Comment réduire la taille d’un assortiment sans affecter la perception de la variété ? Une étude des effets isolés de la largeur et de la profondeur d’un assortiment
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2013
Comment réduire la taille d’un assortiment sans affecter la perception de la variété ? Une étude des effets isolés de la largeur et de la profondeur d’un assortiment
Cette recherche, réalisée en collaboration avec Carrefour et In Vivo, étudie la perception de la variété par le consommateur de manière à envisager des réductions d’assortiments. Nous mobilisons les caractéristiques intrinsèques de l’assortiment : la largeur et la profondeur. Nous interrogeons 1009 consommateurs en magasins laboratoires et mettons en évidence le rôle médiateur de la perception de la variété et la possibilité de réduire la variété d’un assortiment sans affecter la variété perçue par le consommateur.
AurierP (1991) Recherche de variété : un concept majeur de la théorie en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing6(1): 85–106.
2.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research, conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
3.
BoatwrightPNunesJ C (2001) Reducing assortment, an attribute-based approach, Journal of Marketing65(3): 50–63.
4.
BrehmJW (1972) Responses to the loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
5.
BroniarczykSMHoyerWDMcAlisterL (1998) Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category, the impact if item reduction. Journal of Marketing Research35(2): 166–176.
6.
DiehlKPoynorC (2010) Great expectations ?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research47(2): 312–322.
7.
FadyASeretM (1981) Merchandising, techniques modernes du commerce de détail. Paris: Vuibert.
8.
FornellCLarkerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
9.
GivonM (1984) Variety seeking through brand switching. Marketing Science3(1): 1–22.
10.
HayesAPreacherK (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
11.
HochSJBradlowETWansinkB (1999) The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science18(4): 527–546.
12.
HochSJBradlowETWansinkB (2002) Rejoinder to the variety of an assortment, an extension to the attribute-based approach. Marketing Science21(3): 342–346.
13.
HuffmanCKahnBE (1998) Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion?Journal of Retailing74(4): 491–513.
14.
IyengarSSLepperMR (2000) When choice is demotivating, can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79(6): 995–1006.
15.
KahnBEKalwaniMUMorrisonDG (1986) Measuring variety-seeking behavior and reinforcement behaviors using panel data. Journal of Marketing Research23(2): 89–100.
16.
KahnBELehmannDR (1991) Modeling choice among assortments. Journal of Retailing67(3): 274–299.
17.
KahnBEWansinkB(2004) The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research30(4): 519–533.
18.
KusovDVillas-BoasJM (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Science29(3): 507–524.
19.
LancasterK (1990) The economics of product variety, a survey. Marketing Science9(3): 189–206.
20.
MantralaMKLevyMKahnBEFoxEJGaidarevPDankworthBShahD (2009) Why is assortment planning so difficult for retailers? A framework and research agenda. Journal of Retailing85(1): 71–83.
21.
MarkusHRSchwartzB (2010) Does choice mean freedom and well-being ?Journal of Consumer Research37(2): 344–355.
22.
McAlisterLPessemierE (1982) Variety seeking behavior, an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research9(3): 311–322.
23.
OppewalHKoelemeijerK (2005) More choice is better: Effects of assortment size and composition on assortment evaluation. International Journal of Research Marketing22(1): 45–61.
24.
PessemierE (1978) Stochastic properties of changing preferences. American Marketing Association68(2): 380–385.
25.
PirisYDuboisPLLaurentG (2007) Une étude exploratoire de la perception du consommateur confronté à un assortiment de produits. Actes du 23e Congrès de l’AFM: Aix les Bains.
26.
ReibsteinDYoungbloodSFromkinH (1975) Number of choices and perceived decision freedom as a determinant of satisfaction and consumer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology60(4): 434–437.
27.
ScheibehenneBGreifenederRToddPM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research37(3): 409–425.
28.
SimonsonI (1990) The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing research27(2): 150–162.
29.
SlootLMFokDVerhoefPC (2006) The short- and long-term impact of an assortment reduction on category sales. Journal of Marketing Research43(4): 536–548.
30.
Van HerpenEPietersR (2002) The variety of an assortment: An extension to the attribute-based approach. Marketing Science21(3): 331–341.
31.
WalshJW (1995) Flexibility in consumer purchasing for uncertain future tastes. Marketing Science14(2): 148–165.
32.
WellhoffAMassonE (2005) Le Merchandising. Bases, techniques, nouvelles tendances. Paris: Dunod.
33.
ZhangJKrishnaA (2007) Brand-level effects of stockkeeping unit reductions. Journal of Marketing Research44(4): 545–559.
34.
ZhaoXLynchJGChenQ (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research37(2) : 197–206.
