THE USE OF FRAMING OF AFFECT OR REASON IN COMMUNICATIONS IN A SERVICES FAILURE RECOVERY SCENARIO IN EDUCATION

Flávio Santino Bizarrias

Universidade Nove de Julho, Brazil

E-mail: flavioxsp@hotmail.com

Jussara Goulart da Silva

Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil

E-mail: profadmjussara.ufu@gmail.com

Marlette Cassia Oliveira Ferreira

Instituto Federal de São Paulo, Brazil

E-mail: marlettecassia@gmail.com

Submission: 12/03/2018

Revision: 26/03/2018

Accept: 10/04/2018

ABSTRACT

The study of decision-making of people has its origins in economic theory, with a more rational approach. However, several studies have shown that decision-making follows also an emotional model. In great part, decisions are influenced by information we receive through communication framing. In education, students decisions are largely affected by the information they receive through communication issued by the service provider. In a scenario of service failure recovery the influence of emotional or rational messages is little studied. The motivation of this study is the absence of works relating attitudes to services when failure recovery occurs in higher education services, particularly when the framing of the communication signals some position to students, aiming to persuade them. The results showed that rational communication was more effective than emotional ones. It was also found that interpersonal influences tends to reduce positive responses from students to HEI communication strategy, though a moderation process.

Keywords: Message framing; Affect and reason; Advertisement; Service failure recovery

1. INTRODUCTION

Human beings are not able to rationalize everything in an extremely complex environment (SIMON, 1957). Therefore, if a decision is made logically, maximizing the utility obtained in an economic model becomes impossible. People choose and judge also on the basis of processes and mechanisms others than reason solely, like emotions and feelings (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979; TVERSKY; KAHNEMAN, 1981). Humans are both emotion and reason driven (VERWEIJ; SENIOR; DOMÍNGUEZ; TURNER, 2015).

At the same time, consumers have relationships with brands (FOURNIER, 1998; FETSCHERIN; HEINRICH, 2015), and they also scrutinize them for information for their judgments and decision making (KELLER, 2002). The task of judgment and choice is not a routine activity. It involves the processing of a wide range of information, sometimes more rational (MEYERS-LEVY; MALAVIYA, 1999; WEGENER; SAWICKI; PETTY, 2009), or more affective (COHEN; PHAM; ANDRADE, 2008).

Consumers do this through specific strategies and mechanisms, not always conscious, to reach the objective that is sought through the purchase (TVERSKY, 1972; HOYER; BROWN, 1990; MOWEN; MINOR, 1998; BETTMAN; LUCE; PAYNE, 199; RUSSO; CARLSON, 2006). It is observed that several other factors also can influence consumer decision making, such as memory (BAGOZZI; GURHAN-CANLI; PARK; PRIESTER, 2002; VIECELI; SHAW, 2010), affection (PHAM, 1998; BAGOZZI; GOPINATH; NYER, 1999), and the consumer's self-regulation (FLORACK; SCARABIS, 2006).

In many cases, it is decided simply by what is more familiar (COATES; BUTLER; BERRY, 2006; THOMAS; WILLIAMS, 2013), through the mere exposure to the object of analysis (ZAJONC, 1980). In this way, affective contacts gain relevance, and the experience as a whole is evaluated for decision making (BRAKUS; SCHMITT; ZARANTONELLO, 2009). A communication strategy, such as advertising, also uses consumer decision-making models to persuade. The framing of the message will influence how the consumer receives and processes the information, similar as in the studies of Tversky and Kahneman (1985), affecting its evaluations and behavior.

The persuasive role of advertising begins with capturing the attention of the audience. Heath, Nairn and Bottomley (2009) suggest that rational appeals have a greater effect under attention-grabbing than emotional appeals. This process is not always rational, and conscious, quite the opposite. Mainly, unconscious and emotional processes dictate the reactions to the advertisements. Geuens, Pham, and De Pelsmaker (2011) identified that the response to TV commercials, and their impact on attitude toward the brand, were more influenced by the emotional and hedonic content, rather than utilitarian content of those advertisements.

Other studies explore that decision making is a constructive process (BETTMAN; LUCE; PAYNE, 1998; SLOVIC; FINUCANE; PETERS; MACGREGOR, 2006), where decisions are made on the spot at the time of purchase. In these studies the context seems to have great relevance. In this way, in service encounters, where production and consumption are carried out at the same time, to observe the factors that lead to the consumer's decision to remain loyal to a service provider, even though it has flaws, seems to be a relevant aspect to be considered. In other words, aspects that leads to loyalty, in an environment that is difficult to evaluate, such as services, are very important to researchers and managers.

The main objective of this study is to analyze the influence of messages with framing of affective or rational advertisement used by a Higher Education Institution (HEI), in response to processes of service failure recovery, involving current students. By our knowledge, this is the first study to integrate these theories, even more in the education segment. The Brazilian sector of higher education was chosen because there is a great evasion of students over the past few years, which, besides a managerial problem, is also a social problem. Part of this evasion is due to service failures, such as the promise of better-than-expected education not confirmed, poor service, and other unfulfilled promises during the course.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section a review will be done on decision making in general, followed by decision making in the context of consumer behavior. In the sequence, it will be observed the influence of the brand in this process, the role of affectivity in communications and, finally, an analysis of the role of communication as a marketing strategy.

2.1. Decision making

In the mid 1960s, Simon (1957) coined the term "limited rationality," which recognizes people's inability to process all the information they receive, so they make decisions based on shortcuts, or "heuristics." Following these studies, Tversky and Kahneman (1975) deepened the concept that some specific heuristics facilitate the complex task of decision making under risk, not without errors and biases, but in which people are subjectively evaluating the probability of occurrence of an event, and estimation of some numerical value.

The authors expanded their studies on the decision-making process, contrasting the classical theory of utility maximization, proposing the prospect theory, (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979), which suggests the certainity effect, which establishes that people overestimate results given as certain, relative to those perceived only as probable, in a context of gains, or positive context (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979).

This effect has a reflection effect when the context implies a decision about losses, or a negative context, that is, we choose the alternative that implies greater certainty of losing less, but with greater associated risk. In other words, in a positive scenario of probable gain, we adopt a risk aversion stance, and in a scenario of "certain" losses, we adopt a risk-seeking stance, by opting for a probable loss (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979).

The authors also explored the role of framing and its influence on decision making. That is, preference reversion may occur depending on how the problem under decision is structured and presented (TVERSKY; KAHNEMAN, 1985).

The model of prospect theory is consistent with the proposition that consumer decisions are made on the spot, in a constructive process (BETTMAN; ZINS, 1977; BETTMAN; LUCE; PAYNE, 1998; SLOVIC et al., 2006). Several other models of decision-making emerged along the axis of this proposition, such as decision-making strategies based on elimination by aspects (TVERSKY, 1972), decision based on lexicographic models, and compensatory models (MOWEN; MINOR, 1998).

2.2. Experience and Communication

Communication strategies of organizations promote mainly exposure to the brand. In this way, it is observed that the phenomenon of preference for what we know previously influences our choices, and is greatly stimulated by the communications (COATES; BUTLER; BERRY, 2006; THOMA; WILLIANS, 2013). For these authors, the priming effect of exposure to the brand leads to the choice, unconsciously, firstly through the inclusion of these brands in the range of options to be considered for later purchase.

In addition, as in the study by Thoma and Wilians (2013), brand recognition has a positive influence on the choice made by the respondents. Even in situations of unconscious exposure, brands are seen as a factor that influences consumer decision, particularly when it arouses affective bonds (HARRIS; MURAWSKI, 2010).

These actions of communication aim to generate familiarity with the brand and results on sales as well, although the latter implication causes some controversy (HOYER; BROWN 1990). The assumption is that repetition of exposure to a stimulus increases familiarity, and arouses a favorable attitude to the object of analysis, as opposed to the novelties that tend to increase the perception of risk. This proposition is corroborated by Zajonc's (1980) study, which states that mere exposure influences positive affect to an object, even if one does not have full consciousness.

2.3. The role of affection

The use of affection in the decision-making process has grown as an object of study is several areas of knowledge, an humam activity, such as social media, (BORAH; XIAO, 2018), or in education to analyze students rational ability, for example (FU; YU; NI; LI, 2018), although it is quite present in the consumer behavior literature (COHEN; PHAM; ANDRADE, 2008). Researchers point out that the initial conclusions about the influence of affection on the decision process establish that an affective evaluation precedes the cognitive evaluation (SLOVIC et al., 2006), and that even rational decisions will contain some affective evaluation. The authors point out the work of and Zajonc (1980), as one precursor of studies of the influence of affection in the decision process.

Some studies establishes the importance of images (LURIE; MASON, 2007), as markers that accumulate mentally, and their connection to positive or negative feelings, which throughout life succeed, leading to affective decisions, when a situation of choice is established. Our brain searches in its "files" for a similar situation that can serve as a clue to decision making. For Zajonc (1980) every decision includes some aspect of affection.

2.4. Communication and framing of the message

Communications need to be congruent with the consumer's attitude profile.In communication, framing refers to words, images, phrases, and presentation styles used to convey information to an audience (CHONG; DRUCKMAN, 2007). The authors also propose that the framing effect will be more significant depending on the prevalence of the frame, what is wanted to fit the message, the knowledge and motivation of the message receiver and the frequency of exposure. It is also observed that the repetition of the frame will have greater impact in individuals with less knowledge about what is presented to them.

Other authors (NIEDRICH; SWAIN, 2003) attribute to the pioneering market entry, mediated by the credibility of the company, and to the previous experience of the consumer with the product, the greater preference for a brand. So trust and brand satisfaction are very important in message processing. Trust comes from how people treat each other (ZAROLIA; WEISBUCH; MCRAE, 2017), and satisfaction comes though the overcoming of expectations, in service encounters. Taken together, these aspects lead us to the first two hypothesis of this study:

• H1 (a,b): The attitude toward advertising will have a positive and significant relationship with trust;
• H2 (a,b): The attitude toward advertising will have a positive and significant relationship with satisfaction.

Studies on affective heuristics (SLOVIC et al., 2006) suggests, based on the findings of Damasio (1994), that images have a central role in the use of affection in the decision process. Damásio (1994) proposes that thoughts are formed by images, and that people learn throughout their lives the meaning of these images, in terms of the valence of the feelings associated with them, and their results.

That is, images will be stored in our unconscious, forming a stock of images, associated with positive or negative feelings, that we will resort to in the processes of evaluation and decision that we face throughout life. These images will then become more available in memory as exposure increases, so that an evaluation or decision is made in an affective process, almost automatically.

The simple exposure to images is already capable of providing this learning (SLOVIC et al., 2006), even with respect to aspects of the other senses. The image used as a framing is able to establish feelings that will be difficult to remove from people's minds, thus influencing decision making. Images are therefore an important tool for reversing preferences.

The effect of an affective advertisement will be greater the greater the exposure of the audience to this stimulus (HEATH; NAIRN, 2009). Holbrook and Batra (1987) proposed a model in which the content of advertising influences the emotions and feelings of consumers. That is, the content of the ad will directly influence both the consumer's emotional responses to the advertisement, and the advertiser. The figure 1 illustrates the model proposed by the authors.

Figure 1: Emotions and consumer response to advertising

Source: Based on Holbrook and Batra (1987)

Holbrook and Batra (1987) have found evidence for the mediating role of affection over advertisements and brands (particularly excitement, pleasure, and domination), resulting in more positive assessments. Otherwise, the attitude toward advertising can be transferred for the brand (VAKRATSAS; AMBLER, 1999). This is corroborated by the theory of congruence between an advertising of expression of value, or even based on utilitarianism, or also based on expectations and beliefs about product-brand relation.

Other studies (BÜLBÜL; MENON, 2010) propose that affection can be concrete or abstract. Concrete means that the appeals of advertisements may be a short-term result, in which the consumer's capacity for evaluation is more real. Or appeals may be more abstract, favoring long-term decisions and evaluations. Advertisements can also act as a form of anticipated emotion, that is, by establishing in advance the emotion that the consumer will feel in their consumer experience (MELLERS; MCGRAW, 2001).

Chang (2008) adds that, from the point of view of consumer behavior theory, when consumers evaluate hedonic aspects of products, aspects related to affect are important. Which does not occur when evaluating utilitarian attributes of products, where affection becomes irrelevant. This implies that when the consumer evaluates utilitarian aspects of the products, the valence of the affection of the advertisements does not affect the responses of the consumers significantly.

2.5. Failure recovery in services

Services are characterized by a great interaction between consumers and employees, and both seek a satisfactory experience (YIM; CHAM; LAM, 2012). In this way the relationship between supplier and consumer gains greater proportions in the service environment. As in every relationship, just like interactions between people only, the relationship between organizations and people is flawed. Even because a service organization is fundamentally a relationship between people (BERRY; PARASURAMAN, 1993).

Services are fundamentally an experience. The satisfaction of the consumer in services is therefore a process that does not exhaust itself in the delivery of the service, because the interactions continue, even after this stage is completed. The frequency of occurrence of failure in services is an aggravation of a process that is not well managed, but that is part of a missed first promise not accomplished. The legitimacy of the service encounter, and the responses of the service organization can influence consumer satisfaction (HENNIG-THURAU et al. 2006; MAGNINI; FORD; MARKOWSKI, 2007). This can be translated in the following hypothesis:

• H3 (a,b): Trust will have a positive and significant relationship with brand value;
• H4 (a,b): Trust will have a positive and significant relationship with loyalty.

Satisfaction of the consumer of a given service depends on an environment of mutual satisfaction, or even trust between employee and consumers (GRANDEY; GOLDBERG; PUGH, 2011). The relationship between affection, as an strategy, and operational and financial results, is of paramount importance in service relationships. Consumer satisfaction and trust is based on the premise that satisfaction will result from a higher level of quality in service delivery (GRANDEY; GOLDBERG; PUGH, 2011), and more identification with the brand of the service provider, generating more interaction and relatioship. This lead us to the following hypothesis, as satisfied consumers reward organizations for their efforts, even if they are due to something that fell short of expectations.

• H5 (a,b): Satisfaction will have a positive and significant relationship with brand value;
• H6 (a,b): Satisfaction will have a positive and significant relationship with loyalty.

However, more possibilities for failures will also occur as human interactions improve. Hess, Ganesan and Klein (2003) note that failures will impact the image of the service organization. As consumer perception is a very sensitive aspect to the influences of service interactions, they will trust in their fellows to form their impressions about the service, as it is difficult to evaluate services. Following this reasoning, in an educational context, students maybe can trust other students opinions. Let’s explore these implications in the next section.

2.6. The influence of social relations

In an educational environment, personal interactions are many and of diverse nature. All information exchanged between students in their interpersonal relationships with each other, regarding to their personal and academic lifes are relevant to the formulation of students' opinions, attitudes and behaviors. Students are a social group in which the influence of one member over another is latent. The behavior of the group member (in group) is very influenced by the behavior of the other members of the group (NETEMEYER et al., 2004). In this way we believe that the reactions of the consumer of educational services should be moderated by the interpersonal relations developed in the HEI. Information from multiple sources can generate greater or lesser confidence (ZAROLIA; WEISBUCH; MCRAE, 2017).

Mowen and Minor (1998) define personal influence factors as being psychological processes that affect individuals engaged in acquiring, consuming and discarding goods, services, and experiences. Among the individual factors, the reference groups are primordial in the understanding of consumer preferences or buying behavior (LEARY; VANN; GROZA, 2016), both from the point of view of the individual purchase (affected by the reference group), or in a group decision. These authors states that reference groups act just as a reference point for individual attitudes and behaviors.

The influence of the reference group on consumers (MOWEN; MINOR, 1998) occurs through informational influence (1), or when the group provides reliable normative information (2), in which the norms or rules of influence have value (3) that is of interest to he or she. Consumers perceive that a particular reference group has characteristic values of the consumption process that are of interest to them. That is, the individual will make the purchase decision, or the simple preference for something, driven by the desire to belong to the group (MOWEN; MINOR, 1998). Consumer roles within the group, group pressure for conforming behaviors, social comparison processes in addition to group polarization, or group decisions, polarized at some extreme in question, complement the group's influencing factors.

To the extent that relationships between people are a factor influencing individual behavior, it is expected that interpersonal influence has a significant moderating effect on the relationships between people attitudes, and their responses. In others words, in the variables trust and satisfaction, as atecedents of loyalty and brand equity.

People attachment style influence their behavior and how they react to communication strategies (DAVID; BEARDEN, 2017). In an educational scenario, as students are commonly affected by the results of the work of the secretariat, and their communication, this results in anticipated negative emotions on the part of the students (Mellers and McGraw, 2001). This negative valence is then transferred to thei evaluations of the entire service experience. Through the paradigm of social desirability, people are expected to evaluate and behave in a projective way and according to the expectations of the group under their actions, therefore, as service failures are negative in nature, personal influence has the potential to reduce the strength of brand-people relationships and loyalty. Students may behave according to the expectations of their fellow students. And, as all of then are frustrated with the service provided, he or she will behave accordingly the same way. (H7a, b, c, d).

All of this taken together, results in the following structural model tested, observed in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Structural Model

Source: Prepared by the authors.

3. METHOD

In this section the main methodological aspects of the study are presented. The main procedures and analysis techniques are observed as well.

3.1. Stimulus

Firstly, 10 students from the institution were interviewed to assess the main flaw in the services provided by the university. A list of attributes (n = 16) raised was then submitted to another group of students to check the importance placed to each factor. The main aspect of service failure evaluated by the students was the secretariat's work. Not exactly the service itself, but the deficiency in the resolution of their requests. In this way, a situation of failure recovery was chosen as stimulus for the study based on the service provided by the secretariat service.

As a complement to the stimulus, and to test communicarion strategy efficiency after the service failure, an affective response advertisement was elaborated because the students reported that the service is extremely "mechanical" and "dehumanized". In contrast, another advertisement with a more rational approach was also developed. The students themselves developed the two stimuli in two different groups.

3.2. Collection instrument

In the descriptive step, a questionnaire for the survey was drawn up with Oliver's Loyalty and Satisfaction Scales (1999), Confidence was adapted from Dowling and Staelin (1994) study, Interpersonal Influence was based on Bearden, Netemayer and Teel (1989), Netemeyer et al. (2004), and Attitude to the advertising was based on De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Anckaert (2002), anchored in (1) strongly disagree, up to (7) strongly agree. Data were collected through the internet and through face-to-face interviews, from November 2016 to January 2017.

One group of students initially observed the emotional framing stimulus, and another group of students observed rational framing. In this way, this study can be classified as a quasi-experimental study, between subjects, with only one manipulated variable (communication framing).

3.3. Criteria for analyzing the data

Data were analyzed in two groups by means of structural equation modeling (SEM), through the software SmartPLS2.0M3 (RINGLE; WENDE, 2010) indicated for reduced samples, absence of normality and when the researcher's concern is the prediction of variables, with reduction of variance and increase of R². Initially, multicollinearity tests were performed to observe the variance inflation factor (VIF), as well as the Komlogorov-Smirnof to normality test (Hair et al, 2010).

To validate the models, the criteria of convergent and discriminant validity were adopted. The convergent validity was observed through averaged extracted variance (AVE) of over 0.5, and factorial loads above 0.7. For discriminant validity we observed the square root of the AVE of each variable superior to its correlation with the other variables, in addition to the greater crossloadings in their respective constructs. Finally, the Gof (Goodness of fit) indicator was calculated and should be higher than 0.36 (TENENHAUS et al., 2005). The significance test of the relationships was elaborated using the bootstapping resampling technique (HAIR et al., 2014).

4. RESULTS

In this section we present the results of the study, starting with the sample profile, and in the sequence by the results of the models tested.

4.1. Sample

The sample of the research was composed by 206 students of the administration course between the 1st and the 6th semester of a private university in the city of São Paulo. The mean age was 27.4 years of age (sd = 8.07), with 125 women (60.7%), in 100 cases of rational sample and 106 cases of emotional sample.

4.2. Structural model

The convergent and discriminant validity can be observed in Tables 1 and 2, for the emotional and rational models respectively.

Table 1: Convergent and discriminant validity, emotional model

Variable \ Indicators	AVE	R^2	Cronbach's Alpha	Composite Reliability	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Attitude to advertising(1)	0,684	0,000	0,768	0,866	0,827*
Brand equity (2)	0,674	0,357	0,518	0,805	0,388	0,821*
Confidence (3)	0,512	0,271	0,519	0,756	0,521	0,245	0,715*
Cognitive Loyalty (4)	0,565	0,622	0,249	0,715	0,209	0,371	0,443	0,752*
Satisfaction (5)	0,610	0,494	0,784	0,861	0,703	0,407	0,278	0,080	0,781*
Emotional Loyalty (6)	0,551	0,817	0,590	0,784	0,539	0,345	0,433	0,582	0,413	0,742*
Behavioral Loyalty (7)	0,573	0,355	0,255	0,728	0,291	0,018	0,266	0,262	0,381	0,344	0,757*

Source: Research data.

* Square root of the AVE

1- Attitude to advertising; 2- Brand equity; 3. Trust; 4. Cognitive loyalty; 5- Satisfaction; 6-Affective Loyalty; 7- Behavioral Loyalty.

Table 2: Convergent and discriminant validity, rational model

Variable \ Indicators	AVE	R^2	Cronbach's Alpha	Composite Reliability	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Attitude to advertising	0,746	0,000	0,830	0,898	0,864*
Brand equity	0,656	0,669	0,738	0,851	0,733	0,810*
Confidence	0,746	0,597	0,830	0,898	0,773	0,717	0,864*
Emotional Loyalty	0,693	0,841	0,779	0,871	0,565	0,571	0,743	0,833*
Cognitive Loyalty	0,755	0,831	0,675	0,860	0,504	0,649	0,722	0,742	0,869*
Behavioral Loyalty	0,702	0,768	0,587	0,824	0,636	0,766	0,770	0,677	0,752	0,838*
Satisfaction	0,657	0,606	0,827	0,885	0,779	0,795	0,738	0,655	0,678	0,762	0,811*

Source: Research data.

* Square root of the AVE

1- Attitude to advertising; 2- Brand equity; 3. Trust; 4. Cognitive loyalty; 5- Satisfaction; 6-Affective Loyalty; 7- Behavioral Loyalty

Crossloading complements the discriminant validity analysis of both rational and emotional models and presents the remaining items in the final structural model. The items all loaded in their respective variable. The adjustment indicators were satisfactory for acceptance of the structural models. In both models the GoF remained above 0.36 as suggested by the literature (HAIR et al, 2014). The VIF indicators were all below 10 (HAIR et al, 2014). The table 3 presents the results of the structural relationships of the structural model for emotional framing.

Table 3: Structural relationships, emotional framing

Hypothesis	Relationship	Original Coefficient	Average of 200 subsamples	Standard error	Teste t	p-value	Results
H1a	Attitude to advertising à Confidence	0,5207	0,5225	0,0695	7,4916	0,0001	Supported
H2 a	Attitude to advertising à Satisfaction	0,7025	0,707	0,0364	19,2983	0,0001	Supported
H3a	Confidence à Brand equity	0,1455	0,169	0,0937	1,5533	0,123	Not Supported
H4a	Confidence à Loyalty	0,4204	0,428	0,0887	4,7419	0,0001	Supported
H5a	Satisfaction à Brand equity	0,3801	0,3793	0,0819	4,6413	0,0001	Supported
H6a	Satisfaction à Loyalty	0,2791	0,2694	0,1005	2,7773	0,0001	Supported

Source: Research data.

We can also observe the result of the structural relations in the rational model by means of Table 4.

Table 4: Structural relationships, emotional framing

Hypothesis	Relationship	Original Coefficient	Average of 200 subsamples	Standard error	Teste t	p-value	Results
H2b	Attitude to advertising à Confidence	0,7727	0,7759	0,0363	21,2708	0,0001	Supported
H2b	Attitude to advertising à Satisfaction	0,7787	0,7821	0,0391	19,9226	0,0001	Supported
H3b	Confidence à Brand equity	0,2862	0,2869	0,0851	3,3619	0,001	Supported
H4b	Confidence à Loyalty	0,5669	0,563	0,0757	7,4938	0,0001	Supported
H2b	Satisfaction à Brand equity	0,5835	0,5844	0,0795	7,3395	0,0001	Supported
H2b	Satisfaction à Loyalty	0,3489	0,3529	0,081	4,309	0,0001	Supported

Source: Research data.

The result of the moderating effects of the variable Interpersonal Influence, in a hierarchical way, can be observed in Table 5.

Table 5: Matrix of moderation effects

		Trust		Satisfaction		Brand equity		Loyalty
Variable	Frame	R^2	Г	R^2	Г	R^2	Г	R^2	Г
Attitude towards advertising	Rational ad.	59,70%	0,773*	60,60%	0,779*	66,90%	-	74%	-
	Emotional ad.	27,10%	0,521*	49,40%	0,703*	19,60%	-	32%	-
Trust	Rational ad.	-	-	-	-	66,90%	0,286*	73,50%	0,567*
	Emotional ad.	-	-	-	-	19,60%	0,145 **	32%	0,420*
Trust with moderation of Interpersonal relations.	Rational ad. H7(a,b)	-	-	-	-	67,30%	_-0,016*** (0,550)**	79,40%	0,180*** (0,387)***
	Emotional ad. H7(c,d)	-	-	-	-	37%	0,28 *** (-0,963)***	34,30%	0,754* (-0,830)*
Satisfaction	Rational ad.	-	-	-	-	66,90%	0,286*	73,50%	0,349*
	Emotional ad.	-	-	-	-	19,60%	0,380*	32%	0,279*
Satisfaction with moderation of Interpersonal relations.	Rational ad. H7(a,b)	-	-	-	-	67,90%	0,215* (0,894)*	79,20%	0,183*** (0,273)***
	Emotional ad. H7 (c,d)	-	-	-	-	35,70%	0,247*** (0,052)***	32,20%	0,377* (-0,232)***

Source: Research data.

* Significant to 5%; ** significant at 10%; ***Not significant

5. DISCUSSION AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The objective of this study was to observe the relationship between trust and satisfaction and student responses in terms of brand value and loyalty, having as antecedent the attitude towards the communication of a higher education institution (HEI) in a context of service failure recovery, when the institution uses affective or rational message framing to respond. This objective was considered to have been achieved insofar as most of the assumptions were confirmed. The study also allowed us to observe all these relations simultaneously.

The use of a rational message was more effective than the emotional message, explaining 66.9% and 74% of the variance (R²) of Brand Value and Loyalty respectively (versus R² = 19.6% and R² = 32%, for the emotional message). This is further confirmed by the stronger relationships between Attitude in relation to advertising and Trust (Г = 0.7727; t (99) = 21.273; p <0.0001 versus Г = 0.520; t (105) = 7.4916; p <0.0001), Attitude in relation to advertising and Satisfaction (Г = 0.778; t (99) = 19.922; p <0.0001, versus Г = 0.702; t (105) = 19.298; p <0.0001), Confidence and brand value (Г = 0.286; t (99) = 3.361; p <0.0001, versus non-acceptance of the relationship in the emotional model), Trust and Loyalty (Г = 0.566; t (99) = 7.493; p <0.0001, versus Г = 0.420; t (105) = 4.741; p <0.0001), Satisfaction and Brand value (Г = 0.583; t (99) = 7.339; p <0.0001 versus Г = 0.381 , p <0.0001) and satisfaction and loyalty (Г = 0.348, t (99) = 4.309, p <0.0001 versus Г = 0.279, t (105) = 2.773, p <0.001 ).

The moderating effect of interpersonal relationships was only observed in two of the four hypotheses. This may be due to the multiple aspect of the relationships observed in a classroom. Students differ greatly in their opinions. Another aspect that may have caused this result is the characteristic of the sample of having students from several semesters.

The students of the initial semesters still have both a small group identity that they lack as a function of the group, as well as a low relationship with the secretariat. If we take in account congruency theory applied to message framing, it is expected that the framing of the message is positively related to the expected behavior (GODINHO; UPDEGRAFF; ALVAREZ; LIMA, 2017), in such a way that emotional or reason framing should lead to correspondend attitude and behavior. It has consequences to the strategy adopted by the HEI, when dealing with students disatisfactions..

There was also no confirmation of the relationship between trust and brand value in the emotional framing model, H1a, (Г = 0.145; t (99) = 1.553; p = 0.123). This result seems to be due to the fact that the moderation of interpersonal influences occurred only in a rational framing scenario in the relationship between Trust and Value of the brand, reducing the relation to non-significant (from Г = 0.286 to Г = -0.016, p> 0.05, Г = 0.550, p <0.1), in a scenario of emotional communication in the relationship between Trust and Loyalty (from Г = 0.420 to Г = 0.754, Г = - 0.830 p <0.01) and in a scenario of rational communication in Relationship between Satisfaction and Value of the brand (from Г = 0.286 to Г = 0.215, Г = 0.894, p <0.01).

Otherwise, when communication is rational, interpersonal influences makes the relationship between Trust and Value of the brand irrelevant, or diminishes the strength of the relationship of Trust and Brand value. Although rational communication seems to explain Loyalty, Trust, and Responses in terms of Brand Value and Loyalty rather than emotional communication, relationships tend to deteriorate as a function of the interpersonal influences that occur in the classroom and the student's circle of contacts.

Emotional communication proved to be less effective than rational communication, contrary to the what is seen in great part of literatrure. However, it was also less unaffected by the influence of interpersonal relationships. Together these results suggest that the HEI can adopt a communication strategy that can have greater effects on students if it adopts a framing based on rational approach, or neutralize the influence of interpersonal relationships if they adopt emotional communication. The choice of one strategy or another in a service recovery failure scenario depends on the objectives of the HEI. Shen e Kollar study (2015) indicated that dispositional motivation can also me a moderrator of message framing. In other words,

It can not be denied that students will consult their classroom fellows, will interact with other classrooms, and also with their entire circle of contacts to contruct a decision or an attitude. In this way, this variable is the only one that the HEI will not have influence. If the organization's processes are more consolidated, it is suggested that a more rational communication must be adopted, insofar as the student's responses will be more favorable and may even bear the effects that other educational agents have on the student.

On the other hand, more fragile service processes will be more subject to the influence of other points of contact with the student, and in this way, neutralizing these effects would be interesting to the HEI if it adopts a more affective communication in a scenario of service recovery failure.

More studies are suggested to deepen these conclusions. The study by means of personality traits can bring important contributions to the extent that the lifestyle, or stage of life, in which the person is currently can affect student's responses to problems of relationship with the education service provider.

Other aspects may contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon observed in this study, such as the moderation of the contact frequency of the student with the secretariat, or the mediation of the type of contact employed by the HEI, such as digital platforms or the kind of spokesperson.

REFERENCES

BAGOZZI, R. P.; GOPINATH, M.; Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 27, n. 1, p. 184-206.

BAGOZZI, R.; GURHAN-CANLI, Z.; PRIESTER, J. (2002). The Social Psychology of Consumer Behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

BEARDEN, W. O.; NETEMEYER, R. G.; TEEL, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 15, n. 4, p. 473-481.

BERRY, L. L.; PARASURAMAN, A. B. R. A. H. A. M. (1993). Building a new academic field—The case of services marketing. Journal of Retailing, v. 69, n. 1, p. 13-60.

BETTMAN, J. R.; LUCE, M. F.; PAYNE, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 25, n. 3, p. 187-217.

BETTMAN, J. R.; ZINS, M. A. (1977). Constructive processes in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 4, n. 2, p. 75-85.

BORAH, P.; XIAO, X. (2018). The Importance of ‘Likes’: The Interplay of Message Framing, Source, and Social Endorsement on Credibility Perceptions of Health Information on Facebook. Journal of Health Communication, v. 30, n. 1, p. 1-13.

BRAKUS, J. J.; SCHMITT, B. H.; ZARANTONELLO, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of marketing, v. 73, n. 3, p. 52-68.

BÜLBÜL, C.; MENON, G. (2010). The power of emotional appeals in advertising. Influence of Concrete versus Abstract Affect on Time‐Dependent Decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, v. 50, n. 2, p. 169-180.

CHANG, C. (2008). Ad framing effects for consumption products: An affect priming process. Psychology & Marketing, v. 25, n. 1, p. 24-46.

CHONG, D.; DRUCKMAN, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, n. 10, p. 103-126.

COATES, S. L.; BUTLER, L. T.; BERRY, D. C. (2006). Implicit memory and consumer choice: The mediating role of brand familiarity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, v. 20, n. 8, p. 1101-1116.

COHEN, J. B.; PHAM, M. T.; ANDRADE, E. B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In: HAUGTVEDT, C. P.; HERR, P. M.; KARDES, F. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology. New York, NY: Erlbaum. 297-348.

DAMASIO, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon

DAVID, M. E.; BEARDEN, W. O. (2017). The role of interpersonal attachment styles in shaping consumer preferences for products shown in relational advertisements. Personality and Individual Differences, n. 109, p. 44-50

DE PELSMACKER, P.; GEUENS, M.; ANCKAERT, P. (2002). Media context and advertising effectiveness: The role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal of Advertising, v. 31, n. 2, p. 49-61.

DOWLING, G. R.; STAELIN, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 21, n. 1, p. 119-134.

ENGEL, J. F.; BLACKWELL, R. E.; MINARDI, P. W. (2005). Comportamento do Consumidor. São Paulo: Pioneira Thomson Learning.

FLORACK, A.; SCARABIS, M. (2006). How advertising claims affect brand preferences and category–brand associations: The role of regulatory fit. Psychology & Marketing, v. 23, n. 9, p. 741-755.

FOURNIER, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 24, n. 4, p. 343-373.

FETSCHERIN, M.; HEINRICH, D.(2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis Journal of Business Research. V. 68, n. 2, p. 380-390.

FU, L.; YU, J.; NI, S.; LI, H.(2018).Reduced framing effect: Experience adjusts affective forecasting with losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 76, n. 1, p. 231-238.

GODINHO, C. A; UPDEGRAFF, J. A.; ALVAREZ, M. J.; LIMA, M. L. (2017). When Is Congruency Helpful? Interactive Effects of Frame, Motivational Orientation, and Perceived Message Quality on Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Journal of Health Communication, v. 22, n. 1, p. 942-950.

GRANDEY, A. A.; GOLDBERG, L. S.; PUGH, S. D. (2011). Why and when do stores with satisfied employees have satisfied customers? The roles of responsiveness and store busyness. Journal of Service Research, v. 14, n. 4, p. 397-409.

GEUENS, M.; PHAM, M. T.; PELSMACKER, P. D. (2011). Product involvement vs. product motives as moderators of the effects of ad-evoked feelings: an analysis of consumer responses to 1,100 TV commercials. NA-Advances. Consumer Research, n. 38.

HAIR, J.; WILLIAM, B.; BABIN, B.; ANDERSON, R. E (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Ed. Prentice Hall.

HAIR Jr., J. F.; HULT, T. M.; RINGLE, C. M.; SARSTEDT, M. (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: SAGE.

HARRIS, P.; MURAWSKI, C. (2010). Unconscious Brand Reactions Influence Financial Decision-Making. Advances. Consumer Research, n. 37, p. 810-812.

HEATH, R. G.; NAIRN, A. C.; BOTTOMLEY, P. A. (2009). How emotive is creativity. Emotive content in TV adverising does not increase attention. Journal of Advertising Research, v. 49, n. 4, p. 450-463.

HENNIG-THURAU, T.; GROTH, M.; PAUL, M.; GREMLER, D. D. (2006). Are all smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, v. 70, n. 3, p. 58-73.

HESS Jr, R. L.; GANESAN, S.; KLEIN, N. M. (2003). Service failure and recovery: the impact of relationship factors on customer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 31, n. 2, p. 127-145.

HOYER, W. D.; BROWN, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 17, n. 2, p. 141-148.

HOLBROOK, M. B.; BATRA, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 14, n. 3, p. 404-420.

KAHNEMAN, D.; TVERSKY, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, p. 263-291.

KELLER, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity. Handbook of Marketing, v. 151.

LEARY R. B.; VANN R. J.; GROZA M. P. (2016) Consumer Product Evaluation Updating: The Impact of Online and Interpersonal Social Influence on Evaluation Certainty. In: OBAL M.; KREY N.; BUSHARDT C. (eds) Let’s Get Engaged! Crossing the Threshold of Marketing’s Engagement Era. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham.

LURIE, N. H.; MASON, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal of Marketing, v. 71, n. 1, p. 160-177.

MAGNINI, V. P.; FORD, J. B.; MARKOWSKI, E. P.; Honeycutt Jr, E. D. (2007). The service recovery paradox: justifiable theory or smoldering myth?. Journal of Services Marketing, v. 21, n. 3, p. 213-225.

MEYERS-LEVY, J.; MALAVIYA, P. (1999). Consumers' processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. The Journal of Marketing, v. 63, n. 1, p. 45-60.

MELLERS, B. A.; MCGRAW, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, v. 10, n. 6, p. 210-214.

MOWEN, J. C.; MINOR, M. S. (1998). Consumer Behavior. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-hall.

NETEMEYER, R.D.; KRISHNAN, B.; PULLIG, C.; WANG, G.; YAGCI, M.; DEAN, D.; RICKS, J.; WIRTH, F. (2004), Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, n. 57, p. 209-24.

NIEDRICH, R. W.; SWAIN, S. D. (2003). The influence of pioneer status and experience order on consumer brand preference: A mediated-effects model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 31, n. 4, p. 468-480.

OLIVER, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, v. 63, n. 1, p. 33-44.

PHAM, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 25, n. 2, p. 144-159.

RINGLE, C. M.; WENDE, S.; WILL, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta).

RUSSO, J. E.; CARLSON, K. (2006). Individual decision-making. Handbook of Marketing. Eds. Barton Weitz, Robin Wensley, London, UK; Sage Publications, 371-407.

SHEN, L.; KOLLAR, L. M. M. (2015).Testing Moderators of Message Framing Effect. A Motivational Approach.Communication Research, v. 42, n. 5, p. 626-648.

SIMON, H. A. (1957). Models of man; social and rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

SLOVIC, P., FINUCANE, M. L.; PETERS, E. MACGREGOR, D. G. (2006). The affect heuristic. The construction of preference. Ed: Sarah Linchestein, Paul Slovic, Cambridge University Press.

TENENHAUS, M.; VINZI, V. E.; CHATELIN, Y. M.; LAURO, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, v. 48, n. 1, p. 159-205.

THOMAS, V.; WILLIAMS, A. (2013). The devil you know: The effect of brand recognition and product ratings on consumer choice. Judgment and Decision Making, v. 8, n. 1, p. 34-44.

TVERSKY, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, v. 79, n. 4, p. 281-299.

TVERSKY, A.; KAHNEMAN, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making. Springer Netherlands, p. 141-162.

TVERSKY, A.; KAHNEMAN, D. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 107-129.

VAKRATSAS, D.; AMBLER, T. (1999). How advertising works: what do we really know?. The Journal of Marketing, p. 26-43.

VERWEIJ M.; SENIOR T. J.; DOMÍNGUEZ, D. J. F.; TURNER, R. (2015). Emotion, rationality, and decision-making: how to link affective and social neuroscience with social theory. Frontiers of Neuroscience, n. 9, p. 332

VIECELI, J.; SHAW, R. N. (2010). Brand salience for fast-moving consumer goods: an empirically based model. Journal of Marketing Management, v. 26, n. 13-14, p. 1218-1238.

WEGENER, D. T.; SAWICKI, V.; PETTY, R. (2009). Attitudes as a basis for brand relationships. Handbook of Brand Relationship. Ed: Deborah J. MacInnis, C.

PARK, W.; PRIESTER, J. R. Society of Consumer Psychology. London, UK

YIM, C. K.; CHAN, K. W.; LAM, S. S. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy service participation? Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, v. 76, n. 6, p. 121-140.

ZAJONC, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, v. 35, n. 2, p. 151.

ZAROLIA, P.; WEISBUCH, M.; MCRAE, K. (2017). Influence of indirect information on interpersonal trust despite direct information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 112, n. 1, p. 39-57.