Ce papier présente les résultats d'une étude exploratoire interprétative de la prise de décision dans les groupes d'amis. Les particularités du groupe en tant qu'unité de prise de décision sont d'abord mises en évidence. Quatre étapes majeures du processus de prise de décision sont ensuite identifiées: la suggestion, la discussion et l'évaluation des alternatives, la distribution des tâches et des rôles, l'évaluation post-expérientielle. La problématique des conflits et de leur résolution est également explorée.
BagozziR.P. (2000), On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 3, 388–396.
4.
BalesR.F.StrodtbeckF.L. (1951), Phases in group problem-solving, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 3, 485–495.
5.
BidartC. (1997), L'amitié: un lien social, Paris, La Découverte.
6.
BlackwellR.D.MiniardP.W.EngelJ.F. (2001), Consumer behaviour, 9e édition, Fort Worth, Harcourt College Publishers.
7.
BramelD.FriendR. (1987), The work group and its vicissitudes in social and industrial psychology, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 2, 233–253.
8.
CartwrightD.ZanderA. (1968), Group dynamics: research and theory, 3e édition, Londres, Tavistock Publications.
9.
ChebatJ.-C. (1983), La sainte famille ou l'urgence de modifier la méthodologie de la recherche sur la communication familiale, Revue Française du Marketing, 3, 94, 95–102.
10.
CorfmanK.P. (1987), Group decision making and relative influence when preferences differ: A conceptual framework, Research in consumer behavior, vol. 2, éds. ShethJ. N.HirschmanE. C., Greenwich, Jai Press, 223–257.
11.
CovaB. (1995), Au-delà du marché: quand le lien importe plus que le bien, Paris, L'Harmattan.
12.
DarleyW.LimJ-S. (1986), Family decision making in leisure-time activities: An exploratory investigation of the impact of locus of control, child age influence factor and parental type on perceived child influence, Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 370–374.
13.
DavisH.L. (1976), Decision making within the household, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 4, 241–260.
14.
DavisH.L.RigauxB.P. (1974), Perception of marital roles in decision processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1, 51–62.
15.
DebenedandtiS. (2003), L'expérience de visite des lieux de loisirs: Le rôle central des compagnons, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 18, 4, 43–58.
16.
DenzinN. (1978), The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods, New York, McGraw-Hill.
17.
DholakiaU.M.BagozziR.P.PearoL.K. (2004), A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 3, 241–263.
EllisD.G.FisherA.B. (1994), Small group decision making: communication and the group process, New York, McGraw-Hill.
20.
ForsythD.R. (1998), Methodological advances in the study of group dynamics, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 4, 211–212.
21.
GilbertM. (1992), On social facts, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
22.
GitelsonR.KerstandterD. (1994), The influence of friends and relatives in travel decision making, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3, 3, 59–68.
23.
GlaserB.StraussA.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory, Chicago, Aldine.
24.
GreenR.T.LeonardiJ.-P.ChandonJ.-L.CunninghamI.VerhageB.StrazzieriA. (1983), Societal development and family purchasing roles: A cross-national study, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 4, 436–442.
25.
HiltonD.J.CabantousL. (2005), Le décideur sous influence: L'émergence de la décision collective, La décision: une approche pluridisciplinaire des processus de choix, éds. VidailletB.d'EstaintotV.AbecassisPh., Bruxelles, De Boeck, 211–234.
26.
HirokawaR.Y.PooleM.S. (1996), Communication and group decision making, 2e édition, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
27.
HoggM.A.HainsS.C. (1998), Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink, European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 3, 323–341.
28.
HollingsheadA.B.WittenbaumG.M.PaulusP.B.HirokawaR.Y.AnconaD.G.PandersonR.S. (2005), A look at groups from the functional perspective, Theories of small groups: interdisciplinary perspectives, éds. PooleM. S.HollingsheadA. B., Thousand Oaks, Sage, 21–62.
29.
HoltD.B. (1997), Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity, Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 4, 326–350.
30.
HowardD.MadrigalR. (1990), Who makes the decision: The parent or the child?, Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 3, 244–258.
31.
JanisI.L. (1983), Groupthink: psychological studies of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
32.
JehnK.A.ShahP.P. (1997), Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 4, 775–790.
33.
JorgensenD.L. (1989), Participant observation: a methodology for human studies, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
34.
KimC.LeeH. (1997), Development of family triadic measures for children's purchase influence, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 3, 307–321.
35.
KirchlerE. (1995), Studying economic decisions within private households: A critical review and design for a “couple experiences diary”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 3, 393–419.
36.
MaffesoliM. (2000), Le temps des tribus, 3e édition, Paris, La Table Ronde.
37.
MilesM.HubermanA. (2003), Analyse des données qualitatives, 2e édition, Paris-Bruxelles, DeBoeck Université.
38.
MoscoviciS. (1985), Social influence and conformity, The handbook of social psychology, éds. GardnerL.AronsonE., 3e édition, New York, Random House, 347–412.
39.
NicholsC.M.SnepengerD.J. (1988), Family decision making and tourism behavior and attitudes, Journal of Travel Research, 26, 4, 2–6.
40.
OliverR.L.SwanJ.E. (1989), Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach, Journal of Marketing, 53, 2, 21–35.
PointS.FourboulVoynnand C. (2006), Le codage à visée théorique, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 21, 4, 61–78.
43.
PooleM.S.HollingsheadA.B. (2005), Theories of small groups: interdisciplinary perspective, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
44.
PriceL.L.ArnouldE.J. (1999), Commercial friendships: Service provider-client relationships in context, Journal of Marketing, 63, 4, 38–56.
45.
PutnamL.L.StohlC. (1996), Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making, Communication and group decision making, éds. HirokawaR. Y.PooleM. S., Thousand Oaks, Sage, 147–178.
46.
RodmanH. (1963), The lower class value stretch, Social Forces, 42, 2, 205–215.
47.
ScheidelT.M.CromwellL. (1964), Idea development in small discussion groups, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 140–145.
48.
ShahP.P.JehnK.A. (1993), Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task, Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 2, 149–165.
49.
SirsiA.K.WardJ.C.ReingenP.H. (1996), Microcultural analysis of variation in sharing of causal reasoning about behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 4, 345–372.
50.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, Sage.
51.
ThompsonC.J. (1997), Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for deriving marketing insights from the texts of consumption stories, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 4, 438–455.
52.
ThorntonP.R.ShawG.WilliamsA.M. (1997), Tourist group holiday decision-making and behaviour: The influence of children, Tourism Management, 18, 5, 287–297.
53.
UmS. (1990), The roles of perceived inhibitors and perceived facilitators in the pleasure travel destination choice process, The tourism connection: Linking research and marketing, Actes de la 21e Conférence annuelle de la Travel and Tourism Research Association, Salt Lake City, The Travel and Tourism Research Association, 7–11.
54.
WardJ.C.ReingenP.H. (1990), Sociocognitive analysis of group decision making among consumers, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 3, 245–262.
ZeggelinkE.P.StockmanF.N.Van De BuntG.G. (1996), The emergence of groups in the evolution of friendship networks, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21, 1, 29–55.
