Al-Mada: Jurnal
Agama, Sosial, Dan Budaya, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.31538/almada.v5i4.2738.
Article 4.
Baker, R., Bettinger, E., Jacob, B., & Marinescu, I. (2018). The effect of labor market
information on community college students’ major choice. Economics of Education
Review, 65, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.005
Ballarino, G., Filippin, A., Abbiati, G., Argentin, G., Barone, C., & Schizzerotto, A. (2022).
The effects of an information campaign beyond university enrolment: A large-scale
eld experiment on the choices of high school students. Economics of Education
Review, 91, Article 102308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2022.102308
Baltaci, D.Ç., Durmaz, Y., & Baltaci, F. (2024). The relationships between the
multidimensional planned behavior model, green brand awareness, green marketing
activities, and purchase intention. Brain and Behavior, 14(6), Article e3584. https://
doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3584
Bansal, R., John, S., & Ling, P. M. (2005). Cigarette advertising in Mumbai, India:
Targeting different socioeconomic groups, women, and youth: Table 1. Tobacco
Control, 14(3), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2004.010173
Bao, T. C. (2022). The factors affecting university major and profession choices of high
school students. Tạp chí Khoa học - Trường Đại học Sư phạm TP Hồ Chí Minh, 19(6).
https://doi.org/10.54607/hcmue.js.19.6.3462. Article 6.
Barone, C., & Assirelli, G. (2020). Gender segregation in higher education: An empirical
test of seven explanations. Higher Education, 79(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-019-00396-2
Barrios-Fern´
andez, A. (2022). Neighbors’ effects on university enrollment. American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14(3), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1257/
app.20200360
Becerra, P., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2013). The inuence of brand trust and brand
identication on brand evangelism. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22
(5/6), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0394
Ben Cheikh, A., & Ferchichi, G. (2023). An empirical investigation of student E-trust and
enrolment intention in an online paid hult prize certicate program: A COVID-19
study. In M. Joshi, M. Brahmi, L. Aldieri, & C. P. Vinci (Eds.), Advances in nance,
accounting, and economics (pp. 66–91). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-
6684-6766-4.ch004.
Benhardy, K. A., Hardiyansyah, H., Putranto, A., & Ronadi, M. (2020). Brand image and
price perceptions impact on purchase intentions: Mediating brand trust. Management
Science Letters, 3425–3432. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.035
Berger, K. A., & Wallingford, H. P. (1997). Developing advertising and promotion
strategies for higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 7(4),
61–72. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v07n04_05
Bohara, S., Suri, P., & Panwar, D. (2022). Impact of brand awareness on enrollment
decision process moderated by students gender for HEI. Journal Of Content
Community And Communication, 8, 227–241. https://doi.org/10.31620/JCCC.06.22/
16
Bohrer, M. F. (2007). Discriminant analysis of Aaker’s brand equity model on top -of -mind
awareness/brand preference congruence in prospective hospital patients. Anderson
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
13
University. https://e-resources.perpusnas.go.id:2082/docview/304712514?account
id=25704.
Boonsiritomachai, W., & Sud-On, P. (2020). Increasing purchase intention and word-of-
mouth through hotel brand awareness. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 26(2),
265–289. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.26.2.1
Brown, G. L., & Aytuglu, H. A. (2020). Father-child attachment relationships. In
H. E. Fitzgerald, K. Von Klitzing, N. J. Cabrera, J. Scarano De Mendonça, &
T. Skjøthaug (Eds.), Handbook of fathers and child development (pp. 273–290).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51027-5_18.
Cabeliza, S. M. (2023). Ensuring student enrollment and retention toward sustainability
of universities. International Journal of Management and Education in Human
Development, 1(4), 187–196.
Chen, S., Chen, H., Ling, H., & Gu, X. (2021). How do students become good workers?
Investigating the impact of gender and school on the relationship between career
decision-making self-efcacy and career exploration. Sustainability, 13(14), 7876.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147876
Chen-Yu, J., Cho, S., & Kincade, D. (2016). Brand perception and brand repurchase intent
in online apparel shopping: An examination of brand experience, image congruence,
brand affect, and brand trust. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 7(1), 30–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2015.1110042
Cheung, V. S. Y., Lo, J. C. Y., Chiu, D. K. W., & Ho, K. K. W. (2023). Evaluating social
media’s communication effectiveness on travel product promotion: Facebook for
college students in Hong Kong. Information Discovery and Delivery, 51(1), 66–73.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-10-2021-0117
Chin, W. W. (1998a). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.
MIS Quarterly, 22(1) (vii–xvi).
Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach for structural equation
modeling. In Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Chung, K.-C. (2009). Antecedent of brand trust in online tertiary education: A Malaysian
and Singapore perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(4),
p3. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v3n4p3
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1
(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).
Routledge.
Conner, M. (2020). Theory of planned behavior. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (1st ed., pp. 1–18). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119568124.ch1.
Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). Nonexperimental quantitative research and its role in
guiding instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1053451208321565
Cuong, D. T. (2020). The role of brand trust as a mediator in the relationship between
brand satisfaction and purchase intention. International Journal of Psychosocial
Rehabilitation, 24(6), 14726–14735.
Cuong, D. T. (2021). The impact of promotion and price perception on buying decision
and repurchase intention through online shopping. In R. Silhavy (Ed.), Articial
intelligence in intelligent systems (Vol. 229, pp. 238–250). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77445-5_21.
Curtis, E. A., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational
research. Nurse Researcher, 23(6), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382
Das, G., Jain, S. P., Maheswaran, D., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Srinivasan, R. (2021). Pandemics
and marketing: Insights, impacts, and research opportunities. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 49(5), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00786-y
Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences
and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, Article
121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092
Davis-Kean, P. E., Tighe, L. A., & Waters, N. E. (2021). The role of parent educational
attainment in parenting and children’s development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 30(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721421993116
De Las Cuevas, P., García-Arenas, M., & Rico, N. (2022). Why not STEM? A study case on
the inuence of gender factors on students’ higher education choice. Mathematics, 10
(2), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10020239
Declercq, K., & Verboven, F. (2015). Socio-economic status and enrollment in higher
education: Do costs matter? Education Economics, 23(5), 532–556. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09645292.2015.1047822
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Luis Munuera-Alem´
an, J. (2005). Does brand trust matter to
brand equity? The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(3), 187–196.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058
Ebrahim, R. S. (2020). The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media
marketing on brand equity and brand loyalty. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 19
(4), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2019.1705742
Eldegwy, A., Elsharnouby, T. H., & Kortam, W. (2022). The rising veto power of the
checkbook: An empirical investigation of parents’ impacts on their children’s
university enrollment. International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and
Management, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCRMM.302913
Ellitan, L., Harvina, L. G. D., & Lukito, R. S. H. (2022). The effect of social media
marketing on brand image, brand trust, and purchase intention of somethinc
skincare products in surabaya. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Business, 3(2), 104–114.
https://doi.org/10.24123/jeb.v3i2.4801
Emerson, R. W. (2015). Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball
sampling: How does sampling affect the validity of research? Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 109(2), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0145482X1510900215
Evans, J. D., Jones, T., & Keys, P. Y. (2024). The signicance of diversity positioning in
higher education for branding and marketing. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2024.2305635
Fadhli, M., Salabi, A. S., Siregar, F. A., Lubis, H., & Sahudra, T. M. (2023). Higher
education marketing strategy: Comparative study of state islamic high education
institution and state higher education. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 11(3), 791. https://
doi.org/10.26811/peuradeun.v11i3.896
Fernandes, J. O., & Singh, B. (2022). Accreditation and ranking of higher education
institutions (HEIs): Review, observations and recommendations for the Indian higher
education system. The TQM Journal, 34(5), 1013–1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/
TQM-04-2021-0115
Fitriani, F., Lelawati, N., & Rahayu, S. R. (2021). Strategi promosi penerimaan
mahasiswa baru (penmaru) UM metro. Jurnal Lentera Pendidikan Pusat Penelitian
LPPM UM Metro, 6(2), 155. https://doi.org/10.24127/jlpp.v6i2.1809
Frølich, N., & Stensaker, B. (2010). Student recruitment strategies in higher education:
Promoting excellence and diversity? International Journal of Educational Management,
24(4), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011045281
G¨
achter, S., Herrmann, B., & Th¨
oni, C. (2004). Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-
economic background: Survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 55(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2003.11.006
Gauatm, V. (2011). The impact of promotion on enrollment of students into private
schools. International Forum of Teaching & Studies, 7(2). https://search.ebscohost.co
m/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=cra
wler&jrnl=1555872X&AN=67371194&h=S%2FcoiJNn0TFFDdJmaslNOPmnVuys
H3gUVDt%2BZKOBmxIixyiJDmGPrr9ukCla9wFK8GEHmyN8lfI0mPkBrEh34A%3D
%3D&crl=c.
Gavinski, K., Cleveland, E., Didwania, A. K., Feinglass, J. M., & Sulistio, M. S. (2021).
Relationship between condence, gender, and career choice in internal medicine.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(3), 662–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11606-020-06221-2
Ghali-Zinoubi, Z. (2021). On linking socioeconomic status to consumer willingness to
buy and pay for organic food. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 58(3),
1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04618-9
Ghosh, A. K., Whipple, T. W., & Bryan, G. A. (2001). Student trust and its antecedents in
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00221546.2001.11777097
Gong, J., Said, F., Ting, H., Firdaus, A., Aksar, I. A., & Xu, J. (2023). Do privacy stress and
brand trust still matter? Implications on continuous online purchasing intention in
China. Current Psychology, 42(18), 15515–15527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
022-02857-x
Gonz´
alez, L., Cort´
es-Sancho, R., Murcia, M., Ballester, F., Rebagliato, M., & Rodríguez-
Bernal, C. L. (2020). The role of parental social class, education and unemployment
on child cognitive development. Gaceta Sanitaria, 34(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.07.014
Goodhue, L., & Thompson. (2012). Comparing PLS to regression and LISREL: A response
to marcoulides, chin, and saunders. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 703. https://doi.org/
10.2307/41703476
Graciola, A. P., De Toni, D., Milan, G. S., & Eberle, L. (2020). Mediated-moderated
effects: High and low store image, brand awareness, perceived value from mini and
supermarkets retail stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, Article
102117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102117
Guerreiro, J., & Pacheco, M. (2021). How green trust, consumer brand engagement and
green word-of-mouth mediate purchasing intentions. Sustainability, 13(14), 7877.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147877
Guilbault, M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: Reframing the debate.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08841241.2016.1245234
Ha, H.-Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the
web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4
(6), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.29
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and
expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-
2016-0130
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/
MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hakala, U., Svensson, J., & Vincze, Z. (2012). Consumer-based brand equity and top-of-
mind awareness: A cross-country analysis. The Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 21(6), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421211264928
Hanaysha, J. R. (2022). Impact of social media marketing features on consumer’s
purchase decision in the fast-food industry: Brand trust as a mediator. International
Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2), Article 100102. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100102
Hanaysha, J. R., Al Shaikh, M. E., & Alzoubi, H. M. (2021). Importance of marketing mix
elements in determining consumer purchase decision in the retail market.
International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 12
(6), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.2021110104
Hariyanti, T., Mulyono, M., Setiawati, E., Leila, G., Purnomo, H., Albart, N., Makbul, Y.,
& Indarti, I. (2024). Investigation of the role of internet marketing, word of mouth
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
14
communication and brand awareness on purchasing decisions: An empirical study in
online stores. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 8(4), 2713–2722.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.4.008
Hastings, J. S., Neilson, C. A., Ramirez, A., & Zimmerman, S. D. (2016). (Un)informed
college and major choice: Evidence from linked survey and administrative data.
Economics of Education Review, 51, 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econedurev.2015.06.005
Heng, H. K., Wang, R. X., Yeap, C. K., Ithnan, I. H. M., Abidin, I. S. B. Z., & Lai, P. Y.
(2024). Breaking barriers: Exploring the gender moderation in factors affecting
university choice for students. In N. Mansour, & L. Bujosa (Eds.), Islamic nance (pp.
345–357). Nature Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
48770-5_28.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A.,
Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014).
Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on r¨
onkk¨
o and evermann (2013).
Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094428114526928
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
014-0403-8
Heyert, A., & Weill, L. (2023). The gender gap in trust in Banks. Research in International
Business and Finance, 66, Article 102032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ribaf.2023.102032
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model t. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/297019805.
pdf.
Hou, C., & Wonglorsaichon, P. (2011). The relationship among brand awareness, brand
image, perceived quality, brand trust, brand loyaltyand brand equity of customer in
China’s antivirus software industry. International Journal of Business and Economics, 2
(1), 150–171.
Huaman-Ramirez, R. (2019). Brand experience effects on brand attachment: The role of
brand trust, age, and income. European Business Review, 31(5), 610–645. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EBR-02-2017-0039
Husain, R., Ahmad, A., & Khan, B. M. (2022). The impact of brand equity, status
consumption, and brand trust on purchase intention of luxury brands. Cogent
Business & Management, 9(1), Article 2034234. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311975.2022.2034234
Idris, M., Hussain, S., & Ahmad, N. (2020). Relationship between parents’ education and
their children’s academic achievement: Parent’s education and their children
academic achievement. Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 7(2), 82–92. https://doi.
org/10.46662/jass-vol7-iss2-2020(82-92
Jacqmin, J., & Lefebvre, M. (2021). The effect of international accreditations on
students’ revealed preferences: Evidence from French Business schools. Economics of
Education Review, 85, Article 102192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econedurev.2021.102192
Jeptepkeny, B. D., & Julius, G. O. (2012). Marketing strategies that attract and increase
student enrollment in institutions of higher learning: Case of private universities in
Kenya. http://ir.kabarak.ac.ke/handle/123456789/917.
John, E. P. S., & Noell, J. (1989). The effects of student nancial aid on access to higher
education: An analysis of progress with special consideration of minority enrollment.
Research in Higher Education, 30(6), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992391
Joshi, A., Pani, A., Sahu, P. K., Majumdar, B. B., & Tavasszy, L. (2024). Gender and
generational differences in omnichannel shopping travel decisions: What drives
consumer choices to pick up in-store or ship direct? Research in Transportation
Economics, 103, Article 101403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2023.101403
Juhaidi, A. (2024a). Social media marketing of islamic higher education institution in
Indonesia: A marketing mix perspective. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1),
Article 2374864. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2374864
Juhaidi, A. (2024b). University choice factors: A case of two types of higher education in
the third-largest island in the world. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), Article 2367731.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2367731
Juhaidi, A., Fuady, M. N., Ramadan, W., & Ma’ruf, H. (2024). Instagram activities,
engagement and enrollment intention in Indonesia: A case in the third largest island
in the world. Nurture, 18(2), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.55951/nurture.v18i2.642
Juhaidi, A., Syaifuddin, S., Salamah, S., Ma’ruf, H., Yuseran, M., Shapiah, J. R., Mudhiah,
Saputri, R. A., Muharramah, N., Fuady, M. N., Ramadan, W., & Lisdariani, R. (2024).
The effect of brand personality, brand-self congruity, and brand love on E-WOM in
islamic higher education in Indonesia: A mediating effect of brand trust. Social
Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, Article 100955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssaho.2024.100955
Juhaidi, A., Yaqin, H., Ma’ruf, H., Mizani, H., & Mahani, M. A. (2024). The impact of
country reputation on the international standing of universities: Does social media
engagement make a difference?. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4990547.
Kamal Basha, N., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2019). Evaluating students’ preferences
for university brands through conjoint analysis and market simulation. International
Journal of Educational Management, 34(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-
11-2018-0359
Kango, U., Kartiko, A., & Maarif, M. A. (2021). The effect of promotion on the decision to
choose a higher education through the brand image of education. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal
Pendidikan, 13(3), 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i3.852
Khan, I., & Rahman, Z. (2016). E-tail brand experience’s inuence on e-brand trust and e-
brand loyalty: The moderating role of gender. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 44(6), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2015-
0143
Khelfaoui, I., Xie, Y., Hafeez, M., Ahmed, D., Degha, H. E., & Meskher, H. (2022). Effects
of health shocks, insurance, and education on income: Fresh analysis using CHNS
panel data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14),
8298. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148298
Kimani, M., & Obwatho, S. (2020). Inuence of social media marketing on student
enrolment among private universities in Kenya. Journal of Marketing Communications,
3(1), 76–94.
Kosunen, S., Bernelius, V., Sepp¨
anen, P., & Porkka, M. (2020). School choice to lower
secondary schools and mechanisms of segregation in urban Finland. Urban Education,
55(10), 1461–1488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916666933
Kraince, R. G. (2007). Islamic higher education and social cohesion in Indonesia.
Prospects, 37(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9038-1
Krisnawan, I., & Jatra, I. M. (2021). The effect of brand image, brand awareness, and
brand association on smartphone purchase intention (case study in denpasar).
American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR), 5(6),
117–122.
Kumar, S., & Patra, S. (2017). Does promotion mix really help to enhance brand equity: A
literature review. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, VIII(2), 80–86.
https://doi.org/10.18843/ijcms/v8i2/11
Kumar, P., Shukla, B., & Passey, D. (2020). Impact of accreditation on quality and
excellence of higher education institutions. Revista Investigacion Operacional, 41(2),
151–167.
Kutlu, A., & Bedel, A. (2021). Effect of career days on high school students’ irrational
beliefs about career choice and on decision making skills about career. Participatory
Educational Research, 8(4), 454–467. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.100.8.4
Kuznetsov, I. S. (2024). Vocational and higher education: The role of trust in the
formation of educational and professional trajectory. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii =
Higher Education in Russia, 33(4), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-
2024-33-4-123-143
L¨
orz, M., Schindler, S., & Walter, J. G. (2011). Gender inequalities in higher education:
Extent, development and mechanisms of gender differences in enrolment and eld of
study choice. Irish Educational Studies, 30(2), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03323315.2011.569139
Labausa, F. S., Pinca, J. M., & Cruda, N. E. (2023). Investigating digital marketing
strategies in inuencing student enrollment decisions in tertiary education. Canadian
Journal of Business and Information Studies, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.34104/
cjbis.023.01190133
Lan, L., & Lian, Z. (2010). Application of statistical power analysis – how to determine
the right sample size in human health, comfort and productivity research. Building
and Environment, 45(5), 1202–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2009.11.002
Landrum, J. (2018). An Examination of marketing Factors that inuence nontraditional
student enrollment decisions [dissertation. Purdue University. https://docs.lib.purdue.
edu/open_access_dissertations/1990.
Lang, L. D., Lim, W. M., & Guzm´
an, F. (2022). How does promotion mix affect brand
equity? Insights from a mixed-methods study of low involvement products. Journal
of Business Research, 141, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.028
Laveen Kumar, K., & Anjani Devi, S. (2024). Beyond likes and shares: Unveiling the
sequential mediation of brand equity, loyalty, image, and awareness in social media
marketing’s inuence on repurchase intentions for high-tech products. Qubahan
Academic Journal, 4(2), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n2a514
Le, H. Q. (2020). Factors affecting students’ decision to select private universities in
vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(4), 235–245.
https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO4.235
Le, L. H., Bui, S. C., Duong, G. H., & Chang, Y.-C. (2021). Understanding the relationships
between B2C and C2C value co-creation in the universities: The mediating role of
brand awareness. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08841241.2021.2006852
Le, T. D., Robinson, L. J., & Dobele, A. R. (2020). Understanding high school students use
of choice factors and word-of-mouth information sources in university selection.
Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 808–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2018.1564259
Lee, Y. (2019). Understanding parents’ view on US higher education marketing
communication. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18(3), 279–299.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-019-09249-2
Leighton, K., Kardong-Edgren, S., Schneidereith, T., & Foisy-Doll, C. (2021). Using social
media and snowball sampling as an alternative recruitment strategy for research.
Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 55, 37–42.
Leite, F. P., & Baptista, P. D. P. (2022). The effects of social media inuencers’ self-
disclosure on behavioral intentions: The role of source credibility, parasocial
relationships, and brand trust. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 30(3),
295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.1935275
Lenes, R., Størksen, I., McClelland, M., & Idsøe, T. (2022). The role of mother’s education
and child gender for children’s vocabulary and math skills in the transition from
Early Childhood Education and Care to rst grade in Norway. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(3), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1350293X.2022.2055101
Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental occupation
and socioeconomic status on choice of college major. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 22(4), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012716828901
Lestari, H. S., & Miswan, M. (2022). The effect of marketing mix of educational services
and image formation on student decisions to choose private universities in bandung.
Wiga: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Ekonomi, 12(4), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.30741/
wiga.v12i4.909
Lim, W. M. (2020). Strategic brand management for higher education institutions with
graduate degree programs: Empirical insights from the higher education marketing
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
15
mix. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(3), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0965254X.2018.1496131
Liu, Y., & Du, R. (2020). Examining the effect of reviewer socioeconomic status
disclosure on customers’ purchase intention. Journal of Global Information
Management, 28(3), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2020070102
Liu, Q., & Wang, X. (2023). The impact of brand trust on consumers’ behavior toward
agricultural products’ regional public brand. PLoS One, 18(11), Article e0295133.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133
Llopis, E. J., O’Donnell, A., & Anderson, P. (2021). Impact of price promotion, price, and
minimum unit price on household purchases of low and no alcohol beers and ciders:
Descriptive analyses and interrupted time series analysis of purchase data from 70,
303 British households, 2015–2018 and rst half of 2020. Social Science & Medicine,
270, Article 113690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113690
Lyesmaya, D., Musthafa, B., & Sunendar, D. (2022). The role of mother’s education and
early skills in language and literacy learning opportunities. International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(8), 129–143. https://doi.org/
10.26803/ijlter.21.8.8
Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., & Rayner, R. (2017). The processing of advertising: Does a
consumer’s level of materialism make a difference? Innovative Marketing, 13(1),
11–23. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.13(1).2017.02
Ma, L., Li, X., Zhu, Q., & Ye, X. (2023). College-major choice to college-then-major
choice: Experimental evidence from Chinese college admissions reforms. Economics
of Education Review, 94, Article 102380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econedurev.2023.102380
Ma, H., Mo, Z., Gao, H., Fang, H., & Fu, H. (2023). Promotion framing effects on the
purchase of hedonic-utilitarian bundles: ERPs evidence of the moderating role of
income source. Neuroscience Letters, 817, Article 137516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neulet.2023.137516
Maduku, D. K., & Mbeya, S. (2024). Understanding family takaful purchase behaviour:
The roles of religious obligation and gender. Journal of Financial Services Marketing,
29(2), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-023-00213-z
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the
promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2009.03.002
Anwarul Islam, K. M., Shahabuddin, A., Omeish, F., Bashar Bhuiyan, A., & Islam, S.
(2023). Effects of brand awareness, religious belief, and brand trust on purchase
intentions of halal products among young consumers. Innovative Marketing, 19(4),
247–256.
Marques, C. P., & Guia, A. T. B. (2018). Gender, knowledge and motivation for wine
purchasing. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 30(4), 481–492. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-07-2017-0049
Martins, J., Costa, C., Oliveira, T., Gonçalves, R., & Branco, F. (2019). How smartphone
advertising inuences consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Business Research,
94, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.047
Mateos-Gonz´
alez, J. L., & Wakeling, P. (2022). Exploring socioeconomic inequalities and
access to elite postgraduate education among English graduates. Higher Education, 83
(3), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00693-9
Meet, R. K., Kundu, N., & Ahluwalia, I. S. (2024). Does socio demographic, green
washing, and marketing mix factors inuence gen Z purchase intention towards
environmentally friendly packaged drinks? Evidence from emerging economy.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, Article 140357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2023.140357
Meraj, M. A., Fernandes, C. J., & Ross, K. J. (2016). Applying marketing mix constructs in
higher education: The case of an MBA program in the UAE. International Journal of
Business and Globalisation, 16(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2016.074488
Molina, A., & Lamb, S. (2023). School segregation, inequality and trust in institutions:
Evidence from Santiago. In Comparative perspectives on school segregation (1st ed.).
Routledge.
Morgan, A. C., LaBerge, N., Larremore, D. B., Galesic, M., Brand, J. E., & Clauset, A.
(2022). Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(12),
1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4
Motsepe, A., Thulo, M. A., & Mochifefe, M. A. (2024). The effects of school career
guidance on career choices of radiography undergraduate students at a University in
Gauteng Province, South Africa. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 55
(3), Article 101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2024.04.001
Mourad, M., Meshreki, H., & Sarom, S. (2020). Brand equity in higher education:
Comparative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 209–231. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03075079.2019.1582012
Nakamura, M., & Nishino, S. (1993). Islamic higher education in Indonesia. Higher
Education Policy, 6(2), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.1993.26
Nasib, N., Azhmy, M. F., Nabella, S. D., Rusiadi, R., & Fadli, A. (2022). Survive amidst the
competition of private universities by maximizing brand image and interest in
studying. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(3), 3317–3328. https://doi.org/
10.35445/alishlah.v14i3.2037
Nevzat, R. (2018). Brand trust, brand loyalty and intention: Facebook as a student
recruitment and retention channel [doctoralThesis, Eastern Mediterranean
University (EMU) - Do˘
gu Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ)] http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr
:8080/xmlui/handle/11129/4968.
Newhouse, D., & Beegle, K. (2006). The effect of school type on academic achievement:
Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Human Resources, XLI(3), 529–557. https://doi.
org/10.3368/jhr.XLI.3.529
Ngoc, N. M., Hieu, V. M., & Tien, N. H. (2023). Impact of accreditation policy on quality
assurance activities of public and private universities in Vietnam. International
Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 10, 1–15.
Nguyen, T. L., Nguyen, H. T., Nguyen, N. H., Nguyen, D. L., Nguyen, T. T. D., & Le, D. L.
(2023). Factors affecting students’ career choice in economics majors in the COVID-
19 post-pandemic period: A case study of a private university in vietnam. Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), Article 100338.
Nguyen Viet, B., & Nguyen Anh, T. (2021). The role of selected marketing mix elements
in consumer based brand equity creation: Milk industry in Vietnam. Journal of Food
Products Marketing, 27(2), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10454446.2021.1892007
Noor, S. M., Manan, K. A., & Kuthoos, H. M. A. (2019). Assessing corporate brand equity
of public universities. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 35(3).
Article 3 http://ejournals.ukm.my/mjc/article/view/35203.
Nuseir, M. T., & El Refae, G. A. (2022). Factors inuencing the choice of studying at UAE
universities: An empirical research on the adoption of educational marketing
strategies. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(2), 215–237. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1852467
O’Keefe, D. J. (2007). Brief report: Post hoc power, observed power, A priori power,
retrospective power, prospective power, achieved power: Sorting out appropriate
uses of statistical power analyses. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(4),
291–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701641375
Onsardi, Wulandari, K., Finthariasari, M., & Yulinda, A. T. (2021). Impact of service
marketing on student decisions. JBMP (Jurnal Bisnis, Manajemen Dan Perbankan), 7
(2), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.21070/jbmp.v7i2.1521
Ouyang, D., Ou, X., Zhang, Q., & Dong, C. (2020). Factors inuencing purchase of
electric vehicles in China. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 25
(3), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09895-0
Palmisano, F., & Sacchi, A. (2024). Trust in public institutions, inequality, and digital
interaction: Empirical evidence from European Union countries. Journal of
Macroeconomics, 79, Article 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmacro.2023.103582
Papaleontiou - Louca, E., & Al Omari, O. (2020). The (Neglected) role of the father in
Children’s mental health. New Ideas in Psychology, 59, Article 100782. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100782
Park, M., Im, H., & Kim, H.-Y. (2020). “You are too friendly!” The negative effects of
social media marketing on value perceptions of luxury fashion brands. Journal of
Business Research, 117, 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.026
Parylo, O. (2012). Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods: An analysis of research
design in articles on principal professional development (1998–2008). International
Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.5172/
mra.2012.6.3.297
Peter, F., Spiess, C. K., & Zambre, V. (2021). Informing students about college: Increasing
enrollment using a behavioral intervention? Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 190, 524–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.07.032
Philipp, J. (2023). Gendered university major choice: The role of intergenerational
transmission. Journal of Population Economics, 36(2), 1049–1097. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00148-022-00900-6
Pokhrel, S., Tiwari, A., & Phuyal, R. K. (2016). An impact of education marketing on
enrolment of students at private management colleges in Kathmandu. Journal of
Business and Social Sciences Research, 1(1), 22–36.
Porter, C., & Serra, D. (2020). Gender differences in the choice of major: The importance
of female role models. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(3),
226–254. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180426
Pradhan, M., & Piriyapada, S. (2023). The inuence of social media marketing on brand
awareness and alumni word of mouth on university enrollment intention: A study of
Nepalese and Thai students. Suthiparithat Journa, 37(3), 142–157.
Pratama, A. A. N., Hamidi, M. L., & Cahyono, E. (2023). The effect of halal brand
awareness on purchase intention in Indonesia: The mediating role of attitude. Cogent
Business & Management, 10(1), Article 2168510. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311975.2023.2168510
Pribadi, H. I., Wati, R. S., Yuliana, L., & Sari, M. N. (2024). Improving the quality of
education through international accreditation (study on education management
study program, universitas negeri yogyakarta). In A. Ashadi, A. Triastuti, S. Hidayati,
S. Surono, D. Nurhadiyanto, & O. A. Dhewa (Eds.), Teacher professional development in
the age of AI (p. 428). https://www.researchgate.net/prole
/Sayit-Karim/publication/384690066_Procee
dings_InCoTEPD_2024_Pp505-516/links/6703d6f8b753fa724d63a8bc/Procee
dings-InCoTEPD-2024-Pp505-516.pdf#page=438.
Qasim, A. M., Al-Askari, P. S. M., Massoud, H. K., & Ayoubi, R. M. (2021). Student
university choice in Kurdistan-Iraq: What factors matter? Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 45(1), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0309877X.2020.1742298
Qazi, Z., Qazi, W., Raza, S. A., & Yousu, S. Q. (2022). The antecedents affecting
university reputation and student satisfaction: A study in higher education context.
Corporate Reputation Review, 25(4), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-021-
00126-4
Qi, Y., Li, Q., & Du, F. (2018). Are rich people perceived as more trustworthy? Perceived
socioeconomic status modulates judgments of trustworthiness and trust behavior
based on facial appearance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 512. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.00512
Rahman, M. M., & Thill, J.-C. (2024). Who is inclined to buy an autonomous vehicle?
Empirical evidence from California. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11116-024-10490-9
Rahmi, S., Ilyas, G. B., Tamsah, H., & Munir, A. R. (2022). Perceived risk and its role in
the inuence of brand awareness on purchase intention: Study of Shopee users.
Jurnal Siasat Bisnis, 26(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.20885/jsb.vol26.iss1.art7
Ramli, N. A., Latan, H., & Nartea, G. V. (2018). Why should PLS-SEM Be used rather than
regression? Evidence from the capital structure perspective. In N. K. Avkiran, &
C. M. Ringle (Eds.), Partial least squares structural equation modeling (Vol. 267, pp.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
16
171–209). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
71691-6_6.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Tan, P. L., Nejati, M., & Shafaei, A. (2021). Corporate social
responsibility and brand loyalty in private higher education: Mediation assessment
of brand reputation and trust. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1973645
Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20(4), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/
10769986020004307
Ravangard, R., Khodadad, A., & Bastani, P. (2020). How marketing mix (7Ps) affect the
patients’ selection of a hospital: Experience of a low-income country. Journal of the
Egyptian Public Health Association, 95(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42506-020-
00052-z
Rehman, M. A., Woyo, E., Akahome, J. E., & Sohail, M. D. (2022). The inuence of course
experience, satisfaction, and loyalty on students’ word-of-mouth and re-enrolment
intentions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(2), 259–277. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1852469
Rew, D., Cha, W., Kim, J.-W., & Jung, J. Y. (2023). The effects of commitment and trust
on the relationship between service quality and university brand loyalty in time of
crisis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08841241.2023.2239723
Ringle, C. M., & Becker, J.-M. (2024). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.
com/documentation/algorithms-and-techniques/model-t.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Sinkovics, N., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2023). A perspective on
using partial least squares structural equation modelling in data articles. Data in
Brief, 48, Article 109074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109074
Roemer, E., Schuberth, F., & Henseler, J. (2021). HTMT2–an improved criterion for
assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 121(12), 2637–2650. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-
02-2021-0082
Rojas-Lamorena, ´
A. J., Del Barrio-García, S., & Alc´
antara-Pilar, J. M. (2022). A review of
three decades of academic research on brand equity: A bibliometric approach using
co-word analysis and bibliographic coupling. Journal of Business Research, 139,
1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.025
Romanowski, M. H. (2022). The idolatry of accreditation in higher education: Enhancing
our understanding. Quality in Higher Education, 28(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13538322.2021.1948460
Rosyidah, N., Matin, M., & Rosyidi, U. (2020). Internationalization in higher education:
University’s effective promotion strategies in building international trust. European
Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-
jer.9.1.351
Rybinski, K. (2020). Are rankings and accreditation related? Examining the dynamics of
higher education in Poland. Quality Assurance in Education, 28(3), 193–204. https://
doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2020-0032
Salhab, H. A., Al-Amarneh, A., Aljabaly, S. M., Zoubi, M. M. A., & Othman, M. D. (2023).
The impact of social media marketing on purchase intention: The mediating role of
brand trust and image. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 7(2),
591–600. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.3.012
Sari, E. A., & Wijaya, L. S. (2020). Strategi promosi melalui direct marketing untuk
meningkatkan jumlah mahasiswa baru. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 17(1), 16. https://
doi.org/10.31315/jik.v17i1.2608
Sastika, W., Suryawardani, B., & Hanifa, F. H. (2016). Analysis of website quality, brand
awareness on trust and its impact on customer loyalty. Proceedings of the 2016 global
Conference on business, Management and entrepreneurship. 2016 global conference on
business, management and entrepreneurship. Indonesia: Bandung. https://doi.org/
10.2991/gcbme-16.2016.87
Schuberth, F., Rademaker, M. E., & Henseler, J. (2023). Assessing the overall t of
composite models estimated by partial least squares path modeling. European Journal
of Marketing, 57(6), 1678–1702. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2020-0586
Secore, S. (2018). The signicance of campus visitations to college choice and strategic
enrollment management. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 5(4), 150–158.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20114
Septa Diana Nabella. (2021). Improve consumer purchasing decisions through quality of
service, promotion and quality of information at PT. Ng tech supplies. International
Journal of Services Technology and Management, 2(3), 880–889. https://doi.org/
10.46729/ijstm.v2i3.210
Sewell, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1968). Parents’ education and children’s educational
aspirations and achievements. American Sociological Review, 33(2), 191. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2092387
Shabbir, S., Kaufmann, H. R., Ahmad, I., & Qureshi, I. M. (2010). Cause related
marketing campaigns and consumer purchase intentions: The mediating role of
brand awareness and corporate image. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6),
1229.
Shamsudin, M. F., Ishak, M. F., Yazid, M. F. M., & Ahmad, A. H. (2022). Role of brand
awareness, brand image and perceived quality in private universities. Global Business
& Management Research, 14, 142–154.
Simanjuntak, O. D. P., Zainuddin, Toni, N., & Faris, S. (2024). A marketing mix
perspective as antecedents of students’ decisions: Evidence from ve universities in
Indonesia. Quality-Access to Success, 25(199). https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/
25.199.08
Spearman, J. J., Rahim, M. M. A., Ghanayem, S. W., & Ljepava, N. (2016). Factors
inuencing student enrollment and choice of university. 35th International Business
Research Conference, 30. https://www.researchgate.net/prole/Nikolina-Ljepava/pu
blication/303960980_Factors_inuencing_student_enrollment_and_choice_of_unive
rsity/links/57bd83ae08ae37ee394b9fb7/Factors-inuencing-student-enrollme
nt-and-choice-of-university.pdf.
Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital
and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1049023X21000649. Cambridge Core.
Sudsawart, J., Pochanakul, K., Chantarasompoch, V., Ayudhaya, W. S. N.,
Rojanabenjakun, P., & Kongmong, C. (2019). A study of marketing needs affecting
the development for bachelor of science in health service business management,
college of allied health sciences, suan sunandha rajabhat university. Proceedings of
the 2019 the 3rd international conference on digital technology in education. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3369199.3369221
Sun, Y., Huang, Y., Fang, X., & Yan, F. (2022). The purchase intention for agricultural
products of regional public brands: Examining the inuences of awareness,
perceived quality, and brand trust. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4991059
Sun, Y., & Liang, C. (2020). Factors determining consumers’ purchase intentions towards
dried fruits. International Journal of Fruit Science, 20(sup2), S1072–S1096. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2020.1774477
Suna, H. E. (2020). Akademik bas
¸arının yordayıcıları: Sosyoekonomik düzey ve okul
türü. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.26650/
JECS2020-0034
Tammubua, M. H. (2021). Do brand image and brand trust mediate the effect of service
quality on brand loyalty? Lessons from higher education sector. Britain International
of Humanities and Social Sciences (BIoHS) Journal, 3(2), 302–315. https://doi.org/
10.33258/biohs.v3i2.452
Tariq, M., Abbas, T., Abrar, M., & Iqbal, A. (2017). EWOM and brand awareness impact
on consumer purchase intention: Mediating role of brand image. Pakistan
Administrative Review, 1(1), 84–102.
Theule Lubienski, S., Lubienski, C., & Crawford Crane, C. (2008). Achievement
differences and school type: The role of school climate, teacher certication, and
instruction. American Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1086/590677
Thornton, K. K. (2017). Understanding the role of social media on a student’s college
choice process and the implications on a university’s enrollment and marketing
strategies. PhD Thesis, Louisiana Tech University]. https://search.proquest.com/ope
nview/a7c2d5da8a7ceb6ad670c12c11ccded4/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
Tran, K. T., Nguyen, P. V., Do, H. T. S., & Nguyen, L. T. (2020). University students’
insight on brand equity. Management Science Letters, 2053–2062. https://doi.org/
10.5267/j.msl.2020.2.006
Triyono, T., Dasmadi, D., & Tnk, A. F. A. (2021). Pengaruh promosi, biaya, fasilitas,
akreditasi, dan lokasi universitas boyolali terhadap minat calon mahasiswa baru.
Ekobis: Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen Dan Akuntansi, 9(2), 220–229.
Tsabitah, N., & Anggraeni, R. (2021). The effect of brand image, brand personality and
brand awareness on purchase intention of local fashion brand “this is april.”.
KINERJA, 25(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.24002/kinerja.v25i2.4701
Tuncer, G., Ertepinar, H., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2005). Environmental attitudes of
young people in Turkey: Effects of school type and gender. Environmental Education
Research, 11(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462042000338379
Ugur-Cinar, M., Cinar, K., & Kose, T. (2020). How does education affect political trust?:
An analysis of moderating factors. Social Indicators Research, 152(2), 779–808.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02463-z
Usala, C., Porcu, M., & Sulis, I. (2023). The high school effect on students’ mobility
choices. Statistical Methods and Applications, 32(4), 1259–1293. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10260-023-00694-1
Valitov, S. M. (2014). University brand as a modern way of winning competitive
advantage. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 295–299. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.198
Valkenburg, P. M., & Buijzen, M. (2005). Identifying determinants of young children’s
brand awareness: Television, parents, and peers. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 26(4), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.04.004
Van Der Vleuten, M., Jaspers, E., Maas, I., & Van Der Lippe, T. (2016). Boys’ and girls’
educational choices in secondary education. The role of gender ideology. Educational
Studies, 42(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1160821
Veloutsou, C., Paton, R. A., & Lewis, J. (2005). Consultation and reliability of
information sources pertaining to university selection: Some questions answered?
International Journal of Educational Management, 19(4), 279–291. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09513540510599617
Verdugo-Castro, S., García-Holgado, A., & S´
anchez-G´
omez, M. C. (2022). The gender gap
in higher STEM studies: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 8(8), Article e10300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10300
Walker, W. (2005). The strengths and weaknesses of research designs involving
quantitative measures. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(5), 571–582. https://doi.
org/10.1177/136140960501000505
Wang, E. S.-T. (2019). Effects of brand awareness and social norms on user-perceived
cyber privacy risk. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 23(2), 272–293.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2018.1564553
Wang, K., Zheng, L. J., Zhang, J. Z., & Yao, H. (2022). The impact of promoting new
energy vehicles on carbon intensity: Causal evidence from China. Energy Economics,
114, Article 106255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106255
Wibowo, S., Hidayat, R., Suryana, Y., Sari, D., & Kaltum, U. (2020). Measuring the effect
of advertising value and brand awareness on purchase intention through the ow
experience method on facebook’s social media marketing big data. 2020 8th
international conference on cyber and IT service management (CITSM). https://doi.org/
10.1109/CITSM50537.2020.9268812
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2015). Factors affecting university image formation among
prospective higher education students: The case of international branch campuses.
Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1256–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2014.881347
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
17
Wongleedee, K. (2015). Marketing mix and purchasing behavior for community products
at traditional markets. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2080–2085.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.323
Wulandari, R., Kurniawan, Y. T., Kori’ah, S., Kusumaningrum, A., & Kartiko, A. (2022).
The effect of study program accreditation on decision-making of new students
through promotion in higher education in mojokerto. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan,
14(4), 7217–7228. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.2102
Xie, C., & Teo, P. (2020). Institutional self-promotion: A comparative study of appraisal
resources used by top- and second-tier universities in China and America. Higher
Education, 80(2), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00483-4
Yang, H.-P., Yen, D., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2020). Higher education: A once-in-a-lifetime
purchase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 23(4), 865–890.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-12-2017-0169
Young-Jin, C., Lee, S., Hayeong, J. E., Lee, Y., Lee, Y., Yun, Y., & Seulbi, L. E. E. (2019).
Advertising attributes of one-person media distribution in purchase intent. Journal of
Distribution Science, 17(11), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.15722/JDS.17.11.201911.17
Yusif, S., Hafeez-Baig, A., Soar, J., & Teik, D. O. L. (2020). PLS-SEM path analysis to
determine the predictive relevance of e-Health readiness assessment model. Health
Technology, 10(6), 1497–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-020-00484-9
Zanjabila, Z., Sumarjo, S., Yudhiantoro, D., Suryono, I. A., & Amajida, A. (2023). The
inuences of social media marketing, E-wom, and information quality on purchasing
decisions through trust as the mediation. International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v6-i4-39
Zeng, N., Liu, Y., Gong, P., Hertogh, M., & K¨
onig, M. (2021). Do right PLS and do PLS
right: A critical review of the application of PLS-SEM in construction management
research. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s42524-021-0153-5
Zhao, J., Butt, R. S., Murad, M., Mirza, F., & Saleh Al-Faryan, M. A. (2022). Untying the
inuence of advertisements on consumers buying behavior and brand loyalty
through brand awareness: The moderating role of perceived quality. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, Article 803348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.803348
Zhu, P., Wang, Z., Li, X., Liu, Y.-H., & Zhu, X. (2020). Understanding promotion framing
effect on purchase intention of elderly mobile app consumers. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 44, Article 101010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2020.101010
Zia, A., Younus, S., & Mirza, F. (2021). Investigating the impact of brand image and
brand loyalty on brand equity: The mediating role of brand awareness. International
Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 15(2), 1091–1106.
A. Juhaidi et al.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101243
18
