Dans cet article, nous expliquons pourquoi les chercheurs doivent travailler à développer un modèle réaliste de comportement du consommateur et nous proposons quelques solutions qui permettent d'y incorporer la notion de concurrence entre les marques. Nous avons aussi introduit le concept de l'ensemble évoqué et celui de la confiance comme influences sur l'intention d'achat. Le modèle d'intention à effets multiples prend en considération la concurrence dans un marché donné et la confiance dans la marque évoquée pour expliquer l'intention de choisir une marque. Une étude empirique sur les maisons de courtage permet de tester le modèle d'intention à effets multiples sur un échantillon d'utilisateurs de ces firmes. Les résultats obtenus à la suite d'analyses de régressions pas à pas confirment toutes les hypothèses de la recherche, et ils permettent de valider partiellement le modèle proposé.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AxelrodJ.N. (1968), Attitude Measures That Predict Purchase, Journal of Advertising Research, 8(mars), 3–7.
2.
BassF.A.TalarzykW.W. (1972), An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 1, 93–96.
3.
BennettP.D.HarrellG.D. (1975), The Role of Confidence in Understanding and Predicting Buyers Attitudes and Purchase Intentions, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 2, 110–117.
4.
BettmanJ.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.
5.
BrisouxJ.E.LarocheM. (1980), A Proposed Consumer Strategy of Simplification for Categorizing Brands, Evolving Marketing Thought for 1980, ed. SummeyJ.G.TaylorR.D., Carbondale, Illinois, Southern Marketing Association, 112–114.
6.
BrisouxJ.E.LarocheM. (1981), Evoked Set Formation and Composition: An Empirical Investigation in a Routinized Response Behavior Situation, Advances in Consumer Research, 8, ed. MonroeK.B., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Association for Consumer Research, 357–361.
7.
ChandonJ.L.StrazzieriA. (1986), Une analyse de structure de marché sur la base de la mesure de l'ensemble évoqué, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 1, 1, 17–39.
8.
DayG.S. (1973), Theories of Attitude Structure and Change, Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources, ed. WardS.RobertsonT.S., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 303–353.
9.
FazioR.H.ZannaM.P. (1978a), Attitudinal Qualities Relating to the Strength of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408.
10.
FazioR.H.ZannaM.P. (1978b), On the Predictive Validity of Attitudes: The Role of Direct Experience and Confidence, Journal of Personality, 46(juin), 228–243.
11.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.
12.
GreshamL.G.BushA.J.DavisR.A. (1984), Measure of Brand Attitude: Are Cognitive Structure Approaches Really Needed, Journal of Business Research, 12, 353–361.
13.
HauserJ.R.WernerfeltB. (1990), An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 4, 393–408.
14.
HowardJ.A. (1963), Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning, Homewood, Illinois, Irwin.
15.
HowardJ.A. (1973), Confidence as a Validated Construct, Buyer Behavior, ed. HowardJ.A.OstlundL.E., New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 426–433.
16.
HowardJ.A. (1977), Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill.
17.
HowardJ.A. (1989), Consumer Behavior in Marketing Strategy, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
18.
HowardJ.A.ShethJ.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York, Wiley.
19.
JaccardJ. (1981), Attitudes and Behavior: Implications of Attitudes Toward Behavioral Alternatives, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 206–307.
20.
KellerK.L. (1991), Memory and Evaluation Effects in Competitive Advertising Environments, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 4, 463–476.
21.
KmentaJ. (1971), Elements of Econometrics, New York, Macmillan.
22.
KrishnanK.S. (1977), Incorporating Thresholds on Indifference in Probabilistic Choice Models, Management Science, 23, 7, 1214–1223.
23.
LarocheM.BrisouxJ.E. (1989a), Incorporating Competition into Consumer Behavior Models: The Case of the Attitude-Intention Relationship, Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(septembre), 343–362.
24.
LarocheM.BrisouxJ.E. (1989b), «Development of a Nonlinear Model of Attitudes, Intentions and Competition», International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 3, 159–173.
25.
LarocheM.HowardJ.A. (1980), Nonlinear Relations in a Complex Model of Buyer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 4, 377–388.
26.
LarocheM.RosenblattJ.A.BrisouxJ.E. (1986), Consumer Brand Categorization: Basic Framework and Managerial Implications, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 4, 4, 60–74.
27.
LarocheM.RosenblattJ.A.SinclairI. (1984), Brand Categorization Strategies in an Extensive Problem Solving Situation: A Study of University Choice, Advances in Consumer Research, 11, ed. KinnearT.C., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Association for Consumer Research, 175–179.
28.
LehmannD.R. (1971), Television Show Preference: Application of a Choice Model, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 1, 47–55.
29.
MalhotraN.K. (1986), An Approach to the Measurement of Consumer Preferences Using Limited Information, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 1, 33–40.
30.
MarchJ.G.SimonH.A. (1958), Organizations, New York, Wiley.
31.
MartinM. (1992), L'Actionnariat au Québec en 1992, Montréal, Commission des valeurs mobilières (août).
32.
McAlisterL. (1982), A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 2, 141–150.
33.
MerunkaD.R.BourgeatP. (1988), Une méthode de mesure et de représentation de la concurrence entre les marques, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 3, 2, 1–27.
34.
MerunkaD.R.Le RoyI. (1991), COMPETITOR: Un modèle de positionnement concurrentiel des marques appliqué à des données de panel consommateur, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 6, 2, 1–24.
35.
MiniardP.W.CohenJ.B. (1983), Modelling Personal and Normative Influences on Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 2, 169–180.
36.
MollerK. (1979), Perceived Uncertainty and Consumer Characteristics in Brand Choice, Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics, 198–199.
37.
NantelJ. (1986), Attitude-Behavior Consistency: Some Considerations Specific to Marketing Research, Marketing, 7, ed. MullerT.E., Montréal, Association des Sciences Administratives du Canada, 271–279.
38.
ReibsteinD.J. (1978), The Prediction of Individual Probabilities of Brand Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 3, 163–168.
39.
RobertsJ.H.LattinJ.M. (1991), Development and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Composition, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 4, 429–440.
40.
RosenbergM.J. (1956), Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(novembre), 367–372.
41.
RyanM.J.BonfieldE.H. (1975), The Fishbein Extended Model and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 2, 118–135.
42.
ShethJ.N.TalarzykW.W. (1972), Perceived Instrumentality and Value Importance as Determinants of Attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 1, 6–9.
43.
SmithR.E.SwinyardW.R. (1983), Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 3, 257–267.
44.
TverskyA. (1969), Intransitivity of Preferences, Psychological Review, 76, 31–48.
45.
TyebjeeT.T. (1979), Response Time, Conflict and Involvement in Brand Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 3, 295–303.
46.
WarshawP.R. (1980), A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 2, 153–172.
47.
WoodsideA.G.ClokeyJ.D. (1974), Multi-Attribute/Multi-Brand Models, Journal of Advertising Research, 14(octobre), 33–40.
