Nous étudions la relation entre la taille d'ensembles de considération hétérogènes, formés de produits (et non de marques) pour un contexte de consommation envisagé et les caractéristiques du contexte de consommation. Dans une application à l'univers des boissons, nous montrons: (1) que la taille de l'ensemble de considération dépend du contexte de consommation envisagé et de ses caractéristiques; (2) que le nombre de bénéfices recherchés par un consommateur est un facteur majeur d'influence de la taille de l'ensemble de considération, de loin le plus important parmi les facteurs étudiés (la taille de l'ensemble de considération s'accroît avec le nombre de bénéfices désirés; (3) que la familiarité (profondeur et largeur) avec le contexte et les produits, contrairement à ce qui a été montré dans la littérature, a un effet très modéré qui de plus passe via son influence sur le nombre de bénéfices désirés qui joue le rôle de variable médiatrice.
AlbaJ. W.ChattopadhyayA. (1985), Effects of context and part-category cues on recall of competing brands, Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 3, 340–349.
2.
AlbaJ. W.HutchinsonW. J. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 2, 411–454.
3.
AurierP. (1999), Achat simultané et mesure de la substituabilité avec des données de panel multi-catégories, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 14, 2, 49–70.
4.
AurierP.N'GoboP. (1999), Assessment of consumer knowledge: A multi-dimensional approach, competitive paper, Advances in Consumer Research, 26, éds. ArnouldE. J.ScottL. H., Association for Consumer Research, 569–575.
5.
AurierP.EvrardY.N'GoalaG. (2000), Valeur de consommation et valeur globale: une application au cas de la consommation cinématographique, Actes de la conférence du congrès de l'Association Française de Marketing, éds. MichonR.ChebatJ.-C.ColbertF., Ecoles des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montréal, 151–162.
6.
AurierP.JeanS.ZaïchkowskyJ. (2000), Consideration set size and familiarity with usage context, Advances in Consumer Research, 27, éds. HochS.MeyerR., Association for Consumer Research, 307–313.
7.
BarsalouL. W. (1985), Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of estantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 4, 629–654.
8.
BelkR. W. (1974), An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 2, 156–163.
9.
BelkR. W. (1975), Situational variables and consumer behavior effects in buyer behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 3, 157–164.
10.
BelonaxJ.JavalgiR. G. (1989), The influence of involvement and product class quality on consumer choice sets, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 17, 3, 209–216.
11.
BettmanJ. R.SujanM. (1987), Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 2, 141–154.
12.
BrisouxJ.E.LarocheM. (1983), Evoked set formation and composition: An empirical investigation under a routinized response behavior situation, Advances in Consumer Research, 10, éds. BagozziR.TyboutA., Association for Consumer Research, 357–361.
13.
BrisouxJ.E.ChéronE.J. (1990), Brand categorization and product involvement, Advances in Consumer Research, 17, éds. GoldbergM.GornG.PollayR., Association for Consumer Research, 101–109.
14.
BrucksM. (1985), The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 3, 1–16.
15.
ChandonJ.-L.StrazzieriA. (1986), Une analyse de structure de marché sur la base de l'ensemble évoqué, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 1, 1, 17–39.
16.
ConoverJ. (1983), Familiarity and the structure of product knowledge, Advances in Consumer Research, 10, éds. BagozziR.TyboutA., Association for Consumer Research, 494–497.
17.
DayG. S.ShockerA. D.SrivastavaR. K. (1979), Customer-oriented approaches to identifying product-markets, Journal of Marketing, 43, 4, 8–19.
18.
DesaiK. K.HoyerW. (1994), Memory, product, and categorization influences on the composition of consideration sets, Advances in Consumer Research, 21, éds. AllenC.JohnD. R., Association for Consumer Research, 436.
19.
DivineR. L. (1995), The influence of price on the relationship between involvement and consideration size, Marketing Letters, 6, 4, 309–319.
20.
ElliottM. T.WarfieldA. E. (1993), Do market mavens categorize brands differently?, Advances in Consumer Research, 20, éds. LeighM. A.RotschildM., Association for Consumer Research, 202–208.
21.
GraeffT. R. (1997), Comprehending product attributes and benefits: The role of knowledge and means-end chain inferences, Psychology and Marketing, 14, 2, 163–183.
22.
GraonicJ.ShockerA. D. (1993), On the transferability of feature/level preferences across competing products the same purposes, Advances in Consumer Research, 20, éds. McAlisterL.RothschildM., Association for Consumer Research, 389–393.
23.
GronhäugK. (1973–1974), Some factors influencing the size of the buyer's evoked set, European Journal of Marketing, 7, 232–241.
24.
GrucaT. S. (1989), Determinants of choice set size: An alternative method for measuring evoked sets, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, éd. SrullT.., Association for Consumer Research, 515–521.
25.
HastakM.MitraA. (1996), Facilitating and inhibiting effects of brand cues on recall, consideration set and choice, Journal of Business Research, 37, 2, 121–126.
26.
HowardJ. A. (1963), Marketing management: Analysis and planning, Illinois, Irwin.
27.
JarvisL. P.WilcoxJ. B. (1973), Evoked set size, some theoretical foundations and empirical evidence, American Marketing Association, 236–240.
28.
JohnsonM. D.LehmannD. D. (1997), Consumer experience and consideration sets for brands and product category, Advances in Consumer Research, 24, éds. BrucksM.MacInnisD. J., Association for Consumer Research, 95–300.
29.
LaiA. (1991), Consumption situation and the product knowledge in the adoption of a new product, European Journal of Marketing, 25, 10, 55–64.
30.
LaiA. (1994), Consumption schemata: Their effects on decision-making, Advances in Consumer Research, 21, éds. AllenC.JohnD. R., Association for Consumer Research, 489–494.
31.
LaiA. (1995), Consumption schemata: Their effects on consumer decision-making, Advances in Consumer Research, 22, éds. KardesF.SujanM., Association for Consumer Research, 310–316.
32.
LancasterK. (1966), A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Theory, 74, 2, 132–157.
33.
LapersonneE.LaurentG.Le GoffJ.-J. (1995), Consideration set of size one: An empirical investigation of automobile purchases, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 1, 55–66.
34.
MayF. E.HomansR. E. (1977), Evoked set and the level of information processing in product comprehension and choice criteria, Advances in Consumer Research, 3, éd. AndersonB.., Association for Consumer Research, 172–175.
35.
MillerA. (1956), The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
36.
MillerK. E.GinterJ. L. (1979), An investigation of situational variation in brand choice behavior and attitude, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1, 111–123.
37.
NedungadiP. (1990), Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 3, 263–276.
38.
OstlungL. E. (1973), Evoked set size: Some empirical results, American Marketing Association, 226–230.
39.
ParkW. C. (1993), Context effects on consumer choice, brand awareness and decision making, Advances in Consumer Research, 20, éds. McAlisterL.Roth-ShildM., Association for Consumer Research, 395–396.
40.
PerkinsW. S.ReynaV. F. (1990), The effects of expertise on preference and typicality in investment decision making, Advances in Consumer Research, 17, éds. GoldbergM.GornG.PollayR., Association for Consumer Research, 355–360.
41.
PinsonC.MalhotraN. K.JainA. K. (1988), Les styles cognitifs des consommateurs, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 3, 1, 53–71.
42.
PunjG.SrinavasanN. (1989), Influence of expertise and purchase experience on the formation of evoked sets, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, éd. SrullT.., Association for Consumer Research, 507–514.
43.
RajuP. S.ReillyM. D. (1980), Product familiarity and information processing strategies: An exploratory investigation, Journal of Business Research, 8, 2, 187–212.
44.
RatneshawarS.ShockerA. D. (1991), Substitution in use and the cognitive structure of product categories, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 3, 85–96.
45.
RothschildM. L.HoustonM. J. (1977), The consumer involvement matrix: Some preliminary findings, éds. GreenbergB. A.BellingerD. N., Actes de la conférence AMA Educator, 95–98.
46.
SambandanR.LordH. R. (1995), Switching behavior in automobile markets: A consideration-sets model, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 1, 57–65.
47.
ShockerA. D.Ben-AkivaM.BoccaraB.NedungadiP. (1991), Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions, Marketing Letters, 2, 3, 181–197.
48.
SimonsonI. (1990), The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety seeking behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 2, 150–162.
49.
SinhaI. (1994), A conceptual model of role of situational type on consumer choice behavior and consideration sets, Advances in Consumer Research, 21, éds. AllenC.JohnD. R., 477–482.
50.
SrivastavaR. K. (1981), Usage-situational influences on perceptions of product markets: Theoritical and empirical issues, Advances in Consumer Research, éd. MonroeK.., Association for Consumer Research, 8, 32–45.
51.
Valette-FlorenceP.RoehrichG. (1986), Besoin de stimulation, innovativité, implication et valeurs: test empirique d'un modèle structurel, Actes de la conférence de l'Association Française de Marketing, 2, 37–79.
52.
Van Trijp HansC.M.HoyerW. D.InmanJ. J. (1996), Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true variety-seeking behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 3, 281–292.
53.
WarlopL.RatneshwarS. (1993), The role of usage context in consumer choice: A problem solving perspective, Advances in Consumer Research, 20, éds. McAlisterL.RothschildM., Association for Consumer Research, 377–382.
54.
ZaïchkowskyJ. L. (1985), Familiarity: Product use, involvement or expertise?, Advances in Consumer Research, 12, éds. HirshmanE. C.HolbrookM. B., Association for Consumer Research, 708–712.
