Rencontre de service et rôle de la distance sociospatiale : le cas des restaurants

Abstract

La recherche souligne les effets de la distance sociospatiale entre personnels, clients et co-clients sur la durée et les dépenses d’une expérience de consommation au restaurant. La situation dans laquelle l’ensemble des acteurs du service sont très proches les uns des autres (intrusion) induit une minimisation de la durée de consommation et des dépenses. Une préférence pour une position éloignée tant des personnels que des autres clients est notée, notamment lorsque les individus consomment en groupe. Quatre situations interactionnelles de service – intrusion, convivialité, discrétion et froideur – sont interprétées selon la taille du groupe de clients.

Applying Mantel’s spatial method to the case of restaurants

“…when the individual is waiting inside an airport or at a crowded restaurant), inter-individual distance has negative effects on customer satisfaction (Mattila and Hanks, 2012; Robson and Kimes, 2009) and on how the customer spends their time in a restaurant, especially if the inter-table distance is less than 50 cm (Robson et al, 2011; Robson and Kimes, 2009). By studying the combined effects of socio-spatial distances between customer(s), fellow-customers and staff, Clauzel and Riché (2015) highlight the negative effects that a short distance has on the duration and the spending as estimated by the observers, except for single customers who seek a minimum level of closeness to others. As a result, the negative effects of high (i.e.…”

“…These elements suggest that the shorter the socio-spatial distance between groups of fellow-customers is, the more varied the choices will be (H1). Moreover, the results of Robson and Kimes (2009), Robson et al (2011) and Clauzel and Riché (2015) suggest that the observers' estimates of spending decrease as the physical distance decreases, which suggests a negative impact of a shorter socio-spatial distance on real spending per person (H2). This leads to the following two hypotheses: H1: The shorter the socio-spatial distance between consumer groups is, the more heterogeneous the choices tend to be.…”

“…↘ Duration (Clauzel and Riché, 2015;Robson et al, 2011;Robson and Kimes, 2009) ↘ Estimated spending (Robson et al, 2011;Robson and Kimes, 2009), except if the customer is alone (Clauzel and Riché, 2015) → Little literature studying actual spending ↘ Duration (Chen et al, 2009;Kimes and Robson, 2004) ↘ Intention to spend (Hwang and Yoon, 2009) ↘ Spending (Kimes and Robson, 2004) Orientation of choices → Lack of literature on the influence of physical distance on consumer choices Differentiated choices to identify whether the intrusion is uncontrollable (Xu et al, 2012) Post-purchase reactions (evaluation, satisfaction, intention to recommend)…”

“…In this respect, some studies still use quantitative data analysis techniques (mean tests, t -tests, analyses of (co)variance) to verify, among others, the effects of distance on variables such as time spent consuming, emotions, satisfaction or estimated spending (e.g. Clauzel and Riché, 2015; Evans and Wener, 2007; Mattila and Hanks, 2012; Robson and Kimes, 2009). The studies mentioned above tend to show that, in a service-based context, a short distance between fellow-customers often causes negative emotions (Evans and Wener, 2007), lower satisfaction (Mattila and Hanks, 2012) or lower spending (Robson et al, 2011).…”

Proximity in marketing: An integrating theoretical framework and research agenda

“…Such contributions on proximity in turn have informed marketing studies of retail stores’ spatial locations (Rulence, 2003), cooperation in industrial contexts (Geldes et al, 2015), consumer–retailer relations (Hérault-Fournier et al, 2014; Schultz et al, 2016), people’s interactions with frontline employees (Bove and Johnson, 2001; Clauzel and Riché, 2015; Salerno, 2001) or other consumers (Brannon and Samper, 2018; Dion and Bonnin, 2004; Dubois et al, 2016; Tu et al, 2015) and evaluations of products and communication media (Kim et al, 2008; Merle et al, 2016; Willems et al, 2017).…”