teat

ek

g, TbGhent University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

Received 30 June 2007; received in revised form 27 November 2007; accepted 15 February 2008

Keywords: Advertising; Consumer; Fruit and vegetables; Health; Motive; Segmentation

ommends a daily intake of at least 400 g of F&V, whichis equivalent to about ve 80 g portions of F&V per day.Nevertheless, consumption statistics show that the con-

tives (French & Stables, 2003), to date, the majority ofnutrition interventions aimed at promoting increasedF&V consumption have met with modest success at best(Glanz & Yaroch, 2004; Mangunkusumo, Brug, de Kon-ing, van der Lei & Raat, 2007; Weaver, Poehlitz & Hutch-ison, 1999).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 9 264 35 27; fax: +32 9 264 42 79.E-mail address: nelegeeroms@telenet.be (N. Geeroms).

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Food Quality and Preference1. Introduction

Consumption of diets rich in fruits and vegetables(F&V) has extensively been demonstrated to be importantfor attaining and maintaining a good health (Cox et al.,1996; Steinmetz & Potter, 1996; Van Duyn & Pivonka,2000). The World Health Organization (WHO, 1990) rec-

sumption levels of fresh F&V remain substantially belowthis recommended level in many countries (Naska et al.,2000; Verbeke & Pieniak, 2006).

To promote compliance with the Five-a-day recom-mendation, several nation-wide public health campaignshave been established with varying results. Whereas someof the interventions actually did achieve the meant objec-Available online 21 February 2008

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups within a population on the basis of their health-related motive orientations(HRMO). Participants were 615 consumers between the ages of 17 and 77, drawn from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. They pro-vided ratings of 45 health statements referring to peoples motives for health, i.e., those things that give health meaning. We also obtainedinformation on daily intake of fresh fruits and vegetables (F&V) by using a short food frequency scale. In addition, we asked the respon-dents to provide evaluative ratings of four targeted F&V health advertisements, which diered from each other on two dimensions, i.e.,message tonality (informational vs. transformational) and directionality (self-directed vs. other-directed). As a benchmark, we used anexisting Belgian public health campaign that had a more general character. Based on a two-step cluster analysis, we identied 5 distinctsubgroups in the sample, with dierent HRMO: health is about energy (Energetic Experimenters), emotional well-being (HarmoniousEnjoyers), social responsibility (Normative Carers), management/outward appearance (Conscious Experts) and physical well-being/functionality (Rationalists). Besides dierences in (category-specic) F&V consumption among these segments, also dierent types ofadvertising messages are appropriate for each of the subgroups, i.e., transformational/self-directed for the Energetic Experimenters,transformational/other-directed for the Harmonious Enjoyers, informational/other-directed for the Normative Carers and informa-tional/self-directed for the Conscious Experts/Rationalists. Moreover, the segments provided more positive evaluations of the mostappropriate targeted advertisement compared to the benchmark advertisement, which stresses the benets of targeted F&V advertisingstrategies over and above more general messages. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Health advertising to promoApplication of health-rel

Nele Geeroms a,*, Wim VerbaGhent University, Department of Marketin0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.004fruit and vegetable intake:ed motive segmentation

e b, Patrick Van Kenhove a

weekerkenstraat 2, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

19 (2008) 481497

andAt least partly, this modest success of public health cam-paigns may be due to a disregard of the possibility that thetotal population consists of a number of smaller subgroupswith distinct need patterns that should be targeted (Albr-echt & Bryant, 1996; Verbeke, 2005). Besides its usefulnessin commercial marketing areas, the signicance of audiencesegmentation is acknowledged in social marketing as well,especially for designing tailored health marketing cam-paigns that are responsive to the individual needs andmotives of the target audience (Forthofer & Bryant,2000; Freimuth, Cole & Kirby, 2001; Slater & Flora, 1994).

As demographic or psychographic homogeneity aloneprovides precious little help in constructing tailored healthadvertisements (Slater, 1995), this study proposes adomain-specic segmentation scheme based on peopleshealth-related motive orientations (HRMO), i.e., psycho-logical meanings that people attribute to health and thatmotivate health behavior. The meaning of health from alaypersons perspective has already been addressed in anumber of previous studies (Hughner & Kleine, 2004;Lindholm, 1997; Ogden, 2007). These studies support theconceptualization of health as a multidimensional con-struct, comprising a state of complete physical, mentaland social well-being and not merely the absence of diseaseor inrmity. We adopt this multidimensional perspectiveon health by considering several psychosocial healthmotive dimensions, such as emotional well-being, feelinghappy, being with friends, social responsibility, havingenergy, looking good and self-management, beyond thelevel of physical health only. Moreover, we go beyond pre-vious conceptualization literature by introducing theseHRMO as relevant segmentation variables in a food choicebehavioral context.

Though health beliefs or concerns have been identiedas important motivators of peoples food choice behaviorsuch as F&V intake (Contento, Michela, & Goldberg,1988; Roininen et al., 2001; Schierstein & Oude Ophuis,1998), from a multifaceted interpretation of health, insu-cient attention has been paid to dierences in health per-ception between individuals and thus to the possibilitythat several subgroups may exist within a population forwhich health has another distinct meaning. The latter hasbeen stated by St Claire et al. yet in 1996, but to date, weare not aware of any studies that fully capture this gap inliterature. However, dierences in the meaning of healthamong people may account for signicant behavioral dif-ferences and, thus, nutrition education may benet fromdeveloping tailored intervention campaigns that capturethese health-related motivations of the subgroups. Hence,in the present study, we explicitly propose a new segmenta-tion scheme based on peoples subjective perceptions of themeaning of health.

Besides identifying distinct consumer segments andassessing dierences in F&V consumption among thesesegments, the purpose of this study is to explore the poten-

482 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Qualitytial eectiveness of dierent targeted health advertisementsthat aimed at motivating each of these segments to increasetheir F&V intake. In response to dierent HRMO, twoadvertising content dimensions were manipulated in thisstudy, i.e., message tonality (informational vs. transforma-tional) and directionality (self-directed vs. other-directed)and four targeted health advertisements were created thatemploy combinations of these dimensions. Additionally,a fth general (general, i.e., not responsive to peoplesHRMO) advertisement was included that was part of anexisting Belgian public health campaign and that we usedas a benchmark to compare with the targeted or con-sumer-oriented health advertisements.

2. Methods

To meet the objectives, a large-scale consumer surveywas undertaken in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgiumby using an on-line survey method. A link to the question-naire was placed on the website of a widespread nationalnewspaper. Ensuring that repeated participation wasimpossible, a sample of 692 subjects was collected, fromwhich 77 respondents were eliminated because of incom-plete responses on key variables, thus yielding a nal validsample of n = 615.

The respondents ranged in age from 17 to 77 years, witha mean age of 40.7 (SD = 12.6). Compared with theavailable population statistics of the Belgian people (NIS,2005), the sample was representative in terms of age,relationship status and children in the family. With regardto gender, women were slightly overrepresented (59.0%) aswere people with a higher education (59.4%). A detailedoverview of the sample characteristics is presented inTable 1.

2.1. Measurement of health-related motive orientations

In Appendix B an overview is given of the scale that wasused to measure peoples health-related motive orientations.This scale consisted of 45 items. 15 items talked abouthealth in a rather explicit way (i.e., meaning of health orpeoples reasons for striving for a good health) whereasthe other 30 items dealt with health more implicitly byfocusing on perceived consequences of a bad health.Respondents rated these items on a 7-point Likert scalegoing from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree.

All items were constructed based on desk research andprevious qualitative research, more specically 18 in-depthinterviews and three group discussions in which partici-pants were encouraged to talk about their subjective per-ceptions of the meaning of health. Though a detailedexplanation of the latter research is beyond the scope ofthis article (for details we refer to the Synovate/Censydiam(2004) report which is available in English on request), atleast six health-related motive dimensions should be men-tioned as emerging out of this exploratory investigation:health is about energy, health is about emotional well-being

Preference 19 (2008) 481497and enjoying life, health is about social responsibility, healthis about physical well-being, health is about self-manage-

andTable 1Sample characteristics (% of respondents, N = 615)

Sample Population*

Gender

Male 41 48.9Female 59 51.1

Age

50 25.3 26.2Mean 40.7

Education

Lower education (age of 18) 59.4 32.6

Profession

Labourer 7.0Employee 41.2Executive 6.6

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Qualityment, and health is about outward appearance. Each ofthese health interpretations was translated in a series ofhealth statements that made up the items in the Health-related Motive Scale. As a result, six health constructs weresupposed to underlie this scale.

To evaluate unidimensionality and convergent validityof the hypothesized scale dimensions, a maximum likeli-hood conrmatory factor analysis (CFA), using Lisrel8.50 was performed with six health constructs (Joreskog& Sorbom, 1993). After dropping some items that didnot perform well (N = 11), a satisfactory six-factor modelemerged out of this analysis (see Table 2). To test discrim-inant validity, each of the 15 o-diagonal elements of Uwas xed to 1.0, in turn, and the model was re-estimated.Changes in the v2 goodness-of-t were statistically signi-cant for all 15 comparisons (Dv2 ranging from 211 up to252, df = 1, p < 0.05) (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1991). Con-struct reliabilities were evaluated by calculating the com-posite reliabilities. Reliabilities of the six multiple-itemscales were satisfactory as they ranged from 0.61 to 0.82

Self-employed 4.8Functionary 11.9Keeping house 6.1Retired 9.4Unemployed 2.9Student 6.4Others 3.8

Relationship status

Single 22.6 27.1Relationship/married 77.4 72.1

Children in family

No (=no children) 37.3 35.1Yes (=children) 62.7 64.9

Employment Status

Part time employed 14.4Full time employed 58.9Not applicable 26.7

* Source: NIS (2005). Private households statistics. Brussels: NIS,National Institute for Statistics.(see Table 2). Scores of each item were summed and aver-aged to represent the corresponding health construct.These composite construct measures were used in all fur-ther analyses, most specically as the basis for determininghealth-related motive segments.

2.2. Stimuli selection

The choice of manipulating tonality (informational vs.transformational) and directionality (self-directed vs.other-directed) as advertising content dimensions was dri-ven by the fact that both are well-established communica-tion dimensions in literature (De Pelsmacker, Geuens &Van den Bergh, 2007), which may account for dierentbehavioral reactions among segments according to dier-ent health-related motive orientations. Hence, these con-tent aspects were combined to create the four targetedF&V health advertisements (2-by-2 within-subjectsdesign).

The tonality dimension was manipulated by using aninformational versus transformational advertising strategy(Rossiter & Percy, 1997). The transformational ads usedvivid pictures (either self-directed or other-directed depend-ing upon the particular condition), paid attention to hedo-nic aspects of F&V consumption (e.g., enjoying life,experiencing freedom) and put sentences in rst-personwording (either singular (I-sentences) or plural (we-sen-tences) depending upon the condition) as their primaryaim is to evoke emotions in consumers by making use ofrather personal, emotional stimuli. The informational adversions used mainly verbal arguments, paid attention tothe functional benets of F&V (e.g., avoiding illness oravoiding getting obese) and wrote sentences in ratherremoved third-person wording. These advertisements aimto make people think by using rational information cuesand focusing on functional consumer motives such as solv-ing or avoiding a particular problem. Directionality wasmanipulated by using either self-directed argumentsemphasizing the themes of self-identity, individuality,unique lifestyle and private issue or other-directed argu-ments focusing on the theme of we-ness, relationship, fam-ily-commitment and joint decision (Wang & Mowen,1997).

The fth, general advertisement that was included in thestudy had both a more neutral tonality (neither informa-tional nor transformational) and directionality (neitherself-directed nor other-directed) and was taken from anexisting F&V public health campaign, which was runningat the time of the research. All ve stimuli advertisementsare shown in Appendix A.

2.3. Dependent measures

2.3.1. Fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption

To estimate consumers intake of fresh F&V, a short

Preference 19 (2008) 481497 483food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used, developedand validated by Bogers, Van Assema, Kester, Westerterp

mb

andand Dagnelie (2004). This instrument had a reference per-iod of 1 month and included those types or categories ofF&V that were consumed most frequently in Belgium. Par-ticipants were asked to indicate for each category, boththeir average consumption frequency and portion size.Consumption frequency was measured on a 9-point scalegoing from 1 = never or less than 1 day a month to 9 = 7days a week. To indicate portion size, a 5-point scale wasused ranging from 1 = 1 serving to 5 = 5 or more servings.Depending on the category of F&V, serving size was oper-ationalized as either one 5060 g serving spoon (e.g.,cooked vegetables), one piece (e.g., bananas) or one glass(e.g., fruit juices). Total intake, expressed in number of

Table 2Results of conrmatory factor analysis: measurement model

Health construct Original numberof Items

Final nuof Items

Measurement model (measures)

1. Health = energy 7 52. Health = emotional

well-being11 7

3. Health = socialresponsibility

5 5

4. Health = physicalwell-being

10 7

5. Health = management 4 46. Health = outward

appearance8 6

Measurement model (t indices)

NNFI 0.90RMR 0.069RMSEA 0.062GFI 0.87

* For the full text item labels see Appendix B.

484 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Qualityservings per day, was calculated by multiplying consump-tion frequency with portion size. Consumption of the var-ious F&V categories was summed to obtain total fruitconsumption, total vegetable consumption, and totalF&V intake.

2.3.2. Attitude toward the ad (Aad) and behavioral intention

(BI)

Peoples evaluations of the ve stimuli advertisementswere measured by a ve-item Attitude Toward the AdScale (Aad) and a single-item Behavioral Intention Scale.

With regard to Aad, three items were based on Zinkhan,Locander, and Leigh (1986) (i.e. I like this ad, I considerthis ad to be good, This ad appeals to me) and the othertwo items were taken from the Attitude Toward the Adscale of Burke and Edell (1989) (This ad is convincing tome, This ad is relevant for me). All items ranged from1 = totally disagree to 8 = totally agree. For all ve adver-tisements, the ve-item scale reliabilities were very good.Cronbachs Alphas ranged from 0.94 to 0.96, all exceedingthe lower critical value level of 0.60. So, in each case, thescores of the ve items were summed and averaged to forma composite measure of Aad.Eects in terms of behavioral intention were also mea-sured for all ve advertisements. Concretely, subjects wereasked to indicate the likelihood of eating more fresh fruitsand vegetables (i.e. This ad will prompt me to eat more F&Vin the future) on an 8-point likelihood scale ranging from1 = not at all likely to 8 = very likely.

2.4. Manipulation checks

Additionally, two manipulation checks were included inthe questionnaire. These measures asked about how peopleperceived a particular health advertisement in terms oftonality (informational vs. transformational) and direc-

er Item labels* Compositereliability

Exp1, Exp2, Exp6 Imp17, Imp29 0.77Exp3, Exp13, Exp14 Imp4, Imp15,Imp21, Imp23

0.70

Exp4, Exp7 Imp1, Imp12, Imp25 0.62

Exp5, Exp8, Exp11 Imp2, Imp8, Imp11,Imp22

0.61

Imp6, Imp20, Imp27, Imp28 0.70Exp10, Exp12 Imp7, Imp14, Imp16,Imp30

0.82

Preference 19 (2008) 481497tionality (self-directed vs. other-directed), respectively.Informational and transformational ad content was mea-sured with three semantic dierential items that were basedon the standard scale of Puto and Wells (1984): objectivevs. experience-oriented information; formal vs. informal;rational vs. emotional. Self-directedness and other-direct-edness were also measured with three semantic dierentialsderived from Wang and Mowen (1997): individualistic vs.altruistic; self-identity vs. family commitment; ego-nessvs. we-ness. In both cases, each semantic dierential useda 5-place scale response format. Tonality and directionalityscores were derived by averaging over the correspondingitems, such that higher scores reect higher transforma-tionality and other-directedness, respectively.

ANOVA results indicated that both our tonality anddirectionality manipulations had been successful. Transfor-mational advertisements were perceived as signicantlymore transformational compared to the informationaladvertisements (M = 3.9 vs. M = 2.6; F(1,611) = 295.21,p < 0.05). Also, other-directed advertisements were per-ceived as signicantly more other-directed compared tothe self-directed advertisements (M = 3.9 vs. M = 2.5;F(1,611) = 429.57, p < 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Segmentation

To identify segments according to perceptions of themeaning of health, a two-step cluster analysis (hierarchi-cal clustering using Wards method, followed by a K-means clustering) was performed on the six healthconstructs that represent peoples health-related motiveorientations. A number of cluster solutions were initiallyspecied (ranging from four to eight) and the solutionsevaluated. Out of this evaluation, a ve-cluster solutionwas identied as best explaining the data (see Table 3)based on variable mean scores, i.e., a 5-cluster solutionrepresented the most parsimonious grouping structureof the sample population; cluster sizes, i.e., a 5-cluster

interpersonal health perception as it shows how the funda-mental meaning of health is related to the social environ-ment. An altruistic, normative way of perceiving healthcould be discovered with a focus on social well-being andresponsibility, in contrast to a more individualistic inter-pretation of health, focusing on feelings of independenceof others and activity. Out of the dynamic interaction ofboth dimensions, ve consumer segments emerge as theresult of the cluster analysis, with dierent health-relatedmotive orientations. In the sections below a detaileddescription is provided for each of these ve segments,based on their variable mean scores (Table 3) and cluster-item associations (Fig. 1).

3.1.1. Segment 1: Energetic Experimenters (34%)

Members of this segment perceive health mainly in

Clu(HaEnj

4.15.8

5.3

5.2

2.92.2

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497 485solution provided the most substantial number of mem-bers in each group; interpretability of the results, i.e., a5-cluster solution provided the most straightforward andinterpretable results; and the error sum-of-squares crite-rion (ESS), i.e., a substantial increase in ESS could befound at a transition stage from ve to four clusters,which indicates that a 5-cluster solution is most appropri-ate as further reducing the number of clusters (to four orless) may result in too much variation/heterogeneitywithin these clusters (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &Tatham, 2006).

A correspondence analysis (FCA) based on a contin-gency table including, in absolute values, the number ofrespondents per cluster that associate the meaning ofhealth with a particular health statement revealed thehealth-related motive structure as depicted in Fig. 1. Thevertical axis of this structure reects an intrapersonaldimension as it refers to the way in which the individualtranslates health for himself. On the one hand health getsmeaning throughout its emotional aspects of enjoymentand freedom, whereas on the other hand, health is per-ceived in a very physical manner with a focus on function-ality and control. The horizontal axis refers to an

Table 3Means and standard deviations for a ve-cluster solution

Healthconstructs*

Totalsample

Cluster 1(EnergeticExperimenters)

Health = energy 4.5 (1.59) 6.0 (0.76)Health = emotional

well-being5.2 (0.88) 5.1 (0.83)

Health = socialresponsibility

5.2 (0.94) 4.8 (1.00)

Health = physicalwell-being

5.3 (0.81) 4.8 (0.78)

Health = management 3.7 (1.22) 3.5 (1.20)Health = outward

appearance3.5 (1.25) 3.3 (1.09)N = 615 N = 207 N =

* For the items of the scales for the health constructs: 1 corresponds to totterms of vitality and energy (M = 6.0). Half of them(50.7%) associate health with living an active life; 49.3%with keeping the body in a good condition and 42.0%would perceive it as (extremely) bad not to be able anymoreto practice sports because of health problems. EnergeticExperimenters have an average age of 37.7, i.e., the youn-gest segment, and compared to the total sample (41.0%),males are slightly overrepresented in this segment(52.7%). About 43.0% of Segment 1 is working as anemployee, 49.5% has no children (which is more than theother segments) and 65.2% has a fulltime employment sta-tus. Accounting for 34% of the total sample, EnergeticExperimenters are the largest segment.

3.1.2. Segment 2: Harmonious Enjoyers (16%)

These people are mainly involved with emotional health(M = 5.8). Emotional well-being (75.2%); enjoying life(67.3%) and keeping up good social contacts (32.7%)are very important to them. Compared to the other seg-ments, Harmonious Enjoyers are slightly older (averageage 43.9) with more retired people (19.0%). Most of themhave children (67.3%) and here also, males are somewhatoverrepresented compared to the total sample (48.5%).

ster 2rmoniousoyers)

Cluster 3(NormativeCarers)

Cluster 4(ConsciousExperts)

Cluster 5(Rationalists)

(1.12) 2.7 (1.14) 4.4 (1.06) 3.0 (0.96)(0.62) 5.4 (0.70) 4.8 (0.95) 4.9 (0.94)

(1.06) 5.8 (0.68) 5.0 (0.87) 5.3 (0.71)

(0.77) 5.7 (0.57) 5.0 (0.80) 5.7 (0.61)

(1.05) 3.0 (1.01) 5.4 (0.89) 3.7 (1.19)(0.68) 2.5 (0.79) 5.6 (0.62) 3.8 (1.00)101 N = 104 N = 109 N = 94

ally disagree and 7 corresponds to totally agree.

and486 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality3.1.3. Segment 3: Normative Carers (17%)

In contrast to Harmonious Enjoyers, members of Seg-ment 3 are heavily concerned with the physical aspects ofhealth (M = 5.7). Being healthy means in particular avoid-ing illness and having no physical health problems(50.6%). In addition, Normative Carers perceive health asa social responsibility (M = 5.8). Taking care of otherfamily members health (29.9%), is considered as veryimportant. Most of the people in Segment 3 are women(59.7%) with an average age of 43.6. More than the othersegments Normative Carers work at home (14.3%).

3.1.4. Segment 4: Conscious Experts (18%)

For respondents in Segment 4 health is mainly aboutmanagement (M = 5.4) and physical appearance(M = 5.6). They deal with health in a very self-consciousway with the focus on the health of their own body. Asopposed to the other segments, staying slim (24.8%);looking good (10.1%); being stylish are very importantaspects of feeling healthy for members of Segment 4. Theyknow their own body the best and as a result, they want tomanage their health by themselves, without needing advicefrom others. Among them, the majority are women(74.1%), fulltime employed (63.3%) and 41.3% works as

Fig. 1. Health-related motive structure. * To be able to perform a FCA, westatements were measured, by recoding the values 1 through 3 to 0 (i.e., a particrespondent) and the values 4 through 7 to 1 (i.e., a particular health statementmatrix for the FCA, we created a contingency table which included, in absolutehealth with a particular health statement (i.e., those respondents who scored ththe above gure were computed by dividing these absolute numbers by the toPreference 19 (2008) 481497an employee. The average age of this second youngest seg-ment is 40.2 years.

3.1.5. Segment 5: Rationalists (15%)

Similar to Normative Carers, members of Segment 5 areengaged with the physical/functional aspects of health(M = 5.7), but with as main objective having the compe-tence to do their job (27.7%) and being able to organizelife and to work functionally (41.5%), rather than takingcare of the health of others. These Rationalists represent15% of the total sample. Women are highly overrepre-sented in this segment (75.3%) with a mean age of 41.9years. Most of them are employees (52.1%) with a fulltimeemployment status (54.3%).

3.2. Fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption

ANOVA results revealed no signicant dierencesbetween the ve consumer segments regarding total F&Vintake (F(4, 552) = 0.85, p > 0.05), as all cluster meansuctuated tightly around the sample mean of 5.4 servingsa day.

However, signicant dierences could be detectedbetween the segments regarding category-specic F&Vintake. In particular, Energetic Experimenters (M = 0.7)

made a binary version of the 7-point Likert scale on which the 45 healthular health statement is NOT associated with the meaning of health for theIS associated with the meaning of health for the respondent). As an inputvalues, the number of respondents per cluster that associate the meaning ofe value 1 on a particular statement). The percentages between brackets intal number of respondents in the corresponding cluster.

consumed signicantly more bananas than did HarmoniousEnjoyers (M = 0.3), Normative Carers (M = 0.3), Con-scious Experts (M = 0.2) and Rationalists (M = 0.3)(F(4,522) = 3.23, p < 0.05). In their turn, HarmoniousEnjoyers (M = 1.9) and Normative Carers (M = 2.1) hada signicantly higher consumption of potatoes than didEnergetic Experimenters (M = 1.1), Conscious Experts(M = 1.0) and Rationalists (M = 1.3) (F(4,522) = 6.81,p < 0.01). Furthermore, Harmonious Enjoyers (M = 2.6)and Normative Carers (M = 2.8) ate signicantly morecooked vegetables than did Energetic Experimenters(M = 2.1), Conscious Experts (M = 2.1) and Rationalists(M = 2.2) (F(4, 552) = 4.17, p < 0.01).

3.3. Reactions toward health advertising

ANOVA results revealed signicant dierences betweenthe ve consumer segments regarding their evaluations oftargeted F&V health advertising (see Table 4 (Aad) andTable 5 (BI)). When compared to the other segments, Ener-getic Experimenters had signicantly higher Aad (M = 5.7)and BI (M = 5.1) scores for the transformational/self-direc-ted health advertisement (i.e. Ad 2) (F(4, 611) = 6.93,

Aad (M = 6.8) and BI (M = 6.7) measures were signi-cantly higher for the latter segment, compared to the othersegments (F(4, 611) = 21.89, p < 0.01 for Aad and F(4,611) = 15.41, p < 0.01 for BI). Finally, ndings indicatethat the informational/self-directed advertisement (i.e. Ad3) is more appealing to both the Conscious Experts andthe Rationalists as higher Aad (M = 4.7 and 4.6, respec-tively) and BI (M = 4.5 and 4.5, respectively) scoreswere detected for these two segments (F(4, 611) =4.57, p < 0.01 for Aad and F(4, 611) = 7.86, p < 0.01 forBI).

In addition, for each segment, a comparison was madebetween the score on Aad and BI for their most appropri-ate targeted advertisement (see results above) and a generaladvertisement by means of a Paired Samples T-test (seeTable 6). In terms of BI, for all ve segments, the mostappropriate targeted advertisement elicited a signicanthigher score compared to the general advertisement(Ad5). With regard to Aad, signicant dierences betweenthe appropriate targeted advertisement and the generaladvertisement were only found for three segments. ForConscious Experts and Rationalists, the targeted advertise-ment did not elicit more positive Aad scores than the more

Within this paper a new segmentation scheme has been

rs)

rs)

other-directed adInformational/ 3.99 (1.87) 3.61 (1.94)

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497 487Table 5Evaluation of health advertisements (BI)

Cluster 1(Energetic Experimenters)

Cluster 2(Harmonious Enjoye

Transformational/self-directed ad

5.13 (1.84) 4.49 (1.73)

Transformational/other-directed ad

4.41 (1.79) 5.74 (1.52)

Informational/other-directed ad

4.12 (1.87) 4.83 (1.98)

Informational/ 4.01 (1.50) 3.54 (1.59)

self-directed ad

** p < 0.01.p < 0.01 for Aad and F(4, 611) = 8.64, p < 0.01 for BI),whereas Harmonious Enjoyers responded more positively(M = 5.9 for Aad andM = 5.7 for BI) toward the transfor-mational/other-directed advertisement (i.e. Ad 1) (F(4,611) = 5.91, p < 0.01 for Aad and F(4, 611) = 3.84,p < 0.01 for BI). In its turn, the informational/other-directedhealth advertisement (i.e. Ad 4) appeared to be mostappropriate for the Normative Carers as corresponding

Table 4Evaluation of health advertisements (Aad)

Cluster 1(Energetic Experimenters)

Cluster 2(Harmonious Enjoye

Transformational/self-directed ad

5.72 (1.75) 4.72 (1.69)

Transformational/other-directed ad

4.94 (1.77) 5.92 (1.55)

Informational/ 5.03 (1.94) 4.65 (1.87)self-directed ad

** p < 0.01.proposed based on health-related motive orientations

Cluster 3(Normative Carers)

Cluster 4(Conscious Experts)

Cluster 5(rationalists)

F

3.85 (1.56) 3.47 (1.74) 3.32 (1.75) 8.64**

4.50 (1.54) 3.91 (1.77) 3.96 (1.64) 3.84**

6.71 (1.08) 3.99 (1.82) 4.02 (1.93) 15.41**

3.27 (1.27) 4.52 (1.50) 4.54 (2.13) 7.86**

Cluster 3(Normative Carers)

Cluster 4(Conscious Experts)

Cluster 5(rationalists)

F

4.26 (1.54) 3.65 (1.75) 3.72 (1.63) 6.93**

4.37 (1.58) 3.13 (1.62) 3.05 (1.68) 5.91**

6.84 (0.94) 4.02 (1.63) 4.12 (1.31) 21.39**

4.19 (1.79) 4.73 (1.90) 4.61 (2.10) 4.57**general Ad5.

4. Discussion and conclusions

4.1. Usefulness of health audience segmentation

and(HRMO) and the usefulness of this segmentation schemewas demonstrated in the process of developing tailoredF&V health advertisements. In particular, our segmenta-tion scheme diers from and may add value over tradi-tional sociodemographic or lifestyle segmentationschemes (e.g., Mitchell, 1983) as it comprises a domain-spe-cic segmentation approach based on fundamental motiva-tion variables that inuence peoples health behaviors. Assuch, homogeneity within subgroups is reached at a morefundamental level, i.e., on the basis of explanatory psycho-logical variables that capture peoples reasons/motivationsto strive for health instead of descriptive variables, such associodemographics or AIOs, which solely indicate whopeople are or what they do at a more global level. Greaterpredictive validity may be expected from such domain-spe-

Table 6Paired samples T-test (general ad vs. motive-related ad)

Healthsegment

Reactions Consumer-oriented Ad

GeneralAd

P-value(T-test)

EnergeticExperimenters

Aad 5.7 4.7 0.001**

BI 5.1 4.3 0.000**

HarmoniousEnjoyers

Aad 5.9 4.9 0.002**

BI 5.7 4.3 0.000**

NormativeCarers

Aad 6.8 4.3 0.000**

BI 6.7 4.3 0.000**

ConsciousExperts

Aad 4.7 4.5 n.s.

BI 4.5 3.9 0.010*

Rationalists Aad 4.6 4.6 n.s.BI 4.5 3.9 0.030*

n.s. (not signicant).* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

488 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Qualitycic motivational variables, as they are more directly linkedwith the specic behavior under question.

Adopting a multidimensional perspective on health, theresults of this study provide new insights into the nature ofdierences in health perception among people. Five con-sumer segments could be identied within the sample forwhich health has another distinct meaning. These ve seg-ments could be organized along two bipolar dimensions,which represent an intrapersonal (emotional vs. functional)and interpersonal (individualistic vs. altruistic) health per-ception, respectively.

Regarding daily F&V consumption, in this study rela-tively high levels of F&V intake were obtained. With anaverage consumption of 5.4 servings per day, our popula-tion seems to be in accordance with the internationalve-a-day- norm. However, this is unlikely, and surelywe must take into account some overestimation of thereported behavior, as self-reported measures concerninghealthy products (e.g., F&V) due to a social desirabil-ity tendency are considered to be sensible for overre-porting, whereas self-reported measures concerningunhealthy products (e.g., fats and sugars) suer fromunderreporting (Westerterp & Goris, 2002). Other mea-sures of F&V consumption in Belgium mention loweraverage values than those that were obtained in ourstudy, with much more people being not in accordancewith the recommended levels (Naska et al., 2000; Verbeke& Pieniak, 2006). Another explanation for the highreported levels of F&V intake may be that subjects whodecided to participate in our study are more health con-scious and/or more involved with F&V consumption,and therefore more likely to eat greater amounts ofF&V than the general population of consumers. This isespecially likely since the link to the questionnaire wasplaced within a health rubric on the website of a Flemishnewspaper.

The fact that the average number of daily servings ofF&V did not vary across the ve consumer segments mightbe due to the aforementioned problems of overreportingand sample selection. Another possible explanation maybe that dierences in health perception among people donot associate with the frequency of daily F&V consump-tion as such, and thus, that low or heavy consumersare equally dispersed over all ve segments. However, dif-ferences might exist among people with dierent healthperceptions regarding the reasons (i.e. motives or barriers)for consuming (or not consuming) a sucient amount ofF&V as dierent health-related consequences may be ben-ecial in the context of dierent health orientations (e.g.,having energy for Energetic Experimenters, staying slimfor Conscious Experts, good taste for Harmonious Enjoy-ers, etc.). Though, the latter proposition was not explicitlytested in this study and might be an opportunity for futureresearch.

Furthermore, we want to stress that although the seg-ments did not dier a priori in terms of F&V consump-tion, they did react dierently to targeted F&V healthadvertisements. In particular, all clusters responded morepositively (Aad and BI) toward the health advertisementthat was designed and expected to be most responsive totheir underlying health-related motive orientations, i.e., atransformational/self-directed ad for the Energetic Exper-imenters (given this segments emotional and individualis-tic health orientation), transformational/other-directed adfor the Harmonious Enjoyers (given this segments emo-tional and altruistic health orientation), informational/other-directed ad for the Normative Carers (given thissegments functional and altruistic health orientation)and informational/self-directed ad for the ConsciousExperts and Rationalists (given these segments functionaland individualistic health orientation). Moreover, the seg-ments provided more positive evaluations of the mostappropriate targeted advertisement compared to a generaladvertisement. This further underscores the added valueof targeted F&V advertising strategies, and supports thevalidity of our ndings and, hence, the usefulness of oursegmentation scheme. If the segments had diered a priori

Preference 19 (2008) 481497regarding average F&V consumption, it would have beenmuch less straightforward to attribute the observed

anddierences in reactions to the ads to dierences in health-related motive orientations. In the latter case, the dier-ences in reaction to the ads could have resulted from dif-ferent levels of involvement with F&V between theclusters.

Regarding the dierences that exist among the segmentswith respect to specic types of F&V, we do believe thatthese dierences provide preliminary support of the predic-tive validity of our proposed segmentation scheme as con-sumption of dierent types of F&V, with dierentcharacteristics and/or health-related benets, seems to beimportant in the context of dierent health-related motiveorientations. For example, the perception of bananas as asource of energy and power may account for the higherconsumption of this type of fruit among Energetic Experi-menters, whereas potatoes and cooked vegetables may bemore preferred by Normative Carers and HarmoniousEnjoyers because motive-related associations are madebetween these types of vegetables and for instance tradition(common dietary habit), caring for the family, familyhealth, and tastefulness. These results may have value forhealth practitioners and public health authorities as dier-ent types of F&V, with dierent (real or perceived) charac-teristics and/or health-related consequences, might bepositioned in health advertisements directed toward con-sumers with dierent health perceptions (e.g., positioningbananas as a source of energy and power to EnergeticExperimenters). Hence, members of a particular segmentmight be persuaded of consuming particular F&V typesas an alternative to other consumer goods with the samecharacteristics (like energy drinks or F&V concentratesfor the Energetic Experimenters). The overall aim shouldbe to increase F&V intake overall, through appealing tospecic health-related motive orientations of the targetaudience (e.g. Energetic Experimenters may consume abanana as an alternative to a candy bar). In what follows,some specic suggestions and recommendations are setforth for developing targeted F&V health advertisementsfor each of the ve consumer segments that were identiedin the present study.

4.2. Recommendations for targeted promotion of F&V intake

4.2.1. Energetic Experimenters: transformational/self-

directed advertising strategy

For members of Segment 1, health advertisementsshould use a transformational/self-directed advertisingstrategy, as a rather emotional health orientation is mani-fest among these people with an individualistic tendency(see Fig. 1). Besides using vivid images that express move-ment and vitality, we recommend health practitioners tofocus on individual consumer experiences such as feelingfree, getting energy and power for the body, feeling verymuch alive and kicking. To increase the perception of beingaddressed personally, sentences might be put in rst-person

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Qualitywording (I-sentences), rather than using removed third-person wording.4.2.2. Harmonious Enjoyers: transformational/other-

directed advertising strategy

As members of Segment 2 perceive health mainly interms of emotional well-being, advertisements designedto them should avoid focusing too much on functionalaspects of F&V consumption. Rather, we recommendexpressing how an increased intake of F&V might beinstrumental to achieve a complete and happy lifetogether with family and friends. As for the EnergeticExperimenters, a transformational advertising strategy isrecommended (e.g. using vivid pictures, informal lan-guage, stressing hedonic experiences, etc.). However, forHarmonious Enjoyers, the arguments used in the adver-tisement should not be self-directed. Rather, other-direc-ted arguments should be employed given these peoplesmore altruistic health orientation.

4.2.3. Normative Carers: informational/other-directed

advertising strategy

Given this segments functional and altruistic orienta-tion toward health (see Fig. 1), we recommend an infor-mational/other-directed advertising strategy for thisparticular segment. As Normative Carers are mainly con-cerned with physical well-being, recommendations in theadvertisement should focus in particular on functionalbenets of F&V intake such as avoiding illness andhealth problems. Instead of using vivid images, membersof this segment could more eectively be convinced bystrong verbal arguments, providing important (health-related) information and focusing on the advice andnorms of expert-others (doctor, dietician, etc.). In addi-tion, advertisements designed to these people shouldemphasize the social responsibility aspect that is associ-ated with health. Communicating how F&V may contrib-ute to the preservation of the health of close others(family, children, etc.), might be an appropriate strategyto deal with this issue.

4.2.4. Conscious Experts/ Rationalists: informational/self-directed advertising strategy

In order to counteract these peoples disinterest towardadvertising, advertisements designed to them mightemphasize ones own independent capacities to deal withhealth. Health advertising is likely to be more eectiveif it makes Conscious Experts/Rationalists feel like natu-ral experts who are capable to keep control over theirhealth by themselves. As a functional and individualistichealth orientation is manifest among these people, aninformational/self-directed advertising strategy is sug-gested, with mainly verbal arguments focusing on out-ward appearance (looking good, looking thin) andshowing o competence.

4.3. Limitations and directions for further research

Preference 19 (2008) 481497 489This study faces some limitations. Regarding health-related motive segmentation, denitely, more research is

490 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497needed to further validate our 45-item scale. Given theconceptual purpose of this study, we feel condent thisself-made scale performed well to generate six reliablehealth constructs that served as a solid basis for segmenta-tion. However, from a methodological point of view, addi-tional tests should be performed regarding its psychometricproperties (e.g., dimensionality, reliability, etc.). We recom-mend future studies to concentrate on cross-cultural valid-ity, construct validity and predictive validity, by furthertesting and examining this scale in multiple countries, forrelationships with other concepts (e.g., life values, person-ality traits, etc.) and within dierent behavioral contexts.

Second, in this study the focus was not set on thestrength of health motivation (i.e., low vs. high) as such,but rather on dierent types of health motives that mayexist among individuals. Hence, we did not include an over-all health motive/attitude strength measure in our ques-tionnaire, such as e.g., Moorman (1990) healthmotivation scale, Gould (1988) health consciousness scaleor Torabi, Dong-Chul, and Jeng (2004) health attitudescale. However, such measures may be included in futurestudies about health perception to account for general dif-ferences in health attitude strength among consumers fromdierent segments.

With respect to actual F&V consumption, caution iswarranted when interpreting the results of the Bogerset al. (2004) FFQ. We decided to use this scale as it com-prises a standardized measurement instrument, extensivelyvalidated by its developers, and developed in the Nether-lands, i.e., a country that is rather comparable to Belgiumregarding the types or categories of F&V that are com-monly available and most frequently consumed. However,this FFQ was developed for epidemiological purposes, i.e.,assessing nutrition-health relationships in large groups ofsubjects, and hence, it might be less well suited for use asan outcome variable or assessment measure of individualconsumption patterns as we did in this study.

Further, only two aspects of F&V consumption wereconsidered in this study, i.e. consumption frequency and aselection of specic types of F&V that were consumed.Future studies may concentrate on assessing the relation-ship between health-related motive orientations and otheraspects of F&V consumption (e.g., buying process or deci-sion factors) or consumption of other food products with apredominant health image (e.g., seafood or functionalfoods).

In a similar vein, interesting future research opportuni-ties may exist with regard to the relationship betweenhealth-related motive orientations and peoples evaluationsof F&V health advertisements. In this study only twoadvertising content dimensions were tested, i.e., messagetonality and directionality. Future studies may investigatesome other relevant aspects of campaign developmentand message creation, e.g., dierent appeals or dierenttypes of endorsers.Regarding the general advertisement that we used in thisstudy, we have to admit that we did not perform a formalmanipulation-check on it, which may put into question thetruly neutral perception of this stimulus by the respon-dents. However, we took this advertisement from an exist-ing Belgian F&V health campaign that was designed in ageneric manner, and, as such, it diers from the four tar-geted F&V health advertisements which had a consumer-oriented character.

Yet in the context of targeted health advertising, the use-fulness of the proposed segmentation scheme could bedemonstrated in the context of health prevention insteadof health promotion. For example, when attempting todevelop increasingly successful antismoking or fat reduc-tion advertisements, health communicators may considerthe manifest health-related motive orientations of the tar-get audience.

Finally, in this study, only perceived eects of targetedhealth advertising were assessed, as a better performancewas only demonstrated with regard to consumers self-reported reactions toward health advertisements. In gen-eral, far more positive Aad and BI scores were reportedfor targeted advertisements compared to a general mes-sage. The failure to observe signicant dierences in Aadbetween the targeted and the general advertisement forConscious Experts and Rationalists may probably be dueto the fact that the latter consumers are less open to andless inuenced by advertising (i.e., Aad and BI scores neverexceeded the neutral value of 4.5), rather than to a bad per-formance of the targeted advertisement. Future experimen-tal intervention studies may also investigate actualbehavioral eects of targeted health advertising, by assess-ing the potential eectiveness in increasing real F&Vintake.

4.4. General conclusion

Using a set of 45 explicit and implicit items referring topeoples subjective perceptions of the meaning of health,this study has identied ve consumer segments with dis-tinct health-related motive orientations. Furthermore, thisstudy has demonstrated the practical usefulness of thismarket segmentation approach in a food consumptionand marketing context, more specically with respect todeveloping and testing targeted promotion campaigns forstimulating F&V consumption. The ndings indicate thata segments reactions, in terms of attitude toward the adand behavioural intention, toward advertising targeted tothe segments health-related motives are more positivethan toward more general advertising. Although the studyfaces some limitations with mainly related to its scope,these ndings entail both substantial opportunities forthose who are involved with promoting healthy foodchoice, as well as particular challenges for future researchin this eld.

Appendix A. Stimuli advertisements

Ad 1 (transformational/other-directed)

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497 491

Ad 2 (transformational/self-directed)

492 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497

Ad 3 (informational/self-directed)

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497 493

Ad 4 (informational/other-directed)

494 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497

Appendix B. List of scale items

Health-related Motive Scale

Explicit items (Exp)

For me, health is mainly about. . .

4. Living in harmony with my family.5. Having no physical health problems.6. Living an active life, i.e., practicing sports, etc.7. Taking care of other family members health.8. Following the advice of expert-others, i.e., doctor,

dietician, etc.9. Developing a healthy lifestyle of my own.10. Looking good.11. Reducing physical health risks with regard to heart,

lungs, liver, etc.

and1. Keeping the body in a good condition, i.e., tness,jogging, aerobics, etc.Ad 5 (general ad)

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality2. Having the energy to do the things I want to do.3. Taking time to relax and to enjoy life.Preference 19 (2008) 481497 49512. Staying slim.13. Emotional well-being, feeling good mentally.

andCox, D., Anderson, A., McKellar, S., Reynolds, J., Lean, M., & Mela, D.J. (1996). Vegetables and Fruits: Barriers and opportunities for greaterconsumption. Nutrition & Food Science, 96(5), 4447.

De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh, J. (2007). Marketing8. Feel protected.9. Be playful.10. Work creatively.11. Get stability in life.12. Share time with family.13. Enjoy life.14. Stay slim.15. Perceive warmth and conviviality.16. Stay beautiful.17. Practice sports.18. Organize and control life.19. Be cheerful.20. Be powerful.21. Have fun with others.22. Get rest in life.23. Have close friends.24. Be spontaneous.25. Care for my family.26. Think rationally.27. Be ambitious.28. Be competent.29. Live an adventurous life.30. Be stylish.

References

Albrecht, T. L., & Bryant, C. (1996). Advances in segmentation modelingfor health communication and social marketing campaigns. Journal ofHealth Communication, 1, 6580.

Bogers, R. P., Van Assema, P., Kester, A. D. M., Westerterp, K. R., &Dagnelie, P. C. (2004). Reproducibility, validity and responsiveness tochange of a short questionnaire for measuring fruit and vegetableintake. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159, 900909.

Burke, M. C., & Edell, J. A. (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-basedaect and cognitions. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(feb), 6983.

Contento, I. R., Michela, J. L., & Goldberg, C. J. (1988). Food choiceamong adolescents: Population segmentation by motivations. Journalof Nutrition Education, 20(6), 289298.14. Keeping up good social contacts.15. Keeping nutritional intake strictly under control

(feeling in control over my body).

Implicit items (Imp)

Because of health problems, it would be (extremely) badnot to be able anymore to. . .

1. Help others.2. Feel secure in life.3. Work functionally.4. Live an active social life.5. Behave independently.6. Be successful.7. Be classy.

496 N. Geeroms et al. / Food Qualitycommunications: A European perspective (3rd ed.). Harlow, England:Pearson Education Limited.Forthofer, M. S., & Bryant, C. A. (2000). Using audience-segmentationtechniques to tailor health behavior change strategies. AmericanJournal of Health behavior, 24(1), 3643.

Freimuth, V., Cole, G., & Kirby, S. (2001). Issues in evaluating massmedia health communication campaigns. In I. Rootman, M. Goods-tadt, B. Hyndman, D. V. McQueen, L. Potvin, J. Springett, & E. Ziglio(Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion: Principles and perspectives(pp. 475492). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Oce for Europe.

French, S. A., & Stables, G. (2003). Environmental interventions topromote vegetable and fruit consumption among youth in schoolsettings. Preventive Medicine, 37, 593610.

Glanz, K., & Yaroch, A. L. (2004). Strategies for increasing fruit andvegetable intake in grocery stores and communities: Policy, pricing andenvironmental change. Preventive Medicine, 39(Suppl. 2), S75S80.

Gould, S. J. (1988). Consumer attitudes toward health and health care: Adierential perspective. Journal of Consumer Aairs, 22, 96118.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: PearsonEducation.

Hughner, R. S., & Kleine, S. S. (2004). Views of health in the lay sector: Acompilation and review of how individuals think about health. Health,8(4), 395422.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modelingwith the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: SSI ScienticSoftware International, Inc.

Lindholm, L. (1997). Health motives and life values A study of youngpersons reasons for health. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences,11(2), 8189.

Mangunkusumo, R. T., Brug, J., de Koning, H. J., van der Lei, J., & Raat,H. (2007). School-based internet-tailored fruit and vegetable educationcombined with brief counselling increases childrens awareness ofintake levels. Public Health Nutrition, 10(3), 273279.

Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine american life styles. New York: Warner.Moorman, C. (1990). The eects of stimulus and consumer characteristics

on the utilization of nutrition information. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 17, 362374.

Naska, A., Vasdekis, V. G. S., Trichopoulou, A., Friel, S., Leonhauser, I.U., Moreiras, O., et al. (2000). Fruit and vegetable availability amongten European countries: How does it compare with the ve-a-dayrecommendation?. British Journal of Nutrition 84, 549556.

NIS (2005). Private households statistics. Brussels: NIS, National Institutefor Statistics.

Ogden, J. (2007). Health psychology (4th ed.). Berkshire: McGraw-HillOpen University Press.

Puto, C. P., & Wells, W. D. (1984). Informational and transformationaladvertising: The dierential eects of time. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.),Advances in consumer research (pp. 638643). Provo, UT: Associationfor Consumer Research.

Roininen, K., Tuorila, H., Zandstra, E. H., de Graaf, C., Vehkalahti, K.,Stubenitsky, K., et al. (2001). Dierences in health and taste attitudesand reported behaviour among Finnish, Dutch and British consumers:A cross-national validation of the health and taste attitude scale.Appetite, 37, 3345.

Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising and promotion management.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schierstein, H. N. J., & Oude Ophuis, P. A. M. (1998). Health-relateddeterminants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. FoodQuality and Preference, 9(3), 119133.

Slater, M., & Flora, J. (1994). Is health behavior consumer behavior?Health behavior determinants, audience segmentation, and designingmedia health campaigns. In E. M. Clark, T. C. Brock, & D. W. Stewart(Eds.), Attention, attitude and aect in response to advertising(pp. 273285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Slater, M. D. (1995). Choosing audience segmentation strategies andmethods for health communication. In E. Maibach & R. L. Parrott(Eds.), Designing health messages: Approaches from communication

Preference 19 (2008) 481497theory and public health practice (pp. 186198). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Steenkamp, J. B., & Van Trijp, J. C. M. (1991). The use of Lisrel invalidating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 8, 283299.

Steinmetz, K. A., & Potter, J. D. (1996). Vegetables, fruits and cancerprevention. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96,10271039.

Synovate/Censydiam (2004). Kwalitatief onderzoek inzake gezondheidsb-eleving bij de Vlaamse bevolking Unpublished research report.Synovate/Censydiam Institute: Antwerp.

Torabi, M. R., Dong-Chul, S., & Jeng, I. (2004). Alternate forms of healthattitude scale. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(2), 166172.

Van Duyn, M. A., & Pivonka, E. (2000). Overview of the health benets offruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: Selectedliterature. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100(12),15111522.

Verbeke, W., & Pieniak, Z. (2006). Benet beliefs, attitudes and behaviourtowards fresh vegetable consumption in Poland and Belgium. ActaAlimentaria, 35, 516.

Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in theinformation age. European Review of Agricultural Economics,32(3), 347368.

Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness self-schema: Scale development and application to message construction.Psychology & Marketing, 14(March), 185207.

Weaver, M., Poehlitz, M., & Hutchison, S. (1999). 5 a day for low-incomefamilies: Evaluation of an advertising campaign and cooking events.Journal of Nutrition Education, 31(3), 161169.

Westerterp, K. R., & Goris, A. H. C. (2002). Validity of the assessment ofdietary intake: Problems of misreporting. Current Opinion in ClinicalNutrition and Metabolic Care, 5, 489493.

WHO (1990). The world health organization report, diet, nutritionand the prevention of chronic diseases. WHO Technical ReportSeries 797.

Zinkhan, G. M., Locander, W. B., & Leigh, J. H. (1986). Dimensionalrelationships of aided recall and recognition. Journal of Advertising,15(1), 3846.

N. Geeroms et al. / Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 481497 497

Health advertising to promote fruit and vegetable intake: Application of health-related motive segmentationIntroductionMethodsMeasurement of health-related motive orientationsStimuli selectionDependent measuresFruit and vegetable (F amp V) consumptionAttitude toward the ad (Aad) and behavioral intention (BI)

Manipulation checks

ResultsSegmentationSegment 1: Energetic Experimenters (34%)Segment 2: Harmonious Enjoyers (16%)Segment 3: Normative Carers (17%)Segment 4: Conscious Experts (18%)Segment 5: Rationalists (15%)

Fruit and vegetable (F amp V) consumptionReactions toward health advertising

Discussion and conclusionsUsefulness of health audience segmentationRecommendations for targeted promotion of F amp V intakeEnergetic Experimenters: transformational/self-directed advertising strategyHarmonious Enjoyers: transformational/other-directed advertising strategyNormative Carers: informational/other-directed advertising strategyConscious Experts/ Rationalists: informational/self-directed advertising strategy

Limitations and directions for further researchGeneral conclusion

Stimuli advertisementsList of scale itemsExplicit items (Exp)Implicit items (Imp)

References