View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Role of Marketing Agility Capability in Reactance and Student Engagement with New Industry Technologies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Role of Marketing Agility Capability in Reactance and Student Engagement with New Industry Technologies
Language: English
Authors: Manisha Mathur, Michael Dugan
Source: Journal of Education for Business. 2025 100(3):116-130.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Business Education, Technological Advancement, Marketing, Student Attitudes, Learner Engagement, Student Reaction, Experiential Learning, Industry, Digital Literacy, College Students, Mediation Theory, Personal Autonomy
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2025.2478018
ISSN: 0883-2323
1940-3356
Abstract: In the rapidly changing business landscape, technological advancements position marketing technologies as pivotal components of successful businesses. However, notable evidence of student reactance exists that affects students' engagement and diminishes their competitiveness in the professional arena. This study examines student reactance and highlights the role of marketing agility capabilities in enhancing student engagement. The results obtained through PLS-SEM indicate the mediating effect of reactance on student engagement and reveal the vital role of marketing agility capabilities in mitigating the negative effects on student engagement. This study contributes valuable insights into the complex dynamics of student reactions to marketing technology in educational contexts, underscoring digital fluency and marketing agility.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1498128
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEviGdlPJ2n66u-dWWC3uXkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDK-xls0losNMJAEstwIBEICBmxGNkrW9-Vx973Q-Mk1TfQW3CsIm2SPIea0CBS4heb9IRUCdox0wGb5rWEeHuFrIrQ2TyGKdmr-AAdhnswP6U63P-SER41n71RtMK8YAdir2kNNK-dcna4BzT9R65jR3qeQEArNaypavV9TGdx0CPAT97NtACdNrzjl4zjA9tVvF8uvkV_y4my-atR9NUKW-5XFtevP9murtuGLy
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184340243;jeb01apr.25;2025Apr11.02:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184340243-1">Role of marketing agility capability in reactance and student engagement with new industry technologies </title> <p>In the rapidly changing business landscape, technological advancements position marketing technologies as pivotal components of successful businesses. However, notable evidence of student reactance exists that affects students' engagement and diminishes their competitiveness in the professional arena. This study examines student reactance and highlights the role of marketing agility capabilities in enhancing student engagement. The results obtained through PLS-SEM indicate the mediating effect of reactance on student engagement and reveal the vital role of marketing agility capabilities in mitigating the negative effects on student engagement. This study contributes valuable insights into the complex dynamics of student reactions to marketing technology in educational contexts, underscoring digital fluency and marketing agility.</p> <p>Keywords: Technology; reactance; marketing agility capability; engagement; digital fluency; coercion</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The dynamic field of marketing is undergoing a transformation driven by rapid advancements in digital technologies (Katsikeas et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]). These digital shifts are opening unprecedented avenues for marketers to leverage innovation and resulting opportunities to impact a business's success. A vital component of any marketing practice today centers on digital technology, whether it is e-commerce, online search, websites, social media, or mobile marketing (Labrecque et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]). Therefore, knowledge of new industry technology has clear implications for marketing students' career success and is a definite priority among scholars and professionals (Ferrell & Ferrell, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]). Despite the need to acquire technological knowledge and skills in industry technology, marketing students perform substantially worse than students from other disciplines in demonstrating the use of technology for marketing activities (Kotler et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). Marketing educators are currently facing significant challenges as they strive to achieve the goals of a digital technology-based curriculum (Faranda et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, research has identified a gap in entry-level employee competencies and industry needs and recognizes this workplace-readiness gap as one of the most serious problems facing the business landscape (Mishra et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]). Specifically, ThinkLA (Consortium of Advertising Agencies) reportedly found it the most challenging to hire the most qualified business graduates to fill positions that require the use of digital media and technologies. An invaluable student success activity is a learning activity that emphasizes the practical application of industry technology. However, prior research findings indicate that despite the potential benefits, certain students may resist learning new technologies for various reasons, ultimately limiting their ability to fully leverage the learning opportunities presented (Mishra et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]; Pan, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]). Only 17% of the marketing industry hiring executives expressed confidence in the entry-level applicant pool's understanding of the industry technology (Rohm et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref9">35</reflink>]). Consequently, equipping students with the necessary skills to succeed both academically and professionally becomes a significant challenge for educators.</p> <p>In the rapidly changing landscape of the marketing profession, recent technological advancements have become integral to marketing activities (Mathur, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]). It is crucial that new marketing graduates seamlessly integrate new marketing technologies into their skill sets to thrive in the highly competitive work environment. As a result, students' reactance comes into focus when they experience threats to their freedom, choices, or autonomy. We develop a conceptual framework using a combination of dynamic capabilities theory and reactance theory along with technological determinism to address issues of reactance and perceived coercion and increase the engagement and professional success of students in courses involving learning technology through marketing agility capabilities. This study examines the following three research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: How do digital fluency and perceived coercion affect student reactance and student engagement with experiential learning of industry technology?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: How does student reactance account for student engagement with experiential learning activities involving industry technology?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ3: What role does marketing agility capability play in student engagement considering student reactance?</item> </ulist> <p>In recent times, digital fluency has become recognized as an essential skill set that involves the extent to which an individual generates and reformulates information and to effectively, creatively, and productively, leverages digital technologies to achieve desired outcomes (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref11">43</reflink>]). In educational contexts, coercion can manifest as students feeling compelled to engage in activities or use tools without a sense of choice. Accordingly, perceived coercion refers to the imposition of forceful compliance and restrictive requirements in learning activities that limit students' sense of autonomy (Lojdová & Vlčková, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]). Students' psychological resistance or reactance grounded within the reactance theory framework refers to a negative psychological reaction that manifests when students perceive that their freedom to make choices is restricted or controlled by others, such as instructors or institutional requirements, and behave against what is expected of them (Ball & Goodboy, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]). Student reactance can lead to negative reactions, adversely influencing student engagement with experiential learning of new industry technologies. Student engagement in learning activities refers to the degree of attention, effort, participation, curiosity, interest, and passion demonstrated by a student (Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]) that makes their education more impactful and applicable to real-world situations. In education settings where hands-on skills or industry readiness are emphasized, engagement is especially crucial, as it enables students to develop practical abilities and adapt to new tools or technologies confidently. Therefore, engagement is not just about keeping students attentive; it shapes how well they understand, retain, and apply what they learn, laying a strong foundation for academic and professional success.</p> <p>Marketing agility capability reflects the extent to which a student can acquire information and skills to address marketing opportunities for career success (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref15">48</reflink>]). It creates enthusiasm, optimism, and urgency to gain proficiency in professional technology (Poolton et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>]). Hence, we argue that marketing agility capability reflects the ability to learn about the broader business environment within which professionals operate and respond proactively. It reflects an anticipatory ability of a business entity to discern the current and potential marketplace to consistently sense and act on events and trends (Morgan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref17">30</reflink>]). Thus, marketing agility capabilities provide a novel means through which student engagement in learning activities and student readiness for the workplace can be achieved. There is also a paucity of insights about marketing agility capabilities, resulting in the Marketing Science Institute considering the examination of marketing agility as a critical research priority for 2018–2020. Furthermore, few insights appear in the literature that investigate the role of producing students who are technologically agile in diminishing student reactance and enhancing student engagement (Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>"Agility," in general, is a broad term for adaptability and quick thinking, applicable in a variety of disciplines and distinctive contexts, such as accounting, technology, leadership, and shopping. Agility is also characterized in terms of leadership agility demonstrated through leaders' enhanced sensemaking abilities and their capacity to navigate dynamic, disruptive, and complex changes in both external and internal environments (Tandon et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>]). Agility in business has been applied to define and shape various terms and frameworks that guide organizational strategies, operations, and culture. For example, accounting agility represents the ability of accounting professionals to quickly and effectively adapt to changes in financial environments, regulations, and organizational needs emphasizing sense-making and responding (Yigitbasioglu, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]). Technology agility refers to a firm's capacity to swiftly adapt to and respond to technological advancements and changes (Dunlop-Hinkler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]). Shopping agility involves flexibility, decision-making skills, and resourcefulness for optimizing the shopping experience. In the context of businesses and operations, the concept of agility has extended its influence to areas such as manufacturing, supply chain management, and marketing (Asseraf et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]). Marketing agility highlights the ability of firms to recognize opportunities in a dynamic environment and to quickly adapt their marketing tactics accordingly (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]). Marketing agility stands apart as a unique concept, distinct from other related ideas in marketing and associated disciplines, and is a dynamic capability (Kalaignanam et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref25">48</reflink>]). While marketing agility is widely acknowledged as a critical factor in achieving marketing excellence, the current dynamic business environment calls for more studies that emphasize its role in the literature (Kalaignanam et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, this study makes three significant contributions. First, with very few review studies on students' marketing agility and psychological reactance (Amarnath & Jaidev, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]), this study examines how reactance accounts for student engagement with experiential learning of industry technology. By integrating reactance theory from the field of psychology with technological determinism, this study demonstrates that the effects of digital fluency and perceived coercion on engagement can be explained through student reactance. Second, grounded in dynamic capabilities theory from the field of strategic marketing management, this study examines conditions of marketing agility capabilities under which reactance-induced failures in student engagement can be reduced. Third, this study extends the knowledge about student engagement with experiential learning opportunities by examining its antecedents, the mediating factor, and the moderating factors, thereby offering intriguing insights about the enhancement of student engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-3">Theoretical background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184340243-4">Technological determinism, reactance, and dynamic capabilities theory</hd> <p>Technology for marketing activities includes various tools that help businesses plan, execute, and analyze marketing campaigns. This study emphasizes learning industry-standard technology commonly used by marketers to perform their activities, such as creating content for websites and blogs, advertising development, creating email campaigns, optimizing search engine visibility, marketing on search engines, marketing on social media, and visualizing and analyzing consumer data for effective marketing decisions. The commonly used technology for marketers includes web-based technology, such as content management systems (e.g. Wix, WordPress, Squarespace, or Magento) that enable marketers to develop, manage, and optimize marketing content to improve brand awareness and search engine visibility. The tools such as SEMrush and Google Analytics support search engine optimization activities and analyses of website traffic and performance. Technology facilitating email marketing campaigns includes web-based platforms such as Mailchimp and Constant Contact. Furthermore, creating ads for search engines, social media, and websites efficiently is facilitated through web-based platforms, monetization tools, and content creation software, such as Google Ads, Facebook Ads Manager, Canva, and Adobe Creative Cloud. Data visualization and business intelligence technology, such as Looker Studio, are useful to marketers who can create customizable reports facilitating ways to optimize marketing campaigns. Comprehensive marketing web-based technology, Wishpond, enables businesses to develop landing pages, design websites and popups, run contests and promotions, and track and evaluate visitor behavior to effectively manage marketing efforts, gaining insights from website traffic and increasing engagement with customers.</p> <p>With advancements in technology and the availability of web-based platforms and software, marketers now have access to essential tools that enable them to perform tasks more efficiently and demonstrate the tangible value of marketing to a business. Hence, knowledge and application of these are crucial to marketing students' success in the industry. Advances in technology influence skills, business strategies, and user behavior (Dafoe, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]). Changing technologies are one of the many factors that change the marketing processes and are integral to connecting marketers with consumers, such as e-commerce and mobile commerce (Dholakia et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref29">11</reflink>]). Technological determinism emphasizes the view that technology is a vital governing factor in processes of social change and transforming societal practices, consumption, and norms (Dafoe, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]). Espousing this perspective, the position of "technological determinism" within the marketing field suggests that technology drives innovative marketing practices, and thus new technological developments enhance the impact of marketing on business performance (Grewal et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]). Consequently, to remain competitive in the work environment, it is critical for students to gain knowledge and skills in leading technologies (Crittenden et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study considers digital fluency within the framework of technological determinism to highlight the role technology plays in developing new marketing mixes, strategies, and programs grounded in technology. However, a considerable gap exists between the expectations of the marketplace and students' marketing technology preparedness (Mishra et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]). Therefore, this study examines the theory of psychological reactance in conjunction with technological determinism to explain student reactance and engagement with learning activities involving technology. Within the context of classroom learning activities, students perceive assignment requirements as coercive restrictions to their freedom and behaviors (Mirick, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]). Reactance theory offers a systematic framework for examining student perceptions of coercion in learning activities involving the use of new technology.</p> <p>The dynamic capabilities theory has been extensively applied in research exploring the financial implications of marketing (Teece et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]). The theory posits that developing capabilities in response to the dynamic marketing environment is critical for addressing the evolving technological landscape (Teece, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]). In this study, marketing agility capabilities are conceptualized as the critical capabilities in marketing that enable marketers to adapt their efforts to quickly and effectively respond to changes in the technological environment, learn new technologies, and integrate them into their marketing efforts (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>]). Marketing agility emphasizes proactivity and implies active research to understand current and potential needs in the technologically advancing marketplace.</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-5">Hypotheses development</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184340243-6">Relationships of digital fluency and perceived coercion with student reactance</hd> <p>Contemporary literature conceptualizes digital fluency as an individual's ability to generate and reformulate information and to effectively use digital technologies (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref38">43</reflink>]). It includes proficiency in articulating, expressing, producing, and generating information by reformulating knowledge with respect to using technology. Technological determinism theory offers an organized conceptual framework for understanding students' behavior in the use of new technologies. Digital fluency underscores an individual's knowledge, skills, and responses to the required use of digital technologies (Bologa et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]). Students experience reactance as they examine ways to reclaim their freedom and resist an advocated behavior (Mirick, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref40">28</reflink>]). Research has shown students' reactance to cell phone policies in the classroom and their enactment of uncivil classroom behaviors (Tatum et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]). Consistent with prior studies, it is expected that students will experience higher reactance when they believe a threat exists to their freedom leading to negative responses, anger, and noncompliance. The reactance process is not induced when students have greater digital fluency, as it adds clarity and confidence in their skill and use of technology. We therefore hypothesize in alternative one-tailed form that:</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-7">H1a:</hd> <p> <emph>Digital fluency is negatively related to student reactance.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-8">H1b:</hd> <p> <emph>Digital fluency is negatively related to students' perceived coercion.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-9">H1c:</hd> <p> <emph>Perceived coercion is positively related to student reactance.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-10">Relationships of reactance, digital fluency, and perceived coercion with student engagement</hd> <p>With prior perceptions about the marketing field, marketing students infer their attitudes toward learning new industry technology in the classrooms. As instruction in the classroom conflicts with the students' attitudes toward industry technology, students perceive a threat to their sense of choice and freedom (Mirick, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]). Psychological reactance theory provides theoretical insights into understanding students' reactance toward experiential learning of industry technology. However, more often it is found that students express reactance in complying with performing such experiential learning activities (Ball & Goodboy, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]). In accordance with the psychological reactance theory, when students perceive that their prior attitudes toward marketing technology are being challenged, they are more likely to experience reactance. Moreover, recent studies found evidence that instructions in classrooms can trigger student reactance (Zhang & Sapp, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref44">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student engagement is a multi-dimensional construct that consists of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic components. As students are coerced into performing assignments that introduce new technology and require them to adapt to learning marketing in a newer and unfamiliar way, student reactance is more likely to be evoked. Reactance represents an individual's negative psychological response to defy a persuasive effort in which the individual is compelled and then acts opposite to what is expected (Rafael & Lopes, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref45">34</reflink>]). Studies report that an individual responds to a perceived threat to freedom in the form of attitude changes. Hence, a student is more inclined to oppose the instructors' directions, and this behavior can be expressed as an attempt to circumvent the instructions (Mirick, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]; Zhang & Sapp, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref47">46</reflink>]). We, therefore, hypothesize that:</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-11">H2a:</hd> <p> <emph>Reactance is negatively related to student engagement.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-12">H2b:</hd> <p> <emph>Digital fluency is positively related to student engagement.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-13">H2c:</hd> <p> <emph>Perceived coercion is negatively related to student engagement.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-14">Mediating role of student reactance</hd> <p>Since digital fluency implies skills and capabilities to properly use digital technologies (Ball & Goodboy, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]), it also represents the responses of students required to use technology in their learning activities (Wei et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]). When students perceive their abilities to be strong in using new technologies in their assignments and consider themselves to be capable of applying their ideas through the new technology, then negative reactions are subdued. Students do not perceive a threat to their freedom, and student reactance and resistance will not be aroused. Prior studies have also found that any perceived threat to student autonomy could provoke reactance that in turn influences a student's attitude toward compliance with classroom learning activities and engagement (Zhang & Sapp, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student engagement reflects students' active involvement in their learning activities consisting of behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic aspects of engagement (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]). Emotional engagement encompasses affective responses toward peers, instructors, and learning activities, particularly emotions such as happiness, boredom, anxiety, and excitement (Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref52">6</reflink>]). On the other hand, cognitive engagement reflects students' mental efforts to finish their tasks using a self-regulated strategic approach to learning rather than superficial learning strategies and agentic engagement involves students' active contribution to their learning and teaching (Merkle et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref53">27</reflink>]). Consequently, with greater digital fluency, students are better able to grasp new technology and its features to complete their assignments and learning activities. Accordingly, negative student reactions are not evoked, and student engagement increases. However, greater perceived coercion elicits student reactance, as students perceive autonomy-impinging persuasive attempts in relation to an instructor's role-related power over students (Zhang & Sapp, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]) triggering students' negative reactions that diminish student engagement. Therefore, we hypothesize that:</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-15">H3a:</hd> <p> <emph>Students' reactance mediates the relationship between digital fluency and student engagement.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-16">H3b:</hd> <p> <emph>Students' reactance mediates the relationship between perceived coercion and student engagement.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-17">Moderating role of marketing agility</hd> <p>Marketing agility enables students to learn about new technologies marketers use to execute their strategies, learn about trends, and address the changes in the marketplace. Thus, students who have high marketing agility actively use new technology to finish their learning activities and assignments. As a result, reactance declines. Students with marketing agility capability are better able to integrate marketing knowledge and new technologies emerging in the marketing field. Consequently, students effectively learn new features of the technology and its functions and are successful in completing their assignments. Therefore, the usage of technology for an assignment is not disturbing, irritating, or frustrating for students, and student reactance decreases. In addition, student perceptions of coercion also decline, as they are more inclined to learn new technology and proactively integrate it into finishing their assignments.</p> <p>Marketing agility endows individuals and organizations with the means for trial and error learning, prompt response to the changing marketing landscape, and making sense of the market to adjust effectively (Homburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]). Despite the key role of marketing technology in improving the effectiveness of marketing programs, students exhibit reactance (Ball & Goodboy, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>]). Therefore, the marketing agility capabilities of students increase students' abilities to learn and commit to gaining knowledge and skills in new technologies and trends in the marketing field. Consequently, students' levels of attention, effort, and interest in working on learning activities and assignments, ultimately, achieving learning goals are exhibited, leading to greater student engagement. Therefore, we hypothesize that:</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-18">H4a:</hd> <p> <emph>Marketing agility moderates the relationship between digital fluency and reactance, such that the digital fluency-reactance relationship is strengthened when marketing agility is high.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-19">H4b:</hd> <p> <emph>Marketing agility moderates the relationship between digital fluency and perceived coercion, such that the digital fluency-perceived coercion relationship is strengthened when marketing agility is high.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-20">H4c:</hd> <p> <emph>Marketing agility moderates the relationship between perceived coercion and reactance, such that the perceived coercion-reactance relationship is weakened when marketing agility is high.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-21">H4d:</hd> <p> <emph>Marketing agility moderates the relationship between reactance and student engagement, such that the reactance-student engagement relationship is weakened when marketing agility is high.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-22">Research method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184340243-23">Sample and data collection</hd> <p>This study focuses on student perceptions of their abilities to learn new technologies developing in the marketing field and the work environment influencing student engagement in the classroom. Undergraduate marketing students taking a digital marketing course at a public university in the southeastern region of the United States participated in this research. Since this study involves human research participants, prior approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the university at which the study was conducted. First, a pretest was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the measures, and then a main study was conducted. The participants were provided with appropriate informed consent at the beginning of the questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-24">Pretest</hd> <p>The pretest conducted with 54 undergraduate junior-level marketing students also included a check for potential sources of social desirability bias (Crowne & Marlowe, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>]) and common method bias (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>]). The psychometric properties of the measures were evaluated by assessing the reliability and validity of the measures, and based on the results, measures were refined (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]). Consistent with previous studies, we included a six-item scale to assess social desirability bias (Strahan & Gerbasi, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]). The evaluation of correlations between the social desirability construct and each of the focal constructs of this study revealed that the correlations were not statistically significant, indicating that social desirability bias is not likely to affect the results of this study. Thus, social desirability bias is not a concern in this study. The pretest also assessed the common method bias using Harmon's single factor test (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]). The analysis showed none of the factors account for the major portion of the variance in the study, thus suggesting that common method bias is not an issue in this study (Merkle et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref62">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-25">Main study</hd> <p>The main study was also conducted with undergraduate junior-level marketing students taking a digital marketing course at a public university in the southeastern region of the United States who responded to an online survey administered through the Qualtrics online delivery platform. Consistent with existing studies on student perceptions, data were collected via online surveys (Merkle et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref63">27</reflink>]), which yielded 172 responses. The survey instrument included questions adapted from prior studies that were pretested. The sample of the main study specifically consisted of 54% females and 46% males, with 86% students in the age range of 20 to 25 years of age. 14% of respondents belonged to ages ranging from 26 to 35 years. Table 1 presents the demographic information of the respondents.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Demographic profile</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percent</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">93</td><td char=".">54</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">79</td><td char=".">46</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td char=".">172</td><td char=".">100</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <20</td><td char=".">0</td><td /></tr><tr><td char="."> 20–21</td><td char=".">142</td><td char=".">82.56</td></tr><tr><td char="."> 22–23</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2.33</td></tr><tr><td char="."> 24–25</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1.16</td></tr><tr><td char="."> 26–27</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">6.40</td></tr><tr><td char="."> 28–29</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">5.23</td></tr><tr><td> 30></td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2.33</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td char=".">172</td><td char=".">100</td></tr><tr><td>Class status</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Freshman</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td> Sophomore</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td> Junior</td><td char=".">164</td><td char=".">95.35</td></tr><tr><td> Senior</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">4.65</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td char=".">172</td><td char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-26">Measures</hd> <p>The constructs were measured using multi-item scales adapted to the context of this study from prior research. All the measures were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" anchors. The measures for digital fluency include four items and were adapted from Wei et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref64">44</reflink>]). Accordingly, the digital fluency items assess the knowledge and skills associated with new technology in the marketing field. The measures of marketing agility were adapted from Zhou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref65">48</reflink>]) that reflect the learning and understanding of the new technology marketers use in their work environment. Reactance was measured with a four-item scale adapted from Shoenberger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref66">36</reflink>]) that reflects the extent to which students are irritated, angry, disturbed, or displeased with the assignments requiring the usage of new technology. Perceived coercion assessed the student's perception of their choice to use technology in completing an assignment and was measured using a four-item scale adapted from Rafael and Lopes ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref67">34</reflink>]). The 11-item student engagement scale was adapted from Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]) to capture the behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic aspects of engagement (Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]). The measurement items for the constructs of this study are provided in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Constructs and measurement items.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>(1) Digital fluency <italic>Adapted from:</italic> Wei et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2020</xref><italic>)</italic>; <italic>1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree</italic> I am able to quickly pick up new features of technology used in my assignment. I am able to use the new technology functions to articulate my assignment. I often explore new features of the technology used in my assignment. I am able to apply my ideas via the new technology used in my assignment.</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Marketing agility <italic>Adapted from:</italic> Zhou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2019</xref><italic>)</italic>; <italic>1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree</italic> I am good at learning about new technology marketers use in the work environment. I am good at understanding trends in the marketing field. I am good at learning how to use technologies marketers use in their profession. I am good at understanding job requirements for marketers in the changing technology landscape. I am good at integrating market and technology information. I can respond to the changing marketing field by learning new technology. I can adjust to learning new technology to match the job needs of the marketplace. I am quick to learn new technology as it becomes available to marketers.</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Perceived coercion <italic>Adapted from:</italic> Rafael and Lopes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2019</xref><italic>)</italic>; <italic>1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree</italic> I am not forced to use technology for an assignment. It is my choice to use technology in an assignment. The assignment requires the use of technology. I am free to choose using technology for completing an assignment.</td></tr><tr><td>(4) Reactance <italic>Adapted from:</italic><bold>(</bold>Shoenberger et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2021</xref><italic>)</italic>; <italic>1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree</italic> The usage of technology for an assignment is not disturbing to me. The usage of technology in an assignment is welcomed. The required usage of technology in an assignment is pleasing to me. The usage of technology for an assignment is not irritating for me.</td></tr><tr><td>(5) Student engagement <italic>Adapted from:</italic> Zhang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2020</xref>); <italic>1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree</italic> I look over notes between classes to make sure I understand the material. I take good notes in class. I do my best to understand important concepts. I take the initiative to ask questions when I don't understand the material. I complete assignments on time. I participate actively in group discussions. I answer questions asked by the teacher in class. It is important to obtain knowledge that develops techniques. I am good at learning the material in this class. I do my best to get good grades in this class. I am confident that I can learn enough to do well in this class.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-27">Model</hd> <p>To evaluate the hypotheses, PLS-SEM technique was employed, as it allows for assessing a complex set of theoretical relationships and facilitates the simultaneous analyses of the relationships among independent, dependent, mediating, and moderating variables within a single conceptual model (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref70">19</reflink>]). PLS-SEM was performed using SmartPLS 4.0 (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-28">Measurement model</hd> <p>Using the confirmatory composite analysis approach (Hair et al., 2021), a technique analogous to CFA for CB-SEM, the measurement model was assessed. This technique consists of an examination of the composite reliability, item loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2021). The descriptive statistics and correlations for all the latent variables are presented in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td><td>(5)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>(1) Digital fluency</td><td char=".">6.34</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(2) Marketing agility</td><td char=".">5.86</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(3) Perceived coercion</td><td char=".">2.38</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">−0.62</td><td char=".">−0.20</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(4) Reactance</td><td char=".">1.77</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">−0.76</td><td char=".">−0.44</td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td /></tr><tr><td>(5) Student engagement</td><td char=".">5.84</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">0.49</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">−0.38</td><td char=".">−0.55</td><td char=".">1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The item loadings were above 0.69 and statistically significant, with composite reliability in the range between 0.73 and 0.95, exceeding the recommended threshold (Hair et al., 2021). The AVE values were computed to be in the range of 0.65–0.89, providing evidence of reliability and convergent validity among the measures in the study. In addition, discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE values of every construct in the study with the shared variances among the constructs, and the AVE values exceeded the squared correlations, providing strong evidence of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2021). Table 4 presents each construct's reliability, AVE values, and interfactor correlations to provide measures of convergent validity and discriminant validity.</p> <p>Table 4. Reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Composite reliability</td><td>Average variance extracted (AVE)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(4)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>(1) Digital fluency</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.65</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(2) Marketing agility</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">.54</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(3) Perceived coercion</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">.74</td><td char=".">.18</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(4) Reactance</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">.61</td><td char=".">.46</td><td char=".">.73</td><td /></tr><tr><td>(5) Student engagement</td><td char=".">0.94</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">.59</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char=".">.63</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184340243-29">Structural model</hd> <p>The assessment of the structural model first involved examining multicollinearity among the constructs of this study. All the constructs' variance inflation factors were below 3.0 indicating that multicollinearity is not affecting the results (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref72">16</reflink>]). Following the assessment of multicollinearity, path coefficients and their statistical significance were examined by performing the PLS bootstrapping procedure that involved 5,000 samples to produce bias-corrected confidence intervals for each coefficient. Table 5 presents the results of the structural model.</p> <p>Table 5. Structural model path analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Path</td><td>Effect</td><td>Hyp.</td><td>Supported?</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Direct effects</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Digital fluency → Reactance</td><td char=".">−0.45<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H1a</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Digital fluency → Perceived coercion</td><td char=".">−0.78<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H1b</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived coercion → Reactance</td><td char=".">0.33<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H1c</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Reactance → Student engagement</td><td char=".">−0.41<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H2a</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Digital fluency → Student engagement</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td>H2b</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived coercion → Student engagement</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td>H2c</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effects</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Digital fluency → Reactance → Student engagement</td><td char=".">0.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H3a</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived coercion → Reactance → Student engagement</td><td char=".">−0.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H3b</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Moderating effects</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Marketing agility × Digital fluency → Reactance</td><td char=".">−0.08<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H4a</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing agility × Digital fluency → Perceived coercion</td><td char=".">−0.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H4b</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing agility × Perceived coercion → Reactance</td><td char=".">−0.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td>H4c</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing agility × Reactance → Student engagement</td><td char=".">−0.12**</td><td>H4d</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>p</emph> <.01; **<emph>p</emph> <.05; *<emph>p</emph> <.10</p> <p>The results indicate that digital fluency is negatively related to reactance (<emph>β</emph> = −.45, <emph>p</emph> <.01) and perceived coercion (<emph>β</emph> = −.78, <emph>p</emph> <.01), thus supporting H1a and H1b. The results also suggest that Hypothesis 1c is supported because perceived coercion was found to be positively associated with reactance (<emph>β</emph> =.33, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Upon examining student engagement, the results suggest that reactance (<emph>β</emph> = −.41, <emph>p</emph> <.01) has a significant negative effect on student engagement in comparison to digital fluency and perceived coercion. Thus, the results pertaining to the relationships of reactance, digital fluency, and perceived coercion with student engagement were found to be mixed, as only H2a was found to be supported, while H2b and H2c were not supported. Further, this study found that digital fluency is indirectly and positively related to student engagement through the mediating role of reactance (<emph>β</emph> =.19, <emph>p</emph> <.01), thus supporting H3a. Reactance also mediates the relationship between perceived coercion and student engagement such that perceived coercion is indirectly, negatively related to student engagement (<emph>β</emph> = −.14, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Therefore, results support H3b.</p> <p>Hypothesis 4a predicts that marketing agility will moderate the negative relationship between digital fluency, and the results indicate that the higher the marketing agility, the lower the reactance when digital fluency is high (<emph>β</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> <.01). As a result, H4a is supported. Next, the results indicate that marketing agility interacts with digital fluency to moderate the negative relationship between digital fluency and perceived coercion (<emph>β</emph> = −.14, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Thus, H4b is supported. Further, the results indicate that when marketing agility is high, the negative relationship between perceived coercion and reactance is moderated (<emph>β</emph> = −.19, <emph>p</emph> <.01), which supports H4c. As H4d predicts, the results suggest that when marketing agility is high, the negative effect of reactance on student engagement is moderated (<emph>β</emph> = −.12, <emph>p</emph> <.05). Hence, H4d is supported. The combined results from the path analysis are presented in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. The structural model.</p> <p>Figures 2–5 graphically depict the moderating conditions of the interactions.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Moderating role of marketing agility on the relationship between digital fluency and reactance.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Moderating role of marketing agility on the relationship between digital fluency and perceived coercion.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Moderating role of marketing agility on the relationship between coercion and reactance.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 5. Moderating role of marketing agility on the relationship between reactance and student engagement.</p> <p>Next, the evaluation of the structural model included assessing the explained variance. The perceived coercion has an <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> of.41, reactance has an <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> of.64, and student engagement has an <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> of.46, which are considered moderate <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> values in the current literature (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]). In addition, the <emph>f<sups>2</sups></emph> effect size of exogenous constructs contributing to the <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> values of the endogenous constructs are greater than 0.2 (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-30">Discussion</hd> <p>By combining the three diverse theoretical frameworks of reactance theory, technological determinism, and dynamic capabilities theory, this study investigated and explained how digital fluency and coercion are related to student reactance, which in turn undermines engagement in experiential learning activities involving technology. The results indicate that digital fluency reduces student reactance and perceived coercion in the experiential learning of industry technology. When students possess strong digital skills, they are more comfortable experimenting with new industry-standard technologies, less likely to feel overwhelmed, and see them as extensions of their existing knowledge rather than unfamiliar challenges. This fluency reduces resistance, or "reactance," and perceptions of coercion as digitally fluent students feel more capable and less dependent on external guidance to navigate complex software or industry-specific platforms, minimizing the feeling that they are being "forced" into an uncomfortable learning environment. Additionally, digital fluency helps students understand the relevance of these technologies, bridging the gap between academic learning and real-world applications, which can enhance motivation and reduce pushbacks in learning environments that emphasize industry readiness. Consequently, students become more open and willing participants, enhancing the effectiveness of experiential learning.</p> <p>Though digital fluency minimizes student reactance and perceived coercion, the findings highlight an indirect effect of digital fluency on student engagement, mediated by the level of student reactance. Student reactance mediates the effect of digital fluency on student engagement by serving as the psychological factor that links digital fluency with a student's openness to learning. When students are fluent, digitally, they tend to feel more confident and capable when interacting with industry technology. This fluency reduces feelings of being forced into unfamiliar tasks, which otherwise could trigger reactance—a resistant or defensive response to perceived external control. By lowering this reactance, digital fluency creates a more positive, autonomous learning environment, where students consider themselves engaged with technology by choice rather than compulsion. As a result, reduced reactance allows students to fully engage with the learning process, actively participating and immersing themselves in experiential learning. Therefore, digital fluency impacts student engagement indirectly by first reducing reactance, which, in turn, fosters a more receptive and committed learning attitude.</p> <p>Given the negative relationships between reactance and student engagement, digital fluency and reactance, and digital fluency and perceived coercion influence student engagement, this study offers strong support to the moderating effect of marketing agility capabilities in moderating these dynamics. Marketing agility capabilities can moderate the negative effect of reactance on student engagement by equipping students with an adaptive mindset that reframes challenges as opportunities for growth and innovation. Reactance, or resistance to perceived external control, often leads students to disengage from learning activities. However, when students possess strong marketing agility capabilities—skills in adapting quickly, pivoting strategies, and responding to real-time changes, they are better positioned to manage feelings of reactance constructively. This agility encourages students to approach learning with a focus on flexibility and responsiveness, which shifts their perception of experiential tasks from mandatory hurdles to valuable learning experiences.</p> <p>Marketing agility can play a moderating role in the relationship between digital fluency and student reactance in experiential learning of industry technology by shaping how students apply their digital skills in dynamic, real-world scenarios. Marketing agility—characterized by adaptability, responsiveness, and a quick learning approach—encourages students to see technology as a tool for rapid experimentation and iterative improvement, which aligns with the principles of experiential learning. When students possess both digital fluency and marketing agility, they are less likely to feel resistant or defensive when tasked with learning new technologies, as they view these tools as a means to quickly test, analyze, and adjust their approach. Essentially, marketing agility enhances students' confidence in using their digital skills flexibly and effectively, reducing the sense of forced adaptation or reactance. This adaptability means that students with high marketing agility feel a greater sense of control and creativity in experiential learning, perceiving it not as a rigid requirement but as a chance to develop responsive, industry-relevant skills. Thus, marketing agility moderates the relationship by making digital fluency more impactful in reducing student reactance, as it aligns with a mindset that values adaptability and quick learning in the face of new technology. Accordingly, this paper offers significant theoretical and practical implications for both marketing academics and academia in general.</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-31">Theoretical implications</hd> <p>This study offers three major theoretical contributions. While most academics and practitioners are proponents of agility, few studies examine the role of marketing agility capabilities grounded in dynamic capabilities theory (Kalaignanam et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]). This study advances the scope of the dynamic capabilities theory and technological determinism that are examined within the context of student learning and outcomes. Student engagement is a clear priority for both marketing educators as well as for students to succeed academically and professionally. Therefore, the current study advances the existing literature on student engagement by examining the antecedents, a mediator, and a moderator. Student reactance is a key inhibitor of student learning and academic achievement. This study examines reactance theory and technological determinism theory to investigate the mediating effects of student reactance. The study revealed that student reactance is critical to explaining the effect of digital fluency on student engagement. Further, student reactance was found to be mediating the perceived coercion-student engagement relationship. The study demonstrates that student reactance explains the negative effect of coercion on student engagement. Thus, the findings further advance the inconsistent literature on student reactance and highlight the importance of autonomy, empowerment, communication, and classroom management in achieving a constructive learning environment for students.</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-32">Practical implications</hd> <p>This study has produced a compelling set of results, offering noteworthy practical insights. The findings reveal and offer practical guidance to educators that students' marketing agility is crucial in preparing them for the dynamic and ever-evolving field of marketing. Marketing agility capabilities enable students with skills and mindsets that align with the current and future needs of the industry. Marketing agility enables them to adapt quickly to shifts in the marketplace, emerging technologies, and industry trends. It aligns their education with industry demands, equips them to adapt to changes, provides a competitive advantage, fosters innovation, promotes a customer-centric approach, optimizes resource utilization, addresses digital transformation, emphasizes data-driven decision-making, encourages a global perspective, and instills a commitment to lifelong learning—all of which are essential in the dynamic field of marketing.</p> <p>This study also guides marketing educators on ways to enhance student engagement that is considered critical for creating a positive and effective learning experience, promoting academic success, and cultivating skills and attitudes that are valuable for personal and professional growth. With practical suggestions emerging from the findings of the current study, it is imperative for educators to emphasize digital fluency among students to decrease student reactance. Since perceived coercion increases student reactance, this study highlights the importance of clear instructions and the use of the Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TiLT) framework to design experiential learning activities for students. As the findings suggest, student reactance explains the relationship between digital fluency and student engagement as well as the relationship between perceived coercion and student engagement. Therefore, addressing student reactance is important for creating a positive and effective learning environment that enhances the overall educational experience and promotes student engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0184340243-33">Limitations and directions for future research</hd> <p>As with any research of this kind, our study has certain limitations that create opportunities for future exploration. A larger sample size could improve the representativeness of the findings for the broader marketing student population. While generalizability may be limited, the findings still offer valuable insights for marketing education, particularly at the college level. Future research could extend this investigation to other disciplines, such as Accounting and Finance, to examine whether similar dynamics hold. Additionally, international marketing students may have unique perceptions and responses, making them a valuable demographic for further study to gain more nuanced insights.</p> <p>Since student engagement is context-specific, future research exploring the students' attitudes toward university experiences would further clarify student reactance to experiential learning of industry technology. University experiences, such as teaching styles, classroom environments, and levels of perceived support, shape how students approach learning tasks, particularly those involving industry technologies. If students have a positive view of their university experiences—feeling supported, autonomous, and connected to the material—they are likely to be more open to engaging in experiential learning, even if it involves unfamiliar or complex technology. However, if their experiences are negative or they perceive a lack of relevance or choice, reactance can increase, as students may feel resistant to what they perceive as enforced learning. Understanding these attitudes in a future study can help educators design experiential learning opportunities that align with students' expectations and needs, reducing reactance and increasing engagement with industry-relevant technologies.</p> <ref id="AN0184340243-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref27" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amarnath, D. D., & Jaidev, U. P. (2021). Toward an integrated model of consumer reactance: A literature analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 71 (1), 41 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00180-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Asseraf, Y., Lages, L. F., & Shoham, A. (2019). Assessing the drivers and impact of international marketing agility. International Marketing Review, 36 (2), 289 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2017-0267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, H., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). An experimental investigation of the antecedents and consequences of psychological reactance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63 (3), 192 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.918634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref39" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bologa, R., Lupu, A. R., & Sabau, G. (2009). Elements that advocate the nurturing of digital fluency. [Paper presentation]. 2009 International Conference on Future Networks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref61" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2020). Common method variance in international business research. In L. Eden, B.B. Nielsen, & A. Verbeke (Eds.), Research methods in international business (1st ed., pp. 385–398). Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chiu, T. K. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref74" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1 (3), 98 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crittenden, W. F., Biel, I. K., & Lovely, W. A. III. (2019). Embracing digitalization: Student learning and new technologies. Journal of Marketing Education, 41 (1), 5 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318820895</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref57" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (4), 349 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dafoe, A. (2015). On technological determinism: A typology, scope conditions, and a mechanism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40 (6), 1047 – 1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915579283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dholakia, N., Zwick, D., & Denegri-Knott, J. (2010). Technology, consumers, and marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 1, 494 – 511.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunlop-Hinkler, D., Parente, R., Marion, T. J., & Friar, J. H. (2011). The role of technology agility on business processes and organizational agilities. First international technology management conference (pp. 67 – 75). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITMC.2011.5995930</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faranda, W. T., Clarke, T. B., & Clarke, I., III. (2021). Marketing student perceptions of academic program quality and relationships to surface, deep, and strategic learning approaches. Journal of Marketing Education, 43 (1), 9 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320939261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrell, O., & Ferrell, L. (2020). Technology challenges and opportunities facing marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 30 (1), 3 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2020.1718510</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grewal, D., Hulland, J., Kopalle, P. K., & Karahanna, E. (2020). The future of technology and marketing: A multidisciplinary perspective. (Vol. 48, pp. 1 – 8). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. (Vol. 7). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. Jr., Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46 (1–2), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53 (4), 566 – 584. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Homburg, C., Theel, M., & Hohenberg, S. (2020). Marketing excellence: Nature, measurement, and investor valuations. Journal of Marketing, 84 (4), 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920925517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalaignanam, K., Tuli, K. R., Kushwaha, T., Lee, L., & Gal, D. (2021). Marketing agility: The concept, antecedents, and a research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 35 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920952760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katsikeas, C., Leonidou, L., & Zeriti, A. (2019). Revisiting international marketing strategy in a digital era: Opportunities, challenges, and research directions. International Marketing Review, 37 (3), 405 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2019-0080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2021). Marketing 5.0: Technology for humanity. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Darmody, A. (2021). Addressing online behavioral advertising and privacy implications: A comparison of passive versus active learning approaches. Journal of Marketing Education, 43 (1), 43 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319828788</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lojdová, K., & Vlčková, K. (2015). Coercive power scenarios in the classes taught by student teachers. Masaryk University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathur, M. (2020). Improving the value of the retailer brand through social media equity. Journal of Brand Management, 27 (5), 508 – 530. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00195-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merkle, A. C., Ferrell, L. K., Ferrell, O., & Hair, J. F. Jr. (2022). Evaluating E-book effectiveness and the impact on student engagement. Journal of Marketing Education, 44 (1), 54 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753211035162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirick, R. G. (2016). Reactance theory: A model for instructor communication in the classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2 (3), 219 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mishra, K. E., Wilder, K., & Mishra, A. K. (2017). Digital literacy in the marketing curriculum: Are female college students prepared for digital jobs? Industry and Higher Education, 31 (3), 204 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422217697838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, N. A., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Vorhies, D. W. (2009). Linking marketing capabilities with profit growth. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26 (4), 284 – 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 564294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poolton, J., Ismail, H. S., Reid, I. R., & Arokiam, I. C. (2006). Agile marketing for the manufacturing‐based SME. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24 (7), 681 – 693. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500610711851</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rafael, D. N., & Lopes, E. L. (2019). The effect of reactance on satisfaction: A study in the context of supplementary health care systems. Brazilian Business Review, 16 (2), 102 – 117. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2019.16.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohm, A. J., Stefl, M., & Saint Clair, J. (2019). Time for a marketing curriculum overhaul: Developing a digital-first approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 41 (1), 47 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318798086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shoenberger, H., Kim, E., & Sun, Y. (2021). Advertising during COVID-19: Exploring perceived brand message authenticity and potential psychological reactance. Journal of Advertising, 50 (3), 253 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1927914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow‐Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28 (2), 191 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tandon, L., Bhatnagar, T., & Sharma, T. (2024). Leadership agility in the context of organisational agility: A systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 1 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00422-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tatum, N. T., Olson, M. K., & Frey, T. (2018). Noncompliance and dissent with cell phone policies: A psychological reactance theoretical perspective. Communication Education, 67 (2), 226 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1417615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, J. (2019). Improving technology agility through the instructional scaffolding of experiential marketing research projects. Changing the 'Rhythm' of Marketing: Are We Listening?, 19, 19–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13), 1319 – 1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509 – 533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Q., Myers, M. D., & Sundaram, D. (2013). Digital natives and digital immigrants: Towards a model of digital fluency. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5 (6), 409 – 419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0296-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, C., Pitafi, A. H., Kanwal, S., Ali, A., & Ren, M. (2020). Improving employee agility using enterprise social media and digital fluency: Moderated mediation model. IEEE Access, 8, 68799 – 68810. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yigitbasioglu, O. M. (2017). Drivers of management accounting adaptability: The agility lens. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 13 (2), 262 – 281. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-12-2015-0092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Q., & Sapp, D. A. (2013). Psychological reactance and resistance intention in the classroom: Effects of perceived request politeness and legitimacy, relationship distance, and teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62 (1), 1 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.727008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, K., Wu, S., Xu, Y., Cao, W., Goetz, T., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2020). Adaptability promotes student engagement under COVID-19: The multiple mediating effects of academic emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 633265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.633265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, J., Mavondo, F. T., & Saunders, S. G. (2019). The relationship between marketing agility and financial performance under different levels of market turbulence. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 31 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.11.008</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Manisha Mathur and Michael Dugan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1498128
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Role of Marketing Agility Capability in Reactance and Student Engagement with New Industry Technologies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Manisha+Mathur%22">Manisha Mathur</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Dugan%22">Michael Dugan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+for+Business%22"><i>Journal of Education for Business</i></searchLink>. 2025 100(3):116-130.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Education%22">Business Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Advancement%22">Technological Advancement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marketing%22">Marketing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Reaction%22">Student Reaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industry%22">Industry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Digital+Literacy%22">Digital Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mediation+Theory%22">Mediation Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08832323.2025.2478018
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0883-2323<br />1940-3356
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In the rapidly changing business landscape, technological advancements position marketing technologies as pivotal components of successful businesses. However, notable evidence of student reactance exists that affects students' engagement and diminishes their competitiveness in the professional arena. This study examines student reactance and highlights the role of marketing agility capabilities in enhancing student engagement. The results obtained through PLS-SEM indicate the mediating effect of reactance on student engagement and reveal the vital role of marketing agility capabilities in mitigating the negative effects on student engagement. This study contributes valuable insights into the complex dynamics of student reactions to marketing technology in educational contexts, underscoring digital fluency and marketing agility.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1498128
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1498128
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08832323.2025.2478018
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 116
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Business Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technological Advancement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Marketing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Reaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Industry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Digital Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mediation Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Role of Marketing Agility Capability in Reactance and Student Engagement with New Industry Technologies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Manisha Mathur
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael Dugan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0883-2323
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-3356
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 100
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education for Business
              Type: main
ResultId 1