Résumé :

There are two logics or mindsets from which to consider and motivate a transition from goods to service(s). The first, “goods-dominant (G-D) logic”, views services in terms of a type of (e.g., intangible) good and implies that goods production and distribution practices should be modified to deal with the differences between tangible goods and services. The second logic, “service-dominant (S-D) logic”, considers service – a process of using ones resources for the benefit of and in conjunction with another party – as the fundamental purpose of economic exchange and implies the need for a revised, service-driven framework for all of marketing. This transition to a service-centered logic is consistent with and partially derived from a similar transition found in the business-marketing literature — for example, its shift to understanding exchange in terms value rather than products and networks rather than dyads. It also parallels transitions in other sub-disciplines, such as service marketing. These parallels and the implications for marketing theory and practice of a full transition to a service-logic are explored.

• Il existe deux logiques ou mentalités à partir desquelles il est possible d’envisager et de motiver une transition de biens en services. La première, la «logique dominante sur les biens», considère les services comme un type de bien (par exemple, incorporel) et implique que les pratiques de production et de distribution de biens doivent être modifiées pour tenir compte des différences entre biens et services tangibles. La seconde logique, la «logique dominante de service», considère le service – un processus d’utilisation de ressources au profit et en liaison avec une autre partie – comme objectif fondamental de l’échange économique et implique la nécessité d’un service révisé. cadre axé sur l’ensemble du marketing. Cette transition vers une logique centrée sur le service est cohérente et partiellement dérivée d’une transition similaire à celle trouvée dans la littérature spécialisée dans le marketing commercial – par exemple, sa transition vers une compréhension de l’échange en termes de valeur plutôt que de produits et de réseaux plutôt que de dyades. Cela correspond également aux transitions dans d’autres sous-disciplines, telles que le marketing de services. Ces parallèles et les implications pour la théorie et la pratique du marketing d’une transition complète vers une logique de service sont explorés.

Mots clefs :

Good domination, service domination , marketing business, experience, co-creation

Développement :

Over the last several decades, leading-edge firms, as well as many business scholars and consultants, have advocated the need for refocusing substantial firm activity or transforming the entire firm orientation from producing output, primarily manufactured goods, to a concern with service(s) (see, e.g., Davies, Brady, & Hobday, 2007; Gebauer & Fleisch, 2007)

One views goods (tangible output embedded with value) as the primary focus of economic exchange and “services” (usually plural) as either (1) a restricted type of (intangible) good (i.e., as units of output) or (2) an add-on that enhances the value of a good. We (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a; Lusch & Vargo, 2006a) call this logic goods-dominant (G-D) logic.

The second logic considers “service” (singular) – a process of doing something for another party – in its own right, without reference to goods and identifies service as the primary focus of exchange activity. We (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a, 2006) call this logic service-dominant (S-D) logic. In S-D logic, goods continue to play an important, service-delivery role, at least in a subset of economic exchange.

In S-D logic, service is defined as the application of competences (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another party.

It represents a shift from thinking about value in terms of operand resources — usually tangible, static resources that require some action to make them valuable – to operant resources – usually intangible, dynamic resources that are capable of creating value.

The locus of value creation, then, moves from the “producer” to a collaborative process of co-creation between parties.

Thus, in S-D logic, goods are still important; however, service is superordinate.

That is, efficiency and effectiveness can be seen as complementary — effectiveness is necessary before efficiency has relevance but efficiency is often both a component (buyer’s perspective) of effectiveness and also necessary for long-term effectiveness (seller’s perspective). Thus, effectiveness can be seen as a path to efficiency. Industrial marketers have been at the forefront of the exploration of these dualities (e.g., Dittrich et al., 2006; Hakansson & Ford, 2002); S-D logic provides a potential foundation for transcendence

Even without a reoriented theory of the market and marketing, S-D logic suggests the following transitional shifts to move from a product focus to a service focus (see Table 1)

We believe that S-D logic can serve as a foundation for a sounder theory of markets and marketing that can, in turn, reduce the divide between academic and applied marketing and thus inform marketing practitioners in their desire to develop a true service focus.

Nous avons remarqué qu’il existait deux types de logiques. Les biens et les «services» soit un type restreint de bien (intangible)  est  la logique dominante des biens (G-D). La seconde logique soit le «service» identifie le service comme le centre principal de l’échange et est appelé une logique à dominante service. Dans la logique S-D, les biens continuent de jouer un rôle important dans la prestation de services. Ainsi, les biens sont toujours importants; Cependant, le service est supérieur.

Bibliographie :

Alderson, Wroe (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: a functionalist approach to marketing theory. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Berry, L. L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L. L. Berry G. L. Shostack & G. D. Upah (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on service marketing (pp. 25−38). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Bucklin, Louis P. (1970). Vertical marketing systems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Canning, Gordon, Jr. (1982). Do a value analysis of your customer base. Industrial Marketing Management, 11, 89−94 (April).

Davies, Andrew, Brady, Tim, & Hobday, Michael (2007). Organizing for solutions: Systems seller vs. systems integrator. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 183−193.

Dittrich, Koem, Jaspers, Ferdinand, van der Valk, Wendy, & Wynstra, Finn (2006). Dealing with dualities. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 792−796.

Fern, Edward F., & Brown, James R. (1984). The industrial/consumer marketing dichotomy: A case of insufficient justification. Journal of Marketing, 48, 68−77 (Spring).

Gebauer, Heiko, & Fleisch, Elgar (2007). An investigation of the relationship between behavioral processes, motivation, investments in the service business and service revenue. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 337−348.

Gronroos, Christian (1983). Strategic management and marketing in the service sector. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

Gummesson, Evert (2006). Many-to-many marketing as grand theory: A Nordic school contribution. In R. F. Lusch & S.1. Vargo (Eds.), The servicedominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 339−353). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Hakansson, Hakan, & Ford, David (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55, 133−139.

Hakansson, Hakan, & Prenkert, Frans (2004). Exploring the exchange concept in marketing. In H. Hakansson, D. Harrison, & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Rethinking marketing: developing a new understanding of markets.Chichester, England: Wiley.

Hakansson, Hakan, & Snehota, Ivan (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.

Hunt, Shelby D. (2000). A general theory of competition: resources, competences, productivity, and economic growth. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Kothandaraman, Prabakar, & Wilson, David T. (2001). The future of competition: Value-creating networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 379−389.

Lewis, Marianne W. (2002). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760−776.

Lingreen, Adam, & Wynstra, Finn (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know” where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 732−748.

Lovelock, Christopher, & Gummesson, Evert (2004). Wither service marketing?” In search of new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 47, 9−20 (Summer).

Lusch, Robert F, & Vargo, Stephen L. (1998). Multiplex retailers versus traditional wholesalers: An empirical test of the total value of the purchase model. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 28(8), 581−598.

Lusch, Robert F, & Vargo, Stephen L. (2006a). The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate and directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Lusch, Robert F, & Vargo, Stephen L. (2006b). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281−288.

Lusch, Robert F., Vargo, Stephen L., & Obrien, Mathew (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5−18.

McCammon, Bert, Jr. (1970). Perspectives for distribution programming. In Louis P. Bucklin (Ed.), Vertical marketing systems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company 1970.

Mohan, Reddy N. (1991). Defining product value in industrial markets. Management Decision, 29(1), 14−20.

Moller, Kristian (2006). Role of competences in creating customer value: A valuecreation logic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 913−924.

Moller, Kristian, & Torronen, Pekka (2003). Business suppliers. Value creation potential: A capacity-based analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 109−118.

Normann, Richard (2001). Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape. Chichester, New Sussex: Wiley.

Phillips, Fred, Ochs, Lyle, & Schrock, Mike (1999). The product is dead — Long live the product-service. Research Technology Management, 42, 51−57 (July–August).

Rust, Roland, Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Lemon, Katherine N. (2000). Driving customer equity: how customer lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy. New York: The Free Press.

Smith, Adam (1776/1904). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan and T, Cadell.

Ulaga, Wolfgang (2003). Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 677−693.

Ulaga, Wolfgang, & Eggert, Andreas (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships: Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing, 70, 119−136 (January).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1−17 (January).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2004b). The four services marketing myths: Remnants from a manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 324−335 (May).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In Robert F. Lusch & Stephen L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate and directions (pp. 43−56). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2008). “Service-dominant logic: further evolution,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1−10 (Spring).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Morgan, Fred W. (2005). Services in society and academic thought: An historical analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 42−53 (June).

Vargo, Stephen L., Lusch, Robert F., & Morgan, Fred W. (2006). Historical perspectives on service-dominant logic. In R. F. Lusch & S.1. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 29−42). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1−17 (October).

Zeithaml, Valarie A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, Leonard L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 33−46 (Spring).

Zuboff, Shoshana, & Maxmin, James (2002). The support economy. New York: Penguin.

Résumé :

A typology of service organizations is presented and a conceptual framework is advanced for exploring the impact of physical surroundings on the behaviors of both customers and employees. The ability of the physical surroundings to facilitate achievement of organizational as well as marketing goals is explored. Literature from diverse disciplines provides theoretical grounding for the framework, which serves as a base for focused propositions. By examining the multiple strategic roles that physical surroundings can exert in service organizations, the author highlights key managerial and research implications.

• Une typologie des organisations de services est présentée et un cadre conceptuel est mis au point pour explorer l’impact des environnements physiques sur les comportements des clients et des employés. La capacité de l’environnement physique à faciliter la réalisation d’objectifs organisationnels et marketing est explorée. Une littérature de diverses disciplines fournit une base théorique au cadre, qui sert de base à des propositions ciblées. En examinant les multiples rôles stratégiques que l’environnement physique peut jouer dans les organisations de services, l’auteur met en évidence les principales implications en termes de gestion et de recherche.

Mots clefs :

Marketing, Servicescape, behaviour, physical surrounding, organization, interactions

Développement :

The effect of atmospherics, or physical design and decor elements, on consumers and workers is recognized by managers and mentioned in virtually all marketing, retailing, and organizational behavior texts.

Managers continually plan, build, change, and control an organization’s physical surroundings, but frequently the impact of a specific design or design change on ultimate users of the facility is not fully understood. The ability of the physical environment to influence behaviors and to create an image is particularly apparent for service businesses such as hotels, restaurants, professional offices, banks, retail stores, and hospitals (Baker 1987; Bitner 1986; Booms and Bitner 1982; Kotler 1973; Shostack 1977; Upah and Fulton 1985; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1985).  Because the service generally is produced and consumed simultaneously, the consumer is “in the factory,” often experiencing the total service within the firm’s physical facility.

Le fait que les comportements des individus soit influencer ou impacter par les changements/ modifications physique autour d’eux nous renvoi au sensoriel. Les 5 sens sont le toucher, le gouts, l’odorat, l’ouïe, la vue. Chaque sens peut être impacter différemment par l’environnement physique. De plus, on se rend compte que les entreprises de services sont plus impacté par cela car que les entreprise de produits car le service est co-créer dans l’entreprise par le client et le personnel. De plus, il est simultanément consommer. Un service est intangible, indissociable, variable et périssable.

purchase, consumers commonly look for cues about the firm’s capabilities and quality (Berry and Clark 1986; Shostack 1977).

Research suggests that the physical setting may also influence the customer’s ultimate satisfaction with the service (Bitner 1990; Harrell, Hutt, and Anderson 1980).

in service organizations the same physical setting that communicates with and influences customers may affect employees of the firm (Baker, Berry, and Parasuraman 1988). Research in organizational behavior suggests that the physical setting can influence employee satisfaction, productivity, and motivation (e.g., Becker 1981; Davis 1984; Steele 1986; Sundstrom and Altman 1989; Sundstrom and Sundstrom 1986; Wineman 1986).

For example, in the Milliman experiments, music tempo was varied and the effect on a variety of consumer behaviors was measured

L’environnement physique impacte à la fois le consommateur/ client mais également l’employer. De plus comme il travaille ensemble pour co-créer ce service il est nécessaire que l’environnement physique impacte positivement les 2 parties. En effet, si l’employé est impacté négativement alors il influera de façon négative sur le consommateur et sur le service réalisé.

Because services generally are purchased and consumed simultaneously, and typically require direct human contact, customers and employees interact with each other within the organization’s physical facility. Ideally, therefore, the organization’s environment should support the needs and preferences of both service employees and customers simultaneously.

“The way the physical setting is created in organizations has barely been tapped as a tangible organizational resource” (Becker 1981, p. 130).

the physical setting can aid or hinder the accomplishment of both internal organizational goals and external marketing goals.

The physical surroundings are, in general, more important in service settings because customers as well as employees often experience the firm’s facility. However, not all service firms and industries are alike (Lovelock 1983; Schmenner 1986)

For interpersonal services, both organizational and marketing objectives could potentially be targeted through careful design of the servicescape. Even marketing goals such as relationship building (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990) could be influenced by the design of the physical setting

That human behavior is influenced by the physical setting in which it occurs is essentially a truism. Interestingly, however, until the 1960s psychologists largely ignored the effects of physical setting in their attempts to predict and explain behavior. Since that time, a large and steadily growing body of literature within the field of environmental psychology has addressed the relationships between human beings and their built environments (for reviews of environmental psychology, see Darley and Gilbert 1985; Holahan 1986; Russell and Ward 1982; Stokols and Altman 1987)

à L’hôtellerie est considéré comme un service interpersonnel. Dans ce genre de service on remarque que des les relations entre les individus soit influencé en fonction de l’environnement physique qui les entoure. Ainsi, des rencontres peuvent être plus favorable sous certaines conditions.

Environmental psychologists suggest that individuals react to places with two general, and opposite, forms of behavior: approach and avoidance (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Approach behaviors include all positive behaviors that might be directed at a particular place, such as desire to stay, explore, work, and affiliate (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Avoidance behaviors reflect the opposite, in other words, a desire not to stay, explore, work, and affiliate.

Milliman (1982, 1986) found that the tempo of background music can affect traffic flow and gross receipts in both supermarket and restaurant settings.

As Figure 2 shows, the approach/avoidance behaviors of employees and customers are determined largely by individual intemal responses (cognitive, emotional, and physiological) to the environment. The three types of internal responses are discussed in greater detail subsequently. The basic assumption is that positive (negative) intemal responses lead to approach (avoidance) behaviors.

Bennett and Bennett (1970) state that “all social interaction is affected by the physical container in which it occurs.” They go on to suggest that the physical container affects the nature of social interaction in terms of the duration of interaction and the actual progression of events.

Les individus réagissent différemment à l’environnement physique qui les entourent. Leur comportement peut être positif ce qui est appelé « approach » ou de façon négative « avoidance ».  Ce comportement/ réaction va refléter l’expérience ressenti par le client lors de son séjour à l’hôtel par exemple.

Forgas (1979) suggests that environmental variables such as propinquity, seating arrangements, size, and flexibility can define the possibilities and limits of social episodes, such as those between and among customers and employees.

Behaviors such as small group interaction, friendship formation, participation, aggression, withdrawal, and helping have all been shown to be influenced by environmental conditions (Holahan 1982).

Examples are again abundant in actual service settings. Even casual observation of a Club Med facility confirms that the highly complex setting is designed to encourage social interaction among and between guests and employees. Seating arrangements and the food preparation process at Benihana restaurants similarly encourage interactions among total strangers, as well as contact between patrons and the Japanese chef who prepares their meals in full view.

Nous remarquons que des variables environnementales telles que la proximité, la disposition des sièges, la taille et la flexibilité peuvent définir les possibilités et les limites tels que celles entre les clients et les employés. Elles peuvent également  favorisé l’interaction entre les différents clients.

the perceived servicescape may elicit cognitive responses (Golledge 1987; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Rapoport 1982), influencing people’s beliefs about a place and their beliefs about the people and products found in that place. In that sense, the environment can be viewed as a form of nonverbal communication (Broadbent, Bunt, and Jencks 1980; Rapoport 1982), imparting meaning through what Ruesch and Kees (1956) called “object language.”

In addition to influencing cognitions, the perceived servicescape may elicit emotional responses that in turn influence behaviors. In a long stream of research, Mehrabian and Russell and their colleagues have programmatically explored emotional responses to environments (e.g., Mehrabian and Russell 1974; Russell and Lanius 1984; Russell and Pratt 1980; Russell and Snodgrass 1987). Through their research they have concluded that the emotion-eliciting qualities of environments are captured by two dimensions: pleasure-displeasure and degree of arousal

Research also suggests that emotional responses to the environment may be transferred to people and/or objects within the environment (Maslow and Mintz 1956; Mintz 1956; Obermiller and Bitner 1984).

Kaplan (1987) concluded that preference for or liking of a particular environment can be predicted by three environmental dimensions: complexity, mystery, and coherence

Cette influence de l’environnement physique sur les individus est une forme de communication non verbale. Elle peut, ainsi, susciter des réactions émotionnelles qui peuvent être capturé en fonction de 2 dimensions : le plaisir-déplaisir et le degré d’excitation. Ainsi ces rections émotionnelles peuvent influer le comportement des individu. Nous avons également pu voir que des réactions émotionnelles peuvent être transmise à d’autres individus ou a des objets. Enfin, ces réactions peuvent être prédites grâce à 3 variables : la complexité, le mystère et la cohérence.

The perceived servicescape may also affect people in purely physiological ways. Noise that is too loud may cause physical discomfort, the temperature of a room may cause people to shiver or perspire, the air quality may make it difficult to breathe, and the glare of lighting may decrease ability to see and cause physical pain.

A complex mix of environmental features constitute the servicescape and influence internal responses and behaviors. Specifically, the dimensions of the physical surroundings include all of the objective physical factors that can be controlled by the firm to enhance (or constrain) employee and customer actions.

Many items in the physical environment serve as explicit or implicit signals that communicate about the place to its users (Becker 1977, 1981; Davis 1984; Wener 1985; Wineman 1982). Signs displayed on the exterior and interior of a structure are examples of explicit communicators

Signs have even been found to reduce perceived crowding and stress in a jail lobby setting (Wener and Kaminoff 1982).

Other environmental objects may communicate less directly than signs, giving implicit cues to users about the meaning of the place and norms and expectations for behavior in the place. Quality of materials used in construction, artwork, presence of certificates and Photographs on walls, floor coverings, and personal Objects displayed in the environment can all communicate symbolic meaning and create an overall aesthetic impression.

Le Servicescape est un concept, développé par Booms et Bitner, qui montre l’impact de l’environnement physique dans lequel un processus de service a lieu. Booms and Bitner definissent le servicescape comme “the environment in which the service is assembled and in which the seller and customer interact, combined with tangible commodities that facilitate performance or communication of the service” (Booms and Bitner, 1981, p. 36). Les preuves physiques peuvent être en extérieures (paysage, conception extérieure, signalisation, parking, environnement environnant) mais aussi en intérieures (conception et décoration intérieures, équipement, signalisation, aménagement, qualité de l’air, température et ambiance)

Le Servicescape peut affecter un individu du manière physiologie (un bruit qui l’irrite, une odeur qui lui donne la nausée…).

Des éléments de l’environnement physique/ servicescape  sont des signes qui serve de communication pour les individus. Par exemple : le symbole toilette dans un lieux public ou la direction à prendre pour aller vers la salle de fitness. Ces signaux vont impacter l’expérience clients s’il sont mal positionner ou mal compris par l’individu. De plus, ces éléments peuvent faire ressentir à l’individu quel est la qualité du service qu’il va recevoir.  

Bibliographie :

Baker, Julie (1987), “The Role of the Environment in Marketing Services: The Consumer Perspective,” in The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, John
A. Czepiel, Carole A. Congram, and James Shanahan, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.

—,Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1988), “The Marketing Impact of Branch Facility Design,” Journal of Retail Banking, 10 (2), 33-42.

Barker, Roger G. (1968), Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bechtel, Robert B., Robert W. Marans, and William Michelson (1987), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.

Becker, Franklin D. (1977), Housing Messages. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.

—-(1981), Workspace. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Belk, Russell W., John F. Sherry, Jr. and Melanie Wallendorf (1988), “A Naturalistic Inquiry Into Buyer and Seller Behavior at a Swap Meet,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 449-70.

—-, Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, Jr. (1989),”The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 1-38.

Bell, Paul, J. D. Fisher, and R. J. Loomis (1978), Environmental Psychology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.

Bennett, Corwin (1977), Spaces for People, Human Factors in Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bennett, David J. and Judith D. Bennett (1970), “Making the Scene,” in Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interactionism, G. Stone and H. Farberman, eds. Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell, 190-6.

Berry, Leonard L. and Terry Clark (1986), “Four Ways to Make Services More Tangible,” Business (October-December), 53-4.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1986), “Consumer Responses to the Physical Environment in Service Settings,” in Creativity in Services Marketing, M. Venkatesan, Diane M. Schmalensee, and Claudia Marshall, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 89-93.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82.

Booms, Bernard H. and Mary J. Bitner (1982), “Marketing Services by Managing the Environment,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23 (May), 35-9.

Broadbent, Geoffrey, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jencks (1980), Signs, Symbols and Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Campbell, David E. (1979), “Interior Office Design and Visitor Response,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (6), 648- 53.

Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles (1990), “Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 68-81.

Darley, John M. and Daniel T. Gilbert (1985), “Social Psychological Aspects of Environmental Psychology,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed.. Vol. II, Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds. New York: Random House Inc., 949-91.

Davis, Gerald and Françoise Szigeti (1982), “Planning and Programming Offices: Determining User Requirements,” Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 302-4, 306-15.

Davis, Tim R. V. (1984), “The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices,” Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 271-83.

Donovan, Robert and John Rossiter (1982), “Store Atmosphere: An Environmental Psychology Approach,” Journal of Retailing, 58 (Spring), 34-57.

Forgas, Joseph P. (1979), Social Episodes. London: Academic Press, Inc.

Gardner, Meryl P. (1985), “Mood States and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 281-300.

—-and George J. Siomkos (1986), “Toward a Methodology for Assessing Effects of In-Store Atmospherics,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research 27-31.

Golledge, Reginald G. (1987), “Environmental Cognition,” in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 131-74.

Griffm, William (1970), “Environmental Effects on Interpersonal Affective Behavior: Ambient Effective Temperature and Attraction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15 (3), 240-4.

Harrell, Gilbert D. and Michael D. Hutt (1976), “Crowding in Retail Stores,” MSU Business Topics (Winter), 33-9.

Harrell, Gilbert D, and James C. Anderson (1980), “Path Analysis of Buyer Behavior Under Conditions of Crowding,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (February), 45 – 51

Holahan, Charles J. (1982), Environmental Psychology. New York: Random House, Inc.

—-(1986), “Environmental Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 381-407.

Hui, Michael K. M. and John E. G. Bateson (1990), “Testing a Theory of Crowding in the Service Environment,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gom, and Richard W. PoUay, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 866-73.

—–and  —– (1991), “Perceived Control and the Effects of Crowding and Consumer Choice on the Service Expenence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 174— 84.

Ittelson, William H., Harold M. Proshansky, Leanne G. Rivlin, and Gary H. Winkel (1974), An Introduction to Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Kaplan, Stephen (1987), “Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition,” Environment and Behavior, 19 (January), 3-32.

—–and Rachel Kaplan (1982), Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Kleine, Robert E. and Jerome B. Keman (1988), “Measuring the Meaning of Consumption Objects: An Empirical Investigation,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Michael J. Houston, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 498-504.

Kotler, Phillip (1973), “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool,” Journal of Retailing, 49 (4), 48-64.

Lemke, S., R. Moos, B. Mehren, and M. Ganvain (1979), Multiphasic Environment Assessment Procedure (MEAP): Handbook for Users. Palo Alto, CA: Social Ecology Laboratory.

Levine, Marvin, Iris Marchon, and Gerard Hanley (1984), “The Placement and Misplacement of You-Are-Here Maps,” Environment and Behavior, 16 (March), 139—57.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), “Altemative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,” ioMr/ia/o/Con.yM/ncr/fesearc/i, 17 (September), 111- 26.

Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983), “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Insights,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer), 9-20.

Maslow, A. L. and N. L. Mintz (1956), “Effects of Esthetic Surroundings,” Journal of Psychology, 1 (41), 247-54.

McCaskey, Michael B. (1979), “The Hidden Messages Managers Send,” Harvard Business Review, 57 (November-December), 135-48.

McKechnie, G. E. (1974), Manual for the Environment Response Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mehrabian, Albert (1977), “Individual Differences in Stimulus Screening and Arousability,” Journal of Personality, 45 (2), 237-50.

—-and James A. Russell (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mervis, C. and E. Rosch (1981), “Categorization of Natural Objects,” Annual Review of Psychology, M. R. Rosensweig and L. W. Porter, eds. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. 32, 89-115.

Milliman, Ronald (1982), “Using Background Music to Affect the Behavior of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 86-91.

Milliman, Ronald (1986), “The Influence of Background Music on the Behavior of Restaurant Patrons,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 286-9.

Mintz, Norbett L. (1956), “Effects of Esthetic Surroundings II: Prolonged and Repeated Experience in a ‘Beautiful’ and an ‘Ugly’ Room,” Journal of Psychology, 41, 459-66.

Morrow, Paula C. and James C. McElroy (1981), “Interior Office Design and Visitor Response: A Constructive Replication,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 (5), 646-50.

Nasar, Jack L. (1987), “Effect of Sign Complexity and Coherence on the Perceived Quality of Retail Scenes,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (4), 499- 509.

—-(1989), “Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban Places,” in Public Places and Spaces, Irwin Altman and Ervin H. Zube, eds. New York: Plenum Press, 31-56.

Obermiller, Carl and Mary Jo Bitner (1984), “Store Atmosphere: A Peripheral Cue for Product Evaluation,” in American Psychological Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Consumer Psychology Division, David C. Stewart, ed. American Psychological Association, 52-3.

Obome, David J. (1987), Ergonomics at Work, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Peters, Thomas J. (1978), “Symbols, Pattems, and Settings: An Optimistic Case for Getting Things Done,” Organizational Dynamics, 1 (Autumn), 3-23.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1981), “Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.

Rapoport, Amos (1982), The Meaning of the Built Environment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Riley, M. W. and D. J. Cochran (1984), “Dexterity Performance and Reduced Ambient Temperature,” Human Factors, 26 (2), 207-14.

Ruesch, Jürgen and Weldon Kees (1956), Nonverbal Communication. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Calif omia Press.

Russell, James A. and U. F. Lanius (1984), “Adaptation Level and the Affective Appraisal of Environments,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4 (2), 119-35.

—-and Géraldine Pratt (1980), “A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to Environments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 311-22.

—- and Jacalyn Snodgrass (1987), “Emotion and the Environment,” in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 245-81.

—-and Lawrence M. Ward (1982), “Environmental Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 651-88.

Sanders, Mark S. and Emest J. McCormick (1987), Human Factors in Engineering and Design. New York: McGrawHill Book Company.

Schmenner, Roger W. (1986), “How Can Service Businesses Survive and Prosper?” Sloan Management Review, 27 (Spring), 21-32.

Seidel, A. (1983), “Way Finding in Public Space: The DallasFt. Worth, U.S.A. Airport,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, D. Aneseo, J. Griffen, and J. Potter, eds. Lincoln, NB: Environmental Design Research Association.

Sherry, John F., Jr. and Mary Ann McGrath (1989), “Unpacking the Holiday Presence: A Comparative Ethnography of Two Gift Stores,” in Interpretive Consumer Behavior, Elizabeth C. Hirschman, ed. Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research, 148-67.

Shostack, G. Lynn (1977), “Breaking Free From Product Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 73-80.

Snodgrass, Jacalyn, James A. Russell, and Lawrence M. Ward (1988), “Planning, Mood and Place-Liking,” in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8 (3), 209-22.

Solomon, Michael R. (1985), “Packaging the Service Provider,” Services Industries Journal, 5 (July), 64-71

Sommer, R. (1974), Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Steele, Fritz (1986), Making and Managing High-Quality Workplaces. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stokols, Daniel and Irwin Altman (1987), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sundstrom, Eric and Irwin Altman (1989), “Physical Environments and Work-Group Effectiveness,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 175-209.

—-and Mary Graehl Sundstrom (1986), Work Places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Szalay, Lorand B. and James Deese (1978), Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Upah, Gregory D. and James N. Fulton (1985), “Situation Creation in Services Marketing,” in The Service Encounter, John Czepiel, Michael Solomon, and Carol Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 255-64.

Ward, James C , Mary Jo Bitner, and John Barnes (1992), “Measuring the Prototypicality and Meaning of Retail Environments,” Journal of Retailing, forthcoming.

—-, and Dan Gossett (1989), “SEEM: Measuring the Meaning of Service Environments,” in Designing a Winning Service Strategy, Mary Jo Bitner and Lawrence A. Crosby, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 34-9.

Ward, Lawrence M., Jacalyn Snodgrass, Barry Chew, and James A. Russell (1988), “The Role of Plans in Cognitive and Affective Responses to Places,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8 (1), 1-8.

Wener, Richard E. (1985), “The Environmental Psychology of Service Encounters,” in The Service Encounter, John Czepiel, Michael Solomon, and Carol Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 101-12.

—-and Robert Kaminoff (1982), “Improving Environmental Information: Effects of Signs on Perceived Crowding and Behavior,” Environment and Behavior, 14 (6), 671- 94.

Whyte, William H. (1980), The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Wineman, Jean D. (1982), “Office Design and Evaluation,” Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 271-98.

—-(1986), Behavioral Issues in Office Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1976), “Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of Affect,” in Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. 1, Irwin Altman and Joachim F. Wohlwill, eds. New York: Plenum Press.

Yalch, Richard F. and Eric Spangenberg (1988), “An Environmental Psychological Study of Foreground and Background Music as Retail Atmospheric Factors,” in Efficiency and Effectiveness in Marketing, 1988 AMA Educators’ Proceedings, Gary Frazier et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 106-10.

Zeithaml, Valarie (1981), “How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ Between Goods and Services,” in Marketing of Services, James H. Donnelly and William R. George, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 186-90.

—-(1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22. Zeithaml, Valarie, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), “Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing,” Journal of M

Résumé :

Given the importance of ‘Sensory Marketing’ in the field of QSR (Quick Service Restaurant) industry, the objective of this paper is to identify if sensory factors influence customers’ selection of a QSR. Data of 1600 respondents were collected from four international QSRs (KFC, McDonald, Domino’s and Subway) across four cities (Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad) of India. Factor analysis revealed three components, namely: Sensory influence, Promotional influence and Monetary influence, due to their high factor loadings. Further, Multiple regression analysis indicated that the Sensory factor contributed significantly to the model followed by Promotional and Monetary Factors. The study concludes that Sensory Factor is the most influencing factor for customers to select a QSR contrary to the general belief of Promotional and Monetary factors. This study adds to theoretical insights of the Sensory marketing literature and also recommends its practical implications to the marketing managers of the QSRs.

Compte tenu de l’importance du «marketing sensoriel» dans le secteur des restaurants à service rapide, l’objectif de ce document est d’identifier si des facteurs sensoriels influencent la sélection du QSR par les clients. Les données de 1600 répondants ont été recueillies auprès de quatre QSR internationaux (KFC, McDonald, Domino’s et Subway) dans quatre villes indiennes (Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore et Hyderabad). L’analyse factorielle a révélé trois composantes, à savoir: l’influence sensorielle, l’influence promotionnelle et l’influence monétaire, en raison de leur forte charge factorielle. De plus, une analyse de régression multiple a indiqué que le facteur sensoriel contribuait de manière significative au modèle suivi des facteurs promotionnels et monétaires. L’étude conclut que le facteur sensoriel est le facteur le plus déterminant pour que les clients choisissent un QSR contrairement aux idées reçues sur les facteurs promotionnels et monétaires. Cette étude complète les connaissances théoriques de la littérature sur le marketing sensoriel et recommande également ses implications pratiques aux responsables marketing des QSR.

Mots clefs :

Sensory marketing; Sensory influence; Quick service restaurant; Multisensory strategies; Experiential marketing; Fast food restaurants.

Développement :

 Atwal and Williams (2009) The traditional mass marketing is slowly disappearing and are being replaced by small markets with numerous segments, where individualization and customisation of products and services are key.

One consequence is that traditional mass marketing, which once dominated the advertising arena, is being questioned more than ever before in the past as a profitable and productive means to reach customers (Belk, 2008).

Of the 5 human senses, the sense of sight has so far dominated advertising practice (Pashler, 1999). There’s without a doubt that the other human senses – odour, taste, sound, and touch – were ignored for quite a very long time, regardless of their significance when somebody considers and determines around a product or brand.

five human senses are today receiving increased attention (Katz, 1999).

Sensory marketing is not the same as mass or relationship marketing, because it has its long lasting impression in the brain of the individual.

Sensory advertising is distinguished by mass and relationship marketing by being its origin in the 5 human senses. It’s from the human mark that mental streams, processes, and psychological reactions take place that results in someone’s sensory experience (Peck and Shu, 2009).

Le marketing traditionnelle est de plus en plus remplacé par un nouvelle forme qu’est la personnalisation.

Le sensoriel est utilisé dans le marketing et plus particulièrement la vue avec la publicité. Les autres sens ont longtemps été oublié mais aujourd’hui, les marketeurs y font plus attention lors de la mise en place de leurs stratégies.  

Le marketing sensoriel est différent du marketing de masse mais aussi du marketing relationnel, car l’individu va se remémorer de façon durable l’expérience et cela est  imprégné dans le cerveau des individus.

The challenge then before entrepreneurs is to know how to stimulate the senses of the consumers in order to provide them with consumption experience that’s perceived to be memorable.

This expertise is vital to changing customer behaviour into the goal to buy, which leads to increased sales, profitability and market share. This research concentrates on how sensory advertising influence customer selection of a fast food chain restaurant.

In accordance with the Hultén (2015) model in Figure 2, the task of marketers is to create sensorial approaches that stimulate the senses by producing various sensations. These sensations rotate around the atmospheric, sound, visual, gastronomic and tactile spheres. All of them coalesce to create a multi-sensory brand experience that is vital to creating customer equity. All of them help create a multi-sensory brand experience which is crucial to creating customer equity and loyalty.

According to Bennett (2009) Servicescape includes distinct environmental dimensions that are defined as ambient conditions, space/function and signs, symbols & artefacts. These measurements consist of both interior and exterior design, including the surrounding environment in addition to layout, gear and sound, music, odour, lighting all that were identified as factors influencing client’s behaviour.

Le but, afin d’avoir une augmentation des ventes, de la rentabilité et des parts de marché, est de savoir comment stimuler les sens des consommateurs afin de leur offrir une expérience de consommation perçue comme étant mémorable.

Afin de stimuler les sens il faut produire diverses sensations aux individus afin de créer une expérience client multi-sensorielle qui peut ainsi devenir inoubliable. Ceci peut différentier une entreprise de la concurrence et permet a un individu de devenir un client fidèle.

Le servicescape défini que les modifications de l’environnement physique impact les individus et leur comportements. Elle comprend la conception intérieure et extérieure, y compris sur l’environnement, ainsi que sur la disposition, l’équipement et le son, la musique, les odeurs et l’éclairage, facteurs qui influent sur le comportement du client.

From the above literature review, it is seen that people perceive their environment through their perceptions. Senses play a major part in influencing their behavior and in their evaluation of the experience.

The objective of the study is to identify the key sensory factors that influence customers’ selection of a fast food chain restaurant.

Ho: Sensory factors do not influence customers towards the selection of a fast food restaurant.

This means that the study has identified three factors influencing the customer’s selection of a fast food restaurant – First influencing factor of restaurant selection is Sensory Factors, the second influencing factor is Monetary Factor and the third influencing factor is Promotional Factor.

According to the factor analysis of the influencing factors, three components, namely: Sensory influence, Promotional influence and Monetary influence emerged as important factors

Les perceptions et les sens des individus jouent un rôle majeur dans l’influence de leur comportement et dans leur évaluation de l’expérience et, ainsi, de leur fidélité à la marque ou non.

l’étude a identifié trois facteurs influençant le choix du client d’un restaurant de restauration rapide: le facteur déterminant du choix du restaurant est le facteur sensoriel, le second facteur est le facteur monétaire et le troisième facteur est le facteur promotionnel. Ainsi nous pouvons retenir que le facteur sensoriel est très important sur le choix de l’individu ainsi que le facteur monétaire te le facteur promotionnel. Et nous pouvons utiliser cette étude comme point de départ sur le secteur de l’hôtellerie qui est également un secteur de service au même titre que la restauration rapide.

Bibliographie :

Arnheim, R. (1971). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing – The experience is everything! Journal of Brand Management, 16(5), 338–346.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

Bennett, R. (1996). Relationship formation and governance in consumer markets: Transactional analysis versus the behaviourist approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(5), 417–436.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57.

Fiore, A. M., Yah, X., & Yoh, E. (2000). Effects of a product display and environmental fragrancing on approach responses and pleasurable experiences. Psychology & Marketing, 17(1), 27–54.

Harris, L. C., & Ezeh, C. (2008). Servicescape and loyalty intentions: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), 390–422.

Hultén, B. (2015). Sensory marketing: Theoretical and empirical grounds. Abingdon: Routledge.

Katz, J. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Krishna, A. (2011). Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lindstrom, M. (2010). Brand sense: Sensory secrets behind the stuff we buy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Pashler, H. E. (1999). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.

Rolls, E. T. (1999). The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simonson, A., & Schmitt, B. H. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Spies, K., Hesse, F., & Loesch, K. (1997). Store atmosphere, mood and purchasing behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(1), 1–17.

Turley, L. w., & Fugate, D. L. (1992). The Multidimensional Nature of Service Facilities. Journal of Services Marketing, 6(3), 37–45.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Résumé :

This research finds that merely touching an object results in an increase in perceived ownership of that object. For nonowners, or buyers, perceived ownership can be increased with either mere touch or with imagery encouraging touch. Perceived ownership can also be increased through touch for legal owners, or sellers of an object. We also explore valuation of an object and conclude that it is jointly influenced by both perceived ownership and by the valence of the touch experience. We discuss the implications of this research for online and traditional retailers as well as for touch research and endowment effect research.

• Cette recherche montre que le simple fait de toucher un objet entraîne une augmentation de la propriété perçue de cet objet. Pour les non-propriétaires ou les acheteurs, la propriété perçue peut être augmentée avec un simple toucher ou avec un toucher qui encourage l’image. La propriété perçue peut également être augmentée par le toucher pour les propriétaires légaux ou les vendeurs d’un objet. Nous explorons également l’évaluation d’un objet et concluons qu’il est conjointement influencé à la fois par la propriété perçue et par la valence de l’expérience tactile. Nous discutons des implications de cette recherche pour les détaillants en ligne et traditionnels, ainsi que pour la recherche tactile et la recherche sur les effets de dotation.

Mots clefs :

Touch, Sense, Ownership, experience, purchase, Marketing

Développement :

2003, the Illinois state attorney general’s office issued a warning for holiday shoppers to be cautious of retailers who encourage them to hold objects and imagine the objects as their own when shopping. The basis of this warning was presumably that the combination of physically holding the object and ownership imagery may lead to unplanned or unnecessary purchases.

Research on the sense of touch or haptics has increased in the marketing literature, possibly encouraged by the rise of online shopping where marketers are interested in how to compensate consumers for touch when it is unavailable (Peck and Childers 2007). Previous research in marketing has examined product category differences and found that some product categories encourage touch more than others (e.g., Grohmann, Spangenberg, and Sprott 2007; McCabe and Nowlis 2003; Peck and Childers 2003a). The sense of touch excels at obtaining texture, hardness, temperature, and weight information (Klatzky and Lederman 1992, 1993).

consumers will be more motivated to touch the product prior to purchase to ascertain specific attribute information (please see Peck [2009] for a review of haptic research in marketing)

the experience of touching a pleasantly valenced object can influence persuasion, even if the touch element provides no information regarding the product (Peck and Wiggins 2006)

L’expérience sensorielle joue un réelle rôle dans le choix de l’achat mais également dans le choix entre différentes marque. Nous avons pu voir que le toucher était particulièrement important dans l’acte d’achat. Les consommateurs seront plus motivés à toucher le produit avant de l’acheter pour vérifier les informations d’attributs spécifiques. De plus, l’expérience de toucher un objet et si la sensation est agréablement validé, cette dernière peut avoir une influence sur la persuasion, même si l’élément tactile ne fournit aucune information sur le produit.

Twenty-five years of research has shown that consumers’ valuation of an object increases once they have taken ownership of it, a finding commonly known as the endowment effect (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990; Knetsch and Sinden 1984; Thaler 1980)

Our primary research motivation is to understand how merely touching an object influences perceived ownership and the valuation of an object. Previous work has established that the opportunity to touch can increase unplanned purchasing (Peck and Childers 2006) and also the willingness to donate time or money to a non profit organization (Peck and Wiggins 2006) but has not considered its effects on  ownership or valuation

Individuals may feel ownership of an object without actually owning it. Psychological ownership (Pierce et al. 2003) is distinct from legal ownership and is characterized by the feeling that something is “mine.” For example, employees in an organization may develop feelings of ownership toward the organization (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003)

Previous literature has suggested concepts similar to perceived ownership, such as anticipatory possession or pseudo-endowment (Ariely and Simonson 2003; Carmon, Wertenbroch, and Zeelenberg 2003)

Sen and Johnson (1997) did not manipulate perceived ownership of an object but did manipulate possession. They used coupons for restaurants and found that having a coupon for a product influenced preference for that option.

Nous avons pu remarquer que la valeur d’un objet augmente une fois qu’il en est devenu propriétaire, constat connu sous le nom d’effet de dotation. De plus, la possibilité de toucher peut augmenter les achats non planifiés.

D’une autre façon, les individus peuvent se sentir propriétaires d’un objet sans le posséder réellement : la propriété psychologique. C’est le sentiment que quelque chose est «mien». Par exemple, les employés d’une organisation peuvent développer un sentiment de propriété à l’égard de l’organisation ou les client d’une marque peuvent développer un sentiment de propriété à l’égard de l’organisation. Un autre exemple, le football quand les supporteurs disent « mon équipe a gagné ». Il ressente un sentiment de propriété envers l’organisation.

Overall, it was found in study 1 that for buyers, where actual ownership was absent, object touch led to greater perceived ownership (hypothesis 1), which in turn led to higher valuation of the object, among individuals not instructed to use imagery. In addition, perceived ownership and valuation of an object were both increased by having buyers use ownership imagery

The first two studies found that mere touch can increase perceived ownership for buyers or nonowners (study 1) and for sellers or owners (study 2). In both studies, touch also increased the valuation of the object

Endowment effect research also provides some evidence that receiving objects perceived as unpleasant leads to a negative affective reaction toward the object, as evidenced by lower valuation. For example, Lerner, Small, and Loewenstein (2004) found that an individual’s negative emotional state (such as disgust or sadness) can lower valuation for endowed objects, and work on possession loss aversion (Brenner et al. 2007) shows lower selling prices for negative items.

Study 3 supported our predictions by finding that the ability to directly touch an object with positive sensory feedback increased perceived ownership, affective reaction, and the valuation of the object in a traditional endowment effect experiment. In addition, study 3 directly measured both perceived ownership and affective reactions toward the object and revealed that these two constructs mediate the effects of touch on valuation

It was found across all four studies that touch leads to increased perceived ownership, and this increase in perceived ownership then leads to an increase in valuation of an object if the object provides neutral or positive sensory feedback

Finally, our research supports Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s claim that “For humans, touch can connect you to an object in a very personal way.” In four studies, we found that mere touch does connect a person to an object by increasing the feeling of ownership of the object.

Nous avons remarqué que lorsque la propriété réelle était absente, le contact avec un objet entraînait une perception accrue de la propriété. De plus, le simple toucher peut accroître la perception de propriété pour les acheteurs ou les non propriétaires et pour les vendeurs ou les propriétaires mais également connecte une personne à un objet en augmentant le sentiment. de propriété de l’objet.

Bibliographie :

Ariely, Dan, Joel Huber, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “When Do Losses Loom Larger than Gains?” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (May), 134–38.

Ariely, Dan and Itamar Simonson (2003), “Buying, Bidding, Playing, or Competing? Value Assessment and Decision Dynamics in Online Auctions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 113–23.

Becker, Gordon M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marshak (1964), “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method,” Behavioral Science, 9 (July), 226–32.

Beggan, James K. (1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229–37.

Brenner, Lyle, Yuval Rottenstreich, Sanjay Sood, and Baler Bilgin (2007), “On the Psychology of Loss Aversion: Possession, Valence, and Reversals of the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), 369–76.

Carmon, Ziv and Dan Ariely (2000), “Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 360–70.

Carmon, Ziv, Klaus Wertenbroch, and Marcel Zeelenberg (2003), “Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 15–29.

Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 125–34.

Derbaix, Christian (1995), “The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes toward the Advertisement and the Brand: A Step toward Ecological Validity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (November), 470–79.

Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60–71.

Franciosi, Robert, Praveen Kujal, Roland Michelitsch, Vernon Smith, and Gang Deng (1996), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30 (August), 215–26.

Furby, Lita (1978), “Possessions in Humans: An Exploratory Study of Its Meaning and Motivation,” Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (1), 49–65.
——— (1980), “The Origins and Early Development of Possessive Behavior,” Political Psychology (Spring), 30–42.

Grohmann, Bianca, Eric R. Spangenberg, and David E. Sprott (2007), “The Influence of Tactile Input on the Evaluation of Retail Product Offerings,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (2), 237– 46.

Isaacs, Susan (1933), Social Development in Young Children, London: Routledge.

Johnson, Eric J., Gerald Ha¨ubl, and Anat Keinan (2007), “Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (3), 461–74.

Johnson, Eric J., John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros, and Howard Kunreuther (1993), “Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler (1990), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy, 99 (December), 1325–48.

Klatzky, Roberta L. and Susan J. Lederman (1992), “Stages of Manual Exploration in Haptic Object Identification,” Perception and Psychophysics, 52 (6), 661–70.
——— (1993), “Toward a Computational Model of Constraint Driven Exploration and Haptic Object Identification,” Perception, 22, 597–621.

Knetsch, Jack L. and Jack A. Sinden (1984), “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99 (August), 507–21.

Krishna, Aradhna (2006), “Interaction of Senses: The Effect of Vision versus Touch on the Elongation Bias,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 557–65.

Krishna, Aradhna and Maureen Morrin (2008), “Does Touch Affect Taste? The Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 807–18.

Lerner, Jennifer S., Deborah A. Small, and George Loewenstein (2004), “Heart Strings and Purse Strings: Carryover Effects of Emotions on Economic Transactions,” Psychological Science, 15 (5), 337–41.

McCabe, Deborah Brown and Stephen M. Nowlis (2003), “The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (4), 431–39.

Morewedge, Carey K., Lisa L. Shu, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Timothy D. Wilson (2006), “Owning, Not Loss Aversion, Causes the Endowment Effect,” working paper, Social Psychology Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay and Himanshu Mishra (2005), “The Endowment Effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted Glasses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 390–95.

Novemsky, Nathan and Daniel Kahneman (2005), “The Boundaries of Loss Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (May), 119–28.

Peck, Joann (2009), “Does Touch Matter? Insights from Haptic Research in Marketing,” in Sensory Marketing: A Confluence of Psychology, Neuroscience and Consumer Behavior Research, ed. Aradhna Krishna, New York: Psychology Press/ Routledge.

Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003a), “To Have and To Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 35–48.
——— (2003b), “Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The ‘Need for Touch’ Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), 430–42.
——— (2006), “If I Touch It I Have to Have It: Individual and Environmental Influences on Impulse Purchasing,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–69.
——— (2007), “Effects of Sensory Factors on Consumer Behaviors,” in Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Frank Kardes, Curt Haugtvedt, and Paul Herr, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peck, Joann and Jennifer Wiggins (2006), “It Just Feels Good: Customers’ Affective Response to Touch and Its Influence on Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 56–69.

Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks (2001), “Towards a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 298–310.
——— (2003), “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research,” Review of General Psychology, 7 (1), 84–107.

Rottenstreich, Yuval and Suzanne B. Shu (2004), “The Connections between Affect and Decision Making: Nine Resulting Phenomena,” in The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, ed. Derek Koehler and Nigel Harvey, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 444–63.

Rudmin, Floyd W. and John W. Berry (1987), “Semantics of Ownership: A Free-Recall Study of Property,” Psychological Record, 37 (22), 257–68.

Schlosser, Ann E. (2003), “Experiencing Products in a Virtual World: The Role of Goals and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), 377–83. —
—— (2006), “Learning through Virtual Product Experience: The Role of Imagery on True versus False Memories,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 377–83.

Sen, Sankar and Eric J. Johnson (1997), “Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 105–17.

Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 278–92.

Strahilevitz, Michal A. and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 276–89.

Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 36–90.
——— (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214.

Wolf, James R., Hal R. Arkes, and Waleed A. Muhanna (2005), “Is Overbidding in Online Auctions the Result of a PseudoEndowment Effect?” working paper, Social Science Research Network.