Towards A Better Understanding of Motivational Consumer Behavior

Towards a Better Understanding of Motivational Consumer Behavior :
Cross-Validation, Construct Validation and Application

of a Psychological Taxonomy of Consumer Motives
Nele Geeroms
2007
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Economics

and Business Administration, Ghent University, in
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor in Applied Economic Sciences
Promotor : Prof. Dr. P. Van Kenhove

Doctoral Jury :
Prof. Dr. Patrick Van Kenhove

(Ghent University)
Prof. Dr. Maggie Geuens

(Ghent University)
Prof. Dr. Iris Vermeir

(Ghent University & Hogeschool Ghent)
Prof. Dr. Wim Verbeke

(Ghent University)
Prof. Dr. Klaus Grunert

(The Aarhus School of Business, Denmark)
Prof. Dr. Dominika Maison

(Warsaw University, Poland)
Decaan Prof. Dr. Roland Paemeleire

(Ghent University)
Prof. Dr. Eddy Omey

(Ghent University)
Acknowledgments
This dissertation marks the end of a valuable and eventful journey of four years, which began
in October 2002. Looking back upon these years, I would like to seize the opportunity to
thank a number of people, without whom it would have been impossible to have completed
this work successfully.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Patrick Van Kenhove and the late Hendrik
Hendrickx for giving me the chance to start this Ph.D. challenge and to work extensively on
the scientific validation of the motivational framework of Jan Callebaut and colleagues.
Patrick, thanks for encouraging and supporting me during the past four years and for the so
many inspiring discussions at your office. Your expertise as a researcher has been of great
value to me and my work benefited tremendously from your critical suggestions and feedback.
I would like to express my gratitude to Maggie Geuens and Iris Vermeir, members of my
advisory committee, for their helpful comments and constructive suggestions on earlier drafts
of the papers which are included in the present dissertation. I’m also grateful to Klaus
Grunert, Dominika Maison and Wim Verbeke for their willingness to participate in my
examination committee.
Further, I am greatly indebted to the ‘Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds’ of Ghent University for
providing me a scholarship and all the financial support that was needed to work on this
research project.
V
Towards a Better Understanding of Motivational Consumer Behavior
A special word of thanks deserve all the colleagues and former colleagues of the Marketing
department. Leen, Sarah, Tine, Iris, Katrien, Delphine, Anneleen, Geert, Bart, Isabel,
Jonathan, Bernd, Wouter, Anita, Marie, Kristof, Griet, Koen, Dries, Elke, Dirk, Karin, Carole
and Anneke: I really enjoyed the time we spent together! I wish the best for all of you!
Then, there are the friends ‘at home’ whom I didn’t spend enough time with over the last
couple of months. Thank you guys for your friendship and the unforgettable moments over
the years! I’m particularly grateful to Heidi, my ‘alter-ego’, for being my MSN-buddy ;-) and
for keeping me going in times when my mind was troubled.
Finally, my whole family deserves my warmest gratitude for their unconditional love and
support and their never ending beliefs in my capacities. ‘Meter’, ‘grootva’, ‘moe’ and ‘va’:
thank you for being the best grandparents and parents of the world…for so many reasons!
This dissertation is dedicated to the four of you!
Last but definitely not least, I want to say a sincere thank you to Mario for his loving care and
affection day after day. ‘Mar’, none other than you has supported me more during the
completion of this project. Thanks for sharing life’s joys and sorrows with me! Dikke kus!
Nele Geeroms
November, 2006
VI
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................................V
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................I
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ VII
SAMENVATTING.............................................................................................................................................. IX
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................XIII
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1. SCIENTIFIC ORIENTATION .................................................................................................................. 3

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................... 5
3. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES............................................................................................................... 6
3.1. A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES: CROSS-VALIDITY .................................................................. 7
3.2. A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY ......................................................... 8
3.2.1. Consumer Motives & Personal Values............................................................................................ 8
3.2.2. Consumer Motives & Personality Traits......................................................................................... 9
3.3. A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS ................................................... 9
3.3.1. Consumer Motives & Health Advertising...................................................................................... 10
3.3.2. Consumer Motives & Ready Meal Consumption Behavior........................................................... 10
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER II : CONSUMER MOTIVES – LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 15
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2. CONSUMER MOTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.1. CONCEPT DEFINITION.......................................................................................................................... 18
2.2. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER CONCEPTS............................................................................................... 19
2.2.1. Consumer Motives & Goals .......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.2. Consumer Motives & Values......................................................................................................... 20
2.2.3. Consumer Motives & Personality traits ........................................................................................ 21
3. CONSUMER MOTIVE STRUCTURES ................................................................................................ 22
4. MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES............................................................................................................... 24
4.1. CLASSIC THEORIES OF MOTIVATION .................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1. Freud’s concept of drives.............................................................................................................. 24
4.1.2. Jung’s concept of archetypes ........................................................................................................ 26
4.1.3. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs......................................................................................................... 27
4.1.4. Murray’s list of human needs........................................................................................................ 29
i
4.2. RECENT TAXONOMIES ......................................................................................................................... 31

4.2.1. A trio of needs ............................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.2. Wicker et al.’s motive classification.............................................................................................. 32
4.2.3. Ford and Nichols’ goal taxonomy................................................................................................. 33
4.2.4. Chulef et al.’s taxonomy of human goals ...................................................................................... 36
5. ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMER MOTIVES ........................................................................................ 37
5.1. DIRECT SELF-REPORT MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 38
5.2. REYNOLDS AND GUTMAN’S LADDERING TECHNIQUE.......................................................................... 39
5.3. MURRAY’S THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST (TAT) ........................................................................... 40
6. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 42
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 44
A Taxonomy of Conumer Motives : Cross-Validity
CHAPTER III : A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES THROUGH PREFERRED BRAND

PERSONALITY : EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FOR 11 COUNTRIES ............................................................ 57
1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 59
2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 60
3. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 61
3.1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVES AND HUMAN PERSONALITY......................................................... 61
3.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN PERSONALITY AND BRAND PERSONALITY ..................................... 63
3.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVES AND BRAND PERSONALITY ......................................................... 64
4. EMPIRICAL STUDIES............................................................................................................................ 66
4.1. PERSONALITY TRAIT GENERATION ...................................................................................................... 66
4.2. STIMULI SELECTION ............................................................................................................................ 67
4.3. METHOD ............................................................................................................................................. 67
4.3.1. Subjects ......................................................................................................................................... 67
4.3.2. Procedure...................................................................................................................................... 68
4.3.3. Multidimensional scaling (INDSCAL) .......................................................................................... 69
4.4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 70
4.4.1. Group Stimulus Space ................................................................................................................... 70
4.4.2. Subject Weight Space .................................................................................................................... 71
5. MOTIVE-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE PREFERRED BRAND PERSONALITY
STRUCTURE...................................................................................................................................................... 73
6. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 79
7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH........................................................................................ 82
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 83
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX A: LIST OF SCALE ITEMS ........................................................................................................ 93
APPENDIX B: MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES.............................................................................................. 94
ii
Table of Contents
A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives : Construct Validity
CHAPTER IV : RECONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER MOTIVES AND

PERSONAL VALUES........................................................................................................................................ 95
1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 97
2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 98
2.1. MOTIVE DISPOSITIONS........................................................................................................................ 98
2.2. PERSONAL VALUES ........................................................................................................................... 101
2.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVES AND VALUES ............................................................................. 105
3. PRESENT STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 107
3.1. MOTIVE ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 107
3.2. HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................................................... 109
3.3. METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 111
3.4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 112
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 116
5. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH...................................................................................... 119
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 122
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 123
CHAPTER V : HOW CONSUMER MOTIVES INFLUENCE TRAIT-BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIPS :

THE CASE OF CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONTROL ........................................... 129
1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 131

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 132
2.1. A GENERAL TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES ............................................................................. 134
3. STUDY 1: CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS .................................................................................... 137
3.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES ............................................................................... 137
3.2. METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 143
3.2.1. Participants ................................................................................................................................. 143
3.2.2. Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 144
3.3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 148
3.4. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 152
4. STUDY 2: SELF-CONTROL................................................................................................................ 153
4.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES ............................................................................... 153
4.2. METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 159
4.2.1. Participants ................................................................................................................................. 159
4.2.2. Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 160
4.3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 162
4.4. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 165
5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 166
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 173
APPENDIX A: LIST OF SCALE ITEMS ...................................................................................................... 186
iii
A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives : Practical Applications
CHAPTER VI : HEALTH ADVERTISING TO PROMOTE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INTAKE :

APPLICATION OF MOTIVE-RELATED HEALTH AUDIENCE SEGMENTATION ......................... 189
1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 191

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 192
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES.................................................................. 194
3.1. A GENERAL TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES ............................................................................. 194
3.2. HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS ....................................................................................... 197
3.3. HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS AND FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION................... 198
3.4. HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS AND REACTIONS TOWARD HEALTH ADVERTISING .......... 199
4. METHOD................................................................................................................................................. 202
4.1. STIMULI ............................................................................................................................................ 202
4.2. PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................................. 203
4.3. MEASURES ........................................................................................................................................ 205
4.3.1. Attitude toward the ad (Aad) and behavioral intention (BI) ....................................................... 205
4.3.2. Health-related motive orientations ............................................................................................. 205
4.3.3. Fruit and vegetable consumption ................................................................................................ 208
5. RESULTS................................................................................................................................................. 209
5.1. MANIPULATION CHECKS .................................................................................................................. 209
5.2. HEALTH AUDIENCE SEGMENTS (H1) ................................................................................................ 211
5.3. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION (H2) ................................................................................... 214
5.4. REACTIONS TOWARD HEALTH ADVERTISEMENTS (H3)................................................................... 215
6. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 217
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 225
APPENDIX A: STIMULI ADVERTISEMENTS .......................................................................................... 234
APPENDIX B: LIST OF SCALE ITEMS ...................................................................................................... 239
CHAPTER VII : UNDERSTANDING READY MEAL CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR : THE ROLE OF

CONSUMER HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS ........................................................... 241
1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 243

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 244
2.1. HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS ....................................................................................... 245
2.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS AND GENERAL FOOD BEHAVIOR
248
2.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE ORIENTATIONS AND READY MEAL CONSUMPTION
BEHAVIOR ....................................................................................................................................................... 251
3. METHOD................................................................................................................................................. 254
3.1. PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................................. 254
3.2. MEASURES ........................................................................................................................................ 256
3.2.1. Health-related motive orientations ............................................................................................. 256
3.2.2. General food behavior ................................................................................................................ 258
iv
Table of Contents
3.2.3. Ready meal consumption behavior.............................................................................................. 260

4. RESULTS................................................................................................................................................. 263
4.1. HEALTH AUDIENCE SEGMENTS ........................................................................................................ 263
4.2. GENERAL FOOD BEHAVIOR .............................................................................................................. 267
4.3. READY MEAL CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR ......................................................................................... 268
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 279
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 285
APPENDIX A: LIST OF SCALE ITEMS ...................................................................................................... 291
CHAPTER VIII : SUMMARY & DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 293
1. RECAPITULATION .............................................................................................................................. 295

1.1. A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES: CROSS-VALIDITY .............................................................. 296
1.2. A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY ..................................................... 297
1.3. A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................... 299
2. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 302
3. METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................ 312
4. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS........................................................................................................ 317
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS .................................................................................................................. 329
6.1. LINK WITH PREVIOUS TAXONOMIES OF HUMAN MOTIVES.................................................................. 329
6.2. ADDITIONAL CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ................................................................................................ 331
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 333
v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 : Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs ................................................................. 28
Figure 3.1 : INDSCAL analysis – Group Stimulus Space ....................................................... 70

Figure 3.2 : INDSCAL analysis – Dimension Weights Plot.................................................... 72
Figure 3.3 : Hypothesized Preferred Brand Personality Dimensions....................................... 73
Figure 3.4 : Callebaut et al.’s (1999) Taxonomy of Consumer Motives ................................. 77
Figure 4.1 : Callebaut et al.’s (1999) Taxonomy of Consumer Motives ............................... 101
Figure 4.2 : Schwartz’ (1992) Value Structure ...................................................................... 105
Figure 5.2 : Study 1 – MANOVA results : Consumer Innovativeness .................................. 149
Figure 5.3 : Study 1 – MANOVA results : Adoption of Hedonic Attributes ........................ 150
Figure 5.4 : Study 1 – MANOVA results : Adoption of Utilitarian Attributes...................... 151
Figure 5.5 : Study 2 – MANOVA results : Dispositional Self-Control ................................. 163
Figure 5.6 : Study 2 – MANOVA results : Disciplined Driving Behavior............................ 164
Figure 6.2 : Health-related Motive Structure ......................................................................... 212
Figure 7.1 : Geeroms et al.’s Health-related Motive Structure .............................................. 246

Figure 7.2 : Cluster-Health Item Associations (results of correspondence analysis)............. 263
vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 : Murray’s List of Human Needs ............................................................................. 30

Table 2.2 : Ford and Nichols’ Goal Taxonomy ....................................................................... 35
Table 3.1 : Characteristics of samples...................................................................................... 68

Table 3.2 : INDSCAL analysis – Dimension weights / NRS measures................................... 71
Table 3.3 : Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis : Measurement Model .......................... 74
Table 4.1 : Motive Definitions and Scale Items..................................................................... 100

Table 4.2 : Value Definitions and Scale Items....................................................................... 103
Table 4.3 : Sample Characteristics (% of respondents, N = 178)........................................... 112
Table 4.4 : Reliability Estimates ............................................................................................ 113
Table 4.5 : Item Correlations.................................................................................................. 114
Table 4.6 : Regression Results ............................................................................................... 115
Table 5.1 : Motive Definitions and Measurement Items........................................................ 135

Table 5.2 : Sample Characteristics Study 1 (% of respondents, N = 210) ............................. 144
Table 5.3 : Four Motive Constructs (Study 1) ....................................................................... 146
Table 5.4 : Factor Analysis – Innovative Mobile Phone Attributes....................................... 147
Table 5.5 : Sample Characteristics Study 2 (% of respondents, N = 173) ............................. 160
Table 5.6 : Four Motive Constructs (Study 2) ....................................................................... 161
Table 6.1 : Motive Definitions ............................................................................................... 195

Table 6.2 : Sample Characteristics (% of respondents, N = 615)........................................... 204
Table 6.3 : Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis : Measurement Model ........................ 207
Table 6.4 : Means and Standard Deviations for a Five-cluster Solution................................ 210
Table 6.5 : Paired Samples T-test (general ad vs. motive-related ad).................................... 217
Table 7.1 : Five Health Audience Segments .......................................................................... 247

Table 7.2 : Proposed Differences in General Food Behavior Patterns (P2.1-P2.28) ............. 250
Table 7.3 : Proposed Differences in Ready Meal Consumption Patterns (P3.1-P3.44)......... 253
Table 7.4 : Sample Characteristics (% of respondents, N = 1934)......................................... 255
Table 7.5 : Eight Health Constructs ....................................................................................... 257
Table 7.6 : General Food Behavior ........................................................................................ 259
Table 7.7 : Ready Meal Consumption Behavior .................................................................... 261
Table 7.8 : Means and Standard Deviations for a Five-cluster Solution................................ 262
Table 7.9 : ANOVA results General Food Behavior ............................................................. 266
Table 7.10 : Attitude toward Ready Meals and Consumption Frequency ............................. 272
Table 7.11 : ANOVA results Beliefs Ready Meals ............................................................... 273
Table 7.12 : Factor Analysis – Ready Meal Buying Criteria ................................................. 274
Table 7.13 : ANOVA results Buying Criteria........................................................................ 275
Table 7.14 : ANOVA results different Ways of Handling Ready Meals............................... 276
Table 7.15 : Factor Analysis – Attributes Ideal Ready Meal ................................................. 277
Table 7.16 : ANOVA results Ideal Ready Meal ..............................................................278
vii
Samenvatting
Reeds vele jaren staat het beslissingsproces van de consument centraal in het onderzoek naar
consumentengedrag. Een centraal aspect hierbij betreft de vraag op welke manier
consumenten overgaan tot het nemen van aankoopbeslissingen, aangezien dit meestal gepaard
gaat met onzekerheid en het maken van moeilijke afwegingen. Eén manier om
beslissingsprocessen te bestuderen is het beschouwen van de consument als een volkomen
rationeel wezen dat op elk moment in staat is om coherente en weloverwogen beslissingen te
nemen. Hoewel deze cognitieve benadering haar nut reeds heeft bewezen bij het voorspellen
van het keuzegedrag van de consument, toch slaagt ze er niet in om consumentengedrag
volledig te begrijpen gezien de uitsluitende focus op rationele aspecten alleen. Echter, het
gedrag van consumenten is niet volkomen rationeel. Naast observeerbare attitudes en emoties
die gebaseerd zijn op rationeel denken, wordt menselijk gedrag ook geleid door onbewuste
drijfveren en motivaties die niet direct observeerbaar zijn, net zoals het deel van een ‘ijsberg’
dat zich onder het wateroppervlak bevindt. Om een volledig beeld te krijgen van de manier
waarop consumenten zich gedragen en beslissingen nemen is het dus ook belangrijk om de rol
van deze onbewuste drijfveren en motivaties in beschouwing te nemen.
In deze context van het bestuderen van dieperliggende consumentenmotivaties werd in 1999
een tweedimensionaal model ontworpen door Jan Callebaut en collega’s, bestaande uit acht
motivaties die betrekking hebben op de gewenste einddoelen die mensen trachten te bereiken
door middel van het consumeren van goederen en diensten. Heel wat multinationale
bedrijven maken vandaag de dag gebruik van deze taxonomie als middel voor effectieve
ix
marketing (bv. Coca-Cola, Johnson and Johnson, Heineken, Nokia en Chefaro). Echter,
niettegenstaande deze praktische relevantie, werd de taxonomie van consumentenmotivaties
van Callebaut en collega’s nog nooit wetenschappelijk gevalideerd of getest. Vandaar de
hoofddoelstelling van dit proefschrift om bij te dragen tot de validatie en kritische
doorlichting van dit model in een marketingcontext.
Drie onderzoeksthema’s werden bestudeerd in dit proefschrift om bovenstaande doelstelling
te bereiken. (1) een Taxonomie van Consumentenmotivaties: Cross-Validiteit. Dit eerste
thema werd behandeld in een eerste paper waarin werd gefocust op het meten van
onderliggende consumentenmotivaties aan de hand van een beperkte set van stabiele (i.e.
betrouwbare) impliciete items. In tweede instantie werd de standvastigheid van de
motivationele structuur van Callebaut et al. (1999) vastgesteld doorheen verschillende
culturen en verschillende productcategorieën. (2) een Taxonomie van Consumentenmotivaties:
Construct Validiteit. Om construct validiteit na te gaan werden in dit onderzoeksthema
consumentenmotivaties gecorreleerd met andere aanverwante concepten in de literatuur. In
een tweede paper werden betekenisvolle relaties vastgesteld tussen consumentenmotivaties en
persoonlijke waarden. Een derde paper op zijn beurt nam de relaties tussen
consumentenmotivaties en twee persoonlijkheidskenmerken onder de loep, namelijk
innovativiteit en zelfcontrole. (3) een Taxonomie van Consumentenmotivaties: Praktische
Toepassingen. In het laatste onderzoeksthema hebben we ons gefocust op de praktische
toepassing van de taxonomie van consumentenmotivaties van Callebaut et al. (1999) als een
nieuw segmentatieparadigma in de context van gezondheidsmarketing. In een vierde paper
werd de bruikbaarheid van dit nieuw paradigma aangetoond bij het ontwikkelen van
effectieve reclameboodschappen voor groenten en fruit, terwijl in een vijfde en laatste paper
x
Samenvatting
deze nieuwe benadering getest werd in de context van de consumptie van kant-en-klare
maaltijden.
Samengevat kunnen we stellen dat dit proefschrift een bijdrage levert tot het beter begrijpen
van motivationeel consumentengedrag door uitgebreid onderzoek te doen naar de (1) cross-
validiteit , (2) construct validiteit en (3) de praktische toepassing van de taxonomie van
consumentenmotivaties van Callebaut et al. (1999) die – zoals we zullen aantonen – een
aantal voordelen heeft ten opzichte van wetenschappelijke taxonomieën die reeds vroeger
ontwikkeld werden.
xi
Summary
For many years, human decision making has been the nexus of the study of consumer
behavior. The major question concerning consumer choice involves how consumers deal
with the decisions they have to make, some of which imply difficult trade-offs and
uncertainties. One approach to studying consumer decisions seem to capture the essence of a
well-educated and rational consumer who seeks information upon which to base consumption
decisions. Though such a cognitive approach has contributed greatly to the prediction of
consumer decisions, it suffers from the fact that it provides an incomplete understanding of
consumers’ actual decision making, given its focus on consumer rationality alone. However,
consumer behavior is not truly rational. Besides observable attitudes and emotions that are
based on logical reason, the human mind also comprises unconscious feelings and emotions,
motivations, urges and needs that are hidden below the observable level, just like the
submerged part of an iceberg. Hence, to arrive at a more complete understanding and
comprehensive description of the behavior of consumers in the marketplace, it is
advantageous to also take into account the role of these unconscious drives and motivations in
consumer decision making.
In the realm of the study of underlying consumer motives, in 1999 a two-dimensional
motivational framework was developed by Jan Callebaut and colleagues, consisting of eight
consumer motives, i.e. desirable end-states that people seek to attain through consumption.
Recently, this framework has been used worldwide by a dozen of prominent multinational
companies to position, reposition or communicate new and existing brands (e.g. Coca-Cola,
xiii
Johnson and Johnson, Heineken, Nokia and Chefaro). However, notwithstanding this
practical relevance, the consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut and colleagues has never
been scientifically validated or tested. Hence, the main purpose of the present dissertation
was to contribute to the validation and critical assessment of this motivational framework in a
marketing context.
To meet this purpose, three broad research themes were focused upon in the current work.
(1) a Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Cross-Validity. In the first paper we focused on the
measurement of underlying consumer motives by a set of stable (i.e. reliable) unidimensional
implicit items and, in addition, we confirmed the robustness of the motive structure of
Callebaut et al. (1999) across different cultures and different product categories. (2) a
Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Construct Validity. To test for construct validity, in this
research theme we correlated consumer motives with other related concepts in literature. In a
second paper meaningful relationships were detected between consumer motives and personal
values. A third paper focused on the relationships between consumer motives and two
distinct personality traits, i.e. consumer innovativeness and self-control. (3) a Taxonomy of
Consumer Motives: Practical Applications. In the last research theme we focused on the
practical application of the consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) as a new
segmentation paradigm in the context of health marketing. In a fourth paper the usefulness of
this new segmentation approach was demonstrated in the process of developing appropriate
fruit and vegetable health advertisements, whereas in a fifth and last paper, clear implications
were shown in the context of ready meal consumption behavior.
In sum, we may conclude that the present dissertation aimed to contribute to a better
understanding of motivational consumer behavior by extensively investigating (1) cross-
xiv
Summary
validity, (2) construct validity, and (3) the practical application of Callebaut et al.’s (1999)
comprehensive framework of consumer motives that – as will be shown – has a number of
advantages over previous attempts at organizing the motivational domain.
xv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1
Chapter I
Introduction
1. Scientific orientation
Choices of consumers concerning the selection, consumption and disposal of products and
services can often be difficult and are of importance to the consumer himself, but also to
marketers and policy makers. As a result, human decision making has been the nexus of the
study of consumer behavior yet for many years (e.g. Howard and Sheth, 1969; Engel et al.,
1973; Nicosia, 1966; Bettman et al., 1998). Consideration of current marketplace trends
indicates that this topic will continue to be critically important in the years to come. For
instance, rapid technological change has led to multitudes of new products and decreased
product lifetimes, whereas new communications media such as the World Wide Web have
made enormous amounts of information on options potentially available (e.g. Alba et al.,
1997).
The major question concerning consumer choice involves how consumers deal with the
decisions they have to make, some of which imply difficult trade-offs and uncertainties. One
approach to studying consumer decisions can be attributed to theoretical economics and is
called ‘rational choice theory’ (e.g. Hansen, 1972). Within this approach the consumer is
portrayed as a homo economicus – that is, one who is fully informed and makes perfect
rational decisions based on an economic evaluation of costs and benefits (e.g. Schiffman and
Kanuk, 1983). In contrast to this rational choice model, an alternative ‘information-
3
processing model’ more realistically portrays the consumer as unlikely to be fully informed
about all available choice alternatives. Instead, the consumer is assumed to possess a limited
capacity for processing information, with information-seeking efforts being likely to cease
when, what is perceived to be a sufficient amount of information, is obtained concerning
some of the alternatives, i.e. enough information to enable a satisfactory decision to be made
(e.g. Bettman, 1979).
Both the above models of rational choice and information-processing seem to capture the
essence of a well-educated and involved consumer who seeks information upon which to base
consumption decisions. Though such a cognitive approach has contributed greatly to the
prediction of consumer decisions, it suffers from the fact that it provides an incomplete
understanding of consumers’ actual decision making, given its focus on consumer rationality
alone. However, as mentioned by several authors, consumer behavior is not truly rational (e.g.
Etzioni, 1986; Katona, 1975; Morgan, 1980; Pribam, 1983; Cherian and Harris, 1989).
Besides observable attitudes and emotions that are based on logical reason, the human mind
also comprises unconscious feelings and emotions, motivations, urges and needs that are
hidden below the observable level, just like the submerged part of an iceberg (Wilson, 2002;
Zaltman, 2003; Van Raaij and Ye, 2005). Hence, to arrive at a more complete understanding
and comprehensive description of the behavior of consumers in the marketplace, it is
advantageous to also take into account the role of these unconscious drives and motivations in
consumer decision making (e.g. Pham, 1998; Pham et al., 2001; Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999;
Shapiro, 1999; Loewenstein, 2001; Bargh, 2002; Shiv et al., 2005).
The key to determining the correct questions to ask in the context of motivational consumer
behavior is motivational market research. Though in early years, the term motivational
4
Chapter I : Introduction
research was generally used to refer to qualitative research designed to uncover the
consumer’s underlying or hidden motivations (e.g. Dichter, 1960), in the context of the
present dissertation, all types of research – also quantitative – should be included devoted to
the study of human motives. Operating on the premise that consumers are not always fully
aware of the basic reasons for their actions, motivational research attempts to discover these
unconscious motives for consumer behavior. Rather than solely being interested in the what
of consumer purchase decisions, motivational researchers are more concerned about the why
of product, service or brand usage (e.g. Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994). It is within the latter
area of studying product-specific consumer motives that the present dissertation aims to
deliver a valuable contribution.
2. Research objectives
Subject of research within the present dissertation is a psychological taxonomy of consumer
motives, initially developed by Callebaut et al. (1999). Consumer motives can be defined as
desirable end-states that people seek to attain through consumption. Based on the insights of
depth psychology, Callebaut et al. (1999) propose a framework of eight consumer motives, i.e.
Vitality, Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control, Recognition and Power. These
eight motive orientations can be organized into a circumplex structure, determined by two
basic, bipolar dimensions, which respectively represent an intrapersonal and interpersonal
motive axis. All these motivational states can be considered as stable dispositions that are
present within every individual and become aroused by a particular product environment.
Given its domain-specific nature, Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy can be positioned as a
useful instrument to understand how consumer motives work in a brand category context.
5
Once aroused, the particular consumer motives that are manifest in a given product context
are likely to elicit some kind of motive-directed behavior.
Recently, Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy has been used worldwide by a dozen of
prominent multinational companies to position, reposition or communicate new and existing
brands. For instance, on the basis of this taxonomy, Coca-Cola launched an exotic energy
drink called Nalu in 2003; Johnson and Johnson repositioned the shampoo brand Nizoral; and
Heineken brewery pre-tested new beer commercials. Also Nokia used the taxonomy to
evaluate the possibility of building a global brand platform based on the universally
underlying consumer motives in mobile phone consumption and the pharmaceutical company
Chefaro to launch their vitamin product DAVIDAMON. However, notwithstanding this
practical relevance, the consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) has never been
scientifically validated or tested. Hence, the main purpose of the present dissertation is to
contribute to the validation and critical assessment of the latter motivational framework in a
marketing context. More specifically, we try to meet this purpose by focusing on three broad
research objectives, i.e. (1) cross-validation, (2) construct validation, and (3) the practical
application of the taxonomy of consumer motives of Callebaut et al. (1999). Accordingly, the
studies in this dissertation are organized among these three themes: (1) a Taxonomy of
Consumer Motives: Cross-Validity, (2) a Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Construct
Validity, and (3) a Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Practical Applications (cf. infra).
3. Overview of the studies
The present dissertation comprises three major units. In the first unit (Chapter II) we briefly
review some existing literature about consumer motives, including the key conceptual
6
definitions and an overview of the most influential motivational theories and frameworks.
The second unit is a bundling of five research papers, organized among three themes: (1) a
Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Cross-Validity (Chapter III), (2) a Taxonomy of Consumer
Motives: Construct Validity (Chapter IV & Chapter V), and (3) a Taxonomy of Consumer
Motives: Practical Applications (Chapter VI & Chapter VII). We must remark that in this
second unit some overlap may exist, also with the first unit (Chapter II), as each chapter is the
full account of an independent paper containing its own limited literature review which
situates the particular research within its specific context. Finally, in the third unit of this
dissertation (Chapter VIII), per research theme, the findings of our studies are recapitulated
and discussed, theoretical, methodological and managerial implications are provided and
limitations and directions for future research are outlined.
3.1. A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Cross-Validity
In Chapter III we aim at empirically validating the circumplex consumer motive taxonomy of
Callebaut et al. (1999), based on respondents’ valence ratings of a list of preferred brand
personality traits. As personality traits associated with a preferred brand can be considered as
expressions of desired human personality dimensions (e.g. Keller, 1993) and, in addition,
desired human personality traits are likely to be function of underlying motives (e.g. Winter et
al., 1998), preferred brand personality traits are prone to channel the behavioral expression of
these underlying motives. Hence, in our research, consumer motives are measured in a
standardized way by a set of 34 preferred brand personality items. More specifically, using
the technique of INDSCAL, the objective in Chapter III is to investigate if a consistent and
replicable structure exists underlying the concept of preferred brand personality, and whether
this structure can be reformulated in terms of the taxonomy of consumer motives of Callebaut
7
et al. (1999). General research conclusions are based on the results of empirical studies
conducted in 11 different countries and among brands from four different product categories.
3.2. A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Construct Validity
As the issue of construct validity is generally acknowledged as a vital part of the process of
theory testing nowadays (e.g. Smith, 2005), in the second research part of the present
dissertation, we empirically test for construct validity, i.e. convergent and discriminant
validity by correlating consumer motives with other related concepts in literature, i.e.
respectively personal values (Chapter IV) and human personality traits (Chapter V). In the
two sections that follow we provide an overview of the research papers that were written
regarding these topics.
3.2.1. Consumer Motives & Personal Values
In Chapter IV we reconsider the relationship between consumer motives and personal values,
based on both an alternative implicit method of motive assessment and a non-student subject
sample. As methodological problems are posited as one of the most obvious reasons for the
lack of empirical correlations between motives and values (e.g. Brunstein and Schmitt, 2004),
we suggest that motive-value correlations might become more substantial by increasing
method congruence between implicit motive assessments and direct value measures and by
allowing more middle-aged subjects to participate in the study instead of young adults.
Specific hypotheses are developed regarding the proposed relationships between consumer
motives and values. To empirically test these hypotheses simple Pearson correlations and a
8
multiple regression analysis are applied. Conclusions are based on information from a sample
of 178 respondents collected through a random walk method.
3.2.2. Consumer Motives & Personality Traits
In the realm of the application of contingency models in personality research (e.g. Dickson,
1982), in Chapter V we investigate the impact of underlying consumer motives on the
relationship between personality traits and several aspects of consumer behavior. In a first
study the trait consumer innovativeness is considered and its link with new-product adoption
behavior, whereas in a second study the focus is set on the relationship between dispositional
self-control and disciplined driving behavior. In addition to detecting meaningful
relationships between consumer motives and the traits innovativeness and self-control
respectively, the main objective in Chapter V is to provide basic support for the proposition
that actual behavioral outcomes of human personality traits are dependent on the alignment
with the particular consumer motives that are active within a given product context. By doing
so, we aim at extending previous work on the role of intervening variables in personality
research, by also demonstrating the impact of person-related variables, i.e. one’s underlying
motive dispositions on trait-behavior relationships, beyond the impact of situational factors as
is considered by most previous authors.
3.3. A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives: Practical Applications
In the final research part of the present dissertation we focus on the practical application of
the consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) as a new segmentation paradigm in
the context of health marketing. In Chapter VI the usefulness of this new segmentation
9
approach is demonstrated in the process of developing appropriate fruit and vegetable health
advertisements, whereas in Chapter VII clear implications are shown in the context of ready
meal consumption behavior.
3.3.1. Consumer Motives & Health Advertising
Based on the interpretation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives in the
context of health motivation, in Chapter VI, a heterogeneous health audience (N= 615) is
segmented according to the audience members’ health-related motive orientations, i.e.
relatively enduring beliefs that people hold about the fundamental meaning of health. After
identifying consumer segments with different health-related motive orientations and assessing
differences in fruit and vegetable consumption patterns among these segments, our major aim
is to explore the effectiveness of different health advertisements to motivate each of the
segments to behave healthier, i.e. increasing fruit and vegetable intake. In general, we expect
a segment’s reactions toward appropriate motive-related health advertising to be fairly more
positive than its reactions toward health advertising that is not responsive to that segment’s
underlying motives. Based on the findings in Chapter VI some practical suggestions and
recommendations are offered for health communicators to use when developing motive-
related health advertisements to audiences with different health-related motive orientations.
3.3.2. Consumer Motives & Ready Meal Consumption Behavior
In Chapter VII we extend our previous work on motive-related audience segmentation, by
investigating how different health-related motive orientations influence people’s ways of
dealing with convenience-related food solutions, i.e. ready meals. Again, distinct consumer
10
segments are identified with different health-related motive orientations. Using (M)ANOVA,
a series of behavioral propositions are tested regarding the differences among the segments in
both general food behavior patterns and ready meal consumption patterns. Based on the
insights stemming from this analysis guidelines are provided for improving consumer-
oriented product development, positioning and marketing of products belonging to the
category of ready meals. Comprehensive positioning strategies are suggested, that go beyond
convenience-related aspects and also take into account psychological health-related motive
orientations of the target audience.
11
References
Alba, J.W., Lynch, J.G., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R.J., Sawyer, A.G., & Wood, S.L.
(1997). Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer and manufacturer incentives to
participate in electronic market places. Journal of Marketing, 61(july), 38-53.
Bargh, J.A. (2002). Losing consciousness: automatic influences on consumer judgment,
behavior and motivation. Journal of Consumer research, 29, 280-285.
Bettman, J.R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., & Payne, J.W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217.
Brunstein, J.C., & Schmitt, C.H. (2004). Assessing individual differences in achievement
motivation with the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
536-555.
Callebaut, J., Janssens, M., Op de Beeck, D., Lorré, D., & Hendrickx, H. (1999).
Motivational marketing research revisited. Leuven-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Cherian, J., & Harris, B. (1989). Capricious consumption and the social brain theory: why
consumers seem purposive even in the absence of purpose. Advances in Consumer
Research, 17, 745-749.
Dichter, E. (1960). A strategy of desire. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Dickson, P.R. (1982). Person-situation: segmentation’s missing link. Journal of Marketing,
46, 56-64.
Engel, J.F., Kollat, D.T., & Blackwell, R.D. (1973). Consumer Behavior (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Etzioni, A. (1986). Rationality is anti-entropic. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 17-36.
12
Foxall, G.R., & Goldsmith, R.E. (1994). Consumer psychology for marketing. London-New
York: Routledge.
Hansen, F. (1972). Consumer choice behavior: a cognitive theory. New York: Free Press.
Howard, J.A., & Sheth, J.N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Katona, G. (1975). Psychological Economics. New York: Elsevier.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of marketing, 57 (jan), 1-22.
Loewenstein, G. (2001). The creative destruction of decision research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(3), 499-505.
Morgan, J.N. (1980). A realistic economics of the consumer requires some psychology. In
G. Katona (Ed.), Essays on behavioral economics. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social research.
Nicosia, F.M. (1966). Consumer decision processes: marketing and advertising implications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pham, M.T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance and the use of feelings in decision
making. Journal of Consumer research, 25, 144-160.
Pham, M.T., Cohen, J.B., Prajecus, J.W., & Hughes, D.G. (2001). Affect monitoring and the
primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 167-188.
Pribam, K. (1983). A history of economic reasoning. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins
University Press.
Schiffman, L.G., & Kanuk, L.L. (1983). Consumer behavior (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13
Shapiro, S. (1999). When an ad’s influence is beyond our conscious control: perceptual and
conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure. Journal of Consumer
Research, 26, 16-36.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278-292.
Shiv, B., Fedorikhin, A., & Nowlis, S.M. (2005). Interplay of the heart and the mind in
decision-making. In S. Ratneshwar, & D.G. Mick (Eds.), Inside Consumption:
consumer motives, goals and desires (p. 166-183). London/ New York: Routledge.
Smith, G.T. (2005). On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychological
Assessment, 17(4), 396-408.
Van Raaij, W.F., & Ye, G. (2005). Conscious and unconscious processing in consumer
motives, goals and desires. In S. Ratneshwar, & D.G. Mick (Eds.), Inside
Consumption: consumer motives, goals and desires (p. 330-339). London/ New York:
Routledge.
Wilson, T.D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
Winter, D.G., John, O.P., Stewart, A.J., Klohnen, E.C., & Duncan, L.E. (1998). Traits and
motives: toward an integration of two traditions in personality research.
Psychological Review, 105(2), 230-250.
Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think: essential insights into the mind of the market.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14
CHAPTER II
CONSUMER MOTIVES
LITERATURE REVIEW
15
Chapter II
Consumer Motives – Literature Review
1. Introduction
When we notice the world around us, it is obvious that people are different. They seek
different pleasures, have different tastes and preferences, and spend their money in different
ways. However, this apparent diversity in human behavior often causes us to overlook the
fact that people are really very much alike. There are underlying similarities that tend to
operate across many types of people and which serve to explain and to clarify their
consumption behavior (e.g. Sheth et al., 1999). Psychologists and consumer researchers agree
that basically most people experience the same kinds of needs and motives; they simply
express these underlying motives in different ways (e.g. Schiffman and Kanuk, 1983;
Callebaut et al., 2002). Hence, a thorough understanding of consumer motives is very
important to marketers as it gives them the opportunity to understand, and even anticipate,
human behavior in the marketplace.
In this chapter we briefly discuss some of the existing literature concerning consumer motives,
with no intention to give an exhaustive overview. Rather, our aim is to provide the reader of
the present dissertation with a basic theoretical framework, which enables him to understand
and put in perspective the next chapters. Hence, we start this literature review with a
definition of the concept of consumer motives and shed some light on its relatedness with
other concepts in literature such as goals, values and human personality traits. Next, we focus
17
on the hierarchical organization of consumer motive structures and we provide an overview of
some important motivational theories and frameworks. In addition, attention is paid to some
traditional techniques to assess consumer motives and to the limitations of these techniques.
Finally, we end up with some general conclusions based on the theoretical insights that were
acquired.
2. Consumer motives
2.1. Concept definition
As in the next chapters consumer motives will be referred to as desirable end-states that
people seek to attain through consumption, an appropriate formal definition of the concept
can be retained from the work of McClelland (1985; 1987). According to this author,
consumer motives can be considered as recurrent concerns for the attainment of affectively
charged incentives, such as having impact on others (i.e. the power motive; Winter, 1973),
establishing and maintaining meaningful relationships with others (i.e. the affiliation and
intimacy motives; Atkinson et al., 1958; McAdams and Powers, 1981), and doing something
better (i.e. the achievement motive; McClelland et al., 1953). Motives are based on emotional
learning and they develop early in life – primarily by nonverbal means – although they may
change with regard to their strength and the maturity of their behavioral expression during a
person’s life course (e.g. McAdams, 1988; McClelland, 1958; 1987; McClelland and Pilon,
1983). They are triggered automatically by environmental cues that signal the availability of
a rewarding affective state. This gives rise to an anticipatory motivational state that energizes,
selects, and orients a person’s behavior toward the attainment of the desired end-state (e.g.
Weinberger and McClelland, 1990; Mowen and Minor, 1997). Because a person’s motives
18
Chapter II : Consumer Motives – Literature Review
are supposed to operate largely unconsciously, it may be difficult to measure them through
direct observations. Rather, it is recommended by McClelland (1980) to assess the strength of
consumer motives indirectly by analyzing the contents of fantasy stories individuals produce
in response to picture cues similar to Murray’s (1943) Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (cf.
infra).
From the definition of consumer motives we know that the concept pertains to the human
disposition to be concerned with and to strive for certain classes of desired end-states.
However, to fully understand the nature of consumer motives, an attempt should be made to
clarify the links with other related concepts such as goals, values and human personality traits.
In the next section we will briefly discuss the prevailing relationships between consumer
motives and these three concepts.
2.2. Relationship with other concepts
2.2.1. Consumer Motives & Goals
Although consumer motives may energize, select, and organize human behavior over
extended periods of time, they do not determine the specific ways in which a person satisfies
his or her underlying motives, nor do they directly refer to the development and use of
strategies and plans necessary to achieve these desired outcomes (e.g. Cantor and Blanton,
1996). Rather, as suggested by several motivational theorists (e.g. Emmons, 1986; Little,
1983; Cantor and Kihlstrom, 1987), individuals actively construe and choose a number of
personally meaningful goals in order to meet their motives and to link them to the execution
of goal-directed activities. Accordingly, personal goals could be considered as individualized
19
and cognitively elaborated representations of an individual’s implicit motives (e.g. Emmons
and King, 1992; Nuttin, 1984; Wurf and Markus, 1991). Notably, however, findings obtained
from several studies indicate that there is only slight (e.g. Emmons and McAdams, 1991) or
no empirical correspondence between people’s motives and their goals (e.g. Brunstein et al.,
1995; King, 1995). Based on these insights, some authors have posited that motives and goals
may constitute two distinctive modes of motivational functioning (e.g. Winter, 1996; Cantor
and Blanton, 1996; McClelland et al., 1989). According to these authors, individuals high in
a certain type of motive can, but need not, be involved to the same extent in the pursuit of
motive-congruent goals. Rather, in addition to pursuing goals in line with their motive
dispositions, individuals may also be frequently involved in the pursuit of goals that do not fit
their underlying motives (e.g. Brunstein et al., 1998).
2.2.2. Consumer Motives & Values
Similar to personal goals, an individual’s value priorities could also be considered as
cognitive instantiations of his or her underlying motives (e.g. Bilsky and Schwartz, 1994;
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987). However, whereas personal goals are closely related to the
behavioral implementation of motive-related plans and activities, human values in their turn
refer to more abstract beliefs about preferred ways of acting or being, which serve as guiding
principles in the life of a person or other social entity (e.g. Costa and McCrae, 2001).
Another important distinction between goals and values as cognitive representations of
underlying motives is that the former correspond to the objectives of the individual himself,
whereas the latter are much more influenced by cultural norms and standards (e.g. Blackwell
et al., 2001). With regard to the empirical relationships between consumer motives and
values, few significant correlations could be detected between TAT-type measures of motives
20
and direct self-report measures of values (e.g. Biernat, 1989; Veroff and Smith, 1985). Hence,
according to McClelland et al. (1989), a distinction should be made between two independent
motivational systems, i.e. an emotion-driven implicit system that is constituted by non-
conscious motives versus a cognition based explicit system constituted by more conscious
goals and values.
2.2.3. Consumer Motives & Personality traits
According to different authors, different links exist between traits (i.e. who people are) and
motives (i.e. what people strive for in their lives) (e.g. Pervin, 1994). In one approach,
consumer motives are assumed to be predicted by personality traits (e.g. Cantor, 1990;
Stagner, 1994; Olver and Mooradian, 2003; Roberts et al., 2004). However, in literature,
stronger evidence is provided for the existence of a reverse causal relationship, in which
motives are assumed to underlie traits (e.g. Borkenau, 1990; Fleeson et al., 1995; Austin and
Vancouver, 1996; Snyder and Omoto, 1992). In this second approach, human personality
traits are conceptualized as motive-based concepts (e.g. Barsalou, 1985; Read et al., 1990),
which direct the ways in which these underlying motives are expressed (e.g. Winter et al.,
1998). Hence, based on the latter conceptualization, personality traits could be considered as
a function of intrinsic motives (e.g. Read and Lalwani, 2000). Basically, this reasoning
appears to be quite the opposite of the first mentioned approach which suggests that motives
modify the expression of underlying traits (e.g. Stagner, 1994).
21
3. Consumer motive structures
As inherent in our previous discussion of the relationship between goals and motives, the
consumer motive domain can be thought of at many different levels, ranging from fairly
abstract motives to more specific personal goals and corresponding behavioral plans that
individuals choose to meet these motives. The most common way to represent the structural
interrelations between these motives, goals and plans is to organize them into a hierarchical
structure (e.g. Bettman, 1979; Pieters et al., 1995; Austin and Vancouver, 1996; Huffman et
al., 2000), quite similar to the notion of means-end chain structures of consumers’ product
knowledge (e.g. Gutman, 1982; Olson and Reynolds, 1983). As mentioned, at the most
abstract level of the hierarchy a relatively small set of basic needs or motives can be placed
that regulate behavior. From this level, consumer motive structures can be broken down into
a series of increasingly more concrete goals and sub-goals, plans and sub-plans which have to
be attained in order to reach the goals and motives at higher, i.e. more abstract hierarchical
levels (e.g. Bandura, 1989; Beach, 1990; Carver and Scheier, 1981; Emmons, 1989; Vallacher
and Wegner, 1985). Hence, goals and plans at lower levels in the hierarchy serve as means to
achieve higher-level goals and motives as ends, and thus, consumer motive structures can be
thought of as a means-end structure of sequences of lower and higher-level goals (e.g. Newell
and Simon, 1972; King et al., 1998).
Though most researchers have adopted the view of a hierarchical organization of goals and
motives, a number of different terminologies have been used to specify the different levels in
the hierarchy. For instance, Carver and Scheier (1981) distinguish between the program, the
principle, and the system level, in increasing order of abstractness, whereas Gutman (1997)
and Heckenhausen and Kuhl (1985) propose a hierarchical structure comprised of action,
22
outcome and consequence goals. In their turn, Harackiewicz and Elliot (1998) use the terms
target and purpose goals to refer to lower and higher-level goals respectively. Despite these
different names for the various levels, most authors agree that consumer motive structures can
be best represented by means of a three-tiered hierarchy (e.g. Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999;
Pieters, 1993; Carver and Scheier, 1996; Vallacher and Wegner, 1985). At the center of this
hierarchy the focal goal can be located, which answers the question: “What is it for which I
strive?”. Sub-ordinate goals constitute the means of achieving the focal goal and answer the
question: “How can I achieve that for which I strive?”. At the top of the hierarchy are super-
ordinate goals, i.e. consumer motives, which deal with the question: “Why do I want to
achieve that for which I strive?”
Regarding the empirical assessment of these three-tiered consumer motive structures,
Reynolds and Gutman’s (1988) ‘laddering’ technique (cf. infra) has been proposed as the
most appropriate method to elicit and analyze sequences of linked sub-ordinate and super-
ordinate goals (e.g. Pieters et al., 1995). Starting the laddering procedure at the focal goal
level, i.e. a particular behavior identified by the consumer (e.g. losing weight), consumer
motive structures at the super-ordinate level can be derived by repeatedly asking the question:
“Why is this behavior important to you?”. In a similar vein, it can be proposed that repeated
questions of the form: “How are you planning to accomplish this behavior?” will be helpful in
uncovering sequences of increasingly more sub-ordinate goals below the basic level.
23
4. Motivational theories
Though general agreement exists that the consumer motive domain is organized hierarchically,
fewer consensuses have been reached concerning the nature and number of human motives.
Because of the messiness and diversity of consumer motives and desires, scholars have been
reluctant to conceptualize them in a comprehensive way (e.g. Richins, 2005). Nonetheless,
several fair attempts have been made to classify consumer motives into a limited number of
content domains. While these developed taxonomies are not in complete agreement with each
other and none of them has proved entirely satisfactory to the field, they offer useful starting
points and can serve as valuable resources for consumer behavior researchers interested in
understanding the what and why of consumer motivation. In what follows, we briefly review
several theories of motivation, including the most important classic motivational frameworks
as well as some more recently developed taxonomies.
4.1. Classic theories of motivation
4.1.1. Freud’s concept of drives
According to Freud (1933; 1990), human behavior is motivated primarily by internal,
biological instincts or drives originating in the Id, i.e. the oldest and unconscious part of the
human psyche. Emotional and illogical, the Id functions on the Pleasure Principle by which it
seeks to minimize pain and to maximize immediate gratification. Basically, two broad
categories of instincts are incorporated in the Id: life instincts which are embodied in the
human sexual drive and death instincts embodied in the human drive for aggression (e.g.
Reeve, 1992; Graftdijk, 1986; Walters and Bergiel, 1989). In an unrestricted way, these
24
biological instincts would inspire people to perform wanton and utterly self-serving behaviors.
However, the operation of the Id is constrained and moderated by two additional forces
incorporated in the human mind, called the Ego and the Superego. The Ego represents the
conscious mind and it is composed of individual perceptions, thoughts, memories and feelings.
Driven by the Reality Principle, the Ego mainly encourages realistic and reasonable thoughts
and actions and, as a result, it channels the urges of the Id into socially acceptable patterns of
behavior. The Superego comprises the third component of the mind and it represents the
traditional ideas and values of the society. As it is guided by the Morality Principle, the
Superego can be considered as a sort of socially defined conscience, which in particular
attempts to compel the ego to pursue goals that match the morality dictated by society and
culture (e.g. Gellner, 1985).
Based on this tripartite framework of human personality, Freud basically assumed three
wellsprings of motivation: biological forces (represented by the Id), societal forces
(represented by the Superego), and human consciousness (represented by the Ego).
Especially the interplay between these three forces can be considered as the foundation for
explaining human motivations and needs, given its direct influence on overt (consumer)
behavior (e.g. Arnould et al., 2004). In the 1950s Freud’s set of doctrines was introduced to
marketing practice under the name of Motivation Research (e.g. Dichter, 1960). The key
feature of his theories that influenced this school of thought was the role of unconscious
wishes and desires in shaping behavior. Much of human behavior was seen as the result of
unconscious efforts to control inner drives for sex, hunger and aggression. Hence, products
and brands were interpreted in appropriate symbolic terms and related to these unconscious
desires of consumers (e.g. Solomon, 1992; Harrell, 1986).
25
Despite the importance of Freud’s major personality theory to the study of consumer behavior,
not all psychologists are sympathetic toward Freud. For instance, some opponents have
criticized the original, clinical psychoanalytic basis of his work (e.g. Popper, 1986; Colby,
1960), while others argued that Freud’s theory is lacking empirical validation and evidence
(e.g. Grünbaum, 1986; Eysenck, 1986). However, notwithstanding these criticisms, Freud’s
primary thoughts and insights have inspired many motivational researchers after him to
develop their own motivational theories and frameworks. In the next sections, an overview is
provided of the theories of three influential followers of Sigmund Freud, i.e. Carl Jung,
Abraham Maslow and Henry Murray respectively.
4.1.2. Jung’s concept of archetypes
Similar to Freud, Carl Gustav Jung focused on the role of the unconscious as a fundamental
driver of human motivation. However, Jung’s understanding of the unconscious was much
subtler than Freud’s, as the former author subdivided the concept into the personal
unconscious and the collective unconscious (e.g. Jung et al., 1964). The personal
unconscious holds previously conscious experiences that have been repressed, forgotten,
suppressed or ignored. Although stored in the unconscious, these experiences can become
conscious in the form of intuitions or similar inexplicable urges. The concept of the collective
unconscious comprises the most important part of Jung’s ideas about human motivation.
According to Jung et al. (1964) the collective unconscious is a storehouse of latent memory
traces inherited from the human ancestral past. Jung refers to this inherited material as
archetypes, i.e. universal prototypes for ideas that are acquired by humanity’s ancestry and
may be used to interpret observations. In particular, three universal symbols seem to be
26
important in Jung’s theory, i.e. the self1, the great mother2, and the hero3. In their most basic
forms, these archetypes are likely to motivate humans to react to the world in a selective
fashion (e.g. Meyers, 1998).
Jung’s approach is important for marketing practice because it provides marketers a way to
explore myths, images, and symbols. In turn, these myths and symbols can be the building
blocks for creating effective marketing phenomena, such as advertisements and promotions.
Following Jung’s analysis, advertising can operate on the unconscious mind and create strong
impressions by appealing to universal archetypes, stored in the collective unconscious of
consumer memory (e.g. Arnould et al., 2004).
4.1.3. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
The most popular and well-known approach to human motivation is based on the research of
the psychologist Abraham Maslow (1943; 1970). After some twenty years of clinical practice,
Maslow presented the idea that there is a hierarchy of needs in man (see Figure 2.1), ranging
from the lower-order physiological drives (e.g. thirst, hunger and rest), through safety needs
(e.g. shelter, protection and security) and affective needs (e.g. affection, friendship, love and
acceptance), to the higher-order needs for self-esteem (e.g. prestige, success and
accomplishment) and self-actualization (e.g. self-fulfillment and enriching experiences). The
lower-level needs are considered to dominate the higher-level needs. That is, consumers must
satisfy lower-level needs first, before they begin to pursue higher-order needs. According to
Maslow (1943; 1970) the highest level of need is related to self-actualization, i.e. the desire
to live up one’s full potential and to maximize the use of skills and abilities. However, this
1
The ‘self’ refers to the idea of the coherent whole, the unified consciousness and unconscious of a person.
2
The ‘great mother’ refers to the idea of a nature goddess, comprising the themes of nature and motherly care.
3
The ‘hero’ refers to what is good and noble in society, the one who sacrifices the self for the greater good.
27
need for self-actualization only becomes activated if all four of the lower-level needs have
already been satisfied.
Figure 2.1 : Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs
Self- Actualization
e.g. self-fulfillment,
enriching experiences
Self-esteem
e.g. prestige, success,
accomplishment
Affective needs
e.g. affection, friendship, love and
acceptance
Safety needs
e.g. shelter, protection and security
Physiological drives
e.g. thirst, hunger and rest
Source : Adapted from Abraham H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation, “ Psychological
Review, 50 (1943), 370-396
There are many criticisms of Maslow’s theory. At one level, critics question the hierarchical
organization of the basic need taxonomy, as many examples exists in which it seems as if
higher-level needs won out over basic needs (e.g. Ger, 1997). In addition, Maslow’s concepts
are considered as too general. To say that hunger and self-esteem are similar, in that both are
needs, is to neglect the urgent, involuntary nature of the former and the largely conscious,
voluntary nature of the latter. However, the major problem with Maslow’s theory is that there
is little empirical and theoretical evidence to support its basic assumptions (e.g. Drenth et al.,
1984). Finally, the need hierarchy also appears to be culture and time bound as it is very
closely related to the basic needs of contemporary American people (e.g. Nevis, 1983).
28
Despite these criticisms, Maslow’s need hierarchy has received wide acceptance in many
social disciplines as it provides a useful tool for understanding human motivation. In addition,
this basic taxonomy can also be useful for marketing practitioners who are interested in
understanding the basic needs of their customers. More specifically, Maslow’s list of needs
can serve as key input for product design and appropriate ad campaigns can be developed that
appeal to one or more of the needs represented in Maslow’s hierarchy (e.g. Arnould et al.,
2004; Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994).
4.1.4. Murray’s list of human needs
In 1938 psychologist Henry Murray prepared a detailed list of twenty-eight psychogenic
needs, which have served as the basic constructs for a number of widely used personality tests,
such as the Thematic Apperception Technique and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(e.g. Murray, 1938). Murray believed that everyone has the same basic set of needs, but that
individuals differ in their priority ranking of these needs. The basic needs of Murray include
many motives that are assumed to play an important role in consumer behavior, such as
acquisition, achievement, recognition and exhibition. In Table 2.1 an overview is provided of
Murray’s (1938; 1955) whole list of human needs.
A major criticism of the work of Murray is that it is just a lengthy inventory of needs, and
therefore, this list is difficult and impractical for marketers to use. As was the case for the
aforementioned need hierarchy of Abraham Maslow, Murray’s need inventory lacks both
empirical and theoretical evidence and, in addition, the theory does not necessarily apply
outside the American society where it was developed (e.g. Suarez-Orozco, 1989).
Nevertheless, as Murray’s list of human motives is so comprehensive, it has been considered
29
as an important instrument for use when thinking about human motivation from a cross-
cultural perspective (e.g. Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
Table 2.1 : Murray’s List of Human Needs
Needs Associated with Inanimate Objects

Acquisition
Conservance
Order
Retention
Construction
Needs That Reflect Ambition, Power, Accomplishment, and Prestige
Superiority
Achievement
Recognition
Exhibition
Inviolacy (inviolate attitude)
Infavoidance (to avoid shame, failure, humiliation, ridicule)
Defendance (defensive attitude)
Counteraction (counteractive attitude)
Needs Concerned with Human Power
Dominance
Deference
Similance (suggestible attitude)
Autonomy
Contrarience (to act differently from others)
Sado-Masochistic Needs
Aggression
Abasement
Needs Concerned with Inhibition
Blamavoidance (to avoid blame)
Needs Concerned with Affection between People
Affiliation
Rejection
Nurturance (to nourish, aid, or protect the helpless)
Succorance (to seek aid, protection, or sympathy)
Play
Needs Concerned with Social Intercourse (the Needs to Ask and Tell)
Cognizance (inquiring attitude)
Exposition (expositive attitude)
Source : Adapted from Henry A. Murray, “Types of Human Needs,” in David C. McClelland, Studies in
Motivation (New York : Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1955)
30
4.2. Recent taxonomies
4.2.1. A trio of needs
Several psychologists have written extensively on the existence of a trio of basic needs: the
needs for power (nPow), for affiliation (nAff), and for achievement (nAch) (e.g. McClelland,
1961; 1985; Tauber, 1972; Dweck, 1986; Ames, 1992; Urdan and Maehr, 1995; Ryan and
Deci, 2000; Thompson et al., 2001). These needs can each be subsumed in prior motivational
classifications, such as the basic need inventories of Maslow and Murray (cf. supra); however,
considered individually, they each have a unique relevance to consumer motivation.
The need for power refers to an individual’s desire to control his or her environment. It
includes the need to impact other people, to feel superior or to be in a position of influence.
This need appears to be closely related to the ego need, in that many individuals experience
increased self-enhancement when they are able to exercise power over objects or people (e.g.
Schmidt and Frieze, 1997; Winter, 1973).
The affiliation motive is defined as the desire to be with people. This need suggests that
individuals’ behavior is highly influenced by the desire for friendship, for acceptance, and for
belonging. People with high affiliation needs tend to have a strong social dependence on
others. They tend to conform to a high extent to the norms and regulations of the in-group to
which they belong (e.g. McAdams and Powers, 1981).
Finally, one of the most studied and talked about motivations is the need for achievement.
The achievement motive can be conceptualized as the desire to experience emotion in
31
connection with evaluated performance. Individuals with a strong need for achievement
regard personal accomplishment as an end in itself. The achievement need is closely related
to the egoistic need, in that satisfaction with a job well done serves to enhance the
individual’s self-esteem (e.g. McClelland, 1961; Veroff, 1982).
Together, these three fundamental needs have been considered as some of the most important
determinants of human motivation (e.g. McClelland, 1985). Accordingly, this trio of needs
has been focused upon by marketing researchers too. For instance, consumers with specific
power, affiliation or achievement-related needs tend to be receptive to advertising appeals
directed to those needs. In addition, they also tend to be receptive to certain kinds of products
or stores (e.g. Landon, 1972; Gardner, 1972; Schewe, 1973). Hence, these needs might be
applied by marketers as additional segmentation bases on which to divide their markets into
smaller, homogeneous subgroups (e.g. Schiffman and Kanuk, 1983).
4.2.2. Wicker et al.’s motive classification
Typical of recent attempts to categorize human motives are Wicker et al.’s (1984) analyses of
goal ratings. These authors generated a list of 46 goals (10 goals were added to that list in a
second study, for a total of 56 goals) and asked subjects to rate the valence of each goal
(‘How much do you want it ?’). The ratings were then subjected to factor analysis and
hierarchical cluster analysis. Factors over all subjects were labeled Interpersonal Concern,
Competitive Ambition, Exploration-Play, Balanced Success, Economic status, and Intellectual
Orientation. Supplementary cluster analyses produced corresponding clusters, as well as
Security, Personal Growth, Transpersonal Orientation, and Tranquility Seeking, arranged in
hierarchies of class inclusion, culminating in a broad goal dichotomy described as Individual
32
Striving versus Harmony Seeking. According to Austin and Vancouver (1996) these broad
classes of goals describe two sides of an optimization problem, i.e. seeking to meet all the
criteria and seeking to balance the criteria. Kuhl (1994) distinguished these processes as self-
control, in which one goal dominates, and self-regulation, in which goals seek consensus.
As mentioned by Chulef et al. (2001), a major problem with the work of Wicker et al. (1984)
may have been created by the latter authors’ use of importance ratings as the basis for their
taxonomy of human goals. Actually, there is no particular reason to think that similarity in
importance necessarily maps onto conceptual or semantic similarity, or taps into ways in
which goals may be organized in common motivational structures. Although one might think
that items that are similar conceptually tend to be similar in importance, the reverse reasoning
is not necessarily true. Hence, not surprisingly, conceptually heterogeneous clusters could be
detected in the overall motive taxonomy of Wicker et al. (1984).
4.2.3. Ford and Nichols’ goal taxonomy
Another major effort to classify goals into a number of content categories is based on the self-
constructing systems work of the developmental psychologists Ford and Nichols (1987). On
the basis of discussions and interviews with colleagues, students, and counseling clients, the
latter authors produced a comprehensive set of goals and then organized them into categories
based on an extensive review of the literature on achievement motivation, personality, and
social motivation. Their taxonomy – which is fully depicted in Table 2.2 – divides human
goals into two major groups: goals that refer to desired consequences within the person, i.e.
within-person goals and goals that refer to desired consequences of the relationship between
the person and the social environment, i.e. person-environment goals. Within-person goals
33
are further subdivided into three more levels of goals, i.e. affective goals, cognitive goals, and
subjective organization goals (e.g. Ford and Nichols, 1987). Affective goals refer to different
kinds of feelings or emotions that people may desire, such as being happy, having fun, feeling
relaxed, or feeling satiated. Cognitive goals refer to different kinds of internal representations
that people may want to construct or maintain, such as interesting thoughts, accurate or
meaningful thoughts, novel thoughts, or positive thoughts about the self. Subjective
organization goals represent special states or experiences that people may seek involving the
integrated functioning of the person or person-environment system. Person-environment
goals, in their turn, comprise self-assertive social relationship goals, integrative social
relationship goals, and task goals. In social relationships with other people individuals try to
accomplish two general kinds of goals: maintenance or promotion of the self, i.e. self-
assertive relationship goals, and maintenance or promotion of other people or social groups,
i.e. integrative relationship goals. Finally, task goals represent the desired relationships
between the individual and various objects in the environment and they include the specific
goals of mastery, task creativity, management, material gain, and safety.
Many of Ford and Nichols’ (1987) specific goal types (see Table 2.2) have been the focus of
long and productive research in the motive domain (e.g. Deci and Ryan, 1985; Cropanzano,
1993; Koestner and McClelland, 1990). A key contribution of the work of Ford and Nichols
to these various research programs is their integration of human goal content into a single
two-part hierarchy that can subsume the major life domains that are of interest to
psychologists (e.g. Austin and Vancouver, 1996).
34
Table 2.2 : Ford and Nichols’ Goal Taxonomy
WITHIN-PERSON GOALS
Affective goals
Entertainment Having fun, Avoiding boredom, seeking Heightened arousal
Tranquility Peace of mind, Serenity, Avoiding stress
Happiness Feelings of joy, satisfaction, or well being
Bodily Sensations Experiencing particular bodily sensations, Experiencing physical
movement
Physiological Well Being Experiencing desired physiological states, Feeling healthy
Cognitive Goals
Exploration Curiosity, Intellectual stimulation, Learning
Understanding Ordering, Categorizing, Explaining, Making sense
Intellectual Creativity Inventing new ideas, Expanding one’s limits
Positive or Confirmatory Self-efficacy, Self-esteem, Self-acceptance, Self-worth
Self-Evaluations
Subjective Organisation Goals
Unity Seeking coherence, harmony, or oneness
Transcendence Rising above ordinary experience, Pursuing an idealized state, Spirituality
PERSON-ENVIRONMENT GOALS
Social Relationship Goals
Self-Assertion Maintaining or promoting the self
Individuality Uniqueness, Separateness, Individual identity
Self-Determination Personal control, Freedom, Autonomy
Superiority Social status or importance, Dominance, Winning, Comparing favorably
with others
Resource Acquisition Obtaining support, assistance, advice, and validation from others
Integration Maintaining or promoting other people or social groups

Belongingness Attachments, Intimacy, Friendship, Community, Social identity
Social Responsibility Fulfilling social roles, Keeping interpersonal commitments, Accepting

legitimate social control
Equity Fairness, Justice, Reciprocation, Comparing equally with others
Resource Provision Providing support, assistance, advice, and validation for others
Task Goals
Mastery Improving one’s performance, Meeting a standard of achievement
Task Creativity Inventing new processes or products

Management Handling routine tasks, Organizing people or things, Being productive
Material Gain Obtaining or accumulating money or tangible goods

Safety Avoiding threatening or depriving circumstances
Source: Adapted from M.E. Ford and C.W. Nichols, “A taxonomy of human goals and some possible
applications, “ in M.E. Ford and D.H. Ford, Humans as Self-constructing Systems.(Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum,
1987)
35
4.2.4. Chulef et al.’s taxonomy of human goals
Similar to many other attempts at organizing the motivational domain (e.g. Maslow, 1943;
Murray, 1938; McClelland, 1961), the aforementioned goal taxonomy of Ford and Nichols
(1987) is primarily based on the theoretical preconceptions of its developers, as major goal
categories are derived from the authors’ a priori knowledge of the field. However, Chulef et
al. (2001) reject these previous theoretically based conceptualizations of goal content, and as a
result, they propose a taxonomy of human goals that is empirically generated, based on the
semantic-similarity judgments of naïve subjects (laypeople) who sorted a set of 135 high-level
goals into conceptually homogeneous categories. A hierarchical cluster analysis performed
on these similarity judgments revealed three major categories: (1) Family, Marriage, Sex, and
Romance; (2) Interpersonal goals related to interacting with people in general; and (3)
Intrapersonal goals. The general Interpersonal goals then subdivided into a number of other
sub-clusters, such as (a) physical goals including Health and Appearance, goals related to (b)
Friendship, (c) Belonging, Social Recognition and Social Approval, and several clusters of
goals related to (d) Receiving Support from Others, (e) Avoiding Rejection, (f) general
Positive Social Qualities (such as being honest and trustworthy), (g) Teaching and Helping
Others, and (h) Leadership. The Intrapersonal goals also subdivided into a number of sub-
clusters, such as a set consisting of various clusters related to (a) Freedom, Ethics, Social
Awareness and Religion; another set containing clusters related to (b) Aesthetics, Creativity,
Entertainment, Excitement and Openness to Experience; a third set related to (c)
Psychological Well-Being, Safety and Stability, Personal Growth, Achievement and Self-
determination; and a final set with clusters concerning (d) Finances, Career, Education and
Intellect. Basically, these numerous lower and higher-level clusters of goals showed high
levels of replicability among very different groups of individuals (see Chulef et al., 2001),
36
demonstrating that this particular organization of human goals does a good job of capturing
the conceptual organization of goals as perceived in the minds of a wide range of naïve
subjects.
An important dissimilarity between the respective goal taxonomies of Ford and Nichols (1987)
and Chulef et al. (2001) is that the former authors, on the basis of their knowledge of prior
theories of motivation, placed both social goals (i.e. goals that pertain to the individual in his
or her interaction with other people) and task goals (i.e. goals related to achievement,
improving one’s performance, and keeping one’s safety) within the higher-order category of
person-environment goals, whereas participants in the study of Chulef et al. (2001) split task-
related goals from Interpersonal goals, placing these goals within the category of
Intrapersonal goals. Hence, evidence is provided that goal clusters formed on a bottom-up,
commonsense basis (e.g. Chulef et al., 2001) may be different from clusters generated on the
basis of a top-down, theoretically based conceptualization (e.g. Ford and Nichols, 1987;
Maslow, 1943; Murray, 1938; McClelland, 1961). In particular, these differences between
researchers’ and subjects’ perceptions show that previous theoretically based
conceptualizations of goals have failed to capture important aspects of laypeople’s naïve
conceptions of the structure of human motivation.
5. Assessment of consumer motives
Besides wondering about the nature, structure, and content of human motivation, yet another
important aspect to consider is how consumer motives are identified or can be measured quite
appropriately. However, the question concerning the empirical assessment of underlying
motives is a difficult one to answer because motives are hypothetical constructs, and as a
37
result, they cannot be seen or touched, or otherwise tangibly observed. Hence, a variety of
techniques has been proposed in literature to infer the presence and/or the strength of various
consumer motives, ranging from direct self-report measures to rather indirect projective
techniques. In the final sections of the present chapter an explanation is provided of three
frequently used motive assessment techniques, i.e. self-reports, laddering, and the Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT), and particular attention is paid to some important limitations of
these techniques.
5.1. Direct self-report measures
Some researchers claim that the best way to find out about the needs and motives of
individuals is simply to ask them (e.g. Brody, 1980; Klinger, 1995). Hence, a number of
pencil-and-paper tests have been developed in motivation research, which inquire directly
about consumer needs and motives. For instance, several scales have been given birth to
focusing on specific motivations such as need for power (e.g. Schmidt and Frieze, 1997), need
for achievement (e.g. Mehrabian, 1968; 1969), et cetera, as well as more general inventories
such as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS, Edwards, 1957). Most frequently,
these direct self-report measures comprise a series of motive-related statements which have to
be rated by respondents, according to a five or seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly
disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The information so obtained from these ratings is then
quantified (i.e. assigned a numerical score) and an average measure is computed of the
strength of a specific need or motive.
Though direct questionnaires have been largely preferred to other measurement techniques
because of their ease of administration and their reliability (e.g. Brody, 1980), there might be
38
some potential problems with self-reports of this nature. First, individuals may not
themselves be aware of the actual reasons or motives underlying their behavior, and as a
result, they may unconsciously rationalize their actions; that is, they may assign reasons or
motives that are acceptable to their personalities but are not, in fact, accurate (e.g. Kruglanski,
1989). Aside from these unconscious rationalizations, direct self-report measures may also
suffer from what is called ‘social desirability bias’, as respondents may deliberately falsify
self-report inventories to impress the researcher, to please the researcher, or to avoid personal
embarrassment (e.g. Fisher, 1993; Holtgraves et al., 1997). Finally, McClelland (1980; 1985b)
suggests that self-report inventories measure not underlying consumer motives as such, but
their conscious counterparts, i.e. consumer goals or values.
For the above reasons of unconscious rationalization, social desirability bias, and not
measuring consumer motives as such, psychologists and other motivational researchers have
advised against the use of direct self-report measures, in favor of some other more appropriate
motive assessment techniques such as ‘laddering’ or projective TAT-type measures. In what
follows, we briefly discuss these two additional methods of measuring underlying consumer
motives.
5.2. Reynolds and Gutman’s laddering technique
As mentioned earlier, the technique of laddering (e.g. Reynolds and Gutman, 1988) has been
suggested within means-end theory as a clear method for discovering a consumer’s pattern of
motivations (e.g. Grunert and Grunert, 1995; Claeys et al., 1995). In a laddering interview,
subjects are first asked to identify salient factors or attributes that distinguish different choice
alternatives in a product class. At the second step of measurement, respondents are asked to
39
say why a particular attribute is important to them. This is the start of the laddering process.
The interviewer keeps asking why until the respondent answers with a value (e.g. affiliation,
achievement) or until the respondent becomes fatigued and can no longer answer. This
succession of why-questions is referred to as the laddering process. Presumably, the majority
of consumer means-end chains (i.e. sequences of attributes, consequences, and values which
are referred to as ladders) will culminate with a basic motive or value. Afterwards, these
individual ladders are aggregated and summarized in a hierarchical value map or consumer
decision map (e.g. Reynolds et al., 1994).
As an important limitation of the laddering technique we have to note that the latter method
requires an in-depth interview that is potentially time-consuming and possibly frustrating for
the respondent (e.g. being continually confronted with why questions). Hence, the laddering
technique is usually applied to small samples. It is not particularly feasible for large scale
applications (e.g. Arnould et al., 2004).
5.3. Murray’s Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
As consumer motives are supposed to operate on a person’s behavior usually outside of his or
her conscious awareness, and thus, people may not be able to accurately report the strength of
their motives (e.g. McClelland, 1980; Biernat, 1989), most authors have recommended to
assess consumer motives indirectly, through the use of appropriate projective techniques (e.g.
Weinberger and McClelland, 1990). The principal advantages of the latter techniques relative
to direct self-report measures comprise their capacity to bypass the conscious defenses of
respondents and to allow for privileged access to important psychological information of
which respondents are not consciously aware (e.g. Dosajh, 1996). Historically, the Thematic
40
Apperception Test or TAT (e.g. Murray, 1943; Morgan and Murray, 1935) has been amongst
the most widely used and accepted projective techniques to reveal consumers’ underlying
motive dispositions. In a typical TAT administration situation, subjects are presented with
four to six ambiguous pictures out of a standard series of 31 images (e.g. Smith, 1992;
Morgan, 2002). After looking at the pictures for some time, the subjects are instructed to
write down a story about each picture, with the specific guidelines to include (1) a description
of the event in the picture, (2) the developments that led up to the event, (3) the thoughts and
feelings of the people in the picture, and (4) the outcome of the story. Afterwards, the
resulting TAT protocols are content coded for the presence of a particular consumer motive
by scoring the amount of motive-related imagery that is expressed within the stories (e.g.
Atkinson, 1981; Winter, 1991).
Obviously, the identification and measurement of human motives by means of projective
techniques is still a very inexact process. Many psychologists point out that most TAT-type
measurement techniques do not meet the crucial test criteria of validity and reliability,
especially when considering the low internal consistency among stories from which a
person’s motive scores are obtained and, in addition, the absence of a normative scoring
system to evaluate the motive-related imagery that is elicited by the pictures (e.g. Entwisle,
1972; Hofer and Chasiotis, 2004; Lilienfeld et al., 2000; Tuerlinckx et al., 2002). However,
notwithstanding these psychometric problems inherent in the TAT, the latter technique
remains widely used as a tool for assessing underlying consumer motives and it has been able
to maintain its dominant position, despite the emergence of other, more recently developed,
implicit methods for measuring individual differences in motivational preferences, such as the
Implicit Association Test (IAT) among others (e.g. Greenwald et al., 1998; Maison et al.,
2004).
41
6. Conclusion
Without claiming to be exhaustive, based on the present literature review, we are allowed to
draw some important general conclusions. Consumer motives pertain to the human
disposition to be concerned with and to strive for certain classes of desired end-states, and in
this way, the construct is related to other concepts in literature such as goals, values, and
human personality traits. Regarding the structure of consumer motives, general agreement
exists among theorists that the motivational domain is organized hierarchically; that is,
consumer motive structures can be thought of in terms of a means-end structure of sequences
of sub-ordinate and super-ordinate goals. However, less consensuses have been reached
concerning the content and measurement of human motives. With respect to the former
aspect, several researchers have attempted to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of human
needs or motives (e.g. Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943; McClelland, 1961; Wicker et al., 1984;
Ford and Nichols, 1987; Chulef et al., 2001). As helpful as these goal/motive enumerations
may be, however, none of them has proved entirely satisfactory to the field. One deficiency
that can be noticed in general is the absence of the consumer’s voice in these previous
analyses of motivations. For the most part (see Chulef et al., 2001 for an exception), the goals
or motives described in the former taxonomies are derived theoretically or by statistical
analysis of the perceptions of expert judges, and as a result, we have heard far too little from
consumers themselves about the goals and motives that shape their consumption desires. As a
person’s motives are presumed to operate largely unconsciously, projective TAT-type
measures are preferred over paper-and-pencil tests or laddering techniques as an appropriate
method to assess these underlying motives. However, clearly a need exists for the
development of improved implicit procedures for measuring human motives, as traditional
projective techniques (e.g. TAT) suffer from psychometric problems such as a lack of
42
reliability or even measurement validity. In the next chapters we outline the way we
attempted to contribute significantly to the existing consumer motive literature by extensively
investigating (1) cross-validity (Chapter III), (2) construct validity (Chapter IV & Chapter V),
and (3) the practical application (Chapter VI & Chapter VII) of the comprehensive framework
of consumer motives of Callebaut et al. (1999) that has advantages over previous attempts at
organizing the motivational domain. Moreover, we propose an alternative implicit method of
motive assessment in an attempt to resolve some of the psychometric problems inherent in
more traditional TAT-type measures of motives (see Chapter IV & Chapter V for more
details).
43
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Arnould, E., Price, L., & Zinkhan, G. (2004). Consumers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.
Atkinson, J.W. (1981). Studying personality in the context of an advanced motivational
psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 117-128.
Atkinson, J.W., Heyns, R.W., & Veroff, J. (1958). The effect of experimental arousal of the
affiliation motive on thematic apperception. In J.W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in
fantasy, action, and society: a method of assessment and study (p. 95-104). Priceton,
NJ: Van Nostrand.
Austin, J.T., & Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process
and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338-375.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior.
Journal of Marketing, 63, 19-32.
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and
goal systems. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social
psychology (p. 19-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barsalou, L.W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency and frequency of instantiation as
determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
11(4), 629-654.
Beach, L.R. (1990). Image theory: decision making in personal and organizational contexts.
Chichester: Wiley.
44
Bettman, J.R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Biernat, M. (1989). Motives and values to achieve: different constructs with different effects.
Journal of Personality, 57(1), 69-95.
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Values and personality. European Journal of
Personality, 8, 163-181.
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., & Engel, J.F. (2001). Consumer Behavior (9th edition). Fort
Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.
Borkenau, P. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 381-396.
Brody, N. (1980). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 143-168.
Brunstein, J.C., Lautenschlager, U., Nawroth, B., Pöhlmann, K., & Schultheiss, O. (1995).
Personal goals, social motives, and emotional well-being. Zeitschrift für Differentielle
und Diagnostische Psychologie, 16, 1-10.
Brunstein, J.C., Schultheiss, O.C., & Grässmann, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional
well-being: the moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75(2), 494-508.
Callebaut, J., Hendrickx, H., & Janssens, M. (2002). The naked consumer today. Leuven-
Apeldoorn: Garant.
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: ‘Having’ and ‘Doing’ in the study of
personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.
45
Cantor, N., & Blanton, H. (1996). Effortful pursuit of personal goals in daily life. In P.M.
Gollwitzer, & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: linking cognition and
motivation to behavior (p. 338-359). New York: Guilford Press.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J.F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carver, C.S, & Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: a control theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1996). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chulef, A.S., Read, S.J., & Walsh, D.A. (2001). A hierarchical taxonomy of human goals.
Motivation and Emotion, 25(3), 191-232.
Claeys, C., Swinnen, A., & Vanden Abeele, P. (1995). Consumers’ means-end chains for
think and feel products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 193-208.
Colby, K. M. (1960). An introduction to psychoanalytic research. New York: Basic.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (2001). A theoretical context for adult temperament. In T.D.
Wachs, & G.A. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament in context (p. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R. (1993). Justice in the workplace. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Dichter, E. (1960). A strategy of desire. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Dosajh, N.L. (1996). Projective techniques with particular reference to ink-blot tests.
Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 3, 59-68.
Drenth, P.J., Thierry, H., Willems, P.J., & De Wolf, C.J. (1984). Handbook of work and
organizational psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
46
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1040-1048.
Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and
research. New York: Dryden Press.
Emmons, R.A. (1986). Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058-1068.
Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1992). Thematic analysis, experience sampling and personal
goals. In C.P. Smith, & J.W. Atkinson (Eds.), Motivation and personality: handbook
of thematic content analysis (p. 13-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Emmons, R.A., & McAdams, D.P. (1991). Personal strivings and motive dispositions:
exploring the links. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 648-654.
Emmons, R.A.. (1989). The personal striving approach to personality. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.),
Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (p. 87-125). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Entwisle, D.E. (1972). To dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of achievement
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 377-391.
Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Failure of treatment--failure of theory? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
9, 236.
Fisher, R.J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal
of Consumer Research, 20, 303-314.
Fleeson, W., Zirkel, S., & Smith, E.E. (1995). Mental representations of trait categories and
their influences on person perception. Social Cognition, 13, 365-397.
Ford, M.E., & Nichols, C.W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible
applications. In M.E. Ford, & D.H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as Self-constructing
Systems: Putting the Framework to work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47
Foxall, G.R., & Goldsmith, R.E. (1994). Consumer psychology for marketing. London-New
York: Routledge.
Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Freud, S. (1990). Beyond the pleasure principle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Gardner, D.M. (1972). An exploratory investigation of achievement motivation effects on
consumer behavior. Proceedings of the Third ACR Annual Conference, 20-33.
Gellner, E. (1985). The Psychoanalytic movement. London: Paladin.
Ger, G. (1997). Human development and humane consumption: well-being beyond the good
life. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16, 110-125.
Graftdijk, T. (1986). Psychoanalytische theorie 2. Boom: Meppel.
Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., & Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
Grünbaum, A. (1986). Précis of The foundations of psychoanalysis: A philosophical critique.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 217-284.
Grunert, K.G., & Grunert, S.C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the
laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 209-225.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means–end chain model based on consumer categorization processes.
Journal of Marketing, 46(Spring), 60–72.
Gutman, J. (1997). Means-end chains as goal hierarchies. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6),
545-560.
Harackiewicz, J.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1998). The joint effects of target and purpose goals on
intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24(7), 675-689.
48
Harrell, G.D. (1986). Consumer behavior. Michigan: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Heckenhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: the dead ends and short cuts on
the long way to action. In R.R. Vallacher, & D.M. Wegner, D.M. (Eds.), A theory of
action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hofer, J., & Chasiotis, A. (2004). Methodological considerations of applying a TAT-type
picture-story test in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
35(2), 224-241.
Holtgraves, T., Eck, J., & Lasky, B. (1997). Face management, question wording, and social
desirability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1650-1672.
Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D.G. (2000). Consumer goal structures and goal-
determination processes: an integrative framework. In S. Ratneshwar, D.G. Mick, &
C. Huffman (Eds.). The why of consumption: contemporary perspectives on consumer
motives, goals and desires (pp. 9-35). London/New York: Routledge.
Jung, C.G., von Franz, M.L., Henderson, J.L., Jacobi, J., & Jaffe, A. (1964). Man and his
symbols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
King, L.A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal memories: relations of measures of
human motivation. Journal of Personality, 63, 985-1007.
King, L.A., Richards, J.H., & Stemmerich, E. (1998). Daily goals, life goals, and worst fears,
means, ends, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 66(5), 713-744.
Klinger, E. (1995). Effects of motivation and emotion on thought flow and cognition:
assessment and findings. In P.E. Shrout, & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research,
methods, and theory (p. 257-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Koestner, R., & McClelland, D.C. (1990). Perspectives on competence motivation. In L.A.
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (p. 527-548). New York:
Guilford Press.
49
Kruglanski, A. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: cognitive and motivational
bases. New York: Plenum.
Kuhl, J. (1994). Motivation and volition. In G. d’Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.),
International perspectives on psychological science (Vol. 2, p. 311-340). Howe,
England: Erlbaum.
Landon, E.L. (1972). A sex role explanation of purchase intention differences of consumers
who are high and low in need for achievement. Proceedings of the Third ACR Annual
Conference, 1-8.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., & Garb, H.N. (2000). The scientific status of projective
techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66.
Little, B.R. (1983). Personal projects: a rationale and method for investigation. Environment
and behavior, 15, 273-309.
Maison, D., Greenwald, A.G., & Bruin, R.H. (2004). Predictive validity of the Implicit
Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 14, 405-416.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: harper and Row.
McAdams, D.P. (1988). Power, intimacy, and the life story: personological inquiries into
identity. New York: Guilford Press.
McAdams, D.P., & Powers, J. (1981). Themes of intimacy in behavior and thought. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 573-587.
50
McClelland, D.C. (1958). The importance of early learning in the formation of motives. In
J.W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society: a method of assessment
and study (p. 437-452). Priceton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D.C. (1980). Motive dispositions: the merits of operant and respondent
measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 1,
p. 10-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
McClelland, D.C. (1985b). How motives, skills and values determine what people do.
American Psychologist, 40, 812-823.
McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human Motivation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, D.C., & Pilon, D.A. (1983). Sources of adult motives in patterns of parent
behavior in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 564-
574.
McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McClelland, D.C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self attributed and implicit
motives differ? In F. Halisch, & J.H.L. Van Den Bercken (Eds.), International
perspectives on achievement and task motivation (p. 259-289). Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeitlinger
Mehrabian, A. (1968). Male and female scales of the tendency to achieve. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 28, 493-502.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 29, 443-451.
Meyers, D.G. (1998). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.
51
Morgan, C.D., & Murray, H.A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies. The Archives of
Neurology and Psychiatry, 34, 389-406.
Morgan, W.G. (2002). Origin and history of the earliest Thematic Apperception Test
Pictures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(3), 422-445.
Mowen, J.C. & Minor, M. (1997). Consumer behavior. Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, H.A. (1943). The Thematic Apperception Test: Mannual. Cambridge, M.A.:
Harvard University Press.
Murray, H.A. (1955). Types of human needs. In D.C. McClelland (Ed.), Studies in
motivation (p. 63-66). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nevis, E.C. (1983). Cultural assumptions and productivity: the United States and China.
Sloan Management Review, 24(3), 17-29.
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Nuttin, J. (1984). Motivation, planning, and action: a relational theory of behavior dynamics.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olson, J.C., & Reynolds, T.J. (1983). Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures:
implications for marketing strategy. In L. Percy, & A.G. Woodside (Eds.).
Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 77-90). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Olver, J.M., & Mooradian, T.A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: a conceptual
and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109-125.
Pervin, L.A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2),
103-113.
Pieters, R. (1993). A control view on the behavior of consumers: turning the triangle.
European Journal of Marketing, 27(8), 17-27.
52
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means-end chain approach to consumer
goal structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 227-244.
Popper, K. (1986). Predicting overt behavior versus predicting hidden states. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 9, 254-255.
Read, S.J., & Lalwani, N. (2000). Testing a narrative model of trait inferences: the role of
goals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California.
Read, S.J., Jones, D.K., & Miller, L.C. (1990). Traits as goal based categories, the
importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1048-1061.
Reeve, J. (1992). Understanding motivation and emotion. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Reynolds, T., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory: method, analysis, and interpretation.
Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11-31.
Reynolds, T.J., Westberg, S.J., & Olson, J.C. (1994). A strategic framework for developing
and assessing political, social issue, and corporate image advertising. In L. Kahle
(Ed.), Advertising and consumer psychology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Richins, M.L. (2005). What consumers desire: goals and motives in the consumption
environment. In S. Ratneshwar and D.G. Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption (p. 340-
348). New York: Routledge.
Roberts, B.W., O’Donnell, M., & Robins, R.W. (2004). Goal and personality trait
development in emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87(4), 541-550.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-
78.
53
Schewe, C.D. (1973). Selected social psychological models for analyzing buyers. Journal of
Marketing, 37, 31-39.
Schiffman, L.G., & Kanuk, L.L. (1983). Consumer behavior (2nd ed.). London/New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Schmidt, L.C., & Frieze, I.M. (1997). A mediational model of power, affiliation and
achievement motives and product involvement. Journal of Business and Psychology,
4, 425-446.
Schwartz, S.H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Sheth, J.N., Mittal, B., & Newman, B.I. (1999). Customer behavior: consumer behavior and
beyond. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
Smith, C.P. (1992). Motivation and personality: handbook of thematic content analysis. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1992). Who helps and why? The psychology of AIDS
volunteerism. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped:
naturalistic studies (p. 213-219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Solomon, M.R. (1992). Consumer behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stagner, R. (1994). Traits and Theoreticians. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 166-169.
Suarez-Orozco, M.M. (1989). Psychological aspects of achievement motivation among
recent hispanic immigrants. In H. Trueba, G. Spindler, & L. Spindler (Eds.),
Anthropological perspectives on dropping out (p. 99-116). London: Falmer Press.
Tauber, E.M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, 46-59.
Thompson, M., Grace, C., & Cohen, L. (2001). Best friends, worst enemies: Understanding
the social lives of children. New York: Ballantine Books.
54
Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P., & Lens, W. (2002). Measuring needs with the Thematic
Apperception Test: a psychometric study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82(3), 448-461.
Urdan, T., & Maehr, M. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A
case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213-243.
Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Veroff, J. (1982). Assertive motivations: Achievement versus Power. In D.G. Winter, & A.J.
Stewart (Eds.), Motivation and society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Veroff, J., & Smith, D.A. (1985). Motives and values over the adult years. In D. Kleiber, &
M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievements: motivation and
adulthood (p. 1-53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Walters, C.G., & Bergiel, B.J. (1989). Consumer behavior: a decision-making approach.
Ohio: South Western Publ.
Weinberger, J., & McClelland, D.C. (1990). Cognitive versus traditional motivational
models: irreconcilable or complementary? In E.T. Higgins, & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, p. 562-
597). New York: Guilford Press.
Wicker, F.W., Lambert, F.B., Richardson, F.C., & Kahler, J. (1984). Categorical goal
hierarchies and classification of human motives. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 285-
305.
Winter, D.G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D.G. (1991). Manual for scoring motive imagery in running text (3rd ed.).
Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
55
Winter, D.G. (1996). Personality: analysis and interpretation of lives. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Wurf, E., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves and the psychology of personal growth. In
R. Hogan, D. Ozer, J.M. Healy, & A.J. Stewart (Eds.), Perspectives in personality:
Vol. 3A. Self and emotion (p. 39-62). London: Jessica Kingsley.
56
A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives : Cross-Validity
CHAPTER III
A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES THROUGH PREFERRED
BRAND PERSONALITY : EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FOR 11
COUNTRIES
This chapter has been presented at the Winter Conference 2005 of the Society for Consumer
Psychology (SCP) (held in St.Pete Beach Florida)
57
Chapter III
A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives through Preferred Brand Personality :
Empirical Findings for 11 countries
1. Abstract
This paper focuses on the cross-cultural validation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer
motive taxonomy, based on respondents’ valence ratings of a set of 34 preferred brand
personality traits. Results of INDSCAL analysis reveal a consistent, replicable preferred
brand personality structure across 11 different countries and four different product categories.
As preferred brand personality dimensions are considered as behavioral expressions of
underlying motives, the found structure was reformulated in terms of Callebaut et al.’s (1999)
taxonomy of eight consumer motives i.e. Vitality, Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security,
Control, Recognition and Power, which are determined by two basic, bipolar dimensions, i.e.
intrapersonal versus interpersonal axis. Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy appears to overlap
considerably with prior classifications of human motives and, in addition, has a number of
advantages over these previous taxonomies. Opportunities in the context of consumer
research are discussed, as well as some directions for future research.²
59
2. Introduction
Like people, brands often are personified by consumers as having personalities (e.g. Fournier,
1998; Caprara et al., 2001). Hence, brand personality can be defined formally as “the set of
human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). As previous research
on brand personality took a descriptive approach – with as a main objective to reduce the
brand personality domain to a limited number of distinct factors or dimensions – a clear
picture is provided of how the concept is perceived in consumer minds. For instance, the
most influential theoretical structure of brand personality was developed by Aaker (1997),
who organized the field among five broad dimensions, termed Sincerity, Excitement,
Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. However, despite these structural insights, little
is known about how brand personality relates to more fundamental consumer motives, i.e.
which brand personality traits do consumers prefer in the light of underlying motive
satisfaction. When talking about people’s preferred brand personality traits in a given
situation, we move to the concept of preferred brand personality, which can be defined as the
personality traits associated with a preferred brand in a given product category. The main
objective of the present study is to explore if a generalizable structure of preferred brand
personality dimensions exists, that could be considered as expressive of Callebaut et al.’s
(1999) taxonomy of consumer motives.
By integrating conceptual insights about both the relationship between motives and human
personality (e.g. Read et al., 1990; Winter et al., 1998) and the self-expressive use of brands
by consumers (e.g. Sirgy, 1982), we posit that preferred brand personality traits are associated
with particular consumer motives that have to be satisfied. By choosing a brand with a
personality that is congruent with some desired human personality in a certain situation (e.g.
60
Chapter III : A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives
Aaker, 1999) – with this desired personality being function of some manifest motives in that
situation – people may try to execute these underlying motives. In this manner, preferred
brands may achieve some strategic potentiality in the light of occasion-based implicit motive-
states.
By taking such a motive-based approach to the concept of brand personality, this study
provides a more explanatory point of view and gives further insight in why people have a
preference for some brands with specific personalities above others (e.g. Biel, 1993). In what
follows, an outline is given of the conceptual background underlying the proposed
relationship between motives and preferred brand personality, and an explanation is provided
of the empirical method and the results. Then, a motive-based interpretation is suggested of
the found structure of preferred brand personalities, followed by a general discussion and
some directions for future research.
3. Conceptual background
3.1. Relationship between Motives and Human Personality
Over the past few decades, two distinct lines of research – one focused on who people are
(personality traits or dispositions) and the other on what people strive for in their lives
(motives) – have emerged within the field of personality psychology (e.g. Roberts and
Robins, 2000). Dispositional researchers or trait theorists (e.g. Allport, 1937; McCrae, 1994)
have searched for a generalizable taxonomy of personality trait terms in an attempt to assess
the basic structure of human personality. Currently, the most popular view among
dispositional researchers is that five robust factors or dimensions exist that underlie the
61
personality construct, commonly labelled the ‘Big Five’ dimensions of personality (e.g.
McCrae and John, 1992; Goldberg, 1993; Wiggins and Trapnell, 1997). These five
personality dimensions are named Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience
/Intellect, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (e.g. Tupes and Christal, 1961; Goldberg,
1990; McCrae and Costa, 1996). Whereas there is a striking convergence on the ‘Big Five’ as
the basic structure within the personality domain, no taxonomy with the same impact has been
developed yet in the motive domain. Though several fair attempts have been made to classify
motive units (i.e. goals, needs, motives) into a limited number of content domains (e.g.
Murray, 1938; McClelland, 1961; Maslow, 1970; Wicker et al., 1984; Ford and Nichols,
1987), none of the existing taxonomies has proved entirely satisfactory to the field (cf. supra:
Chapter II). As a result, many motive researchers changed the focus to the hierarchical
structure of the motive domain, ranging from fairly concrete sub-ordinate goals that guide
specific acts to rather abstract super-ordinate goals in the form of basic motives that regulate
behavior (e.g. Pieters et al., 1995; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999; Huffman et al., 2000).
Despite the fact that the above-explained concepts of traits and motives have usually led
separate lives – each confined to its own theoretical school or camp, with little opportunity for
interaction or exchange – the question of the relationship between them is of particular
concern (e.g. Pervin, 1994a). Though general agreement exists that human personality traits
and motives are mutually related, fewer consensuses are reached concerning the nature and
direction of this relationship (e.g. Pervin, 1994b). Whereas some authors consider motives to
be predicted by underlying dispositions (e.g. Cantor, 1990; Stagner, 1994; Olver and
Mooradian, 2003; Roberts et al., 2004), more often in literature a reverse causal relationship
has been established, in which motives are likely to underlie traits (e.g. Borkenau, 1990;
Fleeson et al., 1995). From this second point of view, human personality traits are considered
62
as motive-based concepts (e.g. Barsalou, 1985; Read et al., 1990), which furnish the resources
to express these underlying motives (e.g. Winter et al., 1998). Hence, dispositions can be
seen as a function of intrinsic motives (e.g. Read and Lalwani, 2000).
As stronger theoretical (e.g. Austin and Vancouver, 1996) and empirical (e.g. Omoto and
Snyder, 1990, 1993; Snyder and Omoto, 1992) evidence is provided for the latter standpoint
about trait-motive relationships compared to the former, the authors of the present study adopt
the latter conceptualization in which personality traits are considered to flow from underlying
motives and as a result direct the ways in which these motives are expressed.
3.2. Relationship between Human Personality and Brand Personality
Besides the ability of brand personality to differentiate brands in a product category (e.g.
Halliday, 1996), one important aspect of brand personality refers to its symbolic or self-
expressive value for consumers (e.g. Keller, 1993; Kleine et al., 1993). By choosing a brand
with a personality that is congruent with either their actual (e.g. Belk, 1988) or ideal (e.g.
Malhotra, 1988) personality, consumers are able to express their sense of self to themselves
and to others (e.g. Batra et al., 1993; Kim et al., 2001; Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004).
Hence, a relationship can be established between consumer’s personality and the personality
of a preferred brand (e.g. Dolich, 1969; Sirgy, 1982; Zinkhan and Hong, 1991). The larger
the congruency between the personality traits that describe an individual’s (actual or ideal)
self and those that describe a brand, the more favorable brand evaluations should be and as a
result, the more pronounced the preference for the brand (e.g. Biel, 1993; Hem and Iversen,
2002).
63
Although conceptually relevant, empirical support for the self-expressive use of brands has
remained elusive (e.g. Kassarjian, 1971). A primary reason might be the conceptualization by
many authors of the self as a unitary construct that remains invariant across situations (e.g.
Bellenger et al., 1976; Grubb and Stern, 1971). A prevailing assumption has been that an
individual has a stable set of personality traits and therefore should behave similarly across
contexts. However, in the last few years, considerable amount of research has shown that the
self is a malleable construct, consisting of both chronically accessible and situation specific
personality traits (e.g. Linville and Carlston, 1994; Aaker, 1999). As a result, consumers are
likely to act differently across situations and – in addition to self-congruent brands, i.e.
brands that are congruent with people’s chronically accessible personality traits – also have
preferences for brands with personalities that are congruent with personality traits that are
elicited by a certain situation. The premise is that different situational cues invoke different
needs for certain types of personalities to be present. To express the desired personality type
in a given situation, people choose a brand with a congruent personality, a process referred to
here as ‘situation congruity’ (e.g. Kalar, 2003). Both ‘situation congruity’ and the concept of
‘self congruity’ as explained above are essential elements in understanding how brands are
used by consumers for self-expressive purposes.
3.3. Relationship between Motives and Brand Personality
As far as we know, no studies exist that explicitly examine the relationship between preferred
brand personality, i.e. the personality of a preferred brand in a given product category, and
consumer motives. However, an integration of the previously established relationships –
respectively between motives and human personality and human personality and brand
64
personality – enables us to discover how these two concepts can be conceptually related to
each other.
As preferred brand personality traits seem to be expressions of human personality dimensions
(see earlier: Sirgy, 1982; Keller, 1993; Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004) and, in addition,
human personality traits are likely to be function of underlying motives (see earlier: Read et
al., 1990; Winter et al., 1998; Read and Lalwani, 2000), preferred brand personality is prone
to indirectly channel the ways in which consumer motives are expressed. Actually we
suggest that different consumer situations cause different motives to become manifest.
Consequently, a desire is invoked for different types of human personalities to be present. To
express the human personality type that is manifest in a given situation, people prefer a brand
with a congruent personality (e.g. Aaker, 1999; Kalar, 2003). Hence, the preferred brand –
through its link with the desired human personality – derives some satisfaction potentiality
with regard to the manifest motives. Following Means-End reasoning (e.g. Gutman, 1982;
Olson and Reynolds, 1983), we could say preferred brand personality traits at a lower level
are instrumental to express some desired human personality, which in its turn directs the
behavioral expression of higher-level motives as ends. Depending on which types of human
personalities are desired in a certain situation – which is function of the manifest motives in
that situation – consumers may prefer brands with different personalities.
As mentioned in the introduction, the objective of this study is to discover a generalizable
structure of preferred brand personality dimensions that could be considered as the behavioral
expression of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives. In order to meet this
purpose a series of empirical studies were conducted in 11 different countries and among
65
brands from four different product categories. In the next section, an overview is given of this
empirical research.
4. Empirical studies
4.1. Personality trait generation
In order to develop a manageable set of preferred brand personality attributes, a three-step
process was followed, similar to the one used in the brand personality literature (e.g. Aaker et
al., 2001). First, to ensure familiarity and relevance of the attributes, a free-association task
was conducted in which participants recruited from the 11 research countries (N=55) were
asked to write down the personality traits that first come to mind when thinking about their
preferred brand in a range of product categories, a process yielding a list of 99 attributes.
Second, to maximize content representation, we added 42 items from the brand personality
scale of Aaker (1997) as well as the 60-item NEO-five factor inventory, developed by Costa
and McCrae (1992) to measure the Big Five human personality dimensions. Finally, from the
total set of 201 personality attributes, those attributes were eliminated that were redundant
(N=81), ambiguous (N=46) or judged to be less relevant to preferred brands in general
(N=40)4. Hence, this resulted in a final set of 34 personality items that were used in the
empirical studies (see Appendix A).
4
The exclusion of both redundant (e.g. ‘reliable’ arose from the free-association task as well as from Aaker (1997)) and ambiguous (e.g.
‘slight’, ‘rigid’,’ unfocused’) items was based on an independent decision of the researcher. To identify the relatively irrelevant items, a
sample of 25 subjects (N female = 13; mean age = 31,7) rated how descriptive 74 attributes (201 minus the redundant and ambiguous items)
were of preferred brands in general (1= not at all descriptive; 7= extremely descriptive). To isolate the most relevant traits, the cut off for the
final list of personality traits was an average scale rating of 6 (very descriptive), thereby leaving a final set of 34 items (cf. Aaker, 1997;
2001).
66
4.2. Stimuli selection
In order to test the generalizability of the findings, a range of product categories was drawn
upon: two fast-mover goods (shampoo and beer), one durable good (mobile phones) and one
more social theme (political preference). Within each category, a set of salient, well-known
brands was chosen, each time adapted to the local market of a particular research country5.
These brands had to represent a broad spectrum of personality types, in order to enhance the
scope of the scale. To refresh memory of the brands, subjects were given a color picture of
each brand in a particular category6.
4.3. Method
4.3.1. Subjects
The external validity and generalizability of the findings also depended on the subjects chosen
to participate in the study. Hence, a set of samples maximally diverse in such factors as
culture, language, and geographical region was selected. The samples, which are briefly
characterized in Table 3.1, were drawn from 11 countries, representing every continent and 11
different languages. In all countries, a non-student (general) quota-sample was used, one that
represented the research population with respect to several quotas of interest (age, gender,
occupation, and product use). In one country (Belgium), two additional homogeneous student
samples were chosen in order to detect potential differences with the heterogeneous non-
student samples.
5
In case of the social theme ‘political preference’ in Belgium, the seven major political parties were chosen as ‘brands’.
6
In the case of the political parties, a picture was offered of each of the emblems of the parties
67
Table 3.1 : Characteristics of samples
Country N Language Product category % Age

Female Mean
Belgium
students 1 182 Dutch shampoo 48.3 21
students 2 158 Dutch shampoo 55.1 22
general 178 Dutch political preference 57.9 39
Australia
general 586 English beer 22.8 40
Canada
general 3212 English beer 0 42
41 French 0 42
Brazil
general 200 Portuguese mobile phones 52.5 36
China
general 189 Chinese mobile phones 49.7 32
India
general 191 Hindi/English mobile phones 49.7 34
Mexico
general 197 Mexican mobile phones 51.3 36
Russia
general 200 Russian mobile phones 50.0 35
Indonesia
general 200 Indonesian mobile phones 54.0 34
Turkey
general 194 Turkish mobile phones 49.5 28
Egypt
general 203 Arabic mobile phones 39.4 32
4.3.2. Procedure
Subjects were asked to select their preferred brand out of all brands in a given product
category, for which they had to fill out the brand personality scale of 34 items. Using a five-
point Likert Scale (1= not descriptive at all, 5= very descriptive), subjects rated the extent to
which each personality item describes the personality of their preferred brand. The items
were presented in a list. Prior to rating the items, respondents read the whole list, chose a
limited number of items most descriptive of their preferred brand, which they gave the score 5,
68
and then chose the items least descriptive of their brand, which they gave the score 1. Next,
they rated the remaining items. Assumed was that the pattern of words judged to be (very)
descriptive of the preferred brand would be a good reflection of the concept of preferred brand
personality which we intended to measure.
4.3.3. Multidimensional scaling (INDSCAL)
The data obtained by the previous procedure were analyzed by means of INDSCAL (Carroll
and Chang, 1970)7. This is one of a variety of multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques,
which place or ‘map’ stimuli (in this case personality items) onto a set of dimensions. The
distances between the points represent the empirical relations among the stimuli. The more
conceptually similar two personality items are supposed to be, the more related they should be
empirically, and hence, the closer to each other their positions should be in the visual map.
INDSCAL first generates a ‘group stimulus space’, which is a composite MDS space for all
samples in the analysis. Next, it provides a ‘subject weight space’, allowing for comparison
of each individual sample with the average stimulus space. As mentioned before, the
objective is to explore whether it is possible to discover a stable (across countries and product
categories) structure underlying the concept of preferred brand personality. The results of the
INDSCAL analysis are reported in the next section.
7
INDSCAL (Individual Differences Scaling) provides analysis of three-way, two-mode (dis)similarity data matrices by means of an scalar-
products/ weighted Euclidean distance model, using a linear (metric) transformation of the data. The solution consists of a Group Space
(whose dimensions are fixed), and each of the elements in the third way (e.g. individuals, occasions, times etc.) is thought of as applying a
set of (non-negative) weights to the dimensions, to produce a “private” space. The pattern of individual dimensional weights is represented
in a Subject Space (e.g. Carroll and Chang, 1970).
69
4.4. Results
4.4.1. Group Stimulus Space
Figure 3.1 shows the composite MDS space for all 13 studies in the analysis (11 quota-
samples + 2 student samples). With regard to the dimensionality of the solution, a good fit of
the INDSCAL model to the data was found in two dimensions. The proportion of variance
explained by the two-dimensional model (Dispersion Accounted For (DAF)) was 90%, with
an acceptable Normalized Raw Stress (NRS) measure of .09. No substantial improvement, in
terms of variance accounted for and stress, was found in three dimensions, so the two-
dimensional solution was used in further analysis.
Figure 3.1 : INDSCAL analysis – Group Stimulus Space
70
4.4.2. Subject Weight Space
Table 3.2 gives an overview of the individual dimension weights and NRS measures for each
sample in the analysis. Examination of these weights suggests that there is a good
correspondence of the individual perceptual spaces and the aggregate perceptual map (see Fig.
3.1). The weights show few substantial differences on both dimensions and also the
corresponding individual NRS measures are acceptable (ranging between .04 and .13), which
means that all samples employ similar combinations of the dimensions from the common
group space.
Table 3.2 : INDSCAL analysis – Dimension weights / NRS measures
Dimension Weights Normalized

Raw Stress
AXIS 1 AXIS 2
Study 1 (Belgium—political preferences) .47 .45 .12

Study 2 (Belgium—shampoo 1) .56 .39 .04
Study 3 (Belgium—shampoo 2) .53 .40 .09
Study 4 (Australia—beer) .45 .48 .12
Study 5 (Canada—beer) .48 .44 .11
Study 6 (Brazil—mobile phones) .43 .48 .13
Study 7 (China—mobile phones) .46 .46 .12
Study 8 (India—mobile phones) .45 .47 .13
Study 9 (Mexico—mobile phones) .45 .47 .12
Study 10(Russia—mobile phones) .43 .50 .09
Study 11(Indonesia—mobile phones) .48 .44 .11
Study 12 (Turkey—mobile phones) .54 .38 .10
Study 13 (Egypt—mobile phones) .50 .42 .11
71
In addition, Figure 3.2 shows a graphical portrayal of the individual samples based on their
weights. Here also, a good level of fit with the solution can be detected as no distinctive
clusters of individual samples emerge (in Fig. 3.2 all vectors are pointing in the same
direction) and all weights have relatively long distances from the origin. Finally, a very high
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence of .95 provides a third source of evidence that all
individual samples are well represented by the aggregate perceptual map, confirming the
robustness of the found structure in Fig. 3.1 across the different countries and different
product categories.
Figure 3.2 : INDSCAL analysis – Dimension Weights Plot
Study 1-13
1
0,6 2
3
0,5
4
0,4 5
Axis2
0,3 6
7
0,2 8
0,1 9
10
0
11
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
12
Axis1 13
72
5. Motive-based interpretation of the preferred brand personality
structure
As shown in Figure 3.3, based on a visual examination of the MDS distances between the 34
personality items, we hypothesize eight distinct preferred brand personality dimensions to
exist, as groupings of items respectively dominating the four orthogonal positions and the four
quadrants of the perceptual mapping seem empirically closest to each other. Conceptually,
each of the preferred brand personality dimensions is supposed to be congruent with some
desired human personality, with the latter being function of some manifest consumer motive.
Hence, indirectly – through their congruence with the desired human personalities – the eight
preferred brand personalities are prone to be expressive of the manifest motive dimensions (cf.
supra: section 3.3.).
Figure 3.3 : Hypothesized Preferred Brand Personality Dimensions
73
To evaluate unidimensionality and convergent validity of the hypothesized preferred brand
personality dimensions, a maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
undertaken (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). After several iterations a satisfactory 8-factor
model was obtained, confirming the hypothesized structure (RMSEA=.042; Tucker Lewis
Index NNFI=.92; SRMR=.048; GFI=.86). Reliabilities of the constructs were measured by
the ‘composite reliability’ indicator of Bagozzi (1980). All factors exceeded the minimal
value of .60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) (see Table 3.3). To test the discriminant validity each of
the 28 off-diagonal elements of Φ was fixed to 1.0, in turn, and the model was re-estimated.
Changes in the χ2 goodness-of-fit were statistically significant for all 28 comparisons (∆χ2
ranging from 170.23 up to 285.65, df=1, p<.01), indicating discriminant validity (Steenkamp
and Van Trijp, 1991).
Table 3.3 : Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis : Measurement Model
Preferred Final Item labels Composite

brand number Reliability
personality of items
dimension
1 4 cheerful, bon-vivant, unrestrained, .73

impulsive
2 4 optimistic, great to get on with, .70
approachable, friendly
3 5 reliable, cooperative, familial, .67
sincere, sympathetic
4 5 simple, calm, careful, traditional, .72
introvert
5 4 self-disciplined, mature, organized, .73
punctual
6 4 intellectual, stylish, special, .78
sophisticated
7 4 powerful, leader, competitive, .81
successful
8 4 adventurous, creative, innovative, .73
contemporary
RMSEA=.042; Tucker Lewis Index NNFI=.92; SRMR=.048; GFI=.86
74
With respect to the nature of the found preferred brand personality structure, groupings of
items dominating the vertical axis of Figure 3.3 all suggest an intrapersonal orientation.
Upper-side traits (i.e. bon-vivant, unrestrained, impulsive and cheerful) seem to be congruent
with a rather unrestrained human personality type, focusing on enjoying life and being
cheerful whereas traits at the bottom-side of the vertical axis (i.e. self-disciplined, mature,
punctual and organized) represent a more disciplined human personality type, focusing on
punctuality and maturation. Based on the conceptual foundations of some robust motivational
theories8, the names determined to represent best the types of motive constructs expressed in
each of these two personality dimensions are respectively Pleasure, i.e. referring to the human
desire to follow impulses and emotions, to maximise pleasure without inhibition or self-
control (e.g. Enjoyment theory: Williams, 1968) versus Control, i.e. referring to the human
desire to suppress inner feelings and emotions and to behave in a way that is morally
acceptable (e.g. Categorization theory: McGuire, 1974). Furthermore, preferred brand
personality traits making up the horizontal axis seem to reflect an interpersonal orientation as
the focus is set on the relation between an individual and the social environment. Left-side
traits (i.e. successful, leader, powerful and competitive) show congruence with an
individualistic human personality characterized by superiority and standing out, whereas
right-side traits (i.e. familial, sympathetic, reliable, sincere, and cooperative) are reflective of
a rather cooperative human personality, focusing on altruism and caring for others. Hence,
the underlying motive dimensions corresponding to the nature of these two conflicting
personality types are respectively labelled Power, i.e. referring to the human desire to be
better than the rest, to feel superior, to be a leader (e.g. Self-assertion theory: McClelland,
1961; Schmidt and Frieze, 1997) versus Belonging, i.e. referring to the human desire to merge
8
A detailed explanation of the motivational theories that are referred to in this section is provided in Appendix B
75
into the group and to be accepted and supported by loved ones (e.g. Intimacy/Affiliation
theory: McAdams and Powers, 1981).
Concerning the four quadrantal positions of the preferred brand personality structure, traits in
the bottom-right quadrant of Fig. 3.3 (i.e. simple, traditional, calm, careful and introvert) are
congruent with a tranquillity seeking human personality type, focusing on safety, security and
emotional stability whereas traits in the upper-left quadrant (i.e. creative, innovative,
adventurous and contemporary) represent an opposite human personality type focusing on
activity, novelty and exploration. In their turn, these human personality types are prone to be
expressive of some underlying motive dimensions, termed respectively Security, i.e. referring
to the human desire to hide away, to feel safe, relaxed and be protected (e.g. Regression
theory: Freud, 1933; Lennox and Wolfe, 1984) versus Vitality, i.e. referring to the human
desire to experience adventure, to test one’s boundaries and discover new things (e.g.
Stimulation theory: McGuire, 1974; Huizinga, 1970). Finally, traits in the upper-right
quadrant (i.e. friendly, approachable, optimistic and great to get on with) seem to reflect a
human personality focusing on social openness and connectedness with others, whereas traits
in the bottom-left quadrant (i.e. sophisticated, intellectual, stylish and special) seem to be
expressive of a human personality type focusing on social recognition and intellectualism.
When looking for some conceptual congruence with existing motivational theories,
respectively manifest motives called Conviviality, i.e. referring to the human desire to be with
people, to open up socially, to share experiences and emotionally connect with others (e.g.
Affiliation theory: McAdams and Powers, 1981) versus Recognition, i.e. referring to the
human desire to be recognized by others for one’s skills, knowledge and appearance, to be
respected by others (e.g. Achievement theory: McClelland, 1961) are likely to underlie these
two desired human personality types.
76
Taking the whole picture together, a circumplex taxonomy could be proposed of eight
consumer motives, i.e. Vitality, Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control,
Recognition and Power, determined by two basic, bipolar dimensions, which is reflective of
the motivational framework of Callebaut et al. (1999) (see Fig 3.4). All these motivational
states could be considered as stable dispositions that are present within every individual and
become aroused by a particular product environment (e.g. McClelland, 1980). To satisfy the
consumer motives that are manifest in a given product context, people engage in motive-
directed behavior (e.g. Mowen and Minor, 1997).
Figure 3.4 : Callebaut et al.’s (1999) Taxonomy of Consumer Motives
Source: Adapted from J. Callebaut et al., “Motivational marketing research revisited” (Leuven-Apeldoorn:
Garant, 1999)
77
Conceptually, Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motivational domains appear to overlap considerably
with those reported by previous investigators of motivation. The major distinctions made
between intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of motivation are reminiscent of
classifications from a wide variety of sources. For example, Ford and Nichols (1987) broadly
differentiated between within-person goals – consisting of both affective (i.e. Pleasure) and
cognitive (i.e. Control) sub-domains – and social relationship goals, reflecting a need for self-
assertion (i.e. Power) versus affiliation (i.e. Belonging). In their hierarchical human goal
taxonomy, Chulef et al. (2001) also considered intrapersonal (individual) goals to exist as
opposed to interpersonal (social) goals. Moreover, this distinction is also central in the value
literature, especially with regard to the difference between individualistic and collectivistic
values (e.g. Markus and Kitiyama, 1991; Triandis, 1995), and also seems congruent with the
major distinction in personal orientation between agency and communion (Bakan, 1966;
Spence et al., 1979).
Besides the two basic dimensions, also the eight distinct positions in Callebaut et al.’s (1999)
taxonomy appear compatible with prior motivational classifications. E.g., Wicker et al.’s
(1984) Competitive Ambition cluster seems very similar to the Power motive, their
Interpersonal Concern to the Belonging motive, their Intellectual Orientation to the motive of
Recognition and their Economic Status to the Control domain. Also their Exploration-Play
and their Tranquillity Seeking/Security factors might overlap with the motivational domains
respectively called Vitality/Pleasure and Security. All five factors in Youniss et al.’s (1979)
Orientation and Motivation Inventory can be related to the motivational framework of
Callebaut et al. (1999): their Status-seeking factor to the Power motive, their Seeking and
Helping people to the Belonging domain, their Theoretical Interest to the Recognition
position and their factor of New Experience to the Vitality motive. In addition, their Control
78
factor corresponds closely to Callebaut et al.’s (1999) basic motive of Control. More
recently, also Chulef et al.’s (2001) goal taxonomy reveals some interesting parallels with
some of the motive domains in the taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999). For example, their
Excitement and Entertainment goals are similar to the Vitality and Pleasure domains
respectively, their Friendship and Belongingness goals are captured by the domains of
Conviviality and Belonging respectively, their Achievement and Self-determination goals tap
into the Power domain (and perhaps Recognition) and their Stability and Safety goals
resemble Callebaut et al.’s (1999) domain of Security. Finally, some additional conceptual
similarities between the motivational framework of Callebaut et al. (1999) and some of the
oldest, basic motivational taxonomies that have appeared in psychological literature (e.g.
McDougall, 1933; Young, 1936; Murray, 1938; Cattell, 1957; Maslow, 1970) may further
enhance the overall veridicality of the former consumer motive taxonomy.
6. General discussion and conclusions
The present study serves as a preliminary exploration of the relationship between preferred
brand personality and consumer motives. Empirical studies conducted in 11 different
countries and among brands from four different product categories reveal a consistent,
replicable structure that underlies the concept of preferred brand personality. As preferred
brand personality dimensions are prone to channel the behavioral expression of underlying
motives, we reformulated the found structure in terms of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy
of eight consumer motives, i.e. Vitality, Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control,
Recognition and Power, determined by two basic, bipolar dimensions, i.e. an intrapersonal
and interpersonal motive axis. All these motivational states are present within every
individual but, depending on the specific product context, one or more motives may become
79
predominant. The manifest motives invoke a desire for certain types of human personalities
to be present, which are expressed by choosing brands with congruent personalities.
When examining the correspondence between the preferred brand personality dimensions
uncovered in this study and the earlier brand personality classification of Aaker (1997), some
interesting conceptual parallels can be discovered. Aaker’s (1997) Excitement dimension
seems to have considerable overlap with the Vitality domain whereas her brand personality
factor of Sophistication shows congruence with the Recognition position. Moreover, the
results of this study could be considered as a refinement of the Aaker (1997) dimensions, as
some of the subcomponents that make up one broad factor in her classification, in the here
found taxonomy, seem to spread out on two or more adjacent positions. For example, brand
personality traits defining Aaker’s (1997) dimension of Sincerity (e.g. family-oriented,
sincere, cheerful, and friendly) seem to appear in the domains of Belonging as well as
Conviviality and Pleasure. In the same way, traits defining Aaker’s (1997) Competence
dimension (e.g. hard working, intelligent, technical, successful, leader, and confident) share a
common domain with the Power position as well as with the Recognition and Control
positions. In contrast to the other dimensions, Aaker’s fifth dimension of Ruggedness seems
to fit less in the taxonomy discovered in this study, whereas in their turn none of the Aaker
(1997) dimensions seem to fully capture the position of Security.
Besides parallels with the work of Aaker (1997), at a more basic level the results of this study
seem compatible with prior classifications of human motives (cf. supra: section 5). However,
Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy – as derived and validated in the present study – has a
number of advantages over previous attempts at motive taxonomies. First, it is based on a
much broader (multi-country) sample of subjects than previous attempts, which enhances the
80
external validity and generalizability of the findings. Second, the taxonomy is empirically
generated, rather than being based on theoretical preconceptions of researchers, as were most
previous attempts (see Chulef et al., 2001 for an exception). Hence, the results obtained in
this study may be less biased by the authors’ knowledge of the field as they represent
subjects’ naïve thoughts and perceptions. Third, the use of INDSCAL analysis instead of
more common hierarchical clustering techniques or factor analysis provides us with additional
insights that are lacking in other attempts at organizing the motivational domain. Whereas
most previous attempts are mainly descriptive in nature and organize the field of human
motives into a limited number of discrete categories, the results of this study reveal a
circumplex structure of continuous motive dimensions in which relations of conflict and
compatibility are represented (i.e. Schwartz, 1992: relations of conflict and compatibility
among values). Adjacent positions are postulated to be most compatible (e.g. Pleasure and
Conviviality). Increasing distance around the circular order indicates decreasing
compatibility and greater conflict. Motive dimensions that emerge in opposing directions
from the origin are postulated to be in greatest conflict (e.g. Pleasure and Control). Finally,
Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy as validated in the present study is based on the
valence ratings of specific brand personality traits instead of more general motive units as
were most previous taxonomies. As a result, a bridge is built between products/brands and
consumer motives. Based on the application of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motivational
framework, one gets insight into the way people’s motive orientations are at work in a
particular brand category context, rather than being provided with a taxonomy of overall
human motives. Moreover, the established relationship between products/brands and
consumer motives provides opportunities in the context of marketing segmentation and
targeting. A heterogeneous consumer audience could be segmented into distinct clusters,
according to which personality traits people are looking for in a particular brand in the light of
81
underlying motive satisfaction. The resulting information could be used by brand managers
and communication specialists to develop appropriate advertising campaigns and brand
strategies.
7. Limitations and future research
Besides previous advantages, the most obvious limitation of the present study is that
behavioral measures were not included. Future research should concentrate on the predictive
potential of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy and preferences should be checked
against consumer’s memory of recent purchase behavior. Further, to assess construct validity,
Callebaut et al.’s (1999) eight consumer motives should be correlated with other related
concepts in literature, e.g. personal values or other relevant individual difference variables
(e.g. consumer innovativeness, need for uniqueness, impulsiveness, need for affiliation, self-
control….) (cf. infra: chapters IV & V). In particular, it would be interesting to explore how
relationships between these individual difference variables and particular dependent variables
could be influenced by manifest consumer motives.
82
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers of the Winter Conference 2005 of the Society for
Consumer Psychology (SCP) (held in St. Pete Beach, Florida) for their helpful comments on
earlier drafts of this paper, as well as the audience who attended the presentation and
delivered some interesting remarks. The authors also wish to thank the members of the
worldwide division of the market research company Synovate/Censydiam for their help with
the extensive data collection in the 11 research countries.
83
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34
(aug), 347- 356.
Aaker, J.L. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36 (feb), 45-57.
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: a psychological interpretation. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Austin, J.T., & Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process
and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338-375.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: J. Wiley.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
11(4), 629-654.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality component of brand
goodwill: some antecedents and consequences. In D.A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.),
84
Brand Equity and Advertising (pp. 83-96). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
2(sept), 139-168.
Bellenger, D.N., Steinberg, E., & Stanton, W.W. (1976). The congruence of store image and
self image. Journal of Retailing, 52(spring), 17-32.
Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity. In D.A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand
Equity and Advertising (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borkenau, P. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal of
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: ‘Having’ and ‘Doing’ in the study of
personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: how to make the
metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 377- 395.
Carroll, J.D., & Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional
scaling. Psychometrika, 35, 238–319.
Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Yonkerson-
Hudson: World Book Company.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEOPI-R and NEO-FFI professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
85
Dolich, I.R. (1969). Congruence relationship between self-image and product brands.
Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 80-84.
Fleeson, W., Zirkel, S., & Smith, E.E. (1995). Mental representations of trait categories and
their influences on person perception. Social Cognition, 13, 365-397.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (march), 343-373.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: the Big Five structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Grubb, E.L., & Stern, B.L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others. Journal of Marketing
Research, 8(aug), 382-385.
Halliday, J. (1996). Chrysler brings out brand personalities with ’97 ads. Advertising Age,
30 (sept), 3.
Helgeson, J.G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of
self-congruity and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,
46(2), 205-233.
Hem, L.E., & Iversen, N.M. (2002). Decomposed similarity measures in brand extensions.
Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 199-206.
86
determination processes: an integrative framework. In S. Ratneshwar, D.G. Mick, &
C. Huffman (Eds.). The why of consumption: contemporary perspectives on consumer
motives, goals and desires (pp. 9-35). London/New York: Routledge.
Huizinga, J. (1970). Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in culture. New York:
Harper and Row.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: SSI Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kalar, S. (2003). Brands as complements to the self. Advances in Consumer Research, 31,
269.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: a review. Journal of Marketing
Research, 8(Nov), 409-418.
Kim, C.K., Han, D., & Park, S. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Japanese
Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206.
Kleine, R.E., Kleine, S.S., & Kernan, J.B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: a
social identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 209-235.
Lennox, R., & Wolfe, R. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of
Linville, P.W., & Carlston, D.E. (1994). Social cognition of the self. In P.G. Devine, D.L.
Hamilton, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social cognition: its impact on social psychology
(pp. 396-403). New York: Academic Press.
87
Malhotra, N.K. (1988). Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 9, 1-28.
Markus, H.R., & Kitiyama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition,
emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
McCrae, R.R. (1994). New goals for trait psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 148-153.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor
model of personality: theoretical perspectives (p. 51-87). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R.R., & John, O.J. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
McDougall, W. (1933). The energies of men. New York: Scribner’s.
McGuire, W. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J.F.
Blumer & Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communication: current perspectives on
gratification research (pp.110-121). Beverly Hills: Sage.
88
Omoto, A.M., & Snyder, M. (1990). Basic research in action: volunteerism and society’s
response to AIDS. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 152-166.
Omoto, A.M., & Snyder, M. (1993). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation,
longevity of service and attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence, and University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis.
Pervin, L.A. (1994a). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2),
103-113.
Pervin, L.A. (1994b). Further reflections on current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry,
5(2), 169-178.
Roberts, B.W., & Robins, R.W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: the
intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284-1296.
89
Roberts, B.W., O’Donnell, M., & Robins, R.W. (2004). Goal and personality trait
development in emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87(4), 541-550.
Schmidt, L.C., & Frieze, I.M. (1997). A mediational model of power, affiliation and
achievement motives and product involvement. Journal of Business and Psychology,
4, 425-446.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25,
1–65.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 287-300.
Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1992). Who helps and why? The psychology of AIDS
volunteerism. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped:
naturalistic studies (p. 213-219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Holohan, C.K. (1979). Negative and positive components
of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationship to self-reports of
neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
1673-1682.
Stagner, R. (1994). Traits and Theoreticians. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 166-169.
Steenkamp, J.B., & Van Trijp, H. (1991). The use of Lisrel in validating marketing
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283-299.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tupes, E.C., & Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.
Technical Report, USAF, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
90
305.
Wiggins, J.S., & Trapnell, P.D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In
R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp.
737-765). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Williams, R.M. (1968). Values. In E. Sills (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social
sciences (pp. 89-103). New York: Macmillan.
Young, P.T. (1936). Motivation and behavior. New York: Wiley.
Youniss, R.P., Lorr, M., & Stefic, E.C. (1979). Assessment of motives and orientations.
Psychological Reports, 45, 555-561.
Zinkhan, G.M., & Hong, J.W. (1991). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: a
conceptual model of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Advances in
91
Appendix A :
• List of scale items
Appendix B :
• Motivational theories
92
Appendix A: List of scale items
Final set of 34 preferred brand personality items
1. Cheerful
2. Bon-vivant
3. Unrestrained
4. Impulsive
5. Optimistic
6. Great to get on with
7. Approachable
8. Friendly
9. reliable
10. Cooperative
11. Familial
12. Sincere
13. Sympathetic
14. Simple
15. Calm
16. Traditional
17. Careful
18. Introvert
19. Self-disciplined
20. Mature
21. Organized
22. Punctual
23. Intellectual
24. Stylish
25. Sophisticated
26. Special
27. Leader
28. Competitive
29. Powerful
30. Successful
31. Contemporary
32. Innovative
33. Creative
34. Adventurous
93
Appendix B: Motivational theories
Enjoyment theory (Williams, 1968)

This theory stresses the human need for pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
Categorization theory (McGuire, 1974)

This theory attempts to explain the human need for structure, order, and rational knowledge as well as the human
need for consistency and objectivity.
Self-assertion theory / Achievement theory (McClelland, 1961)

These theories collectively view people as competitive achievers always seeking success and admiration, and
striving to develop their potentials in order to enhance their self-esteem.
Intimacy/Affiliation theory (McAdams & Powers, 1981)

This theory focuses on people being altruistic, cohesive, and seeking acceptance and affection in relationships
with (close) others.
Stimulation theory (McGuire, 1974)

This theory stresses the need in human organisms for stimulation and self-expression through play and creativity.
Regression theory (Freud, 1933)

This theory focuses on the reversion to an earlier or less mature pattern of feeling or behavior. Actually it posits
that sometimes people need to withdraw, to return emotionally to early childhood experiences and worry-free
moments.
94
CHAPTER IV
RECONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER
MOTIVES AND PERSONAL VALUES
This chapter has been presented at the Winter Conference 2006 of the Society for Consumer
Psychology (SCP) (held in Miami Florida)
95
Chapter IV
Reconsidering the Relationship between Consumer Motives
and Personal Values
1. Abstract
The present study re-examines the relationship between consumer motives and personal
values, based on a new method of motive assessment and a non-student subject sample.
Suggested is that motive-value correlations may become more substantial by increasing
method congruence between implicit motive assessments and direct value measures and by
allowing more middle-aged subjects to participate in the study instead of young adults.
Specific hypotheses are developed regarding the proposed relationships between consumer
motives and values. Results indicate that – although rather moderate in magnitude – several
significant correlations exist between measures of motives and values. In general, the
findings are consistent with the hypothesis that people lean toward those values that play to
their inherent motive dispositions, with the latter seeming to color the influence of
environmental factors in predictable ways.
97
2. Introduction
Consumer motives and personal values have been extensively researched across a wide range
of disciplines. Although conceptually related, empirical findings suggest that few significant
correlations exist between TAT-type assessments of motives and direct self-report measures
of values. The aim of the present study is to reconsider the empirical relationship between
consumer motives and personal values, based on both an alternative implicit method of
motive assessment and a non-student subject sample.
In what follows we first discuss some conceptual background regarding consumer motives
and values and shed some light on previous research about the relationship between the two
constructs. We then suggest an alternative method to measure people’s underlying motives
and develop testable hypotheses regarding motive-value relations. We present an empirical
test of these hypotheses, followed by a general discussion of the major findings. Finally, an
explanation is provided of the limitations of the study and future research opportunities are
discussed.
2.1. Motive Dispositions
Spearheading the research on human motives has been McClelland (1985), who suggested
that the end states people seek to attain reflect a limited number of motives. Motives have
been defined as relatively enduring preferences for the attainment of certain classes of desired
goal states (e.g. McClelland, 1987). Sometimes, they also are referred to as something
created by needs (e.g. Brehm and Self, 1989). As motives grow out of universal natural
incentives and early childhood experiences, they are considered to be stable dispositions that
become aroused by environmental cues (e.g. McAdams, 1988; McClelland, 1992). Motives
98
Chapter IV : Consumer Motives and Personal Values
are supposed to operate on a person’s behavior usually outside of his/her conscious awareness
(e.g. McClelland, 1980) and therefore are assessed through indirect projective techniques,
akin to Murray’s (1943) Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Regarding behavioral
influences, motives are assumed to predict operant behaviors, i.e. qualitative responses which
are not tied to or caused by detectable external stimuli, but, in contrast, are seemingly
spontaneous in nature (e.g. deCharms et al., 1955; Skinner, 1938).
9
With respect to the classification of human motives, Geeroms et al. (2005) validated the
circumplex consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999), based on respondents’
valence ratings of 34 preferred brand personality traits (cf. infra: section 3.1.). The results of
an INDSCAL analysis, conducted across 11 different countries and four different product
categories, revealed a consistent and replicable structure underlying the concept of preferred
brand personality. As preferred brand personality dimensions are prone to channel the
behavioral expression of underlying motive orientations, the found preferred brand
personality structure was reformulated in terms of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) framework of
eight consumer motives, i.e. Vitality, Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control,
Recognition and Power (described in Table 4.1).
9
This paragraph comprises a brief recapitulation of the major findings of chapter III of this dissertation, in order to refresh the reader’s mind
regarding these issues. For a full explanation of the (cross-cultural) validation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive taxonomy we
thus refer to this corresponding chapter.
99
Table 4.1 : Motive Definitions and Scale Items
Vitality : desire to experience adventure, test one’s boundaries and discover new things.
Items: Adventurous, Creative, Innovative, Contemporary
Pleasure : desire to follow impulses and emotions, to maximise pleasure without inhibition
or self-control.
Items: Cheerful, Bon-vivant, Unrestrained, Impulsive
Conviviality : desire to be with people, to open up socially, to share experiences and

emotionally connect with others.
Items: Optimistic, Great to get on with, Approachable, Friendly
Belonging : desire to merge into the group and to be accepted and supported by loved
ones.
Items: reliable, Cooperative, Familial, Sincere, Sympathetic
Security : desire to hide away, to feel safe, relaxed, calm and be protected together with
an obedience to norms and regulations of the group.
Items: Simple, Calm, Traditional, Careful, Introvert
Control : desire to suppress inner feelings and emotions to behave in a way that is
morally acceptable.
Items: Self-disciplined, Mature, Organized, Punctual
Recognition : desire to be recognized by others for one’s skills, knowledge and

appearance, to be respected by others.
Items: Intellectual, Stylish, Sophisticated, Special
Power : desire to be better than the rest, to feel superior, to be a leader. Higher priority is
given to individualistic goals and standards as opposed to group norms.
Items: Successful, Leader, Competitive, Powerful
Source : Geeroms et al. (2005)
The relationships among these eight motives can be summarized in terms of a circumplex
structure, determined by two basic, bipolar dimensions, respectively representing an
intrapersonal and interpersonal motive axis (see Fig. 4.1). All these motivational states are
present within every individual, with one or more of them becoming predominant in a given
product context. To satisfy the predominant motives, people engage in motive-directed
behavior (Mowen and Minor, 1997). As Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy has been
100
proven to be valid cross-culturally, seems compatible with prior classifications of human
motives (e.g. Ford and Nichols, 1987) and, in addition, has a number of advantages over these
previous motive taxonomies, it will be focused upon as a basic theoretical framework in the
present study.
Garant, 1999)
2.2. Personal Values
In contrast to rather innate human motives, personal values are learned beliefs about preferred
ways of acting or being, which serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other
social entity (e.g. Costa and McCrae, 2001). More specifically, values (1) are concepts or
101
beliefs, (2) pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (3) transcend specific situations, (4)
guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (5) are ordered by relative
importance (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987). As values are considered as conscious, cognitive
and evaluative entities, they can be assessed through direct self-report questionnaires (e.g.
Rokeach, 1973). Whereas human motives are likely to predict operant behaviors, personal
values are assumed to exert their influence on respondent behaviors, i.e. behaviors that are
related to specific eliciting stimuli (e.g. deCharms et al., 1955; Skinner, 1938)
Based on a theoretical analysis of the universal requirements of the human condition,
Schwartz (1992) generated a comprehensive typology of the different types of value content.
Empirical studies in over 60 countries (e.g. Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004) supported the
existence of ten distinct types of values, i.e. Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation,
Self-direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity and Security (described in
Table 4.2).
102
Table 4.2 : Value Definitions and Scale Items
Achievement : personal success through demonstrating competence according to social

standards
Items: Ambitious, Capable, Influential, Intelligent, Self-respect, Successful
Benevolence : preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is
in frequent personal contact.
Items: A spiritual life, Forgiving, Helpful, Honest, Loyal, Mature love, Meaning in life,
Responsible, True friendship
Conformity : restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others
and violate social expectations or norms
Items: Honoring parents and elders, Obedient, Politeness, Self-discipline
Hedonism: pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself

Items: Enjoying life, pleasure
Power : social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
Items: Authority, Preserving my public image, Social power, Social recognition, Wealth
Security: safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.

Items: Clean, Family security, Healthy, National security, Reciprocation of favors, Sense
of belonging, Social order.
Self-direction: independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring

Items: Choosing own goals, Creativity, Curious, Freedom, Independent
Stimulation: excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.

Items: An exciting life, A varied life, Daring
Tradition : respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional
culture or religion provide
Items: Accepting my portion in life, Detachment, Devout, Humble, Moderate, Respect for
tradition
Universalism: understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all

people and for nature.
Items: A world of beauty, Broad-minded, Protecting the environment, Social justice, Unity
with nature, Wisdom
Source : Adapted from S.H. Schwartz, ‘ Universals in the Content and Structure of Values,’ in M.P. Zanna,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Orlando : Academic Press, 1992), 1-65
103
These values are presumed to encompass the range of motivationally distinct values
recognized across cultures (e.g. Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). The total value structure can be
viewed as composed of four higher-order value types that form two conceptual dimensions,
i.e. Self-enhancement versus Self-transcendence and Openness to change versus Conservation
(e.g. Schwartz, 1992, 1994). The Self-enhancement versus Self-transcendence dimension
arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to enhance their own
personal interests versus to transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others,
close and distant, and of nature. The second bipolar dimension, Openness to change versus
Conservation, arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to follow
their own emotional and intellectual interests in unpredictable and uncertain directions versus
to preserve the status quo and the certainty it provides in relationship with close others,
institutions and traditions. Similar to Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy, the pattern
of value relations among these two dimensions can be organized into a circumplex structure,
with conflicting values appearing in opposing directions from the center and congruent values
as adjacent to one another in the circle (see Fig. 4.2). The relative importance attributed to
each of the ten value types constitutes the individual’s system of value priorities.
104
Figure 4.2 : Schwartz’ (1992) Value Structure
Source : Adapted from S.H. Schwartz, ‘ Universals in the Content and Structure of Values,’ in M.P. Zanna,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Orlando : Academic Press, 1992), 1-65
2.3. Relationship between Motives and Values
On a theoretical basis, motives and values have frequently been considered as representing
two interconnected constructs. For instance, Bilsky and Schwartz (1994) assumed that the
primary content aspect of a value is the type of motivational concern that it expresses. Values
are considered as cognitive representations of important human motives about which people
must communicate in order to coordinate their behavior.
105
However, despite this conceptual relatedness, empirical findings obtained from several studies
indicate that among college students, TAT-type assessments of motives show only few or no
significant correlations with self-report measures of values (e.g. Veroff and Smith, 1985;
Biernat, 1989). These results are in accordance with McClelland et al.’s (1989)
conceptualization of two independent motivational systems (cf. supra: Chapter II), whereas
they lend less support to the notion that values represent instantiations of an individual’s
implicit motives (e.g. Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987).
One possible cause for the lack of correlation between motives and values is indicated by
Schultheiss and Brunstein (1999). They posit that – as society and culture are powerful
determinants of the values individuals pursue throughout the life circle – value priorities may
be predisposed to reflect the demands of a person’s social environment at least as much as
they reflect his or her own motives. Hence, people may pursue values that do not fit their
motives with the same vigor as they would pursue motive-congruent values
Second, from a psychometrical perspective, the low convergence could also be due to a
reliability problem inherent in the TAT when one considers the low internal consistency
among stories from which a person’s motive scores are obtained (e.g. Tuerlinckx et al., 2002).
Moreover, self-report tests and the TAT involve different stimuli, i.e. structured questions
versus ambiguous pictures and use different response formats, i.e. selected versus constructed
responses to assess the strength of respectively values and motives. Thus, method variance
might be another, more obvious reason why the two measures fail to agree (e.g. Brunstein and
Schmitt, 2004).
106
Finally, Schultheiss and Brunstein (2001) argue that low motive-value correlations also might
be due to the predominant use of student samples by researchers. They suggest that
correlations may become more substantial when using middle-aged subjects instead of young
adults, as people’s motive/value structures are supposed to become more integrated in midlife
(e.g. Maehr and Kleiber, 1981).
3. Present Study
As methodological problems, i.e. method variance and the predominant use of student
samples are posited as one of the most obvious reasons for the lack of correlation between
measures of motives and values (e.g. Brunstein and Schmitt, 2004; Schultheiss and Brunstein,
2001), the present study aims to reconsider the relationship between consumer motives and
personal values, based on both an alternative method of motive assessment and a non-student
subject sample. In particular, we suggest that motive-value correlations may become more
substantial by increasing method congruence between implicit motive assessments and direct
value measures and by allowing more middle-aged subjects to participate in the study instead
of young adults. In the sections below, an explanation is provided of the proposed method of
motive assessment and specific hypotheses are formulated regarding motive-value relations,
followed by a brief discussion of the research method and the results.
3.1. Motive Assessment10
Consumer motives were assessed by the 34-item Consumer Motive Scale developed by
Geeroms et al. (2005). Based on this scale, all eight positions in the overall motive taxonomy
10
This section comprises a brief recapitulation of the motive assessment procedure described by Geeroms et al. in their 2005 paper. For a
more profound explanation of the rationale behind this particular method of measuring consumer motives we refer to chapter III of this
dissertation.
107
of Callebaut et al. (1999) (i.e. Fig. 4.1) are represented by a limited number of motive-
expressive personality traits (see Table 4.1). Subjects were asked to select their preferred
brand out of a set of pictures of several brands in a given product category and rate the extent
to which each of the 34 traits describes the personality of the chosen brand on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1= not at all descriptive to 5= very descriptive. The rationale for
considering personality traits associated with a preferred brand as reflective of underlying
consumer motives is based on the conceptual integration of both the previously established
relationships in literature between brand personality and human personality and human
personality and underlying motives (cf. supra: chapter III) As preferred brand personality
traits can be considered as expressions of desired human personality dimensions (e.g. Keller,
1993) and, in addition, desired human personality traits are likely to be function of underlying
motives (Winter et al., 1998), preferred brand personality traits are prone to channel the
behavioral expression of these underlying motives (e.g. Geeroms et al., 2005). Hence, based
on this self-expressive function of a preferred brand personality, the latter concept can be
considered as an appropriate measure to capture consumer motives in the context of the
present study.
As no direct measures were used of human characteristics as expressions of underlying
motives, but rather, people were referring to the personality of a preferred brand as a third-
person, the above technique of assessing consumer motives is mainly implicit in nature.
However, the proposed method is fairly more structured than most traditional projective
techniques as subjects were not supposed to write TAT-type stories about the brand but were
indicated to rate the extent to which the 34 personality items describe their preferred brand on
a Likert-type response scale. By using the same structured response formats (i.e. Likert scales)
in both cases, more method congruence occurred between implicit motive assessments and
108
direct value measures, hereby resolving some of the psychometric problems (i.e. reliability,
validity) inherent in more traditional TAT-type measures.
3.2. Hypotheses
Conceptually – as values are considered as cognitive instantiations of underlying motives (e.g.
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987) – meaningful relationships could be expected between Callebaut
et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy (Fig. 4.1) and Schwartz’ (1992) value structure (Fig. 4.2).
Specific hypotheses regarding these relationships are developed below.
The Pleasure motive is characterized by a desire to follow impulses and emotions, to
maximise pleasure without inhibition or self-control. Vitality represents a desire to
experience adventure, test one’s boundaries and discover new things. Accordingly, these
motive dimensions should influence personal value priorities related to Openness to Change,
i.e. Self-direction, Stimulation and Hedonism11 versus Conservation, i.e. Security, Tradition
and Conformity.
H1a: Motives of Pleasure and Vitality will be positively related to Self-direction,
Stimulation, and Hedonism value priorities.
H1b: Motives of Pleasure and Vitality will be negatively related to Security, Tradition, and
Conformity value priorities.
11
The position of Hedonism in Schwartz’ (1992) value structure is not clear. Schwartz (1992) argues that it is related to both Openness to
change and Self-enhancement. Past research (e.g. Feather, 1995; Steenkamp et al., 1999) included Hedonism within the Self-enhancement
domain. However, recently Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) concluded that, although the Hedonism values are correlated significantly with
both Openness to change and Self-enhancement, it is clearly closer to Openness to change. Therefore, we considered Hedonism as belonging
to the Openness to change value domain.
109
The Conviviality motive involves a desire to be with people, to open up socially, to share
experiences and emotionally connect with others. Belonging is characterized by the desire to
merge into the group and to be accepted and supported by loved ones. Thus, these motives
will operate on value priorities related to Self-Transcendence, i.e. Universalism and
Benevolence versus Self-Enhancement, i.e. Achievement and Power.
H2a: Motives of Conviviality and Belonging will be positively related to Universalism and
Benevolence value priorities.
H2b: Motives of Conviviality and Belonging will be negatively related to Achievement and
Power value priorities.
The motive of Security includes a desire to hide away, to feel safe, relaxed, calm and be
protected together with an obedience to norms and regulations of the group. Control
represents a desire to suppress inner feelings and emotions to behave in a way that is morally
acceptable. Hence, these motives dimensions should support Conservation, i.e. Security,
Tradition and Conformity versus Openness to change value priorities, i.e. Self-direction,
Stimulation and Hedonism.
H3a: Motives of Security and Control will be positively related to Conformity, Tradition,
and Security value priorities.
H3b: Motives of Security and Control will be negatively related to Self-direction,
Stimulation, and Hedonism value priorities.
Finally, Recognition is characterized by a desire to be recognized by others for one’s skills,
knowledge and appearance, to be respected by others. Also Power includes a need to be
better than the rest, to feel superior, to be a leader. In this case, higher priority is given to
110
individualistic goals and standards as opposed to group norms. Accordingly, these motive
dimensions should influence personal value priorities related to Self-Enhancement, i.e.
Achievement and Power versus Self-Transcendence, i.e. Universalism and Benevolence.
H4a: Motives of Recognition and Power will be positively related to Achievement and
Power value priorities.
H4b: Motives of Recognition and Power will be negatively related to Universalism and
Benevolence value priorities.
3.3. Method
Subjects’ underlying motives were assessed by means of the 34-item Consumer Motive Scale
of Geeroms et al. (2005) and the implicit procedure described earlier (cf. supra: section 3.1).
As personal values and their motivational counterparts guide, control and form the foundation
of especially social behaviors such as political ideology (e.g. Burgess, 1992; Rokeach, 1973),
political preference was chosen as the particular context to be investigated, instead of a
specific product category. The seven major political parties in Belgium were chosen as
‘brands’. A color picture was provided to the subjects of each party’s emblem. Values were
assessed using the 56-item Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992), which has been
extensively validated cross-culturally. Questionnaires were administered via a random walk
method to a sample of 250 subjects. Subjects were rewarded for their participation with a
writing pen. In total, 178 subjects provided valid responses on all measures of interest. The
mean age of the respondents was 38.6 years with a standard deviation of 15.3. In comparison
to the Belgian population statistics (NIS, 2005), our sample was slightly biased toward higher
education. Table 4.3 provides an overview of the sample characteristics.
111
Table 4.3 : Sample Characteristics (% of respondents, N = 178)
Sample Population*
Gender
Male 46.1 48.9
Female 53.9 51.1
Age
<25 22.2 18.4
25-40 33.5 32.8
40-50 19.9 22.6
>50 24.4 26.2
Education
Lower education (age <=18) 39.1 67.4
Higher education (age >18) 60.9 32.6
* Source: NIS (2005). Private Households Statistics. Brussels: NIS, National

Institute for Statistics
3.4. Results
Three motive items – ‘impulsive’, ‘punctual’, and ‘special’ – were dropped because of poor
inter-item correlations with other items in the motive dimensions they were expected to mark
(Pleasure, Control, and Recognition respectively). The remaining motive items were used to
create average sum scores for each motive type. Average sum scores for the Schwartz value
types were computed by using all 56 value items.
Reliability estimates are presented in Table 4.4. Though rather moderate 12 , reliability
indicators for both the eight motive dimensions and the Schwartz value types are generally
acceptable (Cronbach’s α of .60 – .79).
12
The moderate Cronbach’s α measures are not surprising as these indicators describe a continuum within a two-dimensional circumplex
rather than discrete motive or value categories (e.g. Schwartz, 1992).
112
Table 4.4 : Reliability Estimates
Measure No. Of items Cronbach’s α

Callebaut et al.’s Motive Dimensions
Vitality 4 .71
Pleasure 3 .70
Conviviality 4 .64
Belonging 5 .76
Security 5 .66
Control 3 .62
Recognition 3 .77
Power 4 .79
Schwartz’ Value Types

Achievement 4 .76
Benevolence 9 .72
Conformity 4 .73
Hedonism 2 .77
Power 6 .78
Security 7 .74
Self-direction 6 .65
Stimulation 3 .79
Tradition 6 .60
Universalism 9 .74
Table 4.5 gives an overview of the item correlations. Several modest (‫׀‬r‫ ׀‬of .15 – .38) –
though significant – correlations can be detected between the motive measures and the
Schwartz value measures.
113
Table 4.5 : Item Correlations
VI PL CO BE SE CTRL RE PO
Achievement .13 .10 .02 -.08 -.13 .11 .18* .38**
Benevolence -.01 .11 .18* .17* .12 .02 -.15* -.15*
Conformity -.08 -.03 .05 .06 .18* .19* .11 .10
Hedonism .17* .19** .03 -.10 -.15* -.15* .03 .13
Power -.03 .04 -.18* -.15* -.06 .11 .15* .27**
Security -.17* -.02 .02 .04 .23** .20** .09 .12
Self-direction .16* .15* .12 .06 -.01 -.12 .08 .14
Stimulation .23** .23** .05 -.08 -.15* -.05 .02 .13
Tradition -.06 -.06 -.09 -.01 .19* .24** -.01 -.08
Universalism -.02 .13 .19* .15* .09 -.09 -.16* -.17*
Vitality (VI) 1.0

Pleasure (PL) .26** 1.0
Conviviality (CO) .30** .47** 1.0
Belonging (BE) -.07 .11 .40** 1.0
Security (SE) -.39** -.09 .12 .35** 1.0
Control (CTRL) .10 -.07 .11 .17* .04 1.0
Recognition (RE) .33** .14 -.43** .10 .13 .20** 1.0
Power (PO) .38** .14 -.13 -.06 -.23** .20** .32** 1.0
* p<.05
**p<.01
Results of a multiple regression analysis with consumer motives as independent variables and
Schwartz value types as dependent variables are presented in Table 4.613. As can be seen,
consumer motives account for a significant proportion of unique variance in value priorities in
all equations (R² ranging between .09 and .16).
13
As some of the motive dimensions show significant intercorrelations (see Table 4.5), multi-collinearity tests were performed for each
regression equation. Based on these tests, no big problems could be detected.
114
Table 4.6 : Regression Results
Standardized Beta Coefficients
VI PL CO BE SE CTRL RE PO R²
Achievement .00 .07 .01 -.09 -.02 .10 .18* .31** .16**
Benevolence .07 .03 .21* .17* .09 .08 -.16* -.16* .10*
Conformity -.06 -.01 .08 -.02 .23* .09 .06 .07 .11*
Hedonism .19* .22* .01 -.12 -.18* -.19* -.09 .06 .10*
Power -.08 .11 -.20* -.18* .06 .00 .20* .32** .11*
Security -.10 .02 .04 -.01 .23* .17* -.06 .10 .10*
Self-direction .25* .19* .12 -.05 -.04 -.05 -.15 .14 .10*
Stimulation .18* .19* -.02 -.05 -.10 .01 -.09 .10 .09*
Tradition -.00 -.06 -.06 -.03 .21* .17* .08 .05 .09*
Universalism -.05 .07 .25* .16* .00 .05 -.21* -.28** .12*
VI= Vitality; PL= Pleasure; CO= Conviviality; BE= Belonging; SE= Security; CTRL= Control; RE=
Recognition; PO= Power.
* p<.05
** p<.01
Based on the beta coefficients, H1a is fully supported, whereas H1b receives no support.
Both Pleasure and Vitality motives are positively related to value priorities of Hedonism,
Self-direction, and Stimulation (p<.05), whereas the negative relationship between these two
motive dimensions and respectively Conformity, Security, and Tradition values is not
significant. However, item correlations in Table 4.5 do suggest a significant negative
relationship between Vitality and Schwartz’ value type of Security, hereby providing some
mixed support of H1b.
H2a is fully supported, whereas H2b only partially. The standardized coefficients for both
Conviviality and Belonging are positive and significant for the values of Benevolence and
Universalism (p<.05). Both Conviviality and Belonging have a significant negative
115
relationship to the Power value type (p<.05), but not to Achievement. Correlation results in
Table 4.5 are congruent with these findings of the regression analysis.
H3a receives full support for the motive of Security, but only mixed support for the Control
motive. H3b is partially supported for both. Security coefficients are positively related to
Conformity, Security, and Tradition values (p<.05), whereas the motive of Control shows no
significant positive relationship to Conformity. Both Security and Control motives have the
expected negative relationship to Hedonism values (p<.05), but not to Self-direction and
Stimulation values. However, based on the item correlations in Table 4.5, H3a is fully
supported for both motives and regarding H3b, the motive of Security shows a significant
negative relationship to the value type of Stimulation in addition to its negative relationship to
Hedonism (p<.05).
Finally, both H4a and H4b are fully supported. Motives of Recognition and Power are
positively related to Achievement and Power value priorities (p<.01), and negatively related
to Benevolence and Universalism (p<.05).
4. Discussion and conclusions
In this study, we bring together two streams of research: consumer motives, as explicated in
the motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999), and personal values, particularly as developed
through the pioneering research of Schwartz and colleagues (e.g. Schwartz, 1992, 1994;
Schwartz and Bardi, 2001; Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004). Although personal values
theoretically could be considered as cognitive instantiations of underlying motives (e.g.
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987; Bilsky and Schwartz, 1994), empirical findings suggest that few
116
significant correlations exist between implicit measures of motives and more direct self-report
measures of values (e.g. Biernat, 1989; Veroff and Smith, 1985). As methodological
problems are likely to contribute to the low convergence between the two constructs (e.g.
Brunstein and Schmitt, 2004; Schultheiss and Brunstein, 2001), the aim of the present
research was to reconsider the relationship between consumer motives and values, by making
use of both an alternative third-person technique to assess people’s motives and a non-student
subject sample. We proposed that motive-value correlations might become more substantial
by increasing method congruence between implicit motive assessments and direct value
measures, i.e. using the same structured response formats (Likert scales) in both cases and by
allowing more middle-aged subjects to participate in the study instead of young adults, i.e.
conducting a random walk method as a means of data collection.
Specific hypotheses were formulated regarding the proposed relationships between Callebaut
et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy and Schwartz’ (1992) value structure. Results indicated that
– although rather moderate in magnitude – several significant correlations exist between
motive measures and Schwartz’ value measures. In the present study, 38% of the motive-
value correlations appeared to be significant at the alpha .05 level of probability.
In general, the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that people lean toward those
values that play to their inherent motive dispositions. Specifically, motives of Pleasure and
Vitality contribute to the priority that individuals place on pro-Openness to Change values;
Conviviality and Belonging contribute to pro-Self-Transcendence values; motives of Security
and Control support pro-Conservation value priorities; and Recognition and Power motives
contribute to pro-Self-Enhancement values versus Self-Transcendence. Thus, while
environmental factors might have a strong formative effect on an individual’s value priorities
117
(e.g. Schultheiss and Brunstein, 1999), the results of this study clearly demonstrate the
influence of internal psychological constructs such as one’s underlying motive dispositions
too. However, given the moderate strength of the found relationships between motives and
values, we may not overestimate the degree of interconnectedness between these two
constructs and must agree that to some extent, McClelland et al.’s (1989) conceptualization of
motives and values as somewhat different dimensions of the personality structure remains
stable in the context of the present study.
Summarizing, the present research significantly contributes to the study of consumer
psychology at least in two ways. First, empirically, the results of this study may indicate that
methodological issues play a role in the previously detected lack of correlation between
measures of motives and values in literature (e.g. Biernat, 1989). However, caution is
warranted when drawing conclusions about the impact of choice of measurement method and
sample on the strength of motive-value relationships as no direct comparisons were assessed
between both student and non-student samples and TAT-type measures of motives and
Geeroms et al.’s (2005) motive assessment procedure (cf. infra: section 5). Moreover, the
issue of method influence should be nuanced in the context of the present research as TAT-
type measures are prone to deal with overall human motives that are stable across situations,
whereas an application of Geeroms et al.’s (2005) motive assessment procedure provides
insight into how consumer motives are at work in a particular brand category context. Hence,
these two distinct methods of motive assessment can not be considered as measuring exactly
the same.
Second, on a theoretical level, as consumer motives and values can not be considered as
completely independent constructs, the results of this study provide new insights into the way
118
internal psychological aspects, i.e. one’s underlying motive dispositions influence people’s
value priorities, in addition to already existing insights about the influence of external factors
on personal values such as culture and social environment (e.g. Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995;
Blackwell et al., 2001; Knafo and Schwartz, 2001; Rohan and Zanna, 1996; Schoenpflug,
2001).
An intractable limitation of this research is the measurement issue. As noted earlier,
consumer motives could be considered as endogenous dispositions which cannot be directly
observed but must be inferred indirectly, usually as by means of TAT-type measures (e.g.
Smith, 1992). However, in the present study, structured response formats (i.e. Likert scales)
were used to measure the strength of consumer motives, as part of our implicit method of
motive assessment As a result, there is necessarily common method variance in our measures
of motives and values. To account for this problem to some extent, some unrelated filler tasks
were included in the questionnaire that had to be completed between our independent and
dependent measures respectively.
A second limitation is related to the application of brand personality in a political context.
Whereas measures of brand personality have been extensively validated in the context of
product and service brands, retailers (e.g. Aaker, 1997), as well as not-for profit organizations
(e.g. Venable et al., 2005), they have not been yet in the context of political parties. The fact
that some preferred brand personality traits did not perform well in capturing their underlying
motive dimensions and had to be dropped in the present study may be reflective of this
119
problem. Hence, future research attempts are encouraged to further validate the use of the
concept of brand personality in the context of political marketing.
Third, some remarks have to be made with regard to the results of the multiple regression
analysis. In general, the findings of this analysis provided support for the majority of our
propositions. However, quite a few predictions were not supported by the data. Whereas the
signs of the beta coefficients truly went in the hypothesized directions, some of the proposed
relationships between motives and values appeared to be non-significant. To some extent,
multi-collinearity between the motivational predictor variables may be proposed as a possible
contributor to this problem. As already mentioned, multi-collinearity tests performed for each
regression equation did not indicate major difficulties. However, some of the motive
dimensions did show significant intercorrelations (‫׀‬r‫ ׀‬ranging between .17 and .47), which
may result in misleading P values in some of the cases.
In addition, some critics may argue that our attempt to trace the effect of underlying motives
on people’s value priorities is plagued by low predictive power (R² ≤ .16). However, as is the
case for previous investigations of individual value differences (e.g. Schiffmann et al., 2003;
Allen and Ng, 1999, 2003), the primary contribution of the present study is to show a
particular pattern of relationships, more so than any absolute strength based on the predictive
power.
To conclude, some avenues for further research may be identified. As internal (e.g.. motive
dispositions) and external factors (e.g. culture, social environment) have mainly been used
independently as predictors of individual differences in value priorities, future research
models may be developed that incorporate both internal and external variables. In particular,
120
it would be interesting to explore how relationships between motives and values could be
moderated by environmental factors (e.g. culture).
However, the most challenging future research opportunity implies a direct comparison of
both a student vs. non-student sample and TAT-type measures of motives vs. Geeroms et al.’s
(2005) motive assessment procedure, for instance, by applying a 2 x 2 between subject design.
Only by performing such kind of analysis reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding the
impact of choice of measurement method and sample on motive-value correlations and
individual effects could be assessed of each of these two variables of interest.
121
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers of the Winter Conference 2006 of the Society for
Consumer Psychology (SCP) (held in Miami, Florida) for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts of this paper, as well as the audience who attended the presentation and delivered some
interesting remarks. The authors also wish to thank Véronique Cheyns for collecting the data
for this study.
122
References
(aug), 347- 356.
Allen, N.W., & Ng, S.H. (1999). The direct and indirect influences of human values on
product ownership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(1), 5-39.
Allen, N.W., & Ng, S.H. (2003). Human Values, Utilitarian Benefits and Identification: the
case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 37-56.
Brehm, J.W., & Self, E.A. (1989). The intensity of motivations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 40, 109-132.
536-555.
Burgess, S.M. (1992). Personal values and consumer research: an historical perspective.
Research in Marketing, 11, 35-79.
123
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (2001). A theoretical context for adult temperament. In T.D.
Wachs, & G.A. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament in context (p. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
deCharms, R., Morrison, H.W., Reitman, W.R., & McClelland, D.C. (1955). Behavioral
correlates of directly and indirectly measured achievement motivation. In D.C.
McClelland (Ed.), Studies in motivation (p. 414-423). New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts
Feather, N.T. (1995). Values, valences and choice: the influence of values on the perceived
attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151.
Geeroms, N., Vermeir, I., Van Kenhove, P., & Hendrickx, H. (2005). A Taxonomy of
Consumer Motives through Preferred Brand Personality: Empirical Findings for 11
countries. Working Paper, Ghent University, Department of Marketing.
Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S.H. (2001). Value socialization in families of Israeli-born and
Soviet-born adolescents in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 213-228.
Maehr, M.L., & Kleiber, D.A. (1981). The graying of achievement motivation. American
Psychologist, 36, 787-793.
McAdams, D.P. (1988). Biography, narrative, and lives: an introduction. In D.P. McAdams,
& R.L. Ochberg (Eds.), Psychobiography and life narratives (p. 1-18). Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
124
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human Motivation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, D.C. (1992). Motivational configurations. In C.P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and
Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (p. 87-99). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeitlinger.
Murray, H.A. (1943). The Thematic Apperception Test: Mannual. Cambridge, M.A.:
Harvard University Press.
Rohan, M.J., & Zanna, M.P. (1996). Value transmission in families. In C. Seligman, J.M.
Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Psychology of Values: the Ontario Symposium (Vol.
8) (p. 253-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Schiffman, L.G., Sherman, E., & Long, M.M. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the
interplay of personal values and the internet. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 169-
186.
Schoenpflug, U. (2001). Perspectives on cultural transmission (special issue). Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(2).
125
Schultheiss, O.C., & Brunstein, J.C. (1999). Goal imagery: bridging the gap between implicit
motives and explicit goals. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 1-38.
Schultheiss, O.C., & Brunstein, J.C. (2001). Assessment of implicit motives with a research
version of the TAT: picture profiles, gender differences, and relations to other
personality measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 71-86.
1–65.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?
Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.
Schwartz, S.H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268-290.
Schwartz, S.H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255.
Schwartz, S.H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure
of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.
Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, C.P. (1992). Motivation and Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steenkamp, J.B., ter Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into
the individual and cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of
Marketing, 63(2), 55-69.
126
Psychology, 82(3), 448-461.
Venable, B.T., Rose, G.M., Bush, V.D., & Gilbert, F.W. (2005). The role of brand
personality in charitable giving: an assessment and validtion. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295-312.
Veroff, J., & Smith, D.A. (1985). Motives and values over the adult years. In D. Kleiber, &
M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievements: motivation and
adulthood (p. 1-53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
127
CHAPTER V
HOW CONSUMER MOTIVES INFLUENCE TRAIT-BEHAVIOR
RELATIONSHIPS : THE CASE OF CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS
AND SELF-CONTROL
129
Chapter V
How Consumer Motives influence Trait-Behavior Relationships :
The case of Consumer Innovativeness and Self-control
1. Abstract
In the realm of the application of contingency models in personality research, present research
investigates the impact of underlying consumer motives on the relationship between
personality traits and several aspects of (consumer) behavior. In the first study the trait
consumer innovativeness is considered and its link with new-product adoption behavior,
whereas study 2 focuses on the relationship between dispositional self-control and disciplined
driving behavior. The results of both studies provide support for the basic proposition that
actual behavioral outcomes of human personality characteristics might be function of the
alignment with the particular consumer motives that are active within a given product context.
In line with the principle of motive compatibility, a dispositional personality trait gives rise to
a particular behavior, especially when that behavior is compatible with the manifest consumer
motives. However, when the behavior can less be aligned with one’s underlying motive
dispositions, high levels of the personality trait are less likely to result into the behavioral
outcome. Based on these results some general conclusions and implications are formulated
concerning the study of trait-behavior relationships in personality research and directions for
future research are proposed.
131
2. Introduction
Though over the years a number of different theories of personality have emerged in literature,
most frequently, personality research has been regarded as synonymous with the study of
traits (e.g. Arnauld et al., 2004). Human personality traits, as defined by several trait theorists
(e.g. Guilford, 1959; Cattell, 1950), can be considered as temporally and situationally
invariant personal characteristics (i.e. dispositions) that distinguish different individuals and
lead to consistencies in behavior across situations and over time (e.g. Baumgartner, 2002).
The rich literature on trait-behavior relationships in psychology and other behavioral sciences
has enticed marketing researchers to theorize that personality characteristics should be able to
predict consumer behavior too. From automobile purchase to cigarette smoking, numerous
attempts have been made to study the influence of personality on the behavior of consumers
in the marketplace. However, despite these interests, most empirical findings fail to confirm
meaningful relationships between measures of personality and behavioral measures as, on
average, only 5 percent to10 percent of the variance could be accounted for (e.g. Jacoby, 1971;
Pizzam, 1972; Wells and Beard, 1973; Haugtvedt et al., 1992; Bagozzi, 1994).
One major reason for these weak results might be the conceptual irrelevance generally
existing between traits and behavior. As mentioned by many authors, global personality traits
at a high level of generality should be poor predictors of specific behaviors, given the impact
of many intervening variables also influencing these behaviors in several ways (e.g.
Kassarjian, 1971; Lastovicka and Joachimsthaler, 1988; Kassarjian and Sheffet, 1991).
Hence, human personality could be considered as only one influence among many and, as a
result, contingency models in personality research have been proposed that take into account
132
Chapter V : Consumer Motives and Personality Traits
these specific interactions between personality variables and other personal and situational
factors (e.g. Belk, 1975; Dickson, 1982; Miller and Ginter, 1979; Van Kenhove et al., 1999).
The purpose of the present research is to investigate the influence of underlying consumer
motives on the relationship between personality traits and several aspects of (consumer)
behavior. As consumer motives can be referred to as desirable end-states that people seek to
attain through consumption (e.g. McClelland, 1985), these higher level constructs could be
supposed to determine the content of lower level behavioral goals, which then become the
means to realize the higher level motives (e.g. Park and Smith, 1989). In addition, also
general personality traits may predispose consumers to behave in a certain manner (e.g.
Baumgartner, 2002). When considering the combined influence of consumer motives and
personality, actual behavioral outcomes of human personality traits may be assumed to be
function of the alignment with the particular consumer motives that are active within a
specific product environment. Based on the general principle of motive compatibility
developed in literature (e.g. Higgins, 2002), a dispositional personality trait is expected to
give rise to a particular consumer behavior, especially when that behavior is compatible with
(or instrumental to) the manifest consumer motives. However, when the behavior in question
could less be aligned with the underlying motive orientations, high levels of the personality
trait are supposed to be less likely to result into the behavioral outcome. Hence, based on
these insights, significant behavioral differences could be expected among people scoring
equally high on a particular personality trait according to different consumer motives that are
manifest within the given product context.
To test these propositions two studies were conducted within two different research contexts.
In the first study the role of consumer motives is investigated as intervening factors in the
133
relationship between innovativeness as a personality trait and consumer adoption behavior for
mobile phones. Though high-innovative consumers might be predisposed to adopt innovative
mobile phone product attributes to a greater extent than low-innovative consumers, according
to the manifest consumer motives, significant differences are expected among the former
consumers regarding the nature of this innovative behavior, i.e. either adopting utilitarian or
hedonic innovative attributes. Study 2, in its turn, further explores the intervening role of
consumer motives in the context of the relationship between dispositional self-control and
disciplined driving behavior. Here again, high levels of human self-control are assumed to
result into more disciplined driving behavior. However, significant differences are expected
among people with high dispositional self-control according to the active consumer motives.
Before going through a detailed explanation of these two empirical studies, the next section
reviews some conceptual background regarding Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of
consumer motives, which provides the theoretical motive structure used in this research.
2.1. A general taxonomy of consumer motives14
As stated above, consumer motives pertain to desirable end-states of (consumer) behavior that
people seek to attain (e.g. McClelland, 1985). By conducting a series of empirical studies
across 11 different countries and four different product categories, Geeroms et al. (2005)
validated the circumplex consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999), based on
respondents’ valence ratings of 34 preferred brand personality traits. The results of a
multidimensional scaling analysis revealed a consistent and replicable structure underlying
the concept of preferred brand personality. As conceptually preferred brand personality
dimensions could be considered as behavioral expressions of underlying motive orientations,
14
The conceptual background reviewed in this section comprises a brief recapitulation of the major findings and developments of chapter III
of this dissertation, in order to refresh the reader’s mind regarding these issues. For a full explanation of the origins of the general consumer
motive taxonomy and the basic statements made in this section we thus refer to this corresponding chapter.
134
Geeroms et al. (2005) reformulated the found preferred brand personality structure in terms of
Callebaut et al.’s (1999) framework of eight consumer motives, i.e. Vitality, Pleasure,
Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control, Recognition and Power. Table 5.1 provides an
overview of the motive definitions as well as the set of preferred brand personality items used
to represent each of the eight motive domains.
Table 5.1 : Motive Definitions and Measurement Items
Items: Adventurous, Creative, Innovative, Contemporary
or self-control.
Items: Cheerful, Bon-vivant, Unrestrained, Impulsive

Items: Optimistic, Great to get on with, Approachable, Friendly
ones.
Items: reliable, Cooperative, Familial, Sincere, Sympathetic
Items: Simple, Calm, Traditional, Careful, Introvert
morally acceptable.
Items: Self-disciplined, Mature, Organized, Punctual

Items: Intellectual, Stylish, Sophisticated, Special
Items: Successful, Leader, Competitive, Powerful
Source : Geeroms et al (2005)
135
As already mentioned, these eight motive orientations could be organized into a circumplex
structure, determined by two basic, bipolar dimensions, which respectively represent an
intrapersonal and interpersonal motive axis (see Fig. 5.1). All these motivational states could
be considered as stable dispositions that are present within every individual and become
aroused by a particular product environment (e.g. McClelland, 1980). To satisfy the
consumer motives that are manifest in a given product context, people engage in motive-
directed behavior (e.g. Mowen and Minor, 1997). As Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive
taxonomy has been proven to be valid cross-culturally, seems compatible with prior
classifications of human motives (e.g. Ford and Nichols, 1987) and, in addition, has a number
of advantages over these previous motive taxonomies, this structure will serve as the basic
theoretical framework in the present research.
Garant, 1999)
136
3. Study 1: Consumer Innovativeness
3.1. Theoretical background and hypotheses
Consumer innovativeness has been discussed extensively in the marketing literature (e.g.
Steenkamp et al., 1999; Grewal et al., 2000; Wood and Swait, 2002; Roehrich, 2004;
Goldsmith et al., 2005). Broadly taken, this construct has undergone two major
conceptualizations. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971, p. 27) define innovativeness as “the degree
to which an individual is relatively quicker in adopting an innovation than other members of
his social system.” Rogers (1983) provides a definition in the same line, as innovativeness is
referred to as the degree to which an individual or adoption unit adopts new ideas, goods or
practices as compared to the average member of the system. Essentially, these are operational
definitions, couched directly in terms of measurement of innovativeness on the behavioral or
observable level. The construct is known as the actual acquisition of new products or services
and therefore called ‘actualized innovativeness’. However, a second research stream argues
that consumer innovativeness should be considered as a hypothetical construct, situated at a
higher level of abstraction than ‘actualized innovativeness’ and not linked with a specific
innovation. Hence, more recent conceptualizations of innovativeness are based on what is
called ‘innate innovativeness’, a generalized unobservable predisposition toward innovations
that can be applied across product classes (e.g. Midgley and Dowling, 1978, 1993; Hirschman,
1980; Foxall, 1988, 1995; Limayem et al., 2000). Though few consensus exists on the exact
definition of ‘innate innovativeness’ (Mudd, 1990), the idea of innovativeness as a
predisposition has been widely accepted in psychology and consumer research (e.g. Kirton,
1976; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Price and Ridgway, 1983). Goldsmith and colleagues
(Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991; Goldsmith et al., 1995) consider this generalized personality
137
trait as global innovativeness and distinguished it from domain-specific innovativeness that
can be applied to a specific product category.
In relating innate and actualized innovativeness, there has been debate in the literature on
whether such an innovative predisposition determines new-product adoption behavior (e.g.
Manning et al., 1995; Im et al., 2003). Though few studies indicate no significant results at
all (Foxall and Goldsmith, 1988; Citrin et al., 2000), in general, only weak positive
relationships between consumer innovativeness and innovative adoption behavior have been
empirically detected. At best, only about 10 percent of the behavioral variance could be
accounted for (e.g. Cotte and Wood, 2004; Foxall and Haskins, 2001; Park and Dyer, 1995).
As mentioned in the introduction, these findings are consistent with general personality
research indicating that the relationship between personality variables and consumer behavior
is weak due to the general conceptual irrelevance between traits and behavior (e.g. Kassarjian,
1971; Kassarjian and Sheffet, 1991; Lastovicka and Joachimsthaler, 1988). Hence, in the
diffusion literature, contingency models of innovativeness have been proposed relating new-
product adoption behavior to a combination of both an innovative predisposition and several
other intervening variables (Midgley and Dowling, 1978, 1993; Venkatraman, 1991).
In the latter context, the present study investigates the role of underlying consumer motives in
influencing the relationship between innovativeness and consumer adoption behavior for
mobile phones. Since innate innovativeness is assumed to predispose consumers to adopt
new-product innovations (Craig and Ginter, 1975; Joseph and Vyas, 1984), people scoring
high on this personality trait are expected to be more likely to adopt innovative mobile phone
product attributes. However, the nature of this innovative behavior, i.e. either adopting
138
utilitarian or hedonic attributes 15 is supposed to be dependent on the manifest consumer
motivations.
To test these propositions specific hypotheses are developed regarding the relationships
between innovativeness, consumer motives and mobile phone adoption behavior. In general,
based on the weak, though significant, positive relationships that exist between consumer
innovativeness and the adoption of new-product innovations, we can propose:
H1: People scoring high on consumer innovativeness will be more likely to adopt
innovative mobile phone product attributes compared to low-innovative consumers
More specifically, Venkatraman and colleagues in a series of studies (e.g. Venkatraman, 1991;
Venkatraman and MacInnis, 1985) have shown that these relationships between
innovativeness and new-product adoption behavior hold for both hedonic and utilitarian
innovations. Hence, we divided H1 in the following two sub-hypotheses:
H1a: People scoring high on consumer innovativeness will be more likely to adopt hedonic
innovative mobile phone attributes compared to low-innovative consumers
H1b: People scoring high on consumer innovativeness will be more likely to adopt
utilitarian innovative mobile phone attributes compared to low-innovative consumers
Previous studies have linked the construct of consumer innovativeness to a variety of
personality traits. Innovativeness was found to be correlated positively with optimum
15
In the context of present research we made a distinction between ‘hedonic’ attributes of mobile phones that are fun and enjoyable (e.g.
polyphonic ring-tones) and ‘utilitarian’ attributes that serve mainly instrumental functions (e.g. GPRS). This distinction is congruent with
previous literature on hedonic versus utilitarian consumer choice (e.g. Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Babin et al., 1994; Dhar and
Wertenbroch, 2000) and is assumed to provide conceptual relevance in the context of our overarching framework of consumer motives (e.g.
Callebaut et al., 1999).
139
stimulation level, need for change, need for cognition, independence, extraversion,
impulsivity, risk taking, tolerance of ambiguity, inner-directedness, capacity for status,
flexibility, creativity, venturesomeness and need for uniqueness (e.g. Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1992; Cotte and Wood, 2004; Zuckerman, 1979; Venkatraman and Price, 1990;
Bearden et al., 1986; Etzel et al., 1976; Midgley, 1977; Carlson and Grossbart, 1984; Wahlers
et al., 1986; Hirschman and Stern, 1998; Burns and Krampf, 1991). In addition, innovators
have been described as more individualistic, intelligent and higher in achievement motivation
(Rogers, 1983). In contrast, innovativeness correlated negatively with dogmatism,
conservatism, need for structure, need for clarity, other-directedness and uncertainty
avoidance (e.g. Foxall and Bhate, 1993).
Although personality traits are distinct from consumer motives, they are conceptually related
to the consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) (cf. supra: chapter III). Traits
found to be correlated positively with consumer innovativeness seem congruent with left-side
motive domains, i.e. Vitality (aligned with need for stimulation, need for change,
independence, extraversion, impulsivity, risk-taking, inner-directedness, creativity and
venturesomeness) and Recognition (aligned with capacity for status, need for cognition, need
for uniqueness, intelligence, need for achievement and individualism). Furthermore,
personality traits considered to affect consumer innovativeness in a negative way are
conceptually closest to the right-side motive domains of Security (aligned with dogmatism,
conservatism and uncertainty avoidance) and Conviviality (aligned with other-directedness).
Hence, based on these insights consumer innovativeness might be expected to be related
positively to consumer motives of Vitality and Recognition, whereas it is assumed to be
related negatively to Security and Conviviality. A second hypothesis concerning these
expectations is formulated in the following way:
140
H2: Consumers driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Recognition will exhibit higher
levels of consumer innovativeness compared to consumers driven by motives of Security or
Conviviality, with no significant differences existing between Vitality and Recognition-driven
and Security and Conviviality-driven consumers respectively
As higher levels of consumer innovativeness are predicted to result into increases in adoption
of innovative mobile phone attributes (i.e. H1) and innovativeness is supposed to be related
positively to left-side motive domains of Vitality and Recognition (i.e. H2), it can reasonably
be assumed that consumers driven by the latter motives relative to Security or Conviviality-
driven consumers will be more likely to adopt those innovative attributes. However,
significant differences are expected between Vitality and Recognition-driven consumers
regarding the adoption of either hedonic or utilitarian attributes. To underpin this proposition
we build on the ‘matching or compatibility’ principle, previously established in the motive-
literature (e.g. Higgins, 2002; Pham and Higgins, 2005). Assuming that top-down processes
of motive alignment, by which higher level motives determine the content of lower level
goals (i.e. benefits and objective features searched for in particular products), are most likely
to occur (e.g. Park and Smith, 1989; Huffman et al., 2000), this principle basically implies
that certain attributes in a product category will receive greater importance when they are
compatible with someone’s underlying motive orientation than when they are incompatible
with the active motives. As a result, choice alternatives attractive on the motive-consistent
criteria will be evaluated more favorably compared to motive-incongruent alternatives (e.g.
Aaker and Lee, 2001; Chernev, 2004).
In the context of the present research, hedonic innovative attributes are assumed to be more
compatible with a Vitality orientation, whereas innovative attributes that are utilitarian in
141
nature tend to provide a better fit with an underlying motive of Recognition. The rationale for
this prediction follows from the notion that – given their respective positions along the
intrapersonal (i.e. vertical) axis of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy (see Fig. 5.1) –
Vitality-driven consumers tend to focus on achieving pleasure and stimulation, whereas
Recognition-driven consumers tend to focus on functionality and control. Hence, given the
greater importance attached to the motive-congruent criteria, adoption of hedonic innovative
mobile phone attributes is supposed to be more prominent among Vitality-driven consumers
than among Recognition-driven consumers, while the reverse is true for the adoption of
utilitarian attributes. As Security and Conviviality-driven consumers – given their low scores
on consumer innovativeness – are less likely to be predisposed to the adoption of innovative
mobile phone attributes of any kind, the position along the intrapersonal motive axis is
assumed to be of no influence for the latter people. Hence, no significant differences in
adoption levels for both hedonic and utilitarian innovative attributes are expected between
Security and Conviviality-driven consumers. More formally, the above predictions can be
stated as follows:
H3: Consumers driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Recognition will be more
likely to adopt hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes compared to consumers driven by
motives of Security or Conviviality, with Vitality-driven consumers exhibiting higher
adoption levels than Recognition-driven consumers. No significant differences in adoption
levels will exist between Security and Conviviality-driven consumers.
H4: Consumers driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Recognition will be more
likely to adopt utilitarian innovative mobile phone attributes compared to consumers driven
by motives of Security or Conviviality, with Recognition-driven consumers exhibiting higher
142
adoption levels than Vitality-driven consumers. No significant differences in adoption levels
will exist between Security and Conviviality-driven consumers.
Summarizing, when integrating the above hypotheses, it can be assumed that – though
consumer innovativeness might be equally related to motive domains of Vitality and
Recognition – specific behavioral effects are likely to be function of which of these two
motive states is manifest. Based on the principle of compatibility in motive-literature,
innovative behavior with an hedonic and utilitarian character is expected to show up when
respectively consumer motives of Vitality and Recognition become manifest. In what follows,
an overview is given of the empirical research that was conducted to test these propositions.
3.2. Method
3.2.1. Participants
To collect data 270 questionnaires were distributed among Flemish users of mobile phones
via a random walk method. Subjects were rewarded for their participation with a writing pen.
Of the total number of distributed surveys 241 were returned, for an initial response rate of
89.3%. However, of the 241 returned, we could not use 31 surveys due to large amounts of
missing data on key variables. Thus, the final number of usable surveys was 210, accounting
for a final response rate of 77.8%. The sample was representative in terms of gender but
slightly biased toward younger age and higher education, probably due to the fact that mobile
phones were chosen as the topic of investigation. An overview of the sample characteristics
is provided in Table 5.2.
143
Table 5.2 : Sample Characteristics Study 1 (% of respondents, N = 210)
Sample Population*
Gender
Male 48.6 48.9
Female 51.4 51.1
Age
<25 28.1 18.4
25-40 47.9 32.8
40-50 14.9 22.6
>50 9.1 26.2
Education
Profession
Labourer 17.6
Employee 33.3
Executive 4.8
Self-employed 7.1
* Functionary 3.8
Keeping house 6.7
Retired 6.7
Unemployed 3.3
Student 16.7
Source: NIS (2005). Private Households Statistics. Brussels: NIS, National

3.2.2. Measures
Consumer motives were assessed by the 34-item Consumer Motive Scale developed by
Geeroms et al. (2005). Based on this scale, all eight positions in Callebaut et al.’s (1999)
motive taxonomy are represented by a limited number of motive-expressive personality traits
(see Table 5.1). Subjects were asked to select their preferred mobile phone16 out of a set of
16
Personality traits associated with a preferred product/brand are assumed to serve a self-expressive function (e.g. Keller, 1993), hereby
revealing what actually drives consumers to purchase or like the product/brand (e.g. Winter et al., 1998). Hence, preferred product/brand
personality traits could be considered to channel the behavioral expression of underlying consumer motives (cf. supra: chapter III).
144
several types of mobile phones and rate the extent to which each of the 34 traits describes the
personality of the chosen phone on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= not at all
descriptive to 5= very descriptive. As unsatisfactory Cronbach’s α coefficients of below .60
restrained us from computing composite construct measures for all eight motive domains, we
decided to create reliable motive constructs based on combinations of items of adjacent
positions with the highest intercorrelations. Legitimated by the fact that the relationships
among the eight motive domains describe a continuum within a two-dimensional circumplex
rather than discrete motive categories, the positions of Pleasure and Vitality (r=.78), Power
and Recognition (r=.85), Control and Security (r=.72) and Belonging and Conviviality (r=.74)
were respectively combined into single constructs. After dropping some items with poor
inter-item correlations (N=6), four reliable motive constructs were computed based on
average sum scores of the combined items and broadly corresponding to the four quadrants of
Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy 17 . In Table 5.3 some relevant information is
shown pertaining to each of the four constructs, including the number of items, item labels
and reliability coefficients.
17
For reasons of convenience, in the remaining sections, these four motive constructs will be referred to with the names of the
corresponding quadrants, i.e. Vitality, Recognition, Security and Conviviality respectively
145
Table 5.3 : Four Motive Constructs (Study 1)
Motive Construct Final Item Labels Cronbach’s α

Number of
Items
Pleasure/Vitality 6 adventurous, creative, .72
(i.e. upper-left quadrant) innovative, cheerful,
impulsive, unrestrained
Power/Recognition 8 successful, leader, .77
(i.e. bottom-left quadrant) powerful, competitive,
intellectual, stylish, special,
sophisticated
Control/Security 7 mature, organized, simple, .72
(i.e. bottom-right quadrant) traditional, calm, careful,
introvert
Belonging/Conviviality 7 friendly, approachable, .75
(i.e. upper-right quadrant) optimistic, great to get on
with, familial, sincere,
cooperative
To measure innate consumer innovativeness the Consumer Innovativeness Scale of Manning
et al. (1995) was used. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of (dis)agreement with
the 14 items, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= completely disagree to 5=
completely agree. Initially, this scale comprises two dimensions, i.e. consumer independent
judgment making (CIJM, 6 items, alpha=.84) and consumer novelty seeking (CNS, 8 items,
alpha=.88). However, for the purpose of this research, we abandoned the scores on the
separate subscales in favor of an average sum score on the total scale. The Cronbach’s α
coefficient for the 14-item consumer innovativeness construct was .72. For an overview of
the scale items, we refer to Appendix A.
Adoption of innovative mobile phone product attributes was investigated by asking
respondents about their intentions to buy a mobile phone with each of the following options:
146
GPRS, color screen, MP3 player, photo camera, video system, WAP, bluetooth and
polyphonic ring-tones. All of these attributes were considered innovative at the time of
survey in the surveyed region. Purchase intentions were measured on a five-point Likert scale
ranging from 1= definitely will not buy to 5= definitely will buy. A factor analysis performed
on these intention scores revealed two broad factors, simultaneously accounting for about
69.7% of the variance (see Table 5.4). The first factor contained the attributes polyphonic
ring-tones, color screen, MP3 player, photo camera and video system, which could be
considered as hedonic in nature, as they make the use of mobile phones more pleasurable and
entertaining. However, attributes loading on the second factor, i.e. GPRS, WAP and
bluetooth could be labelled utilitarian attributes, as they serve mainly instrumental functions
of data transmission and information exchange between devices. By summing and averaging
intention scores of the items belonging to each of these two factors, two composite purchase
intention constructs were computed – respectively referring to the adoption of hedonic
(alpha= .85) and utilitarian (alpha=.86) innovative mobile phone attributes – that were used as
dependent variables in further analyses.
Table 5.4 : Factor Analysis – Innovative Mobile Phone Attributes
Attributes Factor Exp. Var.

loading (%)
1 Polyphonic ring-tones .87 51.4
Color screen .86
MP3 player .78
Photo camera .77
Video system .70
2 GPRS .94 18.3
WAP .88
Bluetooth .84
147
3.3. Results
Individuals were categorized as high or low in consumer innovativeness via a median split
(median= 3.2; M low consumer innovativeness= 2.6, M high consumer innovativeness= 3.8).
Results of an Independent Samples T-test indicated that purchase intention levels for hedonic
innovative mobile phone attributes were significantly higher among high-innovative
consumers (M= 2.5) than among low-innovative consumers (M= 2.0) (t= -4.69; p< .01),
suggesting that high-innovative consumers are more likely to adopt those innovative attributes.
In addition, high-innovative consumers showed significantly higher measures of purchase
intention for utilitarian innovative mobile phone attributes (M= 2.5) compared to low-
innovative consumers (M= 2.0) (t= -3.83; p< .01). Hence, H1a and H1b were fully supported.
In view of the remaining hypotheses, co-ordinates on both the interpersonal (i.e. horizontal)
and intrapersonal (i.e. vertical) motive axes were computed per respondent18 and via a median
split performed on these variables individuals were respectively assigned a left or right-side
and a bottom or upper-side position in Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy (median=
0.7 for the score on the horizontal axis; M left-side position= -0.2, M right-side position= 1.3;
median= 0.4 for the score on the vertical axis; M bottom-side position= -0.4, M upper-side
position= 1.1). Afterwards, a 2 (position horizontal axis: left/right) X 2 (position vertical axis:
bottom/upper) MANOVA analysis 19 was conducted with consumer innovativeness (H2),
adoption of hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes (H3) and adoption of utilitarian
innovative mobile phone attributes (H4) as dependent variables.
18
Relying on the procedure proposed by Feather (1995), co-ordinates on the interpersonal (intrapersonal) motive axes were computed by
subtracting the summed scores for Vitality and Recognition (Recognition and Security) from the summed scores for Conviviality and
Security (Vitality and Conviviality), with higher co-ordinates indicating a more right-side (upper-side) position.
19
MANOVA analysis was conducted instead of moderated regression, due to the problem of multicollinearity between the predictor
variables (i.e. consumer motives and personality traits) and, in addition, the latter analysis would imply a needless complication of the results
and their interpretations.
148
In general, the results showed a significant main effect of both position on the horizontal axis
(F(3, 204)= 21.09, p< .01) and position on the vertical axis (F(3, 204)= 42.92, p< .01), as well
as a significant interaction effect (F(3, 204)= 21.72, p< .01).
When looking at the dependent variables separately, for consumer innovativeness, only a
significant main effect of position on the horizontal axis could be detected (F(1, 206)= 43.92,
p< .01). Left-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of Vitality or
Recognition scored significantly higher on consumer innovativeness (M= 3.5) compared to
right-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of Conviviality or Security
(M= 2.9). As indicated by the non-significant interaction effect (F(1, 206)= 0.09, p> .05) (see
Fig. 5.2), simple main effects tests revealed no significant differences in consumer
innovativeness scores between Vitality (i.e. upper-left position; M= 3.5) and Recognition-
driven consumers (i.e. bottom-left position; M= 3.6) (F(1, 106)= 0.60, p> .05), as well as
between Conviviality (i.e. upper-right position; M= 2.8) and Security-driven consumers (i.e.
bottom-right position; M= 2.9) (F(1, 100)= 0.13, p> .05). These findings are in full support of
H2.
Figure 5.2 : Study 1 – MANOVA results : Consumer Innovativeness
5,0
Consumer Innovativeness
4,5 Position vertical

4,0 motive axis
3,5 3,6
3,5
Upper
3,0 2,9
2,8 Bottom
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
Left Right
Position horizontal motive axis
149
With regard to adoption of hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes both position on the
horizontal axis (F(1, 206)= 38.19, p< .01) and position on the vertical axis (F(1, 206)= 22.43,
p< .01) mattered. Left-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of
Vitality or Recognition showed significantly higher measures of purchase intention for
hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes (M= 2.6) compared to right-side consumers, i.e.
consumers driven by underlying motives of Conviviality or Security (M= 1.9), and so did
upper-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Conviviality
(M= 2.5) as compared to bottom-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives
of Recognition or Security (M= 2.0). Especially important however, is the significant
interaction effect that could be detected (F(1, 206)= 10.16, p< .01) (see Fig. 5.3). In full
support of H3, simple main effects tests revealed that Vitality-driven consumers (i.e. upper-
left position; M= 2.9) exhibited significantly higher purchase intention levels for hedonic
innovative attributes than Recognition-driven consumers (i.e. bottom-left position; M= 2.2)
(F(1, 106)= 33.13, p< .01), but that purchase intention levels between Conviviality (i.e. upper-
right position; M= 2.0) and Security-driven consumers (i.e. bottom-right position; M= 1.9) did
not differ (F(1, 100)= 1.14, p> .05).
Figure 5.3 : Study 1 – MANOVA results : Adoption of Hedonic Attributes
5,0
Position vertical
innovative attributes
4,5
adoption hedonic
motive axis
4,0
3,5 Upper
3,0 2,9 Bottom
2,5
2,2
2,0 2,0
1,9
1,5
1,0
Left Right
150
Finally, for adoption of utilitarian innovative mobile phone attributes, the main effects of
both position on the horizontal axis (F(1, 206)= 27,86 p< .01) and position on the vertical axis
(F(1, 206)= 27.34, p< .01) were significant, as was the two-way interaction effect (F(1, 206)=
15.27 p< .01) (see Fig. 5.4). Purchase intention levels for utilitarian innovative mobile phone
attributes were higher among left-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying
motives of Vitality or Recognition (M= 2.7) than among right-side consumers, i.e. consumers
driven by underlying motives of Conviviality or Security (M= 1.9), as well as among bottom-
side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of Recognition or Security (M=
2.5) as compared to upper-side consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of
Vitality or Conviviality (M= 2.0). Simple main effects tests revealed that Recognition-driven
consumers (i.e. bottom-left position; M= 3.1) exhibited significantly higher purchase intention
levels for utilitarian innovative attributes than Vitality-driven consumers (i.e. upper-left
position; M= 2.2) (F(1, 106)= 44.20, p< .01), but that purchase intention levels between
Conviviality (i.e. upper-right position; M= 1.8) and Security-driven consumers (i.e. bottom-
right position; M= 1.9) did not differ (F(1, 100)= 0.82, p> .05). Hence, H4 was also
supported.
Figure 5.4 : Study 1 – MANOVA results : Adoption of Utilitarian Attributes
5,0
Position vertical
innovative attributes
4,5
adoption utilitarian
motive axis
4,0
3,5 Upper
3,0 3,1 Bottom
2,5
2,2
2,0 1,9
1,8
1,5
1,0
Left Right
151
3.4. Discussion
In the context of the application of contingency models in personality research, this first study
investigated the influence of consumer motives on the relationship between innovativeness as
a personality trait and consumer innovative adoption behavior for mobile phones. Specific
hypotheses were developed regarding the links between these three constructs. The results of
Independent Samples T-test and MANOVA analyses provided support for our propositions.
In line with previous studies, we found that a significant positive relationship exists between
consumer innovativeness and the adoption of innovative mobile phone product attributes
(H1a/H1b). However – though consumer innovativeness was found to be equally related to
consumer motives of Vitality and Recognition (H2) – the nature of the innovative adoption
behavior appeared to be dependent on which of these two motive states was manifest within
the given context. In accordance with the compatibility principle in motive-literature,
innovative consumers driven by the underlying motive of Vitality exhibited higher adoption
levels (in terms of purchase intention) for hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes (H3),
whereas adoption of utilitarian innovative mobile phone attributes was more prominent
among innovative consumers driven by the underlying motive of Recognition (H4). Hence,
based on these findings, consumer motives could be considered as intervening factors in the
relationship between the trait innovativeness and new-product adoption behavior, as
consumers scoring equally high on consumer innovativeness may exhibit different innovative
adoption behaviors according to the manifest consumer motives in the given product context.
To further explore this intervening role of consumer motives a second study was performed
with human self-control as additional personality trait and disciplined driving behavior as the
dependent variable of interest.
152
4. Study 2: Self-control
4.1. Theoretical background and hypotheses
One of the most basic, important and distinctively human personality traits is the capacity of
human beings to exert control over the self (e.g. Muraven and Baumeister, 2000). Without
effective self-control human behavior would be driven solely by external stimuli and
automatic responses and the self’s executive component (i.e. the aspect of the self that makes
decisions, initiates and interrupts behavior, and otherwise exerts control) would not be able to
function properly (e.g. Baumeister, 1998). Whereas some theories offer an account of human
self-control as a subordinate aspect of the more inclusive construct of self-regulation (e.g.
Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999; Karlsson, 2003), more often, these two terms are used
interchangeably as both refer to the self’s ability to alter its own states and responses (e.g.
Baumeister, 2002; Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996; Muraven et al.,
1999). Inherent in most definitions of self-control and self-regulation is the notion of time-
inconsistency, broadly conceptualized as the gap between long-run intentions and short-run
actions (e.g. Angeletos et al., 2001; Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991; O’Donoghue and Rabin,
2000; Thaler and Shefrin, 1981; Kim, 2006). Sometimes people have preferences in the long-
run that tend to conflict with short-run preferences for immediate gratification. Self-control,
as a means to overcome such time-inconsistent preferences, has been typically defined as the
ability to resist immediate impulses and to strive toward distant goals, not apparent in the
immediate environment (e.g. Slessareva and Muraven, 2004; Tice et al., 2001; Wertenbroch,
1998). The capacity to maintain self-control and successfully implement the long-run
decisions depends on the relative strength of the opposing forces of desire and willpower.
Most frequently in literature, willpower strength has been conceptualized as a limited
153
resource, akin to energy, especially insofar as it becomes depleted over time and needs
replenishment by rest, sleep and positive emotions (e.g. Baumeister, 2003; Muraven and
Shmueli, 2006; Baumeister et al., 2000; Bruyneel et al., 2006).
As mentioned by several authors, individual differences in self-control capacity effectively
predict positive outcomes across a variety of life domains. Empirical evidence indicates that
people with high dispositional self-control show better achievement and task performance (e.g.
Feldman et al., 1995; Wolfe and Johnson, 1995), fewer impulse control problems (e.g. Peluso
et al., 1999; Cook et al., 1998), better psychological adjustment (e.g. Tangney et al., 2004),
higher self-esteem and self-acceptance (e.g. Tangney and Baumeister, 2001), have better
interpersonal relationships (e.g. Kochanska et al., 2000; Krueger et al., 1996) and live more
optimal emotional lives (Leith and Baumeister, 1998). In contrast, a generalized lack of self-
control has been repeatedly related to a number of undisciplined behaviors such as excessive
cigarette smoking and food intake (e.g. Baumeister et al., 1994), alcohol and/or drugs abuse
(e.g. Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990), impulsive buying behavior (e.g. Youn and Faber, 2000)
and illegal acts such as cheating, shoplifting and driving under the influence of alcohol (e.g.
O’Gorman and Baxter, 2002). Though trait-behavior links across these various contexts all
appeared to be significant, in line with general personality research, the found relationships
were rather modest as self-control accounted for perhaps 10 percent or less of the behavioral
variance in all cases (e.g. Youn and Faber, 2000; O’Gorman and Baxter, 2002). Hence, once
again, the question arises if relevant intervening variables could be detected that influence the
relationship between people’s capacity for self-control and behavior in predictable ways.
To address this question, the second study focuses on the influence of consumer motives on
the relationship between self-control and disciplined behavior in the context of driving one’s
154
car. Though people scoring high on the trait self-control may be predisposed to behave more
disciplined compared to people with low self-control levels, here again, actual behavioral
outcomes are assumed to be function of the manifest consumer motivations. In the context of
the present study, disciplined driving behavior (i.e. driving one’s car in accordance to public
norms and prescriptions) is supposed to become manifest among people with high
dispositional self-control especially when an underlying need for obedience to norms and
regulations is compatible with the specific consumer motives these people are driven by.
However, when normative behavior can less be aligned with one’s underlying motives, high
levels of self-control are predicted to be less likely to result into disciplined driving behavior
in this case.
As in the first study, specific hypotheses are developed to test the above propositions. Given
the prominent evidence in literature that high levels of human self-control are closely linked
to volitional or virtuous behavior (e.g. Baumeister and Exline, 2000; Baumeister, 2002;
Tangney et al., 2004), whereas self-control failure should be related to less disciplined and
more imprudent behavior (e.g. Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; O’Gorman and Baxter, 2002),
a first hypothesis concerning the relationship between the capacity for self-control and (self-
reported) disciplined driving behavior can be stated as follows:
H1: People with high dispositional self-control will report more disciplined driving
behavior compared to people with low dispositional self-control
Thus far, few studies have investigated the overlap between the construct of self-control and
other human personality traits. However, recently, positive relationships were detected
between measures of self-control and the Big Five dimensions of Conscientiousness (with its
155
facets order, competence, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline and deliberation),
Agreeableness (with its facets trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and
tender-mindedness) and Emotional stability (e.g. Tangney et al., 2004; O’Gorman and Baxter,
2002; Olson, 2005; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, 2005). Additionally, self-control was
found to be correlated positively with delay of gratification, frugality, perfectionism, risk
aversion, parsimony, social responsibility, need to belong, need for mastery, need for
competence, desire for control, need for cognition and need for achievement (e.g. Baumeister
and Exline, 1999; Kacen and Lee, 2002; Skinner, 1996; Stammerjohan and Webster, 2002;
Rook, 1987). Significant negative relationships were established with reward responsiveness,
drive, fun seeking, need for enjoyment, need for stimulation, impulsiveness, variety seeking
and sensation seeking (e.g. O’Gorman and Baxter, 2002; Stammerjohan and Webster, 2002;
Rook, 1987).
In relationship with the general framework of consumer motives used in these studies,
personality traits showing a positive correlation with human self-control seem conceptually
related to the bottom-side motive domains of Recognition (aligned with competence,
achievement striving, self-discipline, perfectionism, need for mastery and need for cognition)
and Security (aligned with order, dutifulness, desire for control, deliberation, trust,
straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness, frugality, social
responsibility, risk aversion and parsimony). In addition, personality traits found to be
correlated negatively with self-control are congruent with the upper-side motive domains of
Vitality (aligned with need for stimulation, sensation seeking, variety seeking and
impulsiveness) and Conviviality (aligned with fun seeking, need for enjoyment and reward
responsiveness). Hence, positive relationships are assumed to show up between the construct
of self-control and consumer motives of Recognition and Security, whereas negative
156
relationships are expected with motives of Vitality and Conviviality. More formally, we state
the following hypothesis:
H2: People driven by underlying motives of Recognition or Security will exhibit higher
levels of dispositional self-control compared to people driven by motives of Vitality or
Conviviality, with no significant differences existing between Recognition and Security-
driven and Vitality and Conviviality-driven people respectively
By integrating H1 and H2 as stated above, people driven by underlying motives of
Recognition or Security are predicted to report more disciplined driving behavior relative to
Vitality or Conviviality-driven people. However, significant differences are expected
between Recognition and Security-driven people based on the compatibility principle
established in motive-literature (e.g. Higgins, 2002; Pham and Higgins, 2005). In the context
of the present study, disciplined driving behavior formally implies driving one’s car in
accordance to public norms and prescriptions (e.g. not driving under the influence of alcohol,
not exceeding speed limits, obeying the traffic rules, etc). Given their respective positions
along the interpersonal (i.e. horizontal) axis of the general motive taxonomy (see Fig. 5.1), an
underlying need for obedience to norms and regulations of the group is inherent in the basic
motive orientation of Security-driven people, whereas Recognition-driven people tend to be
more individualistic and give higher priority to their personal goals and standards as opposed
to group norms. In contrast to Security-driven people, who tend to focus on social harmony,
people driven by an underlying motive of Recognition sometimes ignore the potential
negative consequences of their behavior for the group in favor of their own individual
interests. Hence, based on these motive-related characteristics, disciplined driving behavior
as a kind of normative behavior appears to be more compatible with a Security orientation,
157
and thus, is expected to be more prominent among Security-driven people than among
Recognition-driven people, with the latter seeming more likely to be predisposed to
disciplined behavior with a more individualistic character. No influence of position on the
interpersonal motive axis, and thus, no significant differences in normative driving behavior
are expected between Vitality and Conviviality-driven people as these people – given their
low levels of dispositional self-control – are less likely to be predisposed to disciplined
behavior in any way. The above predictions are incorporated in our third hypothesis:
H3: People driven by underlying motives of Recognition or Security will report more
disciplined driving behavior compared to people driven by motives of Vitality or Conviviality,
with Security-driven people scoring significantly higher than Recognition-driven people. No
significant differences in disciplined driving behavior scores will exist between Vitality and
Conviviality-driven people.
To summarize, in this second study, the role of consumer motives as intervening variables
will be further explored within a different context and for a different subject sample. Specific
behavioral effects of the trait self-control are assumed to be dependent on the particular
consumer motives that are manifest. Though human self-control is expected to be related to
the same extent to motives of Recognition and Security, disciplined driving behavior as a
resulting outcome is hypothesized to become more prominent among Security-driven people
than among Recognition-driven people based on the principle of compatibility in motive-
literature. An extensive empirical investigation of the above hypotheses is provided in the
following sections.
158
4.2. Method
4.2.1. Participants
Similar to study 1, data were collected by distributing 250 questionnaires among Flemish car
drivers via a random walk method. Again, subjects received a writing pen as a reward for
their participation. Of the 213 surveys that were returned, 40 exemplars were not usable as
they contained large amounts of missing data. Hence, a final number of 173 usable surveys
remained, accounting for a final response rate of 69.2%. Compared to the total population
(NIS, 2005), males were slightly overrepresented in the sample as were people with a higher
education. Table 5.5 provides a detailed overview of the characteristics of the sample.
159
Table 5.5 : Sample Characteristics Study 2 (% of respondents, N = 173)
Sample Population*
Gender
Male 56.5 48.9
Female 43.5 51.1
Age
<25 18.5 18.4
25-40 38.6 32.8
40-50 24.3 22.6
>50 18.6 26.2
Education
Profession
Labourer 13.6
Employee 27.1
Executive 4.0
Self-employed 9.6
Functionary 12.4
Keeping house 6.4
Retired 16.9
Unemployed 3.7
Student 6.3
4.2.2. Measures
To assess consumer motives we relied on the same measurement procedure as described in
study 1. Subjects were asked to fill out the 34-item Consumer Motive Scale of Geeroms et al.
(2005) for their preferred car brand, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= not at all
descriptive to 5= very descriptive. Again, unsatisfactory reliability estimates showed up for
the eight motive domains, and thus, items of adjacent positions with high intercorrelations
were combined to create reliable motive constructs. After dropping seven items that did not
perform well, four composite construct measures were computed by respectively summing
160
and averaging the scores of the combined items. As in the previous study, these motive
constructs were referred to with the names of the corresponding quadrants in the general
motive taxonomy. Reliability coefficients and other relevant information pertaining to each
of the four constructs are provided in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 : Four Motive Constructs (Study 2)
Motive Construct Final Item Labels Cronbach’s α

Number of
Items
Pleasure/Vitality 6 adventurous, creative, .69
(i.e. upper-left quadrant) innovative,
contemporary, impulsive,
unrestrained
Power/Recognition 7 successful, leader, .73
(i.e. bottom-left quadrant) powerful, competitive,
intellectual, stylish,
sophisticated
Control/Security 8 mature, organized, .71
(i.e. bottom-right quadrant) punctual, simple,
traditional, calm, careful,
introvert
Belonging/Conviviality 6 friendly, approachable, .74
(i.e. upper-right quadrant) optimistic, great to get on
with, sympathetic,
reliable
Dispositional self-control was measured by the Trait Self-Control (TSC) Scale of Tangney et
al. (2004). This measure consisted of 36 items. Participants were asked to answer all items as
they apply to them on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= not at all like me to 5= very
much like me. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the 36-item scale was .89. Items
conceptually the reverse of the definition of self-control were reverse coded, such that higher
scores suggested higher self-control. A TSC mean score was finally computed for each
respondent based on the 36 items. In Appendix A an overview is given of the entire scale.
161
As a behavioral measure five situations were presented each outlining one act of non-
normative driving behavior, i.e. driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
exceeding the speed limits, failing to give priority, ignoring stopping/traffic signals and
driving without wearing a seatbelt. Subjects were instructed to indicate the frequency of their
acting in that way on a five-point Likert scale anchored from 1= always to 5= never, with
lower frequency levels, and thus higher scale scores, suggesting a more disciplined driving
behavior. Scores of the five items were summed and averaged to represent the corresponding
construct. The coefficient alpha for the composite measure of disciplined driving behavior
was .83.
4.3. Results
Via a median split respondents were categorized as high or low in dispositional self-control
(median= 3.6; M low dispositional self-control= 3.1, M high dispositional self-control= 4.0).
Results of an Independent Samples T-test indicated that people with high dispositional self-
control reported significantly higher levels of disciplined driving behavior (M= 4.2) compared
to people scoring low on dispositional self-control (M= 3.5) (t= -8.65; p< .01). Hence, H1
received full support.
To test H2 and H3, individuals were assigned a left or right-side and a bottom or upper-side
motive position by performing a median split on the variables representing the respondents’
co-ordinates on respectively the interpersonal and intrapersonal axis of the general motive
taxonomy20 (median= 0.7 for the score on the horizontal axis; M left-side position= -0.5, M
right-side position= 1.9; median= -0.7 for the score on the vertical axis; M bottom-side
20
As in the previous study, co-ordinates on the interpersonal (intrapersonal) motive axes were computed by subtracting the summed scores
for Vitality and Recognition (Recognition and Security) from the summed scores for Conviviality and Security (Vitality and Conviviality),
with higher co-ordinates indicating a more right-side (upper-side) position (e.g. Feather, 1995).
162
position= -2.2, M upper-side position= 1.4). Generally, the results of a 2 (position horizontal
axis: left/right) X 2 (position vertical axis: bottom/upper) MANOVA analysis with
dispositional self-control (H2) and disciplined driving behavior (H3) as dependent variables
revealed a significant main effect of both position on the horizontal axis (F(2, 168)= 12.90,
p< .01) and position on the vertical axis (F(2, 168)= 29.34, p< .01), as well as a significant
interaction effect (F(2, 168)= 3.29, p< .05).
In support of H2, for dispositional self-control only the main effect of position on the vertical
axis appeared to be significant (F(1, 169)= 52.01, p< .01), with bottom-side respondents, i.e.
people driven by underlying motives of Recognition or Security scoring significantly higher
on dispositional self-control (M= 3.9) compared to upper-side respondents, i.e. people driven
by underlying motives of Vitality or Conviviality (M= 3.3). In line with the non-significant
interaction effect (F(1, 169)= 0.51, p> .05) (see Fig. 5.5), simple main effects tests indicated
no significant differences in dispositional self-control between Recognition (i.e. bottom-left
position; M= 3.8) and Security-driven people (i.e. bottom-right position; M= 3.9) (F(1, 88)=
0.34, p> .05), as well as between Vitality (i.e. upper-left position; M= 3.3) and Conviviality-
driven people (i.e. upper-right position; M= 3.2) (F(1, 81)= 0.19, p> .05).
Figure 5.5 : Study 2 – MANOVA results : Dispositional Self-Control
5,0 Position
4,5 horizontal
motive axis
Dispositional
4,0 3,9
Self-control
3,8
3,5 Left
3,3
3,2
3,0 Right
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
Bottom Upper
Position vertical motive axis
163
With regard to disciplined driving behavior both position on the vertical axis (F(1, 169)=
36.13, p< .01) and position on the horizontal axis (F(1, 169)= 19.22, p< .01) accounted for
significant main effects. Bottom-side respondents, i.e. people driven by underlying motives
of Recognition or Security reported significantly higher levels of disciplined driving behavior
(M= 4.1) compared to upper-side respondents, i.e. people driven by underlying motives of
Vitality or Conviviality (M= 3.5), and so did right-side respondents, i.e. people driven by
underlying motives of Conviviality or Security (M= 4.1) as compared to left-side respondents,
i.e. people driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Recognition (M= 3.6). More important
however, also a significant two-way interaction effect could be detected (F(1, 169)= 6.17,
p< .05) (see Fig. 5.6). Simple main effects tests revealed that Security-driven people (i.e.
bottom-right position; M= 4.4) scored significantly higher on disciplined driving behavior
than Recognition-driven people (i.e. bottom-left position; M= 3.7) (F(1, 88)= 23.79, p< .01),
but that disciplined driving behavior between Vitality (i.e. upper-left position; M= 3.4) and
Conviviality-driven people (i.e. upper-right position; M= 3.5) did not differ (F(1, 81)= 1.81,
p> .05). Hence, H3 was also fully supported.
Figure 5.6 : Study 2 – MANOVA results : Disciplined Driving Behavior
5,0 Position
Disciplined driving
4,5 4,4 horizontal

4,0 motive axis
3,7
behavior
3,5 3,5
3,4 Left
3,0 Right
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
Bottom Upper
Position vertical motive axis
164
4.4. Discussion
In this second study, the intervening role of consumer motives in trait-behavior relationships
in personality research was investigated within a different research context. Whereas study 1
was undertaken in the specific consumer context of adopting new-product innovations, study
2 comprised a more general situation of driving one’s car in accordance to public norms and
prescriptions. Despite these contextual differences, the results of the second study basically
confirmed and supported our previous findings. In general, a significant positive relationship
could be detected between the trait self-control and normative car driving, as people high in
dispositional self-control reported more disciplined driving behavior compared to people low
in self-control (H1). However, as expected, significant differences were found among people
with high dispositional self-control according to the manifest consumer motives. Though
dispositional self-control appeared to be related equally high to underlying motives of
Recognition and Security (H2), disciplined driving behavior as a resulting outcome became
more prominent among Security-driven people (H3), as this kind of normative behavior was
more compatible with the manifest motive orientation of these people. Hence, based on these
findings of study 2, additional evidence is provided for the role of consumer motives as
intervening variables in the relationship between personality traits and several aspects of
(consumer) behavior. In line with the compatibility principle established in motive-literature,
actual behavioral outcomes of specific individual difference variables are shown to be
dependent on the alignment with the particular consumer motivations that are active within a
given product context.
165
In the remaining parts of this paper some general conclusions and implications are formulated
concerning the findings of the previous studies and an outline is provided of the limitations of
the studies and the directions for further research.
5. General conclusions and discussion
Previous studies have addressed the advantage of the use of contingency models in
personality research, taking into account the combined influence of personality traits and
other personal and situational factors on (consumer) behavior (e.g. Dickson, 1982; Van
Kenhove et al., 1999). Against this background, present research investigated the impact of
underlying consumer motives on trait-behavior relationships within different research
contexts. In a first study the intervening role of one’s underlying motive orientations was
analyzed in the context of the relationship between innate innovativeness and consumer
adoption behavior for innovative mobile phone product attributes. Given its obvious link with
new-product adoption behavior (e.g. Midgley and Dowling, 1993), consumer innovativeness
as a personality trait could be considered as having direct relevance to the study of consumer
behavior. Mobile phones were chosen as the topic of investigation due to the rather high-
involvement nature of this particular product class21 and the number of different innovations it
was subjected to during the time of research. Yet another personality characteristic seemingly
having much to offer researchers interested in consumer behavior is the trait of human self-
control, as processes that undermine the capacity for self-control should lead to less
disciplined and more impulsive behavior (e.g. Baumeister, 2002). Hence, a second study was
performed investigating the role of consumer motives as intervening variables in the
relationship between dispositional self-control and people’s disciplined driving behavior.
21
Significant relationships between innate innovativeness and new-product adoption behavior were found to be more prominent in product
categories were involvement is high (e.g. software, electronics) than in product categories were involvement is low (e.g. food) (e.g. Foxall,
1995).
166
Though the particular research context in which study 2 was conducted (i.e. driving one’s car
in accordance to public norms and prescriptions) might be less related to consumers’ behavior
in the marketplace in a strict sense, the found results may contribute to the study of trait-
behavior relationships in a social marketing context (e.g. promoting traffic safety).
In general, the results of the two studies above supported our basic proposition that actual
behavioral outcomes of human personality traits might be dependent on the alignment with
the particular consumer motives that are active within a given product context. In study 1, we
found a significant positive relationship existing between innate innovativeness and consumer
adoption behavior for innovative mobile phone product attributes (i.e. H1a/H1b). However,
significant differences were detected among high-innovative consumers, i.e. consumers
driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Recognition (i.e. H2), in either adopting utilitarian
or hedonic innovative attributes. In line with the general principle of compatibility in motive-
literature (e.g. Higgins, 2002), Vitality-driven consumers exhibited higher adoption levels for
hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes (i.e. H3), whereas adoption of utilitarian
innovative mobile phone attributes was more prominent among Recognition-driven
consumers (i.e. H4). In the same way, the results of study 2 suggested a significant positive
relationship between dispositional self-control and disciplined driving behavior, as people
high in dispositional self-control reported more disciplined driving behavior compared to
people low in self-control (i.e. H1). Here again, significant differences were found among
people with high dispositional self-control, i.e. people driven by underlying motives of
Recognition or Security (i.e. H2), according to the manifest consumer motives. In particular,
disciplined driving behavior as an outcome of human self-control appeared to be more
prominent among Security-driven people (i.e. H3), as this kind of normative behavior was
more compatible with the manifest motive orientation of these people. Taking into account
167
the motivational make-up of Recognition-driven people, the latter subjects seem to be likely
to be predisposed to disciplined behavior with a more individualistic character (e.g. job
performance). However, this proposition was not explicitly tested in the present research and,
for instance, should be incorporated in future research about this issue. In sum, the findings
of study 1 and study 2 provided preliminary evidence for the intervening impact of consumer
motives on the relationship between human personality and (consumer) behavior. A
dispositional personality trait was found to give rise to a specific behavior, especially when
that behavior aligned with particular manifest consumer motives. In contrast, when less
compatibility could be detected between the behavior in question and underlying motive
orientations, high levels of the personality trait were less likely to result into the behavioral
outcome.
With these findings the present research significantly contributes to an improved
understanding of trait-behavior relationships in personality research. Whereas in prior
research situational factors (e.g. time constraints, interpersonal interactions, task definition,
etc.) were mainly considered as intervening variables in the relationship between personality
traits and several aspects of (consumer) behavior (e.g. Belk, 1975), the research reported here
offers additional insights on how more person-related variables, i.e. underlying motive
dispositions impact trait-behavior relationships in predictable ways. Though personality traits
and consumer motives separately might be of only modest value when one is attempting to
predict (consumer) behavior, taking into consideration the combined influence of both these
variables is likely to give rise to more promising results.
Based on the conclusions drawn from the present research, one important implication could
be considered in the context of consumer-oriented market segmentation. As suggested in
168
several studies, the past focus on personality traits alone to effectively segment consumer
markets is truly outmoded. Hence, many theorists no longer study personality factors in
complete isolation but rather focus on the person within specific situations (e.g. Mischel, 1977;
McDonald and Goldman, 1980). The thrust of present research is that also underlying
consumer motives could be considered as useful bases for segmentation in addition to human
personality traits. Especially, the use of a segmentation framework that incorporates both
personality variables and people’s motive orientations in combination will produce a much
richer description and understanding of target markets to our opinion.
Several limitations concerning this research are appropriate to notice. First, only two specific
research contexts were considered to investigate the impact of underlying consumer motives
on trait-behavior relationships in personality research. Though our basic propositions were
consistently supported across these two studies, the generalizability of the findings could be
enhanced by performing additional studies, validating the results for different personality
traits and different behavioral outcomes.
Second, in the present research consumer motives were assessed by means of the 34-item
Consumer Motive Scale developed by Geeroms et al. (2005). As this measurement
instrument performed rather well in earlier motivational studies (cf. supra: chapter IV), in the
present research, composite construct measures could not be computed for all eight motive
domains due to unsatisfactory Cronbach’s α coefficients. Hence, reliable motive constructs
had to be created based on combinations of items of adjacent positions. Given this lack of
169
measurement invariance across different studies, future research should be conducted that
attempts to improve the general psychometric stability of the Consumer Motive Scale.
A third limitation is related to the measurement of new-product adoption behavior in study 1,
by asking respondents about their purchase intentions with regard to one single product (i.e. a
mobile phone with specific innovative attributes). Though measuring purchase intentions
could be considered as one of the main techniques to assess actualized innovativeness (e.g.
Midgley and Dowling, 1978), more often in literature cross-sectional methods are proposed
for this purpose, i.e. measuring the number of new products owned in a particular product
category (e.g. electronics). The main benefits of cross-sectional measures might be that actual
actions are considered instead of intentions, which may not reflect true behavior and that the
results for a whole product category are less situation specific than for a single product (e.g.
Im et al., 2003).
In addition, in study 1, a distinction between hedonic and utilitarian innovative mobile phone
product attributes was made based on a factor analysis performed on a list of eight innovative
attributes. As indicated, the results of this analysis revealed two broad factors that could
easily be interpreted as respectively hedonic and utilitarian in nature. However, future
research could also determine the utilitarian-hedonic nature of products or attributes a priori,
by assessing respondents’ actual perceptions of these products/attributes (e.g. Venkatraman
and Price, 1990). By doing so, stronger evidence is provided that the desired representation
of utilitarian and hedonic products/attributes was actually obtained than by only relying on the
researcher’s subjective interpretation of empirically detected factors.
170
Finally, as the main purpose of present research was to provide basic support for the
proposition that behavioral outcomes of human personality traits might be function of the
alignment with the manifest consumer motives within a given product context, the predictive
utility of contingency models of personality that take into account this intervening role of
one’s underlying motive dispositions, was not explicitly assessed. However, as noticed
before, such models should have the potential to account for considerable more variance in
(consumer) behavior than the 10 percent explained by trait-behavioral models as such. Hence,
the authors propose that future research studies should be established that examine this
predictive ability more closely.
171
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Isabel Verniers and Deborah Voets for their help with the data
collection of study 1 and study 2 respectively.
172
References
Aaker, J.L., & Lee, A.Y. (2001). I seek pleasures and we avoid pains: the role of self-
regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(1), 33-49.
Angeletos, G-M., Laibson, D., Repetto, A., Tobacman, J., & Weinberg, S. (2001). The
hyperbolic consumption model: calibration, simulation and empirical evaluation.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 47-68.
Arnould, E., Price, L., & Zinkhan, G. (2004). Consumers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994). ACR fellow speech. Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 8-11.
Baumeister, R.F. (1998). The self. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.).
Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.; pp. 680-740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive purchasing,
and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(march), 670-676.
Baumeister, R.F. (2003). Ego-depletion and self-regulation failure: a resource model of self-
control. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27(2), 281-284.
Baumeister, R.F., & Exline, J.J. (1999). Virtue, personality and social relations: self-control
as the moral muscle. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 1165-1194.
Baumeister, R.F., & Exline, J.J. (2000). Self-control, morality, and human strength. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 29-42.
Baumeister, R.F., & Heatherton, T.F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: an overview.
Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 1-15.
173
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: is the
active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1252-1265.
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F., & Tice, D.M. (1994). Losing control: How and why
people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R.F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2000). Ego depletion: a resource model of
volition, self-regulation and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130-150.
Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29, 286-292.
Bearden, W.O., Calcich, S.E., Netemeyer, R., & Teel, J.E. (1986). An exploratory
investigation of consumer innovativeness and interpersonal influences. Advances in
Belk, R.W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
research, 2, 157-164.
Bruyneel, S., Dewitte, S., Vohs, K.D., & Warlop, L. (2006). Repeated choosing increases
susceptibility to affective product features. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23(2), 215-225.
Burns, D.J., & Krampf, R.F. (1991). A semiotic perspective on innovative behavior.
Developments in marketing science. 15th Annual Conference, Academy of Marketing
Science, 14, 32-35.
174
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S.L. (1984). Toward a better understanding of inherent
innovativeness. In W.B. Russel and A.P. Robert (Eds.), Proceedings of the A.M.A.
educator’s conference (p. 88-91). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Cattell, R.B. (1950). Personality: a systematic, theoretical and factual study. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14(1/2), 141-150.
Citrin, A.V., Sprott, D.E., Silverman, S.N., & Stem, D.E. (2000). Adoption of internet
shopping: the role of consumer innovativeness. Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 100(July), 294-300.
Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D., & Bedford, A.P. (1998). Personality correlates of alcohol
consumption. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 641-647.
Cotte, J., & Wood, S.L. (2004). Families and innovative consumer behavior: a triadic
analysis of sibling and parental influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June),
78-86.
Craig, S.C., & Ginter, J.L. (1975). An empirical test of a scale for innovativeness. Advances
in Consumer Research, 2, 555-562.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60-71.
46, 56-64.
Etzel, M.J., Donnelly, J.H., & Ivancevich, J.M. (1976). Social character and consumer
innovativeness. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 153-154.
175
Feldman, S.C., Martinez-Pons, M., & Shaham, D. (1995). The relationship of self-efficacy,
self-regulation and collaborative verbal behavior with grades: preliminary findings.
Feather, N.T. (1995). Values, valences and choice: the influence of values on the perceived
attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151.
Foxall, G., & Haskins, C.G. (2001). Cognitive style and consumer innovativeness: an
empirical test of Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory in the context of food
purchasing. European Journal of Marketing, 20(3/4), 63-80.
Foxall, G.R. (1988). Consumer innovativeness: novelty-seeking, creativity and cognitive
style. Research in Consumer Behavior, 3, 79-113.
Foxall, G.R. (1995). Cognitive styles of consumer initiators. Technovation, 15(5), 269-288.
Foxall, G.R., & Bhate, S. (1993). Cognitive styles and personal involvement of market
initiators for healthy food brands: implications for adoption theory. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 14, 33-56.
Foxall, G.R., & Goldsmith, R.E. (1988). Personality and consumer research: another look.
Journal of the Market Research Society, 30(2), 111-125.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T.S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849-867.
176
Goldsmith, R.E., & Hofacker, C.F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(Summer), 1004-1016.
Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B., & Eastman, J.K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in
consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15(10), 601-611.
Goldsmith, R.E., Kim, D., Flynn, L.R., & Kim, W.M. (2005). Price sensivity and
innovativeness for fashion among Korean consumers. Journal of Social Psychology,
145(5), 501-508.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F.R. (2000). The role of the social-identity function of
attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership. Journal of Economic
Guilford, J.P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising:
understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer psychology, 3(1), 239-260.
Higgins, E.T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and
prevention decision-making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity. Journal
of Consumer Research, 7(dec), 283-295.
Hirschman, E.C., & Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
Hirschman, E.C., & Stern, B.B. (1998). Consumer behavior and the wayward mind: the
influence of mania and depression on consumption. Advances in Consumer Research,
25, 421-427.
177
Hoch, S.J., & Loewenstein, G.F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-
control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(march), 492-507.
determination processes. In S. Ratneshwar and D.G. Mick (Eds.), The why of
consumption (p. 9-36). New York: Routledge.
Im, S., Bayus, B.L., & Mason, C.H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer
innovativeness, personal characteristics and new-product adoption behavior. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 61-73.
Jacoby, J. (1971). Multiple-indicant approaches for studying new product adopters. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 55, 384-388.
Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Graziano, W.G. (2005). The two faces of temptation: differing
motives for self-control. Merrill-palmer Quarterly, 51(3), 287-314.
Joseph, B., & Vyas, S.J. (1984). Concurrent validity of a measure of innovative cognitive
style. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(2), 159-175.
Kacen, J.J., & Lee, J.A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 163-176.
Karlsson, N. (2003). Consumer self-control strategies: an empirical study of their structure
and determinants. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 23-41.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: a review. Journal of Marketing
Research, 8(Nov), 409-418.
Kassarjian, H.H., & Sheffet, M.J. (1991). Personality and consumer behavior: an update. In
H.H. Kassarjian and T.S. Robertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior (p.
281-303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Journal of marketing, 57, 1-22.
178
Kim, J-Y. (2006). Hyperbolic discounting and the repeated self-control problem. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 27, 344-359.
Kirton, M.J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K.T., & Harlan, E.T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood:
continuity and change, antecedents and implications for social development.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 220-232.
Krueger, R.F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., White, J., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Delay of
gratification, psychopathology and personality: is low self-control specific to
externalizing problems? Journal of Personality, 64, 107-129.
Lastovicka, J.L., & Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1988). Improving the detection of personality-
behavior relationships in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(March), 583-587.
Leith, K.P., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt and narratives of
interpersonal conflicts: guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., & Frini, A. (2000). What makes consumers buy from internet? A
longitudinal study of online shopping. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(4), 421-432.
Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O., & Madden, T.J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the
adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329-345.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
179
McDonald, S.S., & Goldman, A.E. (1980). Strategies of segmentation research. In G.B.
Hafer (Ed.), A look back, a look ahead (p. 30-42). Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification:
dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3-19.
Midgley, D. (1977). Innovation and new product marketing. Londres: Croom Helm.
Midgley, D.F., & Dowling, G.R. (1978). Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 4(March), 229-242.
Midgley, D.F., & Dowling, G.R. (1993). A longitudinal study of product form innovation:
the interaction between predispositions and social messages. Journal of Consumer
Research, 19(4), 611-625.
Miller, K.E., & Ginter, J.L. (1979). An investigation of situational variation in brand choice
and attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 111-123.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 32,
246-254.
Mudd, S. (1990). The place of innovativeness in models of the adoption process: an
integrative review. Technovation, 10(2), 119-134.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources:
does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.
Muraven, M., & Shmueli, D. (2006). The self-control costs of fighting the temptation to
drink. Psychology of Addictive behaviors, 20(2), 154-160.
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-
regulation through practice: building self-control strength through repeated exercise.
Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 446-457.
180
NIS (2005). Private Households Statistics. Brussels: NIS, National Institute for Statistics.
O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2000). The economics of immediate gratification. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 233-250.
O’Gorman, J.G., & Baxter, E. (2002). Self-control as a personality measure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 533-539.
Olson, K.R. (2005). Engagement and self-control: superordinate dimensions of Big Five
traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1689-1700.
Park, C.W., & Smith, D.C. (1989). Product-level choice: a top-down or bottom-up process?
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 289-299.
Park, K., & Dyer, C.L. (1995). Consumer use innovative behavior: an approach toward its
causes. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 566-572.
Peluso, T., Ricciardelli, L.A., & Williams, R.J. (1999). Self-control in relation to problem
drinking and symptoms of disordered eating. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 439-442.
Pham, M., & Higgins, E.T. (2005). Promotion and prevention in consumer decision-making.
In S. Ratneshwar and D.G. Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption (p. 8-43). New York:
Routledge.
Pizzam, A. (1972). Psychological characteristics of innovators. European Journal of
Marketing, 6(3), 203-210.
Price, L.L., & Ridgway, N.M. (1983). Development of a scale to measure use innovativeness.
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: concepts and measurements. Journal of
Business Research, 57, 671-677.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York (NY): The Free Press.
Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations. New York (NY):
The Free Press.
181
Rook, D.W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-199.
Skinner, E.A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(3), 549-570.
Slessareva, E., & Muraven, M. (2004). Sensitivity to punishment and self-control: the
mediating role of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 307-319.
Stammerjohan, C., & Webster, C. (2002). Trait and situational antecedents to non-
consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 126-132.
Steenkamp, J.B., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in
exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 434-448.
Tangney, J.P., & Baumeister, R.F. (2001). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less
pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030.
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Boone, A.L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72(2), 271-324.
Thaler, R.H., & Shefrin, H.M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of
Political Economy, 89(2), 392-406.
Tice, D.M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R.F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes
precedence over impulse control: if you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(1), 53-67.
Van Kenhove, P., De Wulf, K., & Van Waterschoot, W. (1999). The impact of task-
definition on store-attribute saliences and store choice. Journal of Retailing, 75(1),
125-137.
Venkatraman, M.P. (1991). The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption.
Journal of Retailing, 67(1), 51-67.
182
Venkatraman, M.P., & MacInnis, D.J. (1985). The epistemic and sensory exploratory
behaviors of hedonic and cognitive consumers. Advances in Consumer Research, 12 ,
102-107.
Venkatraman, M.P., & Price, L.L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory
innovativeness: concepts, measurement and implications. Journal of Business
Research, 20, 293-315.
Wahlers, R.G., Dunn, M.G., & Etzel, M.J. (1986). The convergence of alternative OSL
measures with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. Advances in Consumer
Research, 13, 398-402.
Wells, W.D., & Beard, A.D. (1973). Personality and consumer behavior. In S. Ward and
T.S. Robertson (Eds.), Consumer behavior: theoretical sources (p. 141-199). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue
and vice. Marketing Science, 17(4), 317-337.
Wolfe, R.N., & Johnson, S.D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 177-185.
Wood, S.L., & Swait, J. (2002). Psychological indicators of innovation adoption: cross-
classification based on need for cognition and need for change. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 12(1), 1-13.
Youn, S., & Faber, R.J. (2000). Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues.
183
Zuckerman, M.D. (1979). Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
184
Appendix A
185
Consumer Innovativeness Scale (Manning et al., 1995)
CIJM items
1. Prior to purchasing a new brand, I prefer to consult a friend that has experience with the new brand.
2. When it comes to deciding whether to purchase a new service, I do not rely on experienced friends or
family members for advice.
3. I seldom ask a friend about his or her experiences with a new product before I buy the new product.
4. I decide to buy new products or services without relying on the opinions of friends who have already
tried them.
5. When I am interested in purchasing a new service, I do not rely on my friends or close acquaintances
that have already used the new service to give me information as to whether I should try it.
6. I do not rely on experienced friends for information about new products prior to making up my mind
about whether or not to purchase.
CNS items
1. I often seek out information about new products and brands
2. I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products and brands.
3. I like magazines that introduce new brands.
4. I frequently look for new products and services.
5. I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of product information.
6. I am continually seeking new product experiences.
7. When I go shopping, I find myself spending very little time checking out new products and brands.
8. I take advantage of the first available opportunity to find out about new and different products.
Trait Self-Control (TSC) Scale (Tangney et al., 2004)
1. I have a hard time breaking bad habits.

2. I am lazy.
3. I say inappropriate things.
4. I never allow myself to lose control.
5. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun.
6. People can count on me to keep on schedule.
7. Getting up in the morning is hard for me.
8. I have trouble saying no.
9. I change my mind fairly often.
10. I blurt out whatever is on my mind.
11. People would describe me as impulsive.
12. I refuse things that are bad for me.
13. I spend too much money.
14. I keep everything neat.
15. I am self-indulgent at times.
16. I wish I had more self-discipline.
17. I am good at resisting temptation.
18. I get carried away by my feelings.
19. I do many things at the spur of the moment.
20. I don’t keep secrets very well.
21. People would say that I have iron self-discipline.
22. I have worked or studied all night at the last minute.
23. I’m not easily discouraged.
24. I’d be better off if I stopped to think before acting.
25. I engage in healthy practices.
26. I eat healthy foods.
27. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done.
28. I have trouble concentrating.
29. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals.
30. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it’s wrong.
186
31. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives.

32. I lose my temper too easily.
33. I often interrupt people.
34. I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess.
35. I am always on time.
36. I am reliable.
187
CHAPTER VI
HEALTH ADVERTISING TO PROMOTE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
INTAKE : APPLICATION OF MOTIVE-RELATED HEALTH
AUDIENCE SEGMENTATION
189
Chapter VI
Health Advertising to promote Fruit and Vegetable Intake:
Application of motive-related Health Audience Segmentation
1. Abstract
Given the importance of meaningful audience segmentation in creating effective health
advertisements, this study proposes a new theory-driven segmentation approach based on
Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of eight consumer motives. The authors demonstrate the
usefulness of this new segmentation paradigm in the process of developing appropriate health
advertisements in the context of fruit and vegetable consumption. Results of a two-step
cluster analysis reveal five different health segments to exist with different health-realted
motive orientations. Significant differences exist between these segments both with regard to
(category-specific) fruit and vegetable consumption and reactions toward fruit and vegetable
health advertisements. In general, a segment’s reactions toward appropriate motive-related
health advertising were significantly more positive than its reactions toward health
advertising that has a general character (i.e. not responsive to a segment’s underlying
motives). Based on these results some practical suggestions and recommendations are
offered for health communicators to use when developing motive-related health
advertisements to audiences with specific health-related motive orientations.
191
2. Introduction
Consumption of diets rich in fruits and vegetables is important for attaining and maintaining a
good health (e.g. Cox et al., 1996; Steinmetz and Potter, 1996; Van Duyn and Pivonka, 2000;
Hu et al., 2000; Li et al., 2000; Lambert, 2001). Therefore, the World Health Organization
(WHO, 1990) recommends a daily intake of at least 400g of vegetables and fruits, which is
equivalent to about five 80g portions of fruits and vegetables per day (Williams, 1995).
Nevertheless, statistical data show that the consumption levels of fresh fruits and vegetables
remain substantially below this recommended level in many countries (e.g. Thompson et al.,
1999; Naska et al., 2000; Ling and Horwath, 2001; Rurik and Antal, 2003; Vereecken et al.,
2004).
To promote compliance with the “Five-a-day” recommendation, several nation-wide public
health campaigns have been established (French et al., 2001), with varying results. Whereas
some of the interventions actually did achieve the meant objectives (e.g. Dixon et al., 1998;
French and Stables, 2003), others were less successful in modifying eating behavior (e.g.
Donohew, 1990; Weaver et al., 1999; Ringold, 2002; Glanz and Yaroch, 2004; Safley et al.,
2004).
As mentioned by several authors, this inconsistent success of previous public health
campaigns might be due to the fact that some of these interventions disregarded the possibility
that the total population consists of a number of smaller sub-groups, with distinct need or
motive patterns that should be taken into account (e.g. Albrecht and Bryant, 1996; Pollard et
al., 2002; Verbeke, 2005). As posited by these authors, marketing health information that is
insufficiently tailored or personally relevant and does not target specific needs or motives
192
Chapter VI : Consumer Motives and Health Advertising
risks to be ineffective, as it is not appropriate for or does not appeal to particular target
audiences (e.g. Forthofer and Bryant, 2000; Fennis, 2003; Rapley and Coulson, 2005). To be
effective, persuasive messages should be developed that are responsive to consumer needs or
motives (e.g. Brehony et al., 1984; Lefebvre and Flora, 1988; Hastings and Haywood, 1994).
Hence, also in social marketing areas, the real challenge lies in identifying and effectively
reaching particular audience segments (Atkin and Freimuth, 1989; Slater and Flora, 1994;
Freimuth et al., 2001; Grier and Bryant, 2005; Boslaugh et al., 2005).
As demographic or geo-demographic homogeneity alone provides precious little help in
constructing tailored health advertisements (e.g. Slater 1995), this study takes a more
sophisticated approach by outlining a new segmentation paradigm based on audience
members’ health-related motive orientations, i.e. relatively enduring beliefs that people hold
about the fundamental meaning of health. As health beliefs have been identified as important
determinants of overall food behavior patterns (e.g. Steptoe et al., 1995), it can reasonably be
assumed that they will also influence consumer behavior for fruits and vegetables. Hence,
health-related motive orientations could be considered as relevant segmentation variables in
the context of fruit and vegetable consumption. As a theoretical framework to assess people’s
health-related motive orientations Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives
was applied in the present study (cf. infra: section 3.1).
After identifying consumer segments with different health-related motive orientations and
assessing differences in fruit and vegetable consumption patterns among these segments, the
authors of this study will explore the effectiveness of different persuasive messages to
motivate each of the segments to behave healthier (in this case increasing fruit and vegetable
193
intake 22 ). It is implicitly assumed that different communication strategies should be
employed for consumers with different health-related motive orientations.
In the context of the present study, four motive-related printed health advertisements are
tested (and compared to a more general ad), each with a different message tonality
(informational vs. transformational) and directionality (self-directed arguments vs. other-
directed arguments). The objective is to determine which message tonality and directionality
fit best a particular segment or audience group’s health-related motives and thus, could be
recommended to use in persuasive messages designed to these segments.
In what follows, we first outline the theoretical background on which our hypotheses are built
and give an overview of the research method. Then, the empirical findings are presented,
followed by a general discussion and recommendations to health practitioners and
communicators. Finally, attention is paid to the limitations of the study and pathways for
future research are proposed.
3. Theoretical background and hypotheses
3.1. A general taxonomy of consumer motives23
In order to extend the heuristic value of theory in the applied context of audience
segmentation (see Silk et al. [2005] for a plea for theoretical strategies for audience
segmentation), we postulate Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives as the

22
Fruit and vegetable intake is assumed to be a relevant case to be investigated in the context of motive-related audience segmentation, as
generic cognitive approaches are less likely to be effective because of low consumer involvement with regard to fruit and vegetable
consumption (Verbeke & Pieniak., 2006). Moreover, a rich assortment of fruit and vegetable types is available to consumers – each with
different features and/or health-related benefits – that can be positioned in the context of different health-related motive orientations.
23
This section comprises a brief recapitulation of the major findings of chapter III of this dissertation, in order to refresh the reader’s mind.
For a full explanation of the origins of the general consumer motive taxonomy we thus refer to this corresponding chapter.
194
basis for our new segmentation approach. Consumer motives can be referred to as desirable
end-states of consumer behavior that people seek to attain (e.g. McClelland, 1985). Based on
empirical findings in 11 countries, Geeroms et al. (2005) validated the consumer motive
taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) consisting of eight consumer motives, i.e. Vitality,
Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control, Recognition and Power, that are at work
within every individual. In Table 6.1 an overview can be found of the basic definitions of all
of these motive domains.
Table 6.1 : Motive Definitions
or self-control.

ones.
morally acceptable.

Source : Geeroms et al. (2005)
The relationships among the eight motive orientations can be summarized in terms of a
circumplex structure, determined by two basic, bipolar, conceptual dimensions, respectively
195
representing an intrapersonal and interpersonal motive axis (see Fig. 6.1). All these
motivational states could be considered as stable dispositions that become aroused by a
particular product environment (e.g. McClelland, 1980). Once aroused, the consumer motives
that are manifest in a given product context are likely to elicit some kind of motive-directed
behavior (e.g. Mowen and Minor, 1997). The motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) has
been proven to be valid cross-culturally, seems compatible with prior classifications of human
motives (e.g. Ford and Nichols, 1987) and, in addition, has a number of advantages over these
previous motive taxonomies. Hence, this structure can be used as the basic theoretical
framework in the present study.
Garant, 1999)
196
3.2. Health-related motive orientations
As mentioned in the introduction, health-related beliefs or concerns are assumed to be
important when considering food behavior such as fruit and vegetable consumption (e.g.
Steptoe et al., 1995). In the majority of studies investigating food-health relationships to date,
a rather restricted conceptualization of health is applied, focusing on physical well-being only
(e.g. Rappoport et al., 1993). However, when applying Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of
consumer motives in a health context, a broader conceptualization of health could be
proposed, also comprising psychological dimensions of health concern such as emotional
well-being, enjoying life or social responsibility. In alignment with the definitions of the
respective motive positions in the general taxonomy (i.e. Table 6.1), from an intrapersonal
point of view, health could be expected to be dealt with in an unrestricted, emotional way (i.e.
Pleasure motive) as opposed to a more controlled, functional way of dealing with health (i.e.
Control motive). When interpersonal motives are manifest, we expect an individualistic
interpretation of health to exist (i.e. Power motive) in contrast to an altruistic interpretation
(i.e. Belonging motive). Out of the dynamic interaction of the previous intrapersonal and
interpersonal ways of dealing with health, four different health audience segments could be
assumed to emerge with different health-related motive orientations, corresponding to the four
quadrants of the general motive taxonomy (see Fig. 6.1). Based on the respective motive
definitions of the four quadrantal positions, we derive the following specific hypotheses
regarding the fundamental meaning of health for each of these segments:
H1a: A Vitality segment will exist combining elements of Pleasure and Power-related
motive orientations, for which health is mainly about being active (e.g. practicing sports) and
having energy.
197
H1b: A Conviviality segment will exist combining elements of Pleasure and Belonging-
related motive orientations, for which health is mainly about emotional well-being, enjoying
life and feeling good socially.
H1c: A Security segment will exist combining elements of Control and Belonging-related
motive orientations, for which health is mainly about physical well-being, avoiding illness
and taking care of the health of others.
H1d: A Recognition segment will exist combining elements of Control and Power-related
motive orientations, for which health is mainly about managing outward appearance in the
best possible way (e.g. looking good, being slim).
3.3. Health-related motive orientations and fruit and vegetable consumption
As (consumer) motives guide a person’s behavior in a given situation (e.g. Carver and
Scheier, 1981; Pervin, 1989), differences in behavioral patterns could be expected as a result
of particular motive differences. In consumer motive structures, more specific behavioral sub-
goals at lower levels in the hierarchy are instrumental to reach higher level motives as ends
(e.g. Pieters, 1993; 1995). When applying this to the context of health, we expect different
health-related behaviors to exist among people with different health-related motive
orientations, as different behavioral strategies will be appropriate to satisfy the different
motives that are manifest. With regard to fruit and vegetable consumption, this may translate
into significant differences in consumption patterns among members of different health
audience segments. Based on the theoretical arguments posited in this study and their
operationalization in the context of health (i.e. H1a – H1d), we derive the following
hypotheses:
198
H2a: Significant differences in fruit and vegetable consumption frequency will exist among
the different health audience segments: as members of the Conviviality segment are expected
to enjoy the pleasures of life (e.g. tasty food even if rich in calories), they are supposed to
consume significantly less fruits and vegetables compared to the other segments. However,
as Recognition segment members are assumed to prefer food which has a benefit with respect
to physical appearance (i.e. low-calorie food) and reject what is bad for appearance (i.e. high-
calorie food), their fruit and vegetable intake is expected to be significantly higher. Vitality
and Security segment members are expected to have average fruit and vegetable consumption
levels, as their focus is set on rather balanced meals composed of all necessary food
components (i.e. not only fruits and vegetables).
H2b: Significant differences in category-specific fruit and vegetable consumption will exist
among the different health audience segments: to get power for their body, members of the
Vitality segment are expected to consume significantly more high-energy types of fruits and
vegetables (e.g. bananas) compared to the other segments, whereas Recognition segment
members are assumed to consume significantly more low-calorie types (e.g. raw vegetable
salads) to keep their body slim. More classical or traditional fruit and vegetable types with
high nutritional value (e.g. potatoes and cooked vegetables) are expected to be consumed
significantly more by members of the Security and Conviviality segments, since these people
are assumed to feel strongly about traditional family values and norms.
3.4. Health-related motive orientations and reactions toward health advertising
Besides impact on health-related behavior, we expect health-related motive orientations also
to influence consumers’ reactions toward health advertisements (i.e. attitude toward the ad
(Aad) and behavioral intention (BI)). It is assumed that for health advertising to be effective,
199
messages should not be delivered in homogeneous ways (e.g. Witte et al., 1996). Instead,
health practitioners must assess, prior to delivering a message, the manifest health-related
motive orientations of the target audience. Messages are recommended to be developed with
characteristics that are responsive to these manifest motives (e.g. Slater, 1996). From this
association with higher-order motives, motive-related advertisements evoke more personal
relevance (e.g. Rothchild, 1987; Eagle et al., 2004), revealing a tendency of a more positive
Aad and BI (Darley and Lim, 1991).
In this study, two types of message characteristics are manipulated in response to people’s
health-related motive orientations, i.e. message tonality and directionality. Based on the
principle of motive-compatibility previously established in literature (e.g. Higgins, 2002;
Pham and Higgins, 2005) (cf. supra: chapter V), it is hypothesized that when pleasure-related
motives are manifest, a transformational message tonality will be most appropriate, stressing
hedonic consumer experiences, as these message characteristics appear to be most compatible
with the former motive orientations. In contrast, when control-related motive orientations are
manifest, informational message characteristics are assumed to provide the best fit, focusing
on rationality and functionality, as in this case any confrontation with consumer emotions
should be avoided. In a similar vein, we assume that when power-related motives are
manifest, the arguments used in health advertisements should be self-directed, as an
individualistic tendency is inherent in these motive orientations. However, when belonging-
related motive orientations are manifest, arguments should be other-directed, focusing on
social connectedness, as these characteristics are congruent with the altruistic nature of
consumers driven by belonging-related motives. When combining the previous dimensions of
message tonality and directionality, four motive-related health messages could be developed,
each of which we expect to be personally relevant to one of the four hypothesized health
200
audience segments and thus should evoke more positive reactions within the corresponding
segment. Specifically, we hypothesize:
H3a: Compared to the other segments, the Vitality health audience segment will respond
more positively (Aad + BI) toward a transformational/self-directed health advertisement.
H3b: Compared to the other segments, the Conviviality health audience segment will
respond more positively (Aad + BI) toward a transformational/other-directed health
advertisement
H3c: Compared to the other segments, the Security health audience segment will respond
more positively (Aad + BI) toward an informational/other-directed health advertisement.
H3d: Compared to the other segments, the Recognition health audience segment will
respond more positively (Aad + BI) toward an informational/self-directed health
advertisement.
When comparing each segment’s most appropriate motive-related health advertisement to a
general advertisement (i.e. not responsive to consumer motives), we expect the following:
H3e: A segment’s reactions (Aad + BI) toward the most appropriate motive-related
advertisement will be significantly more positive than its reactions toward a general
advertisement, as the latter advertisement is less personally relevant.
201
4. Method
4.1. Stimuli
Stimuli were five printed health advertisements promoting a daily intake of at least five
portions of fresh fruits and vegetables (cf. WHO, 1990). Four motive-related advertisements
were created by the experimenter by using a 2 tonality (informational versus transformational
ad) by 2 directionality (self-directed versus other-directed ad) within-subjects design.
The tonality dimension was manipulated by using an informational versus transformational
advertising strategy (e.g. Rossiter and Percy, 1997). The transformational ads used vivid
pictures (either self-directed or other-directed depending upon the particular condition), paid
attention to hedonic aspects of fruit and vegetable consumption (e.g. enjoying life,
experiencing freedom) and put sentences in relatively personal first-person wording (either
singular (I-sentences) or plural (we-sentences) depending upon the condition). The
informational ad versions used mainly verbal arguments instead of pictures, paid attention to
the functional aspects of eating fruits and vegetables (e.g. avoiding illness or avoiding getting
obese) and wrote sentences in rather removed third-person wording. Directionality was
manipulated by using either self-directed arguments emphasizing the themes of self-identity,
individuality, unique lifestyle and private issue or other-directed arguments focusing on the
theme of we-ness, relationship, family-commitment and joint decision (e.g. Wang and
Mowen, 1997).
202
For comparison reasons, a fifth, general advertisement was presented to the subjects in
addition to the four experimental conditions24. This additional advertisement had both, a
more neutral tonality (neither informational nor transformational) and directionality (neither
self-directed nor other-directed) and was part of an existing Belgian public health campaign
concerning fruit and vegetable consumption, running at the time of research. All five
advertisements are shown in Appendix A.
4.2. Participants
Participants were recruited via the World Wide Web by using an on-line survey method. A
link to the questionnaire was placed on the website of a widespread national newspaper.
Ensuring that repeated participation was impossible, a sample of 692 subjects was collected.
77 respondents were eliminated from the sample because of incomplete responses on key
variables, yielding a final sample of N=615.
The respondents ranged in age from 17 to 77 years, with a mean age of 40.7. Compared with
the available statistics of the Belgian population (NIS, 2005), the sample was representative in
terms of age, relationship status and children in the family. With regard to gender, women
were slightly overrepresented (59.0%) as were people with a higher education (59.4%). A
detailed overview of the sample characteristics can be found in Table 6.2.
24
Though both carry-over and order effects may occur as a consequence of the use of a within-subject design, these problems were
respectively dealt with by collecting our measures of the dependent variable (i.e. reactions toward the five health advertisements) first, before
assessing people’s health-related motive orientations and by successively presenting all five advertisements in a randomized way.
203
Sample Population*
Gender
Male 41.0 48.9
Female 59.0 51.1
Age
<25 11.4 18.4
25-40 39.6 32.8
40-50 23.7 22.6
>50 25.3 26.2
MEAN 40.7
Education
Lower education (< age of 18) 40.6 67.4
Higher education (> age of 18) 59.4 32.6
Profession
Labourer 7.0
Employee 41.2
Executive 6.6
Self-employed 4.8
Functionary 11.9
Keeping house 6.1
Retired 9.4
Unemployed 2.9
Student 6.4
Other… 3.8
Relationship status
Single 22.6 27.1
Relationship/married 77.4 72.1
Children in family
No (=no children) 37.3 35.1
Yes (=children) 62.7 64.9
Employment Status
Part time employed 14.4
Full time employed 58.9
Not applicable 26.7

204
4.3. Measures
4.3.1. Attitude toward the ad (Aad) and behavioral intention (BI)
People’s reactions toward the five health advertisements were measured by a five-item
Attitude Toward the Ad Scale (Aad) and a single-item Behavioral Intention Scale25.
With regard to Aad, three items were based on Zinkhan, Locander and Leigh (1986) and the
other two items were taken from the Attitude Toward the Ad scale of Burke and Edell (1989).
All items ranged from 1= totally disagree to 8= totally agree. For all five advertisements, the
five-item scale reliabilities were very good. Cronbach’s Alpha’s ranged from .94 to .96, all
exceeding the lower critical value level of .60. So, in each case, the scores of the five items
were summed and averaged to form a composite measure of Aad.
Effects on behavioral intention were also measured for all five advertisements. Concretely,
subjects were asked to indicate the likelihood of eating more fresh fruits and vegetables on an
8-point likelihood scale ranging from 1= not at all likely to 8= very likely.
4.3.2. Health-related motive orientations
In Appendix B an overview is given of the scale that was used to measure people’s health-
related motive orientations. This scale consisted of 45 items. 15 items talked about health in
a rather explicit way (fundamental meaning of health) whereas the other 30 items dealt with
25
The rationale for using a single-item behavioral intention scale is based on Rossiter (2002). This author proposes the use of single-item
measures for assessing such concrete constructs as behavioral intention, as multi-item measures often involve the addition of unnecessary
and conceptually inappropriate items in order to obtain a high internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha).
205
health more implicitly by focusing on perceived consequences of a bad health. Subjects rated
these items on a 7-point Likert scale going from 1=totally disagree to 7= totally agree.
All items were constructed based on desk research and qualitative research (18 in-depth
interviews and three group discussions) in which subjects – by means of the Laddering
Method (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988) – were encouraged to talk about their ways of dealing
with health and health-related issues. Based on this procedure all eight positions in Callebaut
et al.’s (1999) general taxonomy of consumer motives (i.e. Fig. 6.1) were translated in a series
of health statements that made up the items in the Health-related Motive Scale. As a
result, initially, eight health constructs were supposed to underlie this scale.
A maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using Lisrel 8.50 was performed
(Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993) to determine whether the eight-factor solution was tenable. The
initial solution did not fit the data well, because of low loadings and poor unidimensionality
of some items. These items that did not perform well were dropped (N=11). With regard to
discriminant validity, the intercorrelation between the constructs ‘pleasure’ and ‘conviviality’
was very high (r=.85), as was the case with the correlation between ‘security’ and ‘control’
(r=.74). Hence, legitimated by the continuous nature of the general consumer motive
taxonomy 26 , we decided to respectively combine these adjacent positions into single
constructs. An additional confirmatory factor analysis was performed with six health
constructs, corresponding to the positions vitality, pleasure/conviviality (combined),
belonging, security/control (combined), power and recognition. A satisfactory six-factor
model emerged out of this analysis (see Table 6.3).
26
The relationships among the eight motives describe a continuum within a two-dimensional circumplex rather than discrete motive
categories. Hence, in CFA, some positions of the consumer motive taxonomy may emerge in combination with adjacent positions, rather
than showing up as separate constructs.
206
Table 6.3 : Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis : Measurement Model
Measurement Model (Measures)
Original Final
Health Construct Number of Number of Item Labels* Composite Reliability
Items Items
1. Health = Energy 7 5 Exp1, Exp2, Exp6 .77
(i.e. Vitality-motive) Imp17, Imp29
2. Health = Emotional well-being 11 7 Exp3, Exp13, Exp14 .70

(i.e. Pleasure/Conviviality-motive) Imp4, Imp15, Imp21, Imp23
3. Health = Social responsibility 5 5 Exp4, Exp7 .62

(i.e. Belonging-motive) Imp1, Imp12, Imp25
4. Health = Physical well-being 10 7 Exp5, Exp8, Exp11 .61

(i.e. Security/Control-motive) Imp2, Imp8, Imp11, Imp22
5. Health = Management 4 4 Imp6, Imp20, Imp27, Imp28 .70

(i.e. Power-motive)
6. Health = Outward appearance 8 6 Exp10, Exp12 .82

(i.e. Recognition-motive) Imp7, Imp14, Imp16, Imp30
Measurement Model (Fit Indices)
NNFI .90
RMR .069
RMSEA .062
GFI .87
*For the full text item labels see Appendix B
207
To test discriminant validity, each of the 15 off-diagonal elements of Φ was fixed to 1.0, in
turn, and the model was re-estimated. Changes in the χ2 goodness-of-fit were statistically
significant for all 15 comparisons (∆χ2 ranging from 211 up to 252, df=1, p<.05) (Steenkamp
and Van Trijp, 1991). Construct reliabilities were evaluated by calculating the composite
reliabilities. Reliabilities of the six multiple-item scales were satisfactory as they ranged
from .61 to .82 (see Table 6.3). Scores of each item were summed and averaged to represent
the corresponding construct. These composite construct measures were used in all further
analyses.
4.3.3. Fruit and vegetable consumption
To estimate people’s intake of fresh fruits and vegetables, a short food frequency
questionnaire (FFQ) was used, developed and validated by Bogers et al. (2004). This
instrument had a reference period of 1 month and included those types or categories of fruits
and vegetables that were consumed most frequently in Belgium. Participants were asked to
indicate for each category, both their average consumption frequency and portion size.
Consumption frequency was measured on a 9-point scale going from 1= never or less than 1
day a month to 9= 7 days a week. To indicate portion size, a 5-point scale was used going
from 1= 1 serving27 to 5= 5 or more servings. Total intake, expressed in number of servings
per day, was calculated by multiplying consumption frequency with portion size.
Consumption of the various fruit and vegetable categories was summed to obtain total fruit
consumption, total vegetable consumption, and total fruit and vegetable intake
27
Depending on the category of fruits and vegetables, serving size was operationalized as either one 50-60g serving spoon (e.g. cooked
vegetables), one piece (e.g. bananas) or one glass (e.g. fruit juices).
208
5. Results
5.1. Manipulation Checks
Additionally, in participants’ questionnaire, two manipulation checks were included. These
measures asked about how people perceived a particular advertisement28 respectively in terms
of tonality (informational vs. transformational) and directionality (self-directed vs. other-
directed). Informational and transformational ad content was measured with three semantic
differential items that were based on the standard scale of Puto and Wells (1984): objective
information vs. experience-oriented; formal vs. informal; rational vs. emotional (α = .85).
Self-directedness and other-directedness were also measured with three semantic differentials
derived from Wang and Mowen (1997): individualistic vs. altruistic; self-identity vs. family
commitment; ego-ness vs. we-ness (α = .89). In both cases, each semantic differential used a
5-place scale response format. Tonality and directionality scores were derived by averaging
over the corresponding items, such that higher scores reflect respectively higher
transformationality and other-directedness.
ANOVA results indicated that both our tonality and directionality manipulations had been
successful. Transformational advertisements were perceived as significantly more
‘transformational’ compared to the informational advertisements (M=3.9 vs. M=2.6; F(1,
611)= 295.21, p<0.05). Also, other-directed advertisements were perceived as significantly
more ‘other-directed’ compared to the self-directed advertisements (M= 3.9 vs. M= 2.5; F(1,
611)= 429.57, p<0.05).
28
In this case, respondents were randomly assigned to only one of the four experimental conditions.
209
Table 6.4 : Means and Standard Deviations for a Five-cluster Solution
Health Constructs (*) Total Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5

sample (Energetic (Harmonious (Normative (Conscious (Rationalists)
Experimenters) Enjoyers) Carers) Experts)
Health = Energy 4.5 (1.59) 6.0 (.76) 4.1 (1.12) 2.7 (1.14) 4.4 (1.06) 3.0 (.96)
(i.e. Vitality-motive)
Health = Emotional well-being 5.2 (.88) 5.1 (.83) 5.8 (.62) 5.4 (.70) 4.8 (.95) 4.9 (.94)
(i.e. Pleasure/Conviviality-
motive)
Health = Social responsibility 5.2 (.94) 4.8 (1.00) 5.3 (1.06) 5.8 (.68) 5.0 (.87) 5.3 (.71)
(i.e. Belonging-motive)
Health = Physical well-being 5.3 (.81) 4.8 (.78) 5.2 (.77) 5.7 (.57) 5.0 (.80) 5.7 (.61)
(i.e. Security/Control-motive)
Health = Management 3.7 (1.22) 3.5 (1.20) 2.9 (1.05) 3.0 (1.01) 5.4 (.89) 3.7 (1.19)
(i.e. Power-motive)
Health = Outward appearance 3.5 (1.25) 3.3 (1.09) 2.2 (.68) 2.5 (.79) 5.6 (.62) 3.8 (1.00)
(i.e. Recognition-motive)
N= 615 N=207 N=101 N=104 N=109 N=94

(*) For the items of the scales for the health constructs:
- 1 corresponds to ‘totally disagree’
- 7 corresponds to ‘totally agree’
210
5.2. Health Audience Segments (H1)
To address the first hypothesis, a two-step cluster analysis (hierarchical clustering using
Ward’s method, followed by a K-means clustering) was performed on the six health
constructs that represent people’s health-related motive orientations. Although a four-cluster
solution was hypothesized, a five-cluster solution was deemed to identify the most distinct
segments of the sample population (see Table 6.4).
A correspondence analysis of the scores of the five clusters on the health statements revealed
a health-related motive structure (see Fig. 6.2), reflective of Callebaut et al.’s (1999)
consumer motive taxonomy. The vertical axis of Fig. 6.2 reflects the intrapersonal motive
axis as it refers to the way in which the individual translates ‘health’ for himself. As
expected, on the one hand health gets meaning throughout its emotional aspects of enjoyment
and freedom (i.e. Pleasure motive), whereas on the other hand, health is dealt with in a very
physical manner with a focus on functionality and control (i.e.. Control motive). The
horizontal axis of Fig 6.2 refers to the interpersonal motive axis as it shows how the
fundamental meaning of health is related to the social environment. As was expected in this
case, an altruistic, normative way of dealing with health could be discovered with a focus on
social well-being and responsibility (i.e.. Belonging motive), in contrast to a more
individualistic interpretation of health, focusing on feelings of independence of others and
activity (i.e.. Power motive). Out of the dynamic interaction of both dimensions, five health
audience segments emerge (i.e. results of cluster analysis), with different health-related
motive orientations.
211
Figure 6.2 : Health-related Motive Structure
* % respondents in the corresponding cluster that associates health with the respective health statement
Variable mean scores in Table 6.4 and cluster-item associations in Fig. 6.2 are suggestive of
the nature of the health-related motive orientations for each cluster. In support of H1a, a
Vitality segment could be detected (i.e. Cluster 1) which we called ‘Energetic
Experimenters’. Members of this segment perceive health mainly in terms of vitality and
energy (M=6.0). 50.7% of them associates 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 anymore to practice sports because of health problems. ‘Energetic Experimenters’
have an average age of 37.7, i.e. the youngest segment, and compared to the total sample
(41.0%), males are slightly overrepresented in this segment (52.7%). About 43.0% of Cluster
1 is working as an employee, 49.5% has no children (which is more than the other segments)
and 65.2% has a fulltime employment status. ‘Energetic Experimenters’ are the largest
segment and represent 34% of the total sample.
212
Cluster 2 subjects, called ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, are representative for the Conviviality
segment hypothesized in H1b. 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 segments,
‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ are slightly older (average age 43.9) with more retired people
(19.0%). Most of them have children (67.3%) and here also, males are a bit overrepresented
compared to the total sample (48.5%). 16% of our sample belongs to this segment.
Also H1c was supported as a Security segment could be identified (i.e. Cluster 3), called
‘Normative Carers’. In contrast to cluster 2, ‘Normative Carers’ are heavily concerned with
the physical aspects of health (M=5.7). Being healthy means in particular ‘avoiding illness’
and ‘having no physical health problems’ (50.6%). In addition, members of Cluster 3
perceive health as a social responsibility (M=5.8). ‘Taking care of other family members’
health’ (29.9%), is considered as very important. Most of the people in Cluster 3 are women
(59.7%) with an average age of 43.6. More than the other segments Normative Carers work
at home (14.3%). This segment accounts for 17% of the sample.
Respondents in Cluster 4 (18% of the sample) are called ‘Conscious Experts’ and could be
considered as the Recognition segment posited in H1d. For them, health is mainly about
management (M=5.4) and physical appearance (M=5.6). They deal with health in a very self-
conscious way with the focus on the health of their own body. As opposed to the other
segments, ‘staying slim’ (24.8%); ‘looking good’ (10.1%); ‘being stylish’ are very important
aspects of feeling healthy for members of Cluster 4. They know their own body the best and
as a result, they want to manage their health by themselves, without needing advice from
213
others. Among them, the majority are women (74.1%), fulltime employed (63.3%) and
41.3% works as an employee. The average age of this second youngest segment is 40.2.
Finally, a fifth health audience segment emerged, that was not explicitly hypothesized but
seemed to be congruent with the Control position of the general consumer motive taxonomy.
As Normative Carers, members of Cluster 5 also are engaged with the physical/functional
aspects of health (M= 5.7), but with as main objective ‘having the competence to do their job’
(27.7%) and ‘being able to organize life and to work functionally’ (41.5%), rather than
‘taking care of the health of others’. These ‘Rationalists’ represent 15% of the total sample.
Here also, women are highly overrepresented (75.3%) with a mean age of 41.9. Most of them
are employees (52.1%) with a fulltime employment status (54.3%).
5.3. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption (H2)
Hypothesis 2 concerning the impact of health-related motive orientations on health-related
consumer behavior was tested via one-way ANOVA. No significant differences were found
between the segments with regard to the total intake of fruits and vegetables (F(4, 552)= .85,
p>.05), as all cluster means fluctuated tightly around the sample mean of 5.4 servings a day.
Hence, H2a was not supported.
Significant differences were found between the five health audience segments with regard to
the types of fruits and vegetables that were consumed. In line with H2b, Energetic
Experimenters (i.e. Vitality segment) (M=0.7) consumed significantly more bananas than did
Harmonious Enjoyers (M= 0.3), Normative Carers (M= 0.3), Conscious Experts (M=0.2) and
Rationalists (M=0.3) (F(4, 522)= 3.23, p<.05). Also as expected, Harmonious Enjoyers (i.e.
214
Conviviality segment) (M=1.9) and Normative Carers (i.e. Security segment) (M=2.1) had a
significantly higher consumption of potatoes than did Energetic Experimenters (M=1.1),
Conscious Experts (M=1.0) and Rationalists (M=1.3) (F(4, 522)= 6.81, p<.01). The same
pattern could be found for the category of cooked vegetables: Harmonious Enjoyers (M=2.6)
and Normative Carers (M=2.8) ate significantly more cooked vegetables than did Energetic
Experimenters (M=2.1), Conscious Experts (M=2.1) and Rationalists (M=2.2) (F(4, 552)=
4.17, p<.01). However, in contrast with H2b, no significant differences were found between
the health segments with regard to the consumption of raw vegetable salads (F(4, 552)= 1.54,
p>.05).
5.4. Reactions Toward Health Advertisements (H3)
The third hypothesis concerning the reactions toward motive-related health advertising was
also tested via one-way ANOVA. Results indicate that each of the five health segments –
when compared to the other segments – responds more positively (Aad + BI) toward the
advertisement that was hypothesized to be most responsive to its health-related motive
orientations. In support of H3a, Energetic Experimenters (i.e. Vitality segment) had
significantly higher Aad (M=5.7) and BI (M= 5.1) scores for the transformational/self-
directed health advertisement (i.e. Ad 2) compared to the other segments (F(4, 611)= 6.93,
p<.01 for Aad and F(4, 611)= 8.64, p<.01 for BI). Also H3b was supported as Harmonious
Enjoyers (i.e. Conviviality segment) had significantly higher measures of both Aad (M=5.9)
and BI (M=5.7) for the transformational/other-directed advertisement (i.e. Ad 1) compared to
the four other segments (F(4, 611)= 5.91, p<.01 for Aad and F(4, 611)= 3.84, p<.01 for BI).
For the informational/other-directed health advertisement (i.e. Ad 4), Normative Carers (i.e.
Security segment) showed significantly higher measures of Aad (M= 6.8) and BI (M= 6.7),
215
compared to the other segments (F(4, 611)= 21.89, p<.01 for Aad and F(4, 611)= 15.41,
p<.01 for BI), which supported H3c. Finally, also H3d was supported as Conscious Experts
(i.e. Recognition segment) scored significantly higher on Aad (M= 4.7) and BI (M= 4.5) for
the informational/self-directed advertisement (i.e. Ad 3) (F(4, 611)= 4.57, p<.01 for Aad and
F(4, 611)= 7.86, p<.01 for BI). In addition to the Conscious Experts, also Rationalists (i.e.
Control segment) scored significantly higher on Aad (M= 4.6) and BI (M= 4.5) with regard to
Ad3, which is plausible given this segment’s specific position in the health-related motive
structure (see Fig. 6.2).
To test H3e, for each segment, a Paired Samples T-test was conducted between the score on
Aad and BI for a general advertisement and the most appropriate motive-related
advertisement (see Table 6.5). For BI, in all five cases, the most appropriate motive-related
advertisement elicited a significant higher score compared to the general advertisement (Ad5).
With regard to Aad, significant differences between the appropriate motive-related
advertisement and the general advertisement were only found for three segments. For
Conscious Experts and Rationalists, the motive-related advertisement did not elicit more
positive Aad scores than Ad5. Hence, H3e was fully (Aad + BI) supported in three of the five
cases and partially (only BI) supported in all five cases.
216
Table 6.5 : Paired Samples T-test (general ad vs. motive-related ad)
Health Segment Reactions motive- General P-value

related Ad (T-test)
Ad
Energetic Experimenters Aad 5.7 4.7 .001**

BI 5.1 4.3 .000**
Harmonious Enjoyers Aad 5.9 4.9 .002**

BI 5.7 4.3 .000**
Normative Carers Aad 6.8 4.3 .000**

BI 6.7 4.3 .000**
Conscious Experts Aad 4.7 4.5 n.s.

BI 4.5 3.9 .010*
Rationalists Aad 4.6 4.6 n.s.

BI 4.5 3.9 .030*
* p<.05
** p<.01
n.s. (not significant)
6. Discussion and recommendations
This paper contributes to the study of health communication by proposing a new theory-
driven health audience segmentation approach based on Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of
eight consumer motives and by demonstrating the usefulness of this method in the process of
creating effective health advertisements.
As health beliefs or concerns play an important role in food behavior such as fruit and
vegetable intake, a heterogeneous health audience was segmented according to the audience
members’ health-related motive orientations. Analysis of Hypothesis 1 shows that five
different health audience segments can be identified, instead of the four-cluster solution that
was hypothesized on a theoretical basis. In practice – besides the four hypothesized segments
– one additional health segment seems to be important for which health has another distinct
217
meaning. The five health segments can be organized along two dimensions; yielding a
health-related motive structure that is a reflection of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) general
consumer motive taxonomy.
Although theoretically expected, no significant differences in total fruit and vegetable intake
were found among the different health audience segments. These results may indicate that
people’s health-related motive orientations have rather low (or no) influence on daily fruit and
vegetable consumption in general. As a result, ‘low’ fruit and vegetable consumers are not
predominant in one particular segment but instead are equally dispersed over all five
segments. However, as expected, consumer’s health-related motive orientations do have a
significant influence on category-specific fruit and vegetable consumption (i.e. bananas,
potatoes, cooked vegetables). Following Means-End reasoning, this may be due to the fact
that different fruit and vegetable types with different features or (health-related) benefits are
instrumental to achieve different health-related motive orientations. For example, the
perception of bananas as a source of energy and power (e.g. Vitality motive) may account for
the higher consumption of this type of fruit among Energetic Experimenters, whereas potatoes
and cooked vegetables may be more preferred by Normative Carers and Harmonious Enjoyers
because motive-related associations are made between these types of vegetables and for
instance tradition (common habit), family health and tastefulness.
Tests of Hypothesis 3 suggest that significant differences exist among the health audience
segments with regard to their reactions (Aad + BI) toward motive-related health advertising.
When compared to the other segments, all health audience segments responded more
positively (Aad + BI) toward the advertisement that was hypothesized to be most responsive
to their health-related motive orientations. Moreover, when comparing the most appropriate
218
motive-related advertisement to a general advertisement, in almost all cases a segment’s
reactions (Aad + BI) toward the motive-related advertisement were significantly more
positive than its reactions toward the general advertisement. The failure to observe significant
differences in Aad between the targeted motive-related advertisement and the general
advertisement for Conscious Experts and Rationalists may probably be due to the fact that
these subjects are less influenced by advertising. For none of the advertisements, Conscious
Experts and Rationalists had an Aad en BI score significantly exceeding the value of 4.5
(neutral value) with some scores even falling below the value of 4.0. These results may
indicate that these respondents will stick to their own ideas about health-related issues, rather
than giving advertising the opportunity to make up or change their minds.
This analysis of Hypothesis 3 demonstrates the need to carefully diagnose the manifest
health-related motive orientations of the target audience, prior to delivering health
advertisements. Also the results indicate that different advertising strategies might be
appropriate for people with different health-related motive orientations. In what follows, we
develop specific message recommendations for developing health advertisements targeted
toward different audiences. First, with regard to message tonality we suggest that:
1. When pleasure-related motive orientations are manifest among members of the target
audience, then the tonality of the advertisements developed should be
transformational, focusing on emotional/sensory cues and hedonic experiences, as
people in such situation tend to follow their emotions and impulses.
2. Conversely, when control-related motive orientations are manifest, people tend to
avoid confrontations with their emotions and passions. In this case, health
219
practitioners should rather make people think by using an informational advertising
strategy, focusing on verbal arguments and functional aspects of consumption.
With regard to the directionality of the arguments used in health advertisements we propose
the following:
1. When power-related motive orientations are manifest, then the arguments used should
be self-directed, focusing on individuality and private issue, as people in this case tend
to take decisions independently and strive for personal success.
2. Conversely, when belonging-related motive orientations are manifest, then the
arguments used in health advertisements should be other-directed, stressing the
themes of we-ness and family-commitment, as people here want to feel part of a group
and be accepted by their loved ones.
Based on these more general suggestions, we also formulate some specific recommendations
on how to develop appropriate advertisements for the five health audience segments obtained
in this study:
1. Energetic Experimenters: for people with a Vitality-motive with regard to health,
health advertisements should use a transformational/self-directed advertising strategy,
as this segment is positioned within the upper-left quadrant of the health-related
motive structure (combination of pleasure and power). Besides using vivid images
that express movement and vitality, health practitioners should focus on individual
consumer experiences such as feeling free, getting energy and power for the body,
feeling very much alive and kicking. To increase the perception of being addressed
220
personally, sentences might be put in first-person wording (I-sentences), rather than
using removed third-person wording.
2. Harmonious Enjoyers: as these people deal with health mainly in terms of emotional
well-being (e.g. Pleasure/Conviviality), advertisements designed to them should avoid
focusing too much on functional aspects of consumption. Rather, health
advertisements should express how the recommended behavior (e.g. eating more fruits
and vegetables) might be instrumental to achieve a complete and happy life together
with family and friends. As in the previous case, a transformational advertising
strategy can be strongly recommended (e.g. using vivid pictures, informal
language…). However, in this case, the arguments used in the advertisement should
not be self-directed. Rather, other-directed arguments should be employed that focus
on connectedness and harmony between people.
3. Normative Carers: for this segment positioned within the bottom-right quadrant of
the health-related motive structure (combination between Control and Belonging), we
recommend an informational/other-directed advertising strategy. As Normative
Carers are mainly concerned with the physical aspects of health, recommendations in
the advertisements should focus in particular on functional benefits such as avoiding
illness and health problems. Instead of using vivid images, members of this segment
should be convinced by strong verbal arguments, providing important (health-related)
information and focusing on the advice and norms of expert-others (doctor,
dietician…). In addition, advertisements designed to these people should emphasize
the social responsibility aspect that is associated with health. Communicating how the
recommended responses may contribute to the preservation of the health of close
others (family, children…), might be an appropriate strategy to deal with this issue.
221
4. Conscious Experts/Rationalists: in order to counteract these people’s disinterest
toward advertising, advertisements designed to them might emphasize one’s own
independent capacities to deal with health. Make members of these segments feel like
natural experts – being able to keep control over their health by themselves – and your
health advertisement might be more successful. As health-related motive orientations
of these segments are a combination of Control- and Power-related motives, an
informational/self-directed advertising strategy is suggested, with mainly verbal
arguments focusing on outward appearance (looking good, looking thin) and showing
off competence.
This study faces some limitations. First, because standard measurement instruments appear
not to exist to assess people’s health-related motive orientations, it became necessary to
develop our own scale. Given the conceptual purpose of this paper, we feel confident this
‘self-made’ scale performed well to generate six reliable health constructs that served as a
solid basis for segmentation. However, from a methodological point of view, additional tests
should be done to further improve this scale’s psychometric properties.
Second, with regard to differences in health-related consumer behavior as a result of
differences in health-related motive orientations, only two aspects of fruit and vegetable
consumption were considered in this study, i.e. consumption frequency and types of fruits and
vegetables that were consumed. Future studies may concentrate on assessing the relationship
between health-related motive orientations and other aspects of fruit and vegetable
222
consumption (e.g. buying process or decision factors) or consumption of other food products
with a predominant health image (e.g. fish or functional foods).
In the same way some future research opportunities may exist with regard to the relationship
between health-related motive orientations and people’s reactions toward health advertising.
In this study only two broad dimensions of advertising strategy were tested, i.e. message
tonality and directionality. Future studies may investigate some other relevant aspects of
campaign development and message creation (e.g. different appeals or different types of
endorsers).
Also, the usefulness of the proposed motive-related health audience segmentation method
could be demonstrated in the context of health prevention instead of health promotion. For
example, when attempting to develop increasingly successful antismoking or fat reduction
advertisements, health communicators may consider the manifest health-related motive
orientations of the target audience.
Finally, in this study, only perceived effects of motive-related health advertising were
assessed, as a better performance was only demonstrated with regard to consumer’s self-
reported reactions toward health advertisements. In general, far more positive Aad and BI
scores were reported for motive-related advertisements compared to advertising that is not
motive-related. Future experimental intervention studies may also investigate actual
behavioral effects, by assessing the potential effectiveness of motive-related health
advertising in increasing real fruit and vegetable intake.
223
Acknowledgments
The help of the newspaper Het Nieuwsblad is very much acknowledged for giving us the
opportunity to collect the data for this study through its website. The assistance and support
of Patrick Salien and Kurt Minnen are particularly appreciated.
224
References
Albrecht, T.L., & Bryant, C. (1996). Advances in segmentation modeling for health
communication and social marketing campaigns. Journal of Health Communication,
1, 65-80.
Atkin, C.K., & Freimuth, V. (1989). Formative evaluation research in campaign design. In
R.E. Rice, & C.K. Atkin (Eds.). Public communication campaigns (2nd ed.) (pp. 131-
150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bogers, R.P., Van Assema, P., Kester, A.D.M., Westerterp, K.R., & Dagnelie, P.C. (2004).
Reproducibility, validity and responsiveness to change of a short questionnaire for
measuring fruit and vegetable intake. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159, 900-
909.
Boslaugh, S.E., Kreuter, M.W., Nicholson, R.A., & Naleid, K. (2005). Comparing
demographic, health status and psychosocial strategies of audience segmentation to
promote physical activity. Health Education Research, 20(4), 430-438.
Brehony, K.A., Frederiksen, L.W., & Solomon, L.J. (1984). Marketing principles and
behavioral medecine. In L. Frederiksen, L.J. Solomon, & K.A. Brehony (Eds.).
Marketing health behavior: principles, techniques and applications (pp. 3-23). New
York: Plenum Press.
Burke, M.C., & Edell, J.A. (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognitions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (feb), 69-83.
225
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: a control theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cox, D., Anderson, A., McKellar, S., Reynolds, J., Lean, M., & Mela, D.J. (1996).
Vegetables and Fruits: barriers and opportunities for greater consumption. Nutrition
& Food Science, 96 (5), 44-47.
Darley, W.K., & Lim, J.S. (1991). Personal relevance as moderator of the effect of public
service advertising on behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 303-309.
Dixon, H., Borland, R., Segan, C., Stafford, H., & Sindall, C. (1998). Public reactions to
Victoria’s “ 2 Fruit ‘n’ 5 Veg Every Day” campaign and reported cosumption of fruit
and vegetables. Preventive Medicine, 27 (4), 572-582.
Donohew, L. (1990). Public health campaigns: individual message strategies and a model. In
E.B. Ray & L. Donohew (Eds.). Communication and Health: Systems and
Applications (pp.136). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Eagle, L., Bulmer, S., Kitchen, P.J. & Hawkins, J. (2004). Complex and controversial causes
for the obesity epidemic: the role of marketing communications. International
Journal of Medical marketing, 3,4, 271-287.
Fennis, B.M. (2003). Advertising, consumer behaviour and health: exploring possibilities for
health promotion. International Journal of Medical Marketing, 3,4, 316-326.
applications. In D.H. Ford (Ed.). Humans as self-constructing living systems: getting
the framework to work (pp. 289-311). University Park (Pa): Pennsylvania State
University, college of human development.
Forthofer, M.S., & Bryant, C.A. (2000). Using audience-segmentation techniques to tailor
health behavior change strategies. American Journal of Health behavior, 24(1), 36-
43.
226
Freimuth, V., Cole, G., & Kirby, S. (2001). Issues in evaluating mass media health
communication campaigns. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D.V.
McQueen, L. Potvin, J. Springett, & E. Ziglio (Eds.). Evaluation in health promotion:
Principles and perspectives (pp. 475-492). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for
Europe.
French, S.A., & Stables, G. (2003). Environmental interventions to promote vegetable and
fruit consumption among youth in school settings. Preventive Medicine, 37, 593-610.
French, S.A., Story, M., & Jeffery, R.W. (2001). Environmental influences on eating and
physical activity. Annual Review of Public Health, 22, 309-335.
Glanz, K., & Yaroch, A.L. (2004). Strategies for increasing fruit and vegetable intake in
grocery stores and communities: policy, pricing and environmental change.
Preventive Medicine, 39, S75-S80 Suppl. 2.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C.A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public
Health, 26, 319-339.
Hastings, G.B., & Haywood, A.J. (1994). Social marketing: a critical response. Health
Promotion International, 9(1), 59-63.
Hu, F.B., Rimm, E.B., Stampfer, M.J., Ascherio, A., Spiegelman, D., & Willett, W.C. (2000).
Prospective study of major dietary patterns and risk of coronary heart disease in men.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 912-921.
227
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: SSI Scientific Software International, Inc.
Lambert, N. (2001). Food choice, phytochemicals and cancer prevention. In L. Frewer, E.
Risvik, & H. Schifferstein (Eds.). Food, people and society (pp 131-154). Berlin:
Springer.
Lefebvre, R.C., & Flora, J.A. (1988). Social marketing and public health intervention. Health
Education Quarterly, 15, 299-315.
Li, R., Serdula, M., Bland, S., Mokdad, A., Bowman, B. & Nelson, D. (2000). Trends in fruit
and vegetable consumption among adults in 16 US states: behavioural risk factor
surveillance system, 1990-1996. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 777-781.
Ling, A.M.C., & Horwath, C. (2001). Perceived benefits and barriers of increased fruit and
vegetable consumption: validation of a decisional balance scale. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 33, 257-265.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Mowen, J.C., & Minor, M. (1997). Consumer Behavior (5th Ed.). Prentice Hall.
Naska, A., Vasdekis, V.G.S., Trichopoulou, A., Friel, S., Leonhauser, I.U., Moreiras, O.,
Nelson, M., Remaut, A.M., Schmitt, A., Sekula, W., Trygg, K.U., & Zajkas, G.
(2000). Fruit and vegetable availability among ten European countries: how does it
compare with the ‘five-a-day’ recommendation? British Journal of Nutrition, 84, 549-
556.
228
Pervin, L.A. (1989). Goal concepts: themes, issues and questions. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.).
Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 473-479). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Routledge.
Pieters, R. (1993). A control view on the behaviour of consumers: turning the triangle. In
G.J. Bamossy, & W.F. Van Raaij (Eds.). European Advances in Consumer Research,
1, 507-512.
Pollard, J., Kirk, S.F.L., & Cade, J.E. (2002). Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit
and vegetable intake: a review. Nutrition Research Reviews, 15, 373-387.
Puto, C.P., & Wells, W.D. (1984). Informational and transformational advertising: the
differential effects of time. In T.C. Kinnear (Ed.). Advances in Consumer Research
(Vol 11, pp. 638-643). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Rapley, J., & Coulson, N.S. (2005). Stages of change and consumption of fruit and
vegetables among adolescent females: associations with decisional balance and self-
efficacy. British Food Journal, 107(9), 663-669.
Rappoport, L., Peters, G.R., Downey, R., McCann, T., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1993). Gender
and age differences in food cognition. Appetite, 20, 33-52.
Reynolds, T.J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory: method, analysis and interpretation.
Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (feb/March), 11-31.
229
Ringold, D.J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: some
unintended consequences in the alcohol beverage market. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 25 (1), 27-63.
Rossiter, J.R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305-335.
Rossiter, J.R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising and promotion management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rothchild, M. (1987). Advertising. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Rurik, I., & Antal, M. (2003). Nutritional habits and lifestyle practice of elderly people in
Hungary. Acta Aliment. Hung, 32, 77-88.
Safley, C.D., Poling, E.B., Wohlgenant, M.K., Sydorovych, O., & Williams, R.F. (2004).
Producing and marketing strawberries for direct market operations. Horttechnology,
14 (1), 124-135.
Silk, K.J., Weiner, J., & Parrott, R.L. (2005). Gene Cuisine or Frankenfood? The theory of
reasoned action as an audience segmentation strategy for messages about genetically
modified foods. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 751-767.
Slater, M., & Flora, J. (1994). Is health behavior consumer behavior? Health behavior
determinants, audience segmentation, and designing media health campaigns. In E.M.
Clark, T.C. Brock, & D.W. Stewart (Eds.). Attention, Attitude and Affect in Response
to Advertising (pp.273-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Slater, M.D. (1995). Choosing audience segmentation strategies and methods for health
communication. In E. Maibach, & R.L. Parrott (Eds.). Designing health messages:
Approaches from communication theory and public health practice (pp.186-198).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
230
Slater, M.D. (1996). Theory and method in health audience segmentation. Journal of Health
Communication, 1, 267-283.
Steenkamp, J.B., & Van Trijp, J.C.M. (1991). The use of Lisrel in validating marketing
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283-299.
Steinmetz, K.A., & Potter, J.D. (1996). Vegetables, fruits and cancer prevention. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, 96, 1027-1039.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267-
284.
Thompson, B., Demark, W., Taylor, G., McClelland, J.W., Stables, G., Havas, S., Feng, Z.,
Topor, M., Heimendinger, J., Reynolds, K.D., & Cohen, N. (1999). Baseline fruit and
vegetable intake among adults in seven 5-a-day centres located in diverse geographic
areas. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 1241-1248.
Van Duyn, M.A., & Pivonka, E. (2000). Overview of the health benefits of fruit and
vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, 100 (12), 1511-1522.
Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 347-368.
Verbeke, W., & Pieniak, Z. (2006). Benefit beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards fresh
vegetable consumption in Poland and Belgium. Acta Alimentaria, 35(1), 5-16.
Vereecken, C.A., Keukelier, E., & Maes, L. (2004). Influence of mother’s educational level
on food parenting practices and food habits of young children. Appetite, 43, 93-103.
Wang, C.L., & Mowen, J.C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness self-schema: scale
development and application to message construction. Psychology & Marketing, 14
(March), 185-207.
231
Weaver, M., Poehlitz, M., & Hutchison, S. (1999). 5 a day for low-income families:
evaluation of an advertising campaign and cooking events. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 31 (3), 161-169.
WHO. (1990). The world health organization report, diet, nutrition and the prevention of
chronic diseases. WHO Technical Report Series 797.
Williams, C. (1995). Healthy eating: clarifying advice about fruit and vegetables. British
Medical Journal, 310, 1453-1455.
Witte, K., Cameron, K.A., McKeon, J.K., & Berkowitz, J.M. (1996). Predicting risk
behaviors: development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health
Zinkhan, G.M., Locander, W.B., & Leigh, J.H. (1986). Dimensional relationships of aided
recall and recognition. Journal of Advertising, 15 (1), 38-46
232
Appendix A
• Stimuli advertisements
Appendix B
233
Appendix A: Stimuli Advertisements
Ad 1 (transformational/other-directed)
234
Ad 2 (transformational/self-directed)
235
Ad 3 (informational/self-directed)
236
Ad 4 (informational/other-directed)
237
Ad 5 (general ad)
238
Appendix B: List of scale items
Health-related Motive Scale
Explicit items (Exp)

For me, health is mainly about…
1. keeping the body in a good condition, i.e. fitness, jogging, aerobics…

2. having the energy to do the things I want to do.
3. taking time to relax and to enjoy life.
4. living in harmony with my family.
5. having no physical health problems.
6. living an active life, i.e. practicing sports…
7. taking care of other family members’ health.
8. following the advice of expert-others, i.e. doctor, dietician,…
9. developing a healthy lifestyle of my own.
10. looking good.
11. reducing physical health risks with regard to heart, lungs, liver,….
12. staying slim.
13. emotional well-being, feeling good mentally.
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) bad not 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.
8. 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.
239
CHAPTER VII
UNDERSTANDING READY MEAL CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR :
THE ROLE OF CONSUMER HEALTH-RELATED MOTIVE
ORIENTATIONS
241
Chapter VII
Understanding ready meal consumption behavior:
The role of consumer health-related motive orientations
1. Abstract
Applying a conceptualization of health beyond the physical level, the present study
investigates the impact of psychological dimensions of health concern on consumer behavior
for ready meals. A heterogeneous audience (N= 1934) was segmented according to the
audience members’ health-related motive orientations. Five distinct health segments emerged
out of a two-step cluster analysis. When comparing these segments, several significant and
meaningful relationships could be detected between health-related motive orientations and
both general food behavior patterns and ready meal consumption patterns. Based on these
insights guidelines are provided for improving consumer-oriented product development,
positioning and marketing of products belonging to the category of ready meals.
Comprehensive positioning strategies are suggested, that go beyond convenience-related
aspects and also take into account psychological health-related motive orientations of the
target audience.
243
2. Introduction
Several socio-economic changes such as increased female participation in the workforce,
increasing time pressure brought about by job- and leisure-related activities (e.g. Bowers,
2000), a growing number of single-person and small households (e.g. Byrne, 1998), and lack
of abilities and experience with preparing home meals (e.g. Gofton, 1995) have boosted the
demand for convenience in meal preparation (e.g. Costa et al., 2005). Today’s food suppliers
have readily reacted to this convenience trend by considerably expanding their offer of pre-
prepared meal solutions, i.e. ready meals. Ready meals can be defined as complete meals that
require few or no extra ingredients, prepared by external procedures and designed to fully and
speedily replace – at home – the main course of a home-made main meal (e.g. Mahon et al.,
2006; Costa et al., 2001). However, ready meals should be distinguished from ready-to-eat
take away foods, as the former type of home meal replacement still requires cooking or re-
heating prior to serving whereas with take away foods no cooking or heating is needed
anymore (e.g. Verlegh and Candel, 1999).
Given the growing economic importance, i.e. increasing sales and export values of the
prepared consumer foods sector (e.g. Datamonitor, 2003; Distributie Vandaag, 1999), a
thorough understanding is required of the factors that determine a consumer’s ready meal
consumption behavior. Besides a number of other factors, health concern has been proposed
as a potential determinant of consumer behavior for convenience foods (e.g. Jago, 2000). The
perceived healthiness of convenience foods, i.e. perceived consequences for physical health
from consuming convenience foods was found to have a negative effect on the purchase of
these products (e.g. de Boer et al., 2004).
244
Chapter VII : Consumer Motives and Ready Meal Consumption Behavior
Extending previous work by Geeroms et al. (2005b) on motive-related audience segmentation
(cf. supra: chapter VI), the present study investigates how psychological aspects of health
concern, i.e. different health-related motive orientations influence people’s ways of dealing
with convenience-related food solutions. Through focusing on ready meals, the focus will be
on convenience-related specifically to the preparation stage in the food consumption process.
Attention will be directed to three broad research questions. First, we seek to validate the
health audience segmentation approach proposed by Geeroms et al. (2005b) for another
subject sample. Second, we aim to compare the found health segments in terms of their
general food behavior patterns and third, in terms of their ready meal consumption patterns in
particular. In the sections that follow, a more profound rationale is provided for the three
research issues and specific hypotheses are developed regarding each topic.
2.1. Health-related motive orientations29
Health-related motive orientations could be considered as relatively enduring beliefs that
people hold about the fundamental meaning of health. Whereas some people are mainly
concerned about physical health, i.e. avoiding illness, having no physical health problems,
other people are more involved with psychological health-aspects such as emotional well-
being, enjoying life or social responsibility. In their recent study on health audience
segmentation, Geeroms et al. (2005b) apply a conceptualization of health that goes beyond
the physical level and also takes into account these psychological dimensions of health
concern. From a general taxonomy of consumer motives (Callebaut et al., 1999), they derive
29
This section comprises a brief recapitulation of the major findings and developments of chapter VI of this dissertation, in order to refresh
the reader’s mind regarding these issues. For a full explanation of the basic statements made in this section we thus refer to this
corresponding chapter.
245
a health-related motive structure, determined by two basic bipolar dimensions, i.e. an
intrapersonal versus interpersonal axis (see Fig. 7.1).
Figure 7.1 : Geeroms et al.’s Health-related Motive Structure
From an intrapersonal point of view, health is supposed to be dealt with in an unrestricted,
emotional way with a focus on enjoyment and freedom as opposed to a more controlled,
functional way of dealing with health focusing on physical well-being only. In addition, from
an interpersonal perspective, an altruistic, normative way of dealing with health could be
discovered with a focus on social responsibility, in contrast to a more ego-centered
interpretation of health, focusing on feelings of independence of others and activity. Out of
the dynamic interaction of both dimensions, five distinct health audience segments were
246
obtained with different health-related motive orientations, named ‘Energetic Experimenters’,
‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, ‘Normative Carers’, ‘Rationalists’ and ‘Conscious Experts. A brief
explanation of the fundamental meaning of health for each of the five segments is provided in
Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 : Five Health Audience Segments
Energetic Experimenters: for these people, health is mainly about physical activity (i.e.
practicing sports), exploring life and having energy to do the things they want to do.
Harmonious Enjoyers : for these people, health is mainly about emotional well-being,
enjoying life and feeling good socially
Normative Carers : for these people, health is mainly about physical well-being (i.e.
avoiding illness) and taking care of the health of others (i.e. social responsibility)
Rationalists : for these people, health is mainly about physical well-being and functional
competence (i.e. being able to work functionally, having job competence)
Conscious Experts : for these people, health is mainly about managing their body and
their appearance in the best possible way (i.e. looking good, staying slim), showing off by
outward appearance
Source: Geeroms et al. (2005b)
In the study of Geeroms et al. (2005b) significant differences in consumption patterns were
found between the different health segments as well as differences in reactions toward
motive-related health advertisements. As mentioned above, an objective of present study is to
test the relevance of this new segmentation paradigm in the context of ready meal
consumption behavior. A first hypothesis can be formulated as follows:
H1: Five consumer segments will exist with different health-related motive orientations,
corresponding to the health audience segments revealed by Geeroms et al. (2005b), i.e.
247
Energetic Experimenters, Harmonious Enjoyers, Normative Carers, Rationalists and
Conscious Experts.
2.2. Relationship between health-related motive orientations and general food
behavior
In literature an obvious relationship has been established between food habits and consumer
health (e.g. Gilbert, 2000; GfK, 2002; IFIC, 2000; WHO, 1990). As dietary patterns are
considered as important contributors to the possible development of chronic and lifestyle
diseases, such as cancers, cardiovascular diseases, obesity or osteoporosis (e.g. Guinot et al.,
2001; Story et al., 2002), concerns about physical health – together with price, convenience
and sensory appeal (e.g. taste) – are believed to be one of the most important determinants of
food choice (e.g. Mothersbaugh et al., 1993; Steptoe et al., 1995; Olsen, 2003). When
applying a conceptualization of health beyond the physical level, also psychological aspects
of health concern may be assumed to have an impact on consumer food behavior in general.
As different behavioral strategies will be appropriate in the context of different health-related
motives that are manifest (e.g. Geeroms et al., 2005b; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999),
differences in health-related motive orientations could be expected to cause differences in
general food patterns and behaviors. In general, we formulate our second hypothesis in the
following way:
H2: Significant differences in general food behavior patterns will exist among consumer
segments with different health-related motive orientations.
248
Though the existing literature provides little insight into any truly configurable behavioral
differences among different health audience segments, some plausible and meaningful
relationships could be proposed between health-related motive orientations and general food
patterns and behaviors, based on a deduction from knowledge about the fundamental meaning
of health for each of the five hypothesized segments (i.e. Table 7.1). For example, a
predominant concern about emotional well-being, enjoying life or exploration may be
positively related to food-related lifestyle dimensions such as novelty, taste, looking for new
ways and social relationships (e.g. Brunsø and Grunert, 1995) and the perception of food as a
source of enjoyment and creativity (e.g. Synovate/Censydiam, 2002) . In contrast, a more
restricted interpretation of health may translate into a more controlled way of dealing with
food, with a focus on security and tradition and the perception of food as a source of
functionality. Hence, based on a general understanding of the health-related motive
orientations of the five health segments, in Table 7.2, some exploratory propositions are
generated regarding the differences among these segments with respect to the general food
behavior measures that are included in this study (cf. infra: section 3.2.2.).
249
Table 7.2 : Proposed Differences in General Food Behavior Patterns (P2.1-P2.28)
Energetic Harmonious Normative Conscious Rationalists

Experimenters Enjoyers Carers Experts
Food-related lifestyle
dimensions
Shopping
P2.1. Enjoyment from shopping X X
P2.2. Speciality shops X
P2.3. Price criteria X X
Quality aspects
P2.4. Naturalness X X
P2.5. Price/quality relation X X
P2.6. Novelty X X
P2.7. Organic products X X
P2.8. Taste X X
P2.9. Freshness X X
Cooking
P2.10. Interest in cooking X X
P2.11. Looking for new ways X X
P2.12. Whole family X
P2.13. Planning X X X
Consumption situations
P2.14. Social event X
Purchase motives
P2.15. Self-fulfilment in food X X
P2.16. Security X X X
P2.17. Social relationships X
Food perception
dimensions
P2.18. Creativity X X
P2.19. Enjoyment X X
P2.20. Efficiency/showing off X
P2.21.. Functionality X X X
P2.22. Familiarity and tradition X X X
P2.23. Care-taking role X
General dietary patterns
P2.24. Trendy X
P2.25. Sweet X
P2.26. Healthy X
P2.27. Traditional X X
P2.28. Hedonistic X
X = Compared to the other segments, these health segments are assumed to score significantly higher on a
particular food behavior dimension as meaningful relationships could be expected between these segments’
health-related motive orientations and the behavioral dimension in question.
250
2.3. Relationship between health-related motive orientations and ready meal
consumption behavior
At least two different streams of research exist with the objective of explaining consumer
convenience food behavior. First, an econometric tradition tries to explain variation in ready
meal consumption behavior based on socio-economic or demographic determinants such as
employment status, household size, income level, perceived time pressure and role-overload
(e.g. Verlegh and Candel, 1999; Bonke, 1996; Darian and Tucci, 1992). Though the majority
of studies dealing with convenience in meal preparation can be situated within this
econometric tradition, these studies were unable to convincingly demonstrate the existence of
meaningful relationships between economic determinants and the choice of ready meal
solutions (e.g. Reilly, 1982; Candel, 2001). A second stream of research focuses on the
impact of internal psychological constructs on ready meal consumption behavior such as
knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, social norms and other higher-level motivations (e.g. Mahon et
al., 2006; Costa et al., 2005; Milburn, 1995). Despite a few exceptions (e.g. Olsen, 2003;
Scholderer and Grunert, 2005), this psychological tradition excludes the role of external or
demographical variables for both methodological and theoretical reasons (e.g. Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980).
Within the context of the latter tradition, the present study explores the role of underlying
health-related motive orientations in influencing ready meal consumption behavior. It is
assumed that different ready meal product features and/or benefits will be preferred in the
context of different health-related motives (cf. MEC-theory, Olson & Reynolds, 2001) and
hence that differences in consumption patterns will exist among members of different health
audience segments. Based on the above reasoning, we formulate our third hypothesis:
251
H3: Significant differences in ready meal consumption patterns will exist among consumer
segments with different health-related motive orientations.
From our basic knowledge about the fundamental meaning of health for the five hypothesized
audience segments (i.e. Table 7.1), we could deduce some meaningful relationships between
health-related motive orientations and ready meal consumption patterns. For example, people
who deal with health in an individualistic way may perceive ready meals as more positively
and their consumption as more desirable, whereas people holding an altruistic interpretation
of health may experience more guilt feelings regarding ready meal consumption, as in the
latter case spending less time and energy to cooking daily meals might be seen as neglecting
one’s duty toward relevant others (e.g. Costa et al., 2005). Again, as shown in Table 7.3,
some exploratory propositions are derived from our health-related understanding of the five
segments, regarding the differences among these segments with respect to the ready meal
consumption behavior measures under question (cf. infra: section 3.2.3.):
252
Table 7.3 : Proposed Differences in Ready Meal Consumption Patterns (P3.1-P3.44)
Energetic Harmonious Normative Conscious Rationalists

Experimenters Enjoyers Carers Experts
Ready meal consumption
behavior
Attitudes, beliefs and behavior
P3.1. Attitude toward ready meals X X
P3.2. Beliefs about ready meals X X
P3.3. Consumption frequency X X
Buying criteria importance

P3.4. Nutritional value X X
P3.5. Taste X X
P3.6. Exclusiveness X
P3.7. Price X X
P3.8. Healthiness X X
P3.9. Appearance X
P3.10. Brand X
P3.11. Quantity X X
P3.12. Shelf life date X X
P3.13. Freshness X X
P3.14. Package X
P3.15. Ease of using X X
P3.16. Environmental effects X X
P3.17. Ingredients X X
Ways of dealing with ready meals
P3.18. Variation X X
P3.19. Enjoyment X X
P3.20. Feelings of guilt X X
P3.21. Relaxation X X
P3.22. Sophistication/Low calorie X
P3.23. Time saving X X
P3.24. Functionality X X X
Attributes ideal ready meal
P3.25. Healthiness X X
P3.26. Modern Oriental X X X
P3.27. Traditional Oriental X X
P3.28. Sophisticated X
P3.29. Traditional X X
P3.30. Quick to prepare X X
P3.31. Low calorie amount X
P3.32. Modern Mediterranean X X X
P3.33. Traditional Mediterranean X X
P3.34. Freshness X X
P3.35. Trendy X X
P3.36. Substantial X X
P3.37. Easy to prepare/clean up X X
P3.38. Steamed X
P3.39. Vegetarian X
P3.40. Relieve hunger X X
P3.41. Well-known recipe X X
P3.42. Stylish package X
P3.43. Variety X
P3.44. Quality X X
X = Compared to the other segments, these health segments are hypothesized to score significantly higher on a
particular ready meal consumption behavior dimension, as meaningful relationships could be expected between
these segments’ health-related motive orientations and the behavioral dimension in question.
253
By answering the above research issues the present study aims to contribute to the study of
consumer behavior at least in two ways. First, by also taking into account several
psychological dimensions of health concern when considering consumer food patterns and
behaviors (e.g. emotional well-being, social responsibility, etc.), we want to assist in a better
understanding of food-health relationships beyond the level of physical health only. Second,
we want to provide an insight into the important health-related aspects that influence people’s
ready meal consumption patterns. These insights can contribute to improving consumer-
oriented product development, positioning and marketing of products belonging to this
particular food category.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Data were collected by means of an on-line survey method. A prerequisite to participate in
the study was being involved in meal preparation and food shopping, at least from time to
time. By responding to a link to our questionnaire on the website of a widespread national
newspaper, a sample of 1934 subjects provided valid responses for this research (see Table
7.4 for an overview of the sample characteristics).
254
Sample Population*
Gender
Male 46.3 48.9
Female 53.7 51.1
Age
<25 23.0 18.4
25-40 47.8 32.8
40-50 20.3 22.6
>50 8.9 26.2
Mean 36.8
Education
Profession
Labourer 8.0
Employee 35.9
Executive 5.4
Self-employed 5.6
Functionary 11.9
Keeping house 5.4
Retired 5.5
Unemployed 2.5
Student 16.1
Other… 3.7
Relationship status
Single 27.3 27.1
Relationship/married 72.7 72.1
Children in family
No (=no children) 39.7 35.1
Yes (=children) 60.3 64.9
Employment Status
Part time employed 12.9
Full time employed 58.0
Not applicable 29.1
*Source:NIS(2005). Private Households Statistics. Brussels: NIS, National

The mean age of the respondents was 36.8 years with a standard deviation of 12.7. In
comparison to the Belgian population statistics (NIS, 2005), our sample was slightly biased
255
toward younger age, which could be explained by the fact that the internet was used as a
recruitment platform and/or that the chance of winning an iPod nano by participation had
higher attractive value for younger, compared to older people. Maybe due to the same
reasons of recruitment, people with higher education were overrepresented in the sample.
Compared to a population estimate of 32.6%, in our sample as much as 69.5% of persons had
schooling beyond the age of 18. With respect to gender, 46.3% males and 53.7% females
participated in the study, which is rather representative for the population distribution. In
addition, our sample was representative in terms of other relevant variables such as
relationship status and presence of children in the family. In terms of profession and
employment status we can conclude that a wide range of socio-economic classes of the
population took part in our survey, including labourers, employees, students, retired people,
executives, part time/full time employers, etc.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Health-related motive orientations
People’s health-related motive orientations were assessed by means of the 45-item Health-
related Motive Scale developed by Geeroms et al. (2005b). This scale consists of 15 explicit
and 30 implicit items about the fundamental meaning of health, which were rated on a seven-
point Likert scale ranging from 1= completely disagree to 7= completely agree. As scale
development was based on the application of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive
taxonomy in a health context30, initially eight health dimensions were supposed to underlie
the scale, corresponding to the eight motive positions in the taxonomy. However, previous
30
Based on desk research and exhaustive qualitative research, all eight positions in the general taxonomy of consumer motives were
translated in a limited number of health statements that made up the items in the health-related motive scale (see Geeroms et al., 2005b).
256
analyses suggest that only six reliable constructs can be discovered, comprising only 34 of the
health-related motive items (cf. supra: chapter VI). In order to obtain satisfying reliability
estimates for all eight health dimensions, items that were problematic in previous analyses
(N=11) were revised in the context of present study (see Appendix A for the revised version
of the scale). As shown in Table 7.5 the revisions were successful as in present analysis all
Cronbach’s α measures exceeded the critical value of .60. Hence, scores of each item were
summed and averaged to represent the corresponding construct. These eight composite
construct measures served as the basis for all further analyses.
Table 7.5 : Eight Health Constructs
Health Construct Number Item Labels* Cronbach’s

of Items α
Health = Energy 7 Exp1, Exp2, Exp6 .67
(i.e. vitality-motive) Imp5, Imp10, Imp17, Imp29
Health = Enjoying life 4 Imp9, Imp13, Imp19, Imp24 .68

(i.e. pleasure-motive)
Health = Emotional well-being 7 Exp3, Exp13, Exp14 .71

(i.e. conviviality-motive) Imp4, Imp15, Imp21, Imp23
Health = Social Responsibility 5 Exp4, Exp7, .67

(i.e. belonging-motive) Imp1, Imp12, Imp25
Health = Physical well-being 7 Exp5, Exp8, Exp11 .64

(i.e. security-motive) Imp2, Imp8, Imp11, Imp22
Health = Functionality 4 Imp3, Imp18, Imp26, Imp28 .62

(i.e. control-motive)
Health = Outward appearance 8 Exp9, Exp10, Exp12,Exp15, .82

(i.e. recognition-motive) Imp7, Imp14, Imp16, Imp30
Health = Management 3 Imp6, Imp20, Imp27 .73

(i.e. power-motive)
*For the full text item labels see Appendix A
257
3.2.2. General food behavior
In our questionnaire three scales were used to measure people’s general food patterns and
behaviors. First, respondents were asked to answer 51 items of the FRL instrument (Brunsø
and Grunert, 1995), corresponding to 17 food-related lifestyle dimensions in five major life
domains, i.e. shopping, cooking, food quality aspects, consumption situations and purchase
motives 31 . Each dimension consisted of three individual items (statements) that were
translated to Dutch by means of back-translation and had to be answered on seven-point
scales ranging from 1= completely disagree to 7= completely agree. Scores on a dimension
consisted of the average sum score of the three items belonging to that dimension. Reliability
tests using Cronbach’s α were conducted on all dimensions and are shown in Table 7.6.
Second, six food perception dimensions were included in the questionnaire, indicating the
psychological meaning of food for consumers (Synovate/Censydiam, 2002). Again, each
dimension was measured by three individual items, scored on seven-point Likert scales. After
assessing reliability estimates (see also Table 7.6), composite construct measures were
computed for the six dimensions that were used in further analyses.
Finally, five items were derived from Newby and Tucker (2004) to measure the general
dietary profile of the respondents. On seven-point Likert type scales subjects indicated the
extent to which their general dietary pattern could be considered as trendy, sweet, healthy,
traditional or hedonistic. For a brief description of each of these dietary patterns see Table 7.6.
31
The original instrument of Brunsø and Grunert (1995) consisted of 69 items, comprising 23 FRL-dimensions but in order to reduce
questionnaire length, six dimensions that were considered as less relevant in the context of present study were not included in the survey.
258
Table 7.6 : General Food Behavior
Brief description of the dimensions Cronbach’s α

Food-related lifestyle dimensions
Shopping
1. Enjoyment from shopping The enjoyment one gets from shopping .86
2. Speciality shops The desire to shop in speciality shops, get advice .68
3. Price criteria Price sensitivity of an individual .62
Quality aspects
4. Naturalness The importance of natural, healthy food .85
5. Price/quality relation The importance of getting value for money .73
6. Novelty The importance of the aspect of novelty .79
7. Organic products The importance of organic food .87
8. Taste The importance of a good taste .64
9. Freshness The importance of fresh food .75
Cooking
10. Interest in cooking How much is one interested in cooking? .86
11. Looking for new ways Does one experiment in the kitchen? .87
12. Whole family Involvement of the family in meal preparation .80
13. Planning Whether the dinner is planned or last minute .72
14. Social event The importance of social events like dinner parties, .76
restaurant visits with family or friends
Purchase motives
15. Self-fulfilment in food Getting self-esteem from cooking .70
16. Security Familiarity with foods gives a sense of security .74
17. Social relationships Socialising over a dinner is important .65
Food perception dimensions

1. Creativity Perception of food as a source of creativity, .88
exploration and improvisation
2. Enjoyment Perception of food as a source of enjoyment, fun .91
3. Efficiency/showing off Perception of food in terms of efficiency and .71
showing off
4. Functionality Considering food only for functional reasons, i.e. .79
because the body needs nutrition
5. familiarity and tradition Keeping traditions in relation to food and getting .84
security from preparing familiar foods
6. Care-taking role Perception of food as a source of taking care of the .78
family
General dietary patterns

1. Trendy Eating often trendy food, i.e. cornflakes, soft drinks,
delicacies, sandwich rolls…
2. Sweet Eating often sweet things, i.e. jam, honey, cake,
cookies, chocolate…
3. Healthy Eating often healthy food, i.e. fruits, vegetables, fish,
thee…
4. Traditional Eating often traditional food, i.e. 3-component
meals, bread, soup….
5. Hedonistic Eating often hedonistic food, i.e. red meat, cream
sauces, desserts, alcoholic beverages, coffee…
259
3.2.3. Ready meal consumption behavior
The last part of our questionnaire comprised six questions measuring ready meal consumption
behavior. First, four items measured attitudes toward ready meals (e.g. “in my opinion eating
ready meals is good”). Each item was measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from
1= completely disagree to 7= completely agree. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the multi-
item attitude construct was .92.
Actual consumption behavior was measured by six items, which were measured on a seven-
point frequency scale where 1= every day or almost everyday, 2= 3-4 times a week, 3= 1-2
times a week, 4= 1-3 times a month, 5= 1-5 times every six months, 6= less frequently and 7=
never (Mahon et al., 2006). The questions related to frequency of consumption of different
categories of ready meals, i.e. frozen, hydrated, canned, bottled, fresh from supermarket and
fresh from delicatessen. Total ready meal consumption frequency was obtained by summing
consumption frequency scores of the various categories and therefore ranged from 6 to 42,
with lower scores indicating a higher consumption of ready meals.
Third, we used a list of 11 items to measure respondents’ beliefs about ready meals. This list
contained statements like “ready meals are nutritious” or “ready meals are inexpensive” and
was based on preliminary research on convenience foods, and on earlier studies into the role
of convenience in food consumption (e.g. Brinberg and Durand, 1983; Miller and Ginter,
1979; Verlegh and Candel, 1999). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with each of these 11 statements on seven-point Likert scales, ranging from 1=
completely disagree to 7= completely agree.
260
In addition, respondents had to indicate the importance of different criteria when buying ready
meals on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= not at all important to 5= very important.
These criteria were elicited based on previous work of Candel (2001) and additional insights
from literature.
Fifth, seven dimensions were included measuring a number of different ways of handling
ready meals (Synovate/Censydiam, 2001). Each dimension consisted of three statements,
rated again on seven-point Likert scales. Before computing average sum scores reliability
estimates were assessed for all dimensions and are provided in Table 7.7, as well as a brief
explanation of each dimension.
Table 7.7 : Ready Meal Consumption Behavior
Brief description of the dimensions Cronbach’s α

Ways of dealing with ready meals
1. Variation Ready meals are dealt with as a source of variation .61
and change
2. Enjoyment Ready meals are dealt with as a source of enjoyment .69
3. Feelings of guilt Feelings of guilt are associated with the consumption .79
of ready meals
4. Relaxation Ready meals are dealt with as a source of .80
relaxation/withdrawal after a busy day
5. Sophistication/Low calorie Looking for sophisticated recipes with a low amount .60
of calories
6. Time saving Ready meals are dealt with as a time saving element .67
within modern life
7. Functionality Ready meals are consumed only for .58
practical/functional reasons ( no dishes anymore)
Finally, a last question dealt with consumer perception of the ideal ready meal. A list of
product attributes was derived from literature and previous qualitative research
(Synovate/Censydiam, 2003). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which each
attribute is applicable to their ideal ready meal. The ratings were provided on a seven-point
scale, ranging from 1= not at all likely to 7= very likely.
261
Table 7.8 : Means and Standard Deviations for a Five-cluster Solution
Health Constructs (*) Total Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5

sample (Energetic (Harmonious (Normative (Conscious (Rationalists)
Experimenters) Enjoyers) Carers) Experts)
Health = Energy 4.9 (.87) 5.9 (.59) 5.1 (.78) 4.2 (.71) 5.2 (.67) 4.3 (.68)
(i.e. vitality-motive)
Health = Enjoying life 5.2 (.92) 5.5 (.71) 5.9 (.74) 5.0 (.85) 4.8 (.86) 4.7 (.84)
(i.e. pleasure-motive)
Health = Emotional well-being 5.1 (.81) 5.5 (.70) 5.8 (.60) 5.1 (.65) 4.7 (.80) 4.6 (.75)
(i.e. conviviality-motive)
Health = Social responsibility 5.1 (.91) 4.8 (.94) 5.3 (.83) 5.6 (.74) 4.8 (.94) 5.2 (.82)
(i.e. belonging-motive)
Health = Physical well-being 5.2 (.72) 5.0 (.71) 5.1 (.70) 5.6 (.57) 5.2 (.74) 5.3 (.59)
(i.e. security-motive)
Health = Functionality 5.3 (.94) 5.3 (.87) 4.8 (.91) 5.3 (.81) 5.3 (.88) 5.9 (.70)
(i.e. control-motive)
Health = Outward appearance 3.8 (1.21) 4.1 (.84) 2.5 (.78) 2.9 (.86) 5.8 (.83) 3.9 (..94)
(i.e. recognition-motive)
Health = Management 3.6 (1.41) 4.3 (1.09) 2.4 (1.01) 2.3 (.86) 5.7 (.99) 3.3 (1.04)
(i.e. power-motive)
N= 1934 N=368 N=537 N=364 N=409 N=256

(*) For the items of the scales for the health constructs:
- 1 corresponds to ‘completely disagree’
- 7 corresponds to ‘completely agree’
262
4. Results
4.1. Health Audience Segments
In response to our first hypothesis, a two-step cluster analysis (hierarchical clustering using
Ward’s method, followed by a K-means clustering) was performed on the eight health
dimensions computed before. As expected, the results of this analysis revealed an appropriate
five-cluster solution comparable to the five health segments discovered by Geeroms et al.
(2005b). Hence, H1 was fully supported.
As shown in Table 7.8, Cluster 1 represents the ‘Energetic Experimenters’ as variable mean
scores for this cluster indicate an interpretation of health mainly in terms of vitality and
energy (M= 5.9). Statements such as ‘keeping the body in a good condition’, ‘having energy’
and ‘living an active life’ are among the most important health associations for members of
this cluster (see Fig. 7.2 for an overview of cluster-item associations).
Figure 7.2 : Cluster-Health Item Associations (results of correspondence analysis)
263
‘Energetic Experimenters’ represent the youngest segment (Mean Age= 29.8) with an
overrepresentation of males (55.7%) and singles (43.1%). 72.8% of them have no children in
the family. This first segment accounts for about 19.0% of our total sample.
Cluster 2 subjects (27.8% of the sample) represent the ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ as they mainly
interpret health in terms of enjoying life (M=5.9) and emotional well-being (M= 5.8).
Important health-related motive orientations for these people are reflected in individual
statements such as ‘being cheerful’, ‘having fun with others’ and ‘keeping up good social
contacts’. ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ have a mean age of 35.8 with a standard deviation of 12.04.
Compared to the total sample, this segment is rather representative in terms of gender,
education, profession, relationship/employment status and presence of children in the family.
Members of Cluster 3 perceive health as a social responsibility (M= 5.6) and they are mainly
concerned about physical well-being (M= 5.6). Their health-related motive orientations
comprise statements such as ‘protecting the body against harmful influences’, ‘respecting
public health norms and prescriptions’ and ‘taking care of other family members’ health’.
This segment accounts for 18.8% of the sample and obviously represents the ‘Normative
Carers’. Clearly, women are overrepresented (64.8%) as well as people keeping the house, i.e.
housewives/househusbands (10.2%). ‘Normative Carers’ are slightly older with a mean age
of 43.3 and 76.4% of them have a family with children.
The fourth segment represents the ‘Conscious Experts’ as mean values are highest for the
health dimensions of Management (M= 5.7) and Outward appearance (M= 5.8). Health-
related motive orientations are characterized by statements such as ‘looking good’, ‘staying
slim’, ‘being successful’, ‘being ambitious’ ‘being powerful’ and ‘being stylish’. Members of
264
this segment could be characterized as young professionals (Mean Age= 34.4), the majority of
them having no children in the family (60.0%). ‘Conscious Experts’ represent 21.1% of the
total sample.
Finally, ‘Rationalists’ (i.e. Cluster 5) take a position between ‘Conscious Experts’ and
‘Normative Carers’. Similar to Cluster 3 subjects, ‘Rationalists’ are slightly older (Mean
Age= 43.5) and most of them have a family to care for (72.3%). However, less
housewives/househusbands could be detected within Cluster 5 (4.3%) as the majority of its
members have a full time job outside home (61.5%). Hence, health is perceived mainly in
terms of functionality (M= 5.9), with a focus on organizing life between professional work
and family. Individual statements such as ‘working functionally’, ‘performing my job my
own way’ and ‘getting things under control’ are reflecting important health-related motive
orientations for this particular segment. About 13.2% of our sample belongs to Cluster 5.
265
Table 7.9 : ANOVA results General Food Behavior
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 P-value

(EE) (HE) (NC) (CE) (R) (F-test)
Food-related lifestyle
dimensions (*)
Shopping
1. Enjoyment from shopping 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 n.s.
2. Speciality shops 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 n.s.
3. Price criteria 4.0a 4.3b 4.8c 4.1ab 4.7c 0.000**
Quality aspects
4. Naturalness 3.6a 3.7a 4.2b 3.8a 4.1b 0.000**
5. Price/quality relation 5.1ab 5.3b 5.6c 5.0a 5.6c 0.000**
6. Novelty 4.9b 4.8b 4.3a 4.3a 4.1a 0.000**
7. Organic products 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 n.s.
8. Taste 5.9b 6.0b 6.1b 5.5a 5.9b 0.000**
9. Freshness 5.5a 5.9b 5.8b 5.3a 5.8b 0.000**
Cooking
10. Interest in cooking 4.5b 4.7b 4.5b 4.0a 4.0a 0.000**
11. Looking for new ways 4.5c 4.6c 4.0ab 4.1b 3.8a 0.000**
12. Whole family 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 n.s.
13. Planning 3.4a 3.4a 3.9b 3.8b 4.0b 0.000**
14. Social event 4.9b 4.9b 4.4a 4.4a 4.2a 0.000**
Purchase motives
15. Self-fulfilment in food 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 n.s.
16. Security 3.5a 3.4a 4.1b 4.0b 4.2b 0.000**
17. Social relationships 5.1b 5.5c 5.1b 4.8a 4.7a 0.000**
Food perception
Dimensions (*)
1. Creativity 4.8b 4.7b 4.2a 4.2a 4.1a 0.000**
2. Enjoyment 4.8ab 5.0b 4.7ab 4.5a 4.5a 0.000**
3. Efficiency/showing off 4.0b 3.7a 4.0b 4.1b 4.0b 0.000**
4. Functionality 2.9b 2.6a 2.8ab 3.5c 3.3c 0.000**
5. Familiarity and tradition 3.9a 3.9a 4.5b 4.3b 4.5b 0.000**
6. Care-taking role 4.3a 4.8b 5.2c 4.5a 4.9b 0.000**
General dietary patterns (*)

1. Trendy 4.4d 3.5b 3.1a 4.0c 3.2a 0.000**
2. Sweet 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.8 n.s.
3. Healthy 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.1 n.s.
4. Traditional 4.8a 5.2b 5.6c 5.2b 5.5c 0.000**
5. Hedonistic 3.8b 3.9b 3.4a 3.6ab 3.4a 0.000**
Note: The superscripts indicate significantly different means (p<.05) where the alphabetical order of the
superscripts represents the ascending order of the means. Tukey’s honestly significant difference test has been
applied to assess significance between the segments.
** p<.01
(*) For the items of the scales measuring these dimensions:
266
4.2. General Food Behavior
Concerning hypothesis 2, overall MANOVA results revealed a significant effect of health-
related motive orientations on people’s general food patterns and behaviors (i.e. F(17, 1916)=
18.83, p< .01 for the FRL dimensions; F(6, 1927)= 37.61, p< .01 for the food perception
dimensions and F(5, 1928)= 41.48, p< .01 for the general dietary patterns). When
considering the univariate ANOVA tests (see Table 7.9), 12 food-related lifestyle dimensions,
all food perception dimensions and three dietary profiles appeared significantly different
among the five health segments. Whereas some minor deviations could be detected from
what was proposed a priori (cf. supra: Table 7.2), broadly taken, the found relationships
between health-related motive orientations and general food behavior patterns all went in the
hypothesized directions.
As expected, ‘Energetic Experimenters’ (Cluster 1) and ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ (Cluster 2)
are more concerned with novelty, get more enjoyment from trying and preparing new recipes
and see food more as a social event. In addition, for ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ socialising over
a dinner is very important and they have a stronger preference for fresh products. In contrast,
consumers from Cluster 3 (‘Normative Carers’), Cluster 4 (‘Conscious Experts’) and Cluster
5 (‘Rationalists’) are seeking greater security from foods and they plan more in advance what
they are going to eat. In particular, ‘Normative Carers’ and ‘Rationalists’ are more concerned
about price criteria and the relationship between quality and price and they consider freshness
and naturalness as very important food quality dimensions. Compared to other segments,
‘Conscious Experts’ and ‘Rationalists’ are less interested in cooking and do not like to spend
much time in the kitchen. Additionally, ‘Conscious Experts’ seem to attach lower importance
to taste as a quality dimension.
267
The pattern of mean differences for the food perception dimensions was very similar to the
pattern of mean differences for the food-related lifestyles. Whereas members of Cluster1
(‘Energetic Experimenters’) and Cluster 2 (‘Harmonious Enjoyers’) mainly perceive food as a
source of creativity, improvisation, exploration and enjoyment, ‘Normative Carers’,
‘Conscious Experts’ and ‘Rationalists’ express more the desire to keep traditions in relation to
cooking habits and get security from preparing familiar foods. More than the other segments,
‘Conscious Experts’ and ‘Rationalists’ perceive food preparation as a source of functionality
and routine, whereas taking care of others through the serving of good food is at the centre of
food perception for ‘Normative Carers’.
With regard to general dietary patterns, a trendy food pattern is most common among
‘Energetic Experimenters’, whereas traditional dietary profiles could be found among
‘Normative Carers’ and ‘Rationalists’, who are also less prone on hedonistic dietary patterns.
4.3. Ready Meal Consumption Behavior
Concerning the impact of health-related motive orientations on ready meal consumption
behavior (i.e. Hypothesis 3), several significant differences were found between the five
health segments with regard to the six behavioral questions under study. Again, the found
relationships all broadly corresponded to our basic propositions made a priori (cf. supra:
Table 7.3).
First, differences in attitude toward ready meals and ready meal consumption frequency were
investigated via one-way ANOVA. A sample mean score of 3.5 on the attitude construct
reflects a rather negative attitude toward ready meals in general. However, when considering
268
the five segments separately, ‘Energetic Experimenters’ and ‘Conscious Experts’ show
significantly higher attitude measures compared to the other segments, with mean scores of
respectively 3.9 and 3.8. In addition, these two segments report significantly higher
frequency levels for both category-specific and total ready meal consumption, as expected
(see Table 7.10).
With regard to the remaining questions, overall MANOVA results indicated a significant
effect of health-related motive orientations on respectively beliefs about ready meals (F(11,
1922)= 11.96, p< .01), importance of ready meal buying criteria (F(14, 1919)= 10.46, p< .01),
different ways of handling ready meals (F(7, 1927)= 13.29, p< .01) and the perception of the
ideal ready meal (F(20, 1913)= 11.47, p< .01).
Table 7.11 highlights univariate differences in beliefs concerning ready meals between the
five cluster groups. No significant differences could be detected between the segments with
regard to convenience-related beliefs. To the same extent, subjects hold the opinion that
ready meals are easy to prepare (M= 5.9), cause few dishes (M= 5.6), can be bought
everywhere (M= 5.2) and can be stored for a long time (M= 4.4). However, significant
differences were found concerning beliefs about other attributes such as price, taste and
presence of additives. Though general beliefs about these attributes are rather weak,
‘Energetic Experimenters’ and ‘Conscious Experts’ believe to a greater extent as compared to
the other segments that ready meals are not expensive, contain few additives, are something
special, have a good taste and are not harmful for one’s figure.
In order to identify underlying dimensions among ready meal buying criteria, factor analysis
(principle component analysis) was performed based on the importance scores. The results of
269
this analysis are shown in Table 7.12. The factor explaining most variance (28.9%) contains
several credence criteria such as nutritional value, healthiness, shelf life date, environmental
effects and ingredients. Sensory criteria such as taste, appearance and freshness load
consistently on a second factor, followed by two other factors including mainly search criteria
either relating to showing off (i.e. exclusiveness, brand name and package style) or
functionality (i.e. price, quantity and ease of using). Table 7.13 shows univariate ANOVA
tests for differences in importance scores between members of the five health segments
regarding these four categories of buying criteria. As expected, ‘Normative Carers’ and
‘Rationalists’ perceive credence criteria (i.e. healthiness, nutritional value and shelf life date)
as more important compared to other segments and they are more concerned about price as a
functional criterion. Within the category of sensory criteria, these two segments consider
freshness as very important, as is the case for members of Cluster 2 (i.e. ‘Harmonious
Enjoyers’). In addition, ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ together with ‘Energetic Experimenters’
attach greater importance to the taste of ready meals. Finally, as proposed a priori, showing
off criteria (i.e. exclusiveness and brand name) are perceived as more important by members
of Cluster 4, i.e. ‘Conscious Experts’.
With regard to different ways of handling ready meals, six dimensions were found to be
significantly different between our five segments (see Table 7.14). Whereas members of
Cluster 1 (‘Energetic Experimenters’) and Cluster 4 (‘Conscious Experts’) apply a more
unrestricted way of dealing with ready meals, considering ready meals more as a time saving
element and as a source of variation, enjoyment and relaxation, ‘Normative Carers’ and
‘Rationalists’ experience more guilt feelings about the consumption of ready meals. Together
with ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, the latter segments consume ready meals only for
270
practical/functional reasons and see this type of home meal replacement only as a stopgap
solution when having no time for cooking themselves.
Finally, to get an insight into the dimensions underlying consumer perception of the ideal
ready meal, we performed a second factor analysis comprising the list of product attributes
that were included in the study. Results of this analysis revealed seven broad factors,
simultaneously accounting for about 40.0% of the variance (see Table 7.15). Again, a
credence factor could be detected containing attributes such as healthiness, variety and quality.
In contrast to our earlier findings, freshness loads on the same factor as the credence attributes,
denoting a slightly different interpretation of this quality aspect when perceiving the ideal
ready meal. Ethnic recipes of ready meals are grouped into two factors (factor 2 and factor 7),
respectively distinguishing Oriental dishes from Mediterranean dishes. Moreover, four
additional factors emerged out of the analysis including attributes respectively relating to
aspects of sophistication, tradition, functionality and low calorie. When comparing ideal
ready meal perceptions among the five health segments, Table 7.16 indicates that ‘Energetic
Experimenters’ and ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ have greater preference for ethnic dishes and new
recipes as was expected, whereas the ideal ready meal of ‘Normative Carers’ and
‘Rationalists’ comprises more traditional dishes, scoring high on credence attributes such as
freshness and quality. Compared to the other segments, functionality aspects (i.e. quick to
prepare, easy to clean up) are rated higher by ‘Rationalists’ and ‘Conscious Experts’. In
addition, ‘Conscious Experts’ are guided more by the aspect of sophistication (i.e.
sophisticated dish, trendy dish, stylish package) and are more concerned about the amount of
calories within ready meals. For these people, their ideal ready meal comprises more
vegetarian and steamed dishes, as well as modern ethnic dishes such as sushi, dim-sum or
ravioli pesto.
271
Table 7.10 : Attitude toward Ready Meals and Consumption Frequency
Total Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 P-value

sample (EE) (HE) (NC) (CE) (R) (F-test)
Attitude toward ready meals (*) 3.5 3.9b 3.4a 3.3a 3.8b 3.3a 0.000**
Category-specific ready meal consumption (**)

Frozen ready meals 4.9 4.6a 5.0b 5.2b 4.7a 5.2b 0.000**
Hydrated ready meals 5.7 5.5a 5.8b 5.8b 5.5a 5.9b 0.000**
Canned ready meals 5.9 5.8a 6.1b 6.2b 5.7a 6.1b 0.000**
Bottled ready meals 5.8 5.5a 5.9b 6.0b 5.5a 5.9b 0.000**
Ready meals fresh from supermarket 5.3 5.1a 5.4b 5.5b 5.1a 5.5b 0.000**
Ready meals fresh from delicatessen 5.7 5.6ab 5.8bc 5.9c 5.5a 6.0c 0.000**
Total ready meal consumption (***) 33.3 32.1a 34.0b 34.6b 32.0a 34.6b 0.000**
Note: The superscripts indicate significantly different means (p<.05) where the alphabetical order of the superscripts represents the ascending order of
the means. Tukey’s honestly significant difference test has been applied to assess significance between the segments.
** p<.01
(*)For the items of the scales measuring attitude toward ready meals:
(**)For the items of the scales measuring consumption frequency:
- 1 corresponds to ‘every day or almost everyday’
- 7 corresponds to ‘never’
(***)Lower sum scores indicate a higher consumption frequency
272
Table 7.11 : ANOVA results Beliefs Ready Meals

Ready meals are easy to prepare (*) 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.8 n.s.
Ready meals contain no additives 2.2 3.2b 2.1a 2.0a 3.4b 2.1a 0.000**
Ready meals are not expensive 2.9 3.2c 2.8b 2.5a 3.1c 2.5a 0.000**
Ready meals are something special 2.6 2.7b 2.3a 2.3a 2.8b 2.4a 0.000**
Ready meals cause few dishes 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 n.s.
Ready meals are nutritious 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.1 n.s.
Ready meals can be stored for a long time 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 n.s.
Ready meals taste good 3.7 3.9b 3.5a 3.5a 3.8b 3.6a 0.000**
Ready meals are good for your figure 2.2 2.4b 2.1a 2.0a 2.5b 2.1a 0.000**
Ready meals can be bought everywhere 5.2 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 n.s.
Ready meals are sold in sufficiently large portions 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 n.s.
** p<.01
(*) For the items of the scales measuring beliefs about ready meals:
273
Table 7.12 : Factor Analysis – Ready Meal Buying Criteria
Buying criteria Factor Exp. Var.

loading (%)
1 Nutritional value .82 28.9
Healthiness .80
Shelf life date .74
Effects upon the environment .70
Ingredients .62
2 Taste .77 10.3

Appearance .72
Freshness .65
3 Exclusiveness .75 9.9

Brand .71
Package .70
4 Price .74 6.8

Quantity .68
Ease of using .62
274
Table 7.13 : ANOVA results Buying Criteria

Credence criteria (*)
Nutritional value 3.6 3.3a 3.5a 3.9b 3.5a 3.8b 0.000**
Healthiness 3.7 3.5a 3.6a 4.0b 3.6a 3.9b 0.000**
Shelf life date 4.3 4.2a 4.2a 4.6b 4.1a 4.5b 0.000**
Effects upon the environment 3.0 2.9a 2.9a 3.3b 2.9a 3.0a 0.000**
Ingredients 3.9 3.8a 3.9a 4.2b 3.8a 3.9a 0.000**
Sensory criteria
Taste 4.3 4.5b 4.6b 4.2a 4.2a 4.2a 0.000**
Appearance 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 n.s.
Freshness 4.4 4.2a 4.6b 4.6b 4.1a 4.5b 0.000**
Showing off criteria

Exclusiveness 2.5 2.5a 2.3a 2.3a 2.9b 2.4a 0.000**
Brand 2.8 2.9b 2.6a 2.7a 3.2c 2.8ab 0.000**
Package 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 n.s.
Functional criteria
Price 3.8 3.6a 3.7a 4.0b 3.7a 4.0b 0.000***
Quantity 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 n.s.
Ease of using 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7 n.s.
Note: The superscripts indicate significantly different means (p<.05) where the alphabetical order of the superscripts represents the ascending order of the means.
Tukey’s honestly significant difference test has been applied to assess significance between the segments.
** p<.01
(*) For the items of the scales measuring the importance of buying criteria:
- 1 corresponds to ‘not at all important’
- 5 corresponds to ‘very important’
275
Table 7.14 : ANOVA results different Ways of Handling Ready Meals

Variation (*) 2.9 3.1b 2.7a 2.6a 3.1b 2.8a 0.000**

Enjoyment 2.6 2.8b 2.4a 2.4a 2.9b 2.5a 0.000**
Feelings of guilt 4.3 4.0a 4.1a 4.7b 4.2a 4.6b 0.000**
Relaxation/Withdrawal 3.0 3.2b 2.8a 2.8a 3.3b 2.9a 0.000**
Sophistication/Low calorie 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.3 n.s.
Time saving 3.0 3.2b 2.8a 2.8a 3.4b 2.9a 0.000**
Functionality 4.5 4.1a 4.6b 4.7b 4.3a 4.6b 0.000**
** p<.01
(*) For the items of the scales measuring different ways of handling ready meals:
276
Table 7.15 : Factor Analysis – Attributes Ideal Ready Meal
Attributes Factor Exp. Var.

loading (%)
1 Healthiness .79 26.0
Freshness .78
Variety .76
Quality .75
2 Modern Oriental dish (i.e. sushi, dim-sum…) .81 8.4

Traditional Oriental dish (i.e. nasi or bami goreng…) .71
3 Sophisticated dish .77 7.2

Trendy dish .73
Stylish package .73
4 Traditional dish .70 5.8

Substantial .68
Well-known recipe .66
5 Quick to prepare .83 5.2

Easy to prepare/clean up .80
Relieve a hungry feeling .65
6 Low amount of calories .65 3.6

Steamed dish .63
Vegetarian dish .61
7 Modern Mediterranean dish (i.e. penne a l’arabiata, ravioli pesto, .86 3.5
paella, Moussaka…) .62
Traditional Mediterranean dish (i.e. lasagne or spaghetti…)
277
Table 7.16 : ANOVA results Ideal Ready Meal
Note: The superscripts indicate significantly different means (p<.05) where the alphabetical order of the
superscripts represents the ascending order of the means. Tukey’s honestly significant difference test has been
applied to assess significance between the segments.
** p<.01
(*) For the items of the scales measuring ideal meal attributes:
- 1 corresponds to ‘not at all likely’
- 7 corresponds to ‘very likely’
278
5. Discussion and conclusions
The primary purpose of this study was to better understand ready meal consumption behavior
by investigating its health-related determinants. Whereas physical health concern previously
has been identified as having a negative effect on the purchase of convenience foods (e.g. de
Boer et al., 2004), the present study explored the impact of more psychological aspects of
health concern, i.e. health-related motive orientations on consumer behavior for ready meals.
A first hypothesis was directed towards validating the motive-related segmentation approach
proposed by Geeroms et al. (2005b) in their earlier study on health audience segmentation.
The original 45-item Health-related Motive Scale was revised in the context of present study
in order to enhance its psychometric properties. Based on the made revisions, eight reliable
health dimensions could be derived, reflecting eight fundamental consumer motives
(Callebaut et al., 1999). As explicitly hypothesized, a two-step cluster analysis performed on
these eight health constructs revealed five distinct health segments, with different health-
related motive orientations. The found segments were generally comparable to the five health
audience segments discovered by Geeroms et al. (2005b), and thus, were called respectively,
‘Energetic Experimenters’, ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, ‘Normative Carers’, ‘Conscious Experts’
and ‘Rationalists’.
By dealing with hypothesis 2, new insights were provided into the way psychological health
aspects influence people’s general food behavior. In general, several plausible and
meaningful relationships could be detected between health-related motive orientations and
general food patterns and behaviors. For example, the perception of food as a source of
enjoyment, creativity and improvisation, as well as a greater interest in novelty and social
279
relationships among ‘Energetic Experimenters’ and ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ are not surprising
given these segments’ major involvement with health-related aspects such as emotional well-
being, enjoying life and excitement/variation in life. In contrast, a more restricted health
interpretation among ‘Normative Carers’, ‘Conscious Experts’ and ‘Rationalists’ is translated
into a more controlled way of dealing with food, with a focus on familiarity and tradition.
The predominant concern among ‘Normative Carers’ and ‘Rationalists’ about planning,
pricing issues and credence criteria such as freshness and naturalness is quite obvious, as
these food-related dimensions express aspects of security and safety in themselves (e.g.
Brunsø et al., 2004). In addition, Normative Carers’ involvement with social responsibility in
relation to health is expressed through aspects such as taking care of others through the
serving of good food. Finally, a lower interest in cooking, as well as the perception of food as
a source of functionality and routine could be expected among ‘Conscious Experts’, as this
segment’s health-related motive orientations express aspects of social status and prestige (e.g.
being ambitious, being powerful, being successful), which are usually connected with striving
for a professional career and having a busy life, hence, implying less time for shopping and
cooking-related activities (e.g. Brunsø et al., 2004; Ahlgren et al., 2005).
Taking into account previous insights into general food behavior, in hypothesis 3, we
investigated the impact of health-related motive orientations on people’s ready meal
consumption behavior. Whereas with respect to general food behavior, mainly the
intrapersonal axis of our health-related motive structure (see Fig. 7.1) accounted for
significant differences between the five health segments – with rather similar food patterns
among ‘Energetic Experimenters’ and ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, as opposed to ‘Normative
Carers’, ‘Conscious Experts’ and ‘Rationalists’ – in the case of ready meal consumption,
significant differences in consumption patterns were mainly found along the interpersonal
280
axis. As expected, people dealing with health in an individualistic way, i.e. ‘Energetic
Experimenters’ and ‘Conscious Experts’ showed significantly higher measures of attitudes,
beliefs and behaviors toward ready meals compared to people holding an altruistic
interpretation of health, i.e. ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, ‘Normative Carers’ and ‘Rationalists’.
Moreover, ‘Energetic Experimenters’ and ‘Conscious Experts’ applied a more unrestricted
way of handling ready meals (i.e. greater perception of ready meals as a source of variation,
enjoyment and relaxation), whereas the other segments experienced more guilt feelings about
ready meal consumption (i.e. neglecting one’s duty toward relevant others), considering this
type of home meal replacement only for practical or functional reasons. The latter findings
are in line with previous insights in literature about the role of individuality versus altruism in
consumer behavior for convenience foods (e.g. Verlegh and Candel, 1999; de Boer et al.,
2004; Costa et al., 2005).
Given the fact that beliefs, attitudes and behaviors toward ready meals are particularly low
among ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’, ‘Normative Carers’ and ‘Rationalists’, the latter segments
need primary attention in future marketing campaigns aiming at increasing ready meal
consumption frequency. In particular, ‘Normative Carers’ and ‘Rationalists’ suffer from
feelings of guilt associated with the consumption of ready meals, as these food products are
considered as less healthy, less nutritious and more artificial compared to traditional home-
made meals. Hence, to attract these segments, marketers should position ready meals as a
valid alternative to self-prepared family meals, scoring equally high on credence attributes
such as healthiness, nutritional value and naturalness. In addition, promotional strategies (e.g.
coupons, price reductions) should be considered for these segments, as price is valued as an
important criterion when buying ready meals. In their turn, ‘Harmonious Enjoyers’ could be
appealed by focusing on hedonic criteria such as freshness and taste and – given the
281
importance of social relationships for these subjects – ready meals should be positioned as
‘something special’ that can be enjoyed together with family and friends. By consuming a
ready meal, time saved from cooking during visits can be more valuably spent with the guests
instead of in the kitchen.
Though ‘Energetic Experimenters’ and ‘Conscious Experts’ generally respond more
positively toward ready meals, yet some suggestions and recommendations could be offered
to increase the likelihood of purchase among these segments. For example, ‘Energetic
Experimenters’ could be approached by marketing campaigns focusing on variety and
diversity, with particular attention to ethnic dishes and new recipes. As health-related motive
orientations of ‘Conscious Experts’ imply less time for shopping and cooking-related
activities, marketing campaigns directed to them should focus on convenience-related aspects
such as quick to prepare and easy to clean up. In addition, aspects of sophistication (e.g.
stylish package, trendy dish, exclusive brand) and low calorie (e.g. vegetarian or steamed
dishes) should be stressed to attract these people, as for ‘Conscious Experts’ ready meal
consumption is associated with modernity and showing off, which may compensate for a
rather insecure/traditional mentality when preparing food by themselves (see before).
All in all, what can be concluded from the above findings is that consumer-oriented product
development and positioning might be improved by also taking into account the impact of
health-related motive orientations on ready meal consumer behavior. Though convenience-
related product positioning remains quite obvious in the context of ready meals, the authors of
this study suggest more comprehensive positioning strategies, also comprising more
psychological motives of the target audience, i.e. emotional well-being, enjoyment, social
responsibility, social recognition and activation.
282
As previous literature regarding the influence of health-related motive orientations on
people’s general food behavior and ready meal consumption behavior is almost non-existing,
the present study is mainly exploratory in nature. Hence, propositions in this study were
inferred from the authors’ personal a priori knowledge about the fundamental meaning of
health for each of the five audience segments. Though the found results provided support for
the majority of our propositions, especially in the case of general food behavior, some minor
deviations emerged from what was proposed in advance. In particular, some of the a priori
proposed relationships appeared to be non-significant, whereas others were slightly different
from our expectations. For example, no significant differences in ‘healthy’ dietary patterns
could be detected between the five health segments (i.e. H2.26), although health-related
motive orientations among these segments are quite distinct. However, the importance of
‘healthiness’ as a ready meal buying criterion truly differed among the five segments (i.e.
H3.8). Future research is advised to further explore these contradictory results or to
additionally validate this study’s major findings in a less exploratory way. For example, other
types of convenience-related meal solutions can be considered such as take away foods,
restaurant meals or pub meals. In addition, future experimental studies may be designed,
investigating the actual behavioral impact of the motive-related positioning strategies
suggested in this study.
283
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Steven Boute for his help with the data collection. Also the help of the
newspaper Het Nieuwsblad is very much acknowledged for giving the opportunity to collect
the data through its website. The assistance and support of Patrick Salien and Kurt Minnen
are particularly appreciated.
284
References
Ahlgren, M.K., Gustafsson, I.B., & Hall, G. (2005). The impact of the meal situation on the
consumption of ready meals. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(6), 485-
492.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bonke, J. (1996). Economic influences on food choice – non-convenience versus
convenience food consumption. In H.L. Meiselmann, & H.J.H. MacFie (Eds.). Food
choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 293-318). London: Chapman & Hall.
Bowers, D.E. (2000). Cooking trends echo changing roles of women. Food Review, 23, 23-
29.
Brinberg, D., & Durand, J.H. (1983). Eating at fast-food restaurants: an analysis using two
behavioral intention models. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(6), 459-472.
Brunsø, K., & Grunert, K.G. (1995). Development and testing of a cross-culturally valid
instrument: food-related lifestyle. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 475-480.
Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K.G. (2004). Testing relationships between values and
food-related lifestyle: results from two european countries. Appetite, 43, 195-205
Byrne, D. (1998). The state we’re in. Marketing, Feb., 14-15.
285
Candel, M.J.J.M. (2001). Consumers’ convenience orientation towards meal preparation:
conceptualization and measurement. Appetite, 35, 15-28.
Costa, A.I.A., Dekker, M., Beumer, R.R., Rombauts, F.M., & Jongen, W.M.F. (2001). A
consumer-oriented classification system for home meal replacements. Food Quality
and Preference, 12, 229-242.
Costa, A.I.A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W.M.F. (2005). To cook or not to
cook: a means-end study of motives for choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and
Preference, xxx, xxx-xxx (available online 4 oct 2005 at www.sciencedirect.com).
Darian, J.C., & Tucci, L. (1992). Convenience-oriented food expenditures of working-wife
families: implications for convenience food manufacturers. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 1, 25-36.
Datamonitor. (2003). Consumer trends in prepared meals: market impact and future
direction (New Consumer Insight Series Report). London: Datamonitor.
de Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., & Ryan, I. (2004). The influence of lifestyle
characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience
foods in the Irish market. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 155-165.
Distributie Vandaag. (1999). Dossier bereide schotels. België: Koninklijk Belgisch Comité
voor de Distributie.
Geeroms, N., Van Kenhove, P., & Verbeke, W. (2005b). Health advertising to promote fruit
and vegetable intake: application of motive-related health audience segmentation.
Working paper, Ghent University, Department of Marketing..
GfK. (2002). To bio or not to bio: de paradox tussen prijsontwikkeling en de vraag naar
kwaliteit. GfK jaargids 2002: kerncijfers voor marketing- en beleidsplannen. GfK
Belgium: Brussels.
286
Gilbert, L.C. (2000). The functional food trend: What’s next and what American think about
eggs. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 19(5), 507S-512S.
Gofton, L. (1995). Convenience and the moral status of consumer practices. In D.W. Marshall
(Ed.). Food choice and the consumer (pp. 152-181). London: Blackie Academic &
Professional.
Guinot, C., Latreille, J., Malvy, D., Preziosi, P., Galan, P., Hercberg, S., & Tenenhaus, M.
(2001). Use of multiple correspondence analysis and cluster analysis to study dietary
behavior: food consumption questionnaire in the SU.VI.MAX. cohort. European
Journal of Epidemiology, 17(6), 505-516.
IFIC. (2000). International food information council functional foods attitudinal research.
http://www.ific.org.
Jago, D. (2000). A healthy outlook. Prepared Foods, 169(4), 29.
Mahon, D., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2006). The role of attitudes, subjective norm,
perceived control and habit in the consumption of ready meals and takeaways in Great
britain. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 474-481.
Milburn, K. (1995). Never mind the quantity, investigate the depth. British Food Journal,
97, 36-38.
Miller, K.E., & Grinter, J.L. (1979). An investigation of situational variation in brand choice
behavior and attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 111-123.
Mothersbaugh, D.L., Herrmann, R.O., & Warland, R.H. (1993). Perceived time pressure and
recommended dietary practices: the moderating effect of knowledge of nutrition.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27(1), 106-126.
Newby, P.K., & Tucker, K.L. (2004). Empirically derived eating patterns using factor or
cluster analysis: a review. Nutrition Reviews, 62(5), 177-203.
287
Olsen, S.O. (2003). Understanding the relationship between age and seafood consumption:
the mediating role of attitude, health involvement and convenience. Food Quality and
Preference, 14, 199-209.
Olson, J.C., & Reynolds, T.J. (2001). The means-end approach to understanding consumer
decision making. In J.C. Olson, & T.J. Reynolds (Eds.). Understanding consumer
decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy (pp.
3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reilly, M.D. (1982). Working wifes and convenience consumption. Journal of Consumer
Research, 8, 407-418.
Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K.G. (2005). Consumers, food and convenience: the long way
from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. Journal of Economic
underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267-284.
Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & French, S. (2002). Individual and environmental
influences on adolescent eating behaviors. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 102, S40-S51.
Synovate/Censydiam. (2001). Kwalitatief onderzoek inzake koelverse kant-en-klaar
maaltijden. Unpublished research report. Synovate/Censydiam Institute: Antwerp.
Synovate/Censydiam. (2002). Motivationele segmentatiestudie van versbereide maaltijden.
Unpublished research report. Synovate/Censydiam Institute: Antwerp.
Synovate/Censydiam. (2003). Kwalitatief onderzoek come a casa opportuniteiten.
Unpublished research report. Synovate/Censydiam Institute: Antwerp.
Verlegh, P.W.J., & Candel, M.J.J.M. (1999). The consumption of convenience foods:
reference groups and eating situations. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 457-464.
288
WHO. (1990). The world health organization report, diet, nutrition and the prevention of
chronic diseases. WHO Technical Report Series 797.
289
Appendix A :
290
Health-related Motive Scale (Geeroms et al., 2005b)
(revised version; original formulations are given in brackets after the revised formulations)
Explicit items (Exp)

For me, health is mainly about…
1. keeping the body in a good condition, i.e. fitness, jogging, aerobics…

2. having the energy to do the things I want to do.
3. taking time to relax and to enjoy life.
4. living in harmony with my family.
5. having no physical health problems.
6. living an active life, i.e. practicing sports…
7. taking care of other family members’ health.
8. respecting public health norms and prescriptions (following the advice of expert-others, i.e. doctor,
dietician,…)
9. managing my body and appearance in the best possible way (developing a healthy lifestyle of my
own).
10. looking good.
11. protecting my body against harmful influences (reducing physical health risks with regard to heart,
lungs, liver,…).
12. staying slim.
13. emotional well-being, feeling good mentally.
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) bad not to be able anymore to…
1. help others.
2. feel secure in life.
3. work functionally.
4. live an active social life.
5. live very intensely (behave independently).
6. be successful.
7. be classy.
8. feel protected.
9. be playful.
10. explore life and discover new things (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. be free to do what I want (practice sports).
18. organize and control life.
19. be cheerful and light-hearted (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. get things under control (think rationally).
27. be ambitious.
28. perform my job my own way (be competent).
291
29. experience adventure in life (live an adventurous life).

30. be stylish.
292
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
293
Chapter VIII
Summary & Discussion
1. Recapitulation
Subject of research within the present dissertation has been the two-dimensional motivational
framework of Callebaut et al. (1999), consisting of eight consumer motives, i.e. desirable end-
states that people seek to attain through consumption. Recently, this framework has been
used worldwide by a dozen of prominent multinational companies to position, reposition or
communicate new and existing brands (e.g. Coca-Cola, Johnson and Johnson, Heineken,
Nokia and Chefaro). However, notwithstanding this practical relevance, the consumer motive
taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) has never been scientifically validated or tested. Hence,
the main purpose of this dissertation was to contribute to the validation and critical
assessment of this motivational framework in a marketing context. More specifically, we
tried to meet this purpose by focusing on three broad research objectives, i.e. (1) cross-
validation, (2) construct validation, and (3) the practical application of the taxonomy of
consumer motives of Callebaut et al. (1999). Accordingly, the studies in this dissertation
were organized among these three themes: (1) in a first paper we focused on the measurement
of underlying consumer motives by a set of stable (i.e. reliable) unidimensional implicit items
and, in addition, we confirmed the robustness of the motive structure of Callebaut et al. (1999)
across different cultures and different product categories (Chapter III); (2) in the second
theme we correlated consumer motives with other related concepts in literature, i.e. personal
values (Chapter IV) and human personality traits (Chapter V); and (3) in the last two studies
295
we concentrated on the practical application of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive
taxonomy as a new segmentation paradigm in the context of health marketing (Chapter VI &
Chapter VII).
In a first research paper (Chapter III), an empirical validation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999)
taxonomy of consumer motives was provided based on respondents’ valence ratings of a list
of preferred brand personality traits. As personality traits associated with a preferred brand
seem to be expressions of human personality dimensions (e.g. Sirgy, 1982; Keller, 1993;
Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004) and, in addition, human personality traits are likely to be
function of underlying motives (e.g. Read et al., 1990; Winter et al., 1998; Read and Lalwani,
2000), preferred brand personality traits are prone to channel the ways in which these
underlying motives are expressed. Hence, based on this self-expressive function of a
preferred brand personality, consumer motives were operationalized by a set of 34 preferred
brand personality items. The results of an INDSCAL analysis, conducted across 11 different
countries and four product categories, revealed a consistent and replicable structure
underlying the concept of preferred brand personality. Based on the conceptualization of
preferred brand personality dimensions as expressions of underlying motives, the found
structure was reformulated in terms of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of eight consumer
motives i.e. Vitality, Pleasure, Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control, Recognition and
Power. The relationships among these eight motives could be summarized in terms of a
circumplex structure, determined by two basic, bipolar dimensions, respectively representing
an intrapersonal and interpersonal motive axis. We considered these motivational states to be
stable dispositions that are present within every individual and become aroused by a particular
296
Chapter VIII : Summary and Discussion
product environment (e.g. McClelland, 1980). Once aroused, the manifest motives invoke a
desire for certain types of human personalities to be present, which are expressed by choosing
brands with congruent personalities.
To test for construct validity, in the second research part of the present dissertation (Chapter
IV & Chapter V) Callebaut et al.’s (1999) eight consumer motives were correlated with other
related concepts in literature. In Chapter IV the objective was to reconsider the relationship
between consumer motives and personal values, based on both an alternative implicit method
of motive assessment and a non-student subject sample. As methodological problems, i.e.
method variance between motive and value measures and the predominant use of student
samples by researchers are posited as one of the most obvious reasons for the lack of
empirical correlations between motives and values (e.g. Brunstein and Schmitt, 2004;
Schultheiss and Brunstein, 2001), we suggested that motive-value correlations might become
more substantial by increasing method congruence between implicit motive assessments and
direct value measures, i.e. using the same structured response formats (Likert scales) in both
cases and by allowing more mature subjects to participate in the study instead of young adults,
i.e. conducting a random walk method as a means of data collection. Specific hypotheses
were formulated regarding the proposed relationships between Callebaut et al.’s (1999) eight
consumer motives and Schwartz’ (1992) ten value types. Based on information from a
sample of 178 respondents, the results of our analysis clearly showed that – although rather
moderate in magnitude – several significant correlations exist between measures of motives
and values. In particular, 38% of the motive-value correlations appeared to be significant at
the alpha .05 level of probability. In general, our findings were consistent with the hypothesis
297
that people lean toward those values that play to their inherent motive dispositions.
Specifically, motives of Pleasure and Vitality contributed to the priority that individuals
placed on pro-Openness to Change values (i.e. Self-direction, Stimulation and Hedonism);
Conviviality and Belonging contributed to pro-Self-Transcendence values (i.e. Universalism
and Benevolence); motives of Security and Control supported pro-Conservation value
priorities (i.e. Security, Tradition and Conformity); and Recognition and Power motives
contributed to pro-Self-Enhancement values (i.e. Achievement and Power).
In the realm of the application of contingency models in personality research, in Chapter V
we investigated the impact of underlying consumer motives on the relationship between
personality traits and several aspects of (consumer) behavior. In the first study the trait
consumer innovativeness was considered and its link with new-product adoption behavior,
whereas study 2 concentrated on the relationship between dispositional self-control and
disciplined driving behavior. The results of both studies provided support for the basic
proposition that actual behavioral outcomes of human personality characteristics are
dependent on the alignment with the particular consumer motives that are active within a
given product context. In study 1, we found a significant positive relationship existing
between innate innovativeness and consumer adoption behavior for innovative mobile phone
product attributes. However, significant differences were detected among high-innovative
consumers, i.e. consumers driven by underlying motives of Vitality or Recognition, in either
adopting utilitarian or hedonic innovative attributes. In line with the general principle of
compatibility in the motive-literature (e.g. Higgins, 2002), Vitality-driven consumers
exhibited higher adoption levels for hedonic innovative mobile phone attributes, whereas
adoption of utilitarian innovative mobile phone attributes was more prominent among
Recognition-driven consumers. In the same way, the results of study 2 suggested a significant
298
positive relationship between dispositional self-control and disciplined driving behavior, as
people high in dispositional self-control reported more disciplined driving behavior compared
to people low in self-control. Here again, significant differences were found among people
with high dispositional self-control, i.e. people driven by underlying motives of Recognition
or Security, according to the manifest consumer motives. In particular, disciplined driving
behavior as an outcome of human self-control appeared to be more prominent among
Security-driven people, as this kind of normative behavior was more compatible with the
basic motive orientation of these people. In sum, the findings of study 1 and study 2 provided
evidence for the intervening impact of underlying consumer motives on the relationship
between human personality and (consumer) behavior. A dispositional personality trait was
found to give rise to a specific behavior, especially when that behavior aligned with particular
manifest consumer motives. In contrast, when less compatibility could be detected between
the behavior in question and the underlying motive orientations, high levels of the personality
trait were less likely to result into the behavioral outcome.
The last research part of this dissertation focused on the practical application of Callebaut et
al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives as a new segmentation paradigm in a health
marketing context (Chapter VI & Chapter VII). Given the importance of meaningful audience
segmentation in creating effective health advertisements, in Chapter VI we proposed a new
theory-driven segmentation approach based on Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of eight
consumer motives. We demonstrated the usefulness of this new segmentation paradigm in the
process of developing appropriate health advertisements in the context of fruit and vegetable
consumption. As health beliefs or concerns play an important role in food behavior such as
299
fruit and vegetable intake (e.g. Steptoe et al., 1995), a heterogeneous health audience (N=
615) was segmented according to the audience members’ health-related motive orientations,
i.e. relatively enduring beliefs that people hold about the fundamental meaning of health. The
results of a two-step cluster analysis revealed five different health segments to exist for which
health has another distinct meaning, named Energetic Experimenters, Harmonious Enjoyers,
Normative Carers, Rationalists and Conscious Experts. These five health segments could be
organized along two dimensions; yielding a health-related motive structure that is a reflection
of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive taxonomy. Significant differences were found
between the five health segments with regard to category-specific fruit and vegetable
consumption. Energetic Experimenters consumed significantly more bananas than did
members of the other segments, whereas the consumption of potatoes and cooked vegetables
was significantly higher among Harmonious Enjoyers and Normative Carers. In addition,
significant differences existed between the health audience segments with regard to their
reactions toward motive-related health advertising. When compared to the other segments, all
health audience segments responded more positively toward the advertisement that was
hypothesized to be most responsive to their health-related motive orientations. Moreover,
when comparing the most appropriate motive-related advertisement to a general
advertisement, in almost all cases a segment’s reactions toward the motive-related
advertisement were significantly more positive than its reactions toward the advertisement
that has a general character (i.e. not responsive to a segment’s underlying motives).
Finally, the objective in Chapter VII was to extend our previous work on motive-related
audience segmentation, by investigating how different health-related motive orientations
influence people’s ways of dealing with convenience-related food solutions, i.e. ready meals.
Again, five distinct health segments emerged out of a two-step cluster analysis with different
300
health-related motive orientations, which validated our findings in Chapter VI. When
comparing these segments, several significant and meaningful relationships could be detected
between health-related motive orientations and both general food behavior patterns and ready
meal consumption patterns. For instance, Energetic Experimenters and Harmonious Enjoyers
perceived food as a source of enjoyment, creativity and improvisation and had a greater
interest in novelty and social relationships, whereas a more controlled way of dealing with
food could be found among Normative Carers, Conscious Experts and Rationalists, with a
focus on security, tradition, functionality and routine. With respect to ready meal
consumption behavior, people dealing with health in an individualistic way, i.e. Energetic
Experimenters and Conscious Experts showed significantly higher measures of attitudes,
beliefs and behaviors toward ready meals compared to people holding an altruistic
interpretation of health, i.e. Harmonious Enjoyers, Normative Carers and Rationalists.
Moreover, Energetic Experimenters and Conscious Experts applied a more unrestricted way
of handling ready meals, i.e. greater perception of ready meals as a source of variation,
enjoyment and relaxation, whereas the other segments experienced more guilt feelings about
ready meal consumption, i.e. neglecting one’s duty toward relevant others, considering this
type of home meal replacement only for practical or functional reasons. In general, the
findings regarding ready meal consumption behavior are in line with previous insights in
literature about the role of individuality versus altruism in consumer behavior for convenience
foods (e.g. Verlegh and Candel, 1999; de Boer et al., 2004; Costa et al., 2005).
301
2. Theoretical implications
In our first research paper (Chapter III) we validated the circumplex consumer motive
taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999), based on valence ratings of a set of 34 preferred brand
personality traits. By integrating conceptual insights about both the relationship between
motives and human personality (e.g. Barsalou, 1985; Read et al., 1990; Winter et al., 1998)
and the self-expressive use of brands by consumers (e.g. Sirgy, 1982), we posited that
preferred brand personality traits are associated with particular motives that have to be
satisfied. Actually we suggested that different consumer situations cause different motives to
become manifest. Consequently, a desire is invoked for different types of human
personalities to be present. To express the human personality type that is manifest in a given
situation, people prefer a brand with a congruent personality (e.g. Aaker, 1999; Kalar, 2003).
Hence, the preferred brand – through its link with the desired human personality – derives
some satisfaction potentiality with regard to the manifest consumer motives.
By taking such a motive-based approach to the concept of brand personality, and thus, by
conceptually relating these two constructs to each other, our research significantly contributes
to both the study of brand personality and the study of consumer motives. For the former
stream of research, our research goes beyond previous insights of Aaker and colleagues (e.g.
Aaker, 1997, 1999; Aaker et al., 2001; Ferrandi et al., 1999, 2001; Koebel and Ladwein, 1999)
by providing a more explanatory point of view and giving additional insights in why people
have a preference for some brand personalities above others (e.g. Biel, 1993). As mentioned
before (cf. supra: Chapter III), most previous works on brand personality deal with the
302
concept in a rather perceptual manner. Points of departure are random products/brands by
themselves and how consumers perceive these brands in terms of their personality (e.g. Aaker,
1997:”which personality traits come to mind when you think of brand X”). Brand personality
is looked at from what the concept really ‘is’, namely: ‘the set of human personality traits that
are associated with a particular brand’, as the definition of Aaker points out. This kind of
descriptive approach has as a main advantage that a clear picture is provided of how the
concept of brand personality is perceived in consumer minds, as the main objective is to
reduce the brand personality domain to a limited number of distinct factors or dimensions.
For instance, the most influential theoretical structure of brand personality was developed by
Aaker (1997), who organized the field among five broad dimensions, termed Sincerity,
Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and Ruggedness. However, despite these structural
insights, previous brand personality research falls short in just being descriptive in nature and
not relating brand personality to more fundamental concepts such as consumer motives. To
overcome these shortcomings of previous studies, the research in the present dissertation
employed a more in-depth approach by looking for some kind of interpretative motive
structure underlying the concept of preferred brand personality. In our research, the point of
departure was no longer how consumers perceive brands but rather what they prefer in brands
in terms of their underlying motives. Hence, in this dissertation, we moved from the concept
of ‘perceived’ brand personality, i.e. personality traits associated with a random brand in a
particular product category to what is called ‘preferred’ brand personality, i.e. personality
traits that people are looking for in a preferred brand in the light of underlying motive
satisfaction. Whereas perceived brand personality is clearly related to the ‘actual’ personality
of a brand as triggered by a variety of external marketing variables such as user imagery,
advertising and/or packaging (e.g. Plummer, 1985; Levy, 1959; Batra et al., 1993), the
concept of preferred brand personality has more to do with some ‘desired’ personality
303
triggered by the inner world of the individual, i.e. underlying consumer motives. Such a
motive-based approach to brand personality as was employed in this dissertation stands closer
to the current definitions of marketing, with their central focus on consumers and what they
want (e.g. Kotler, 1997).
When examining the correspondence between the eight preferred brand personality
dimensions uncovered in this dissertation and the earlier five perceived brand personality
dimensions developed by Aaker (1997), some interesting conceptual parallels could be
discovered. Aaker’s (1997) Excitement dimension seems to have considerable overlap with
the Vitality domain whereas her brand personality factor of Sophistication shows congruence
with the Recognition position. Moreover, our results could be considered as a refinement of
the Aaker (1997) dimensions, as some of the subcomponents that make up one broad factor in
her classification, in our structure, seem to spread out on two or more adjacent positions. For
example, brand personality traits defining Aaker’s (1997) dimension of Sincerity (e.g. family-
oriented, sincere, cheerful, and friendly) appear in the domains of Belonging as well as
Conviviality and Pleasure. In the same way, traits defining Aaker’s (1997) Competence
dimension (e.g. hard working, intelligent, technical, successful, leader, and confident) share a
common domain with the Power position as well as with the Recognition and Control
positions. Hence, these patterns suggest a slightly asymmetric relationship in the structure of
perceived versus preferred brand personality, and thus, both concepts might operate in slightly
different ways on consumer behavior. In general, one could argue that consumers’
interpretation of the brand personality domain is more nuanced when thinking about brands in
relationship with underlying motives than when solely considering brands in a perceptual
manner. In contrast to the other dimensions, Aaker’s fifth dimension of Ruggedness seems to
304
fit less in our preferred brand personality structure, whereas in their turn none of the Aaker
(1997) dimensions seem to fully capture the position of Security.
The contribution of the present dissertation to the study of consumer motives lies in the
scientific validation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) comprehensive taxonomy to capture people’s
underlying motives, which has been proven to be valid cross-culturally. Based on the
conceptual congruence between some robust motivational theories (e.g. McClelland, 1961;
Williams, 1968; McGuire, 1974; McAdams and Powers, 1981; Freud, 1933) and the overall
nature of the preferred brand personality dimensions uncovered in this research, Callebaut et
al.’s (1999) framework of eight consumer motives was derived, i.e. Vitality, Pleasure,
Conviviality, Belonging, Security, Control, Recognition and Power, determined by two basic,
bipolar dimensions, i.e. an intrapersonal and interpersonal motive axis. In its most basic form,
the taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999) has shown to be compatible with prior classifications
of human motives (e.g. Ford and Nichols, 1987; Chulef et al., 2001; Wicker et al., 1984;
Youniss et al., 1979; Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1970). However, this taxonomy – as derived
and validated in the present dissertation – has a number of advantages over previous attempts
at human motive taxonomies. First, by using a much broader, multi-country sample of
subjects than previous attempts, we enhanced the external validity and the generalizability of
the findings. Second, we generated Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy on an empirical basis,
rather than by relying on theoretical preconceptions as did most previous researchers (see
Chulef et al., 2001 for an exception). Hence, the obtained results are assumed to be less
biased by the authors’ a priori knowledge of the field as they represent subjects’ naïve
thoughts and perceptions. Third, whereas most previous attempts are mainly descriptive in
nature and organize the field of human motives into some discrete categories, the present
dissertation validated a circumplex structure of continuous motive dimensions in which
305
relations of conflict and compatibility are represented. Adjacent positions are postulated to be
most compatible (e.g. Pleasure and Conviviality), whereas increasing distance around the
circumplex indicates decreasing compatibility and greater conflict. Motive dimensions that
emerge in opposing directions from the origin are postulated to be in greatest conflict (e.g.
Pleasure and Control). Finally, Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motive taxonomy as validated in this
dissertation is based on respondents’ ratings of specific brand personality traits instead of
more general motive units as were most previous taxonomies. By doing so, we established a
link between products/brands and consumer motives. Based on the application of Callebaut et
al.’s (1999) motivational framework, one gets insight into the way people’s motive
orientations are at work in a particular brand category context, rather than being provided with
a taxonomy of overall human motives.
The issue of construct validity has first been acknowledged by Cronbach and Meehl (1955)
and, since these authors’ pioneering work, has been considered as a vital part of the process of
theory testing across a wide range of disciplines (e.g. Landy, 1986; Messick, 1980). Basically,
the concept refers to the extent to which a measure of some hypothetical construct relates to
measures of other constructs in theoretically predictable ways (e.g. Smith, 2005). In the
second research part of the present dissertation (Chapter IV & Chapter V) we empirically
tested for construct validity by correlating Callebaut et al.’s (1999) eight consumer motives
with other related concepts in literature. More specifically, in Chapter IV several meaningful
relationships were detected between consumer motives and Schwartz’ (1992) ten value types.
In general, our findings indicated that people lean toward those values that play to their
inherent motive dispositions, which provided support for the theoretical proposition that
306
personal values can be considered as cognitive instantiations of these underlying motives (e.g.
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987; Bilsky and Schwartz, 1994). However, taking into account the
moderate strength of the found relationships, the intent of our research was not to
overestimate the degree of interconnectedness between motives and values and thus fully
reject McClelland et al.’s (1989) conceptualization of these two constructs as somewhat
different dimensions of the personality structure. Rather our intent was to demonstrate a
particular pattern of relationships between measures of motives and values, which draws
attention to the influence of internal psychological aspects, i.e. one’s underlying motive
dispositions on people’s value priorities, in addition to already existing insights about the
impact of external factors such as culture and social environment (e.g. Schwartz and Sagiv,
1995; Blackwell et al., 2001; Knafo and Schwartz, 2001; Rohan and Zanna, 1996;
Schoenpflug, 2001). Previously, the way internal psychological constructs influence personal
values has been investigated by relatively few studies (e.g. Luk and Bond, 1993; Yik and
Tang, 1996; Dollinger et al., 1996; Herringer, 1998). In the context of these studies, Olver
and Mooradian (2003) recently provided an explicit test of the relationship between the Big
Five factor model of personality (e.g. McCrae and Costa, 1996) and the Schwartz value types
in a Western sample. Hence, the latter research offers convergent support for our findings
when human personality traits and consumer motives are related conceptually to each other.
The Big Five factor of Openness to Experience (i.e. conceptually related to motives of
Vitality and Pleasure) was positively related to pro-Openness to Change values.
Agreeableness (i.e. conceptually related to motives of Conviviality and Belonging) was
related to greater Self-Transcendence values and finally, Conscientiousness (i.e. conceptually
related to motives of Security and Control and to some extent to Recognition and Power) was
positively associated with pro-Conservation and Self-Enhancement values.
307
In early years, human personality variables alone were commonly used to investigate and
predict the behavior of consumers in the market place (e.g. Evans, 1959; Alpert, 1972; Kernan,
1968; Brody and Cunningham, 1968; Robertson and Meyers, 1969). However, most
empirical findings showed that attempting to trace the effect of general personality variables
on specific consumer behaviors is plagued by low predictive power. For instance, various
studies claimed that personality traits have failed to explain more than 10% of the variance in
behavior (e.g. Jacoby, 1971; Lastovicka and Joachimsthaler, 1988; Kassarjian and Sheffet,
1991). Hence, more recently, the use of contingency models has been proposed in personality
research, taking into account the combined influence of general personality traits and several
other intervening variables (e.g. Dickson, 1982; Miller and Ginter, 1979; Van Kenhove et al.,
1999). Against this background, the research conducted in Chapter V of this dissertation
significantly contributed to an improved understanding of trait-behavior relationships in
personality research, by investigating the impact of underlying consumer motives on the
relationship between personality traits and several aspects of consumer behavior. In addition
to the detection of meaningful relationships between consumer motives and human
personality traits – i.e. consumer innovativeness was found to be related positively to
underlying motive orientations of Vitality and Recognition and negatively to Security and
Conviviality, whereas dispositional self-control correlated positively with motives of
Recognition and Security and negatively with Vitality and Conviviality – the results of our
studies provided support for the basic proposition that actual behavioral outcomes of human
personality characteristics are dependent on the alignment with the particular consumer
motives that are active within a given product context. Based on these findings, we extended
the work of Miller and Ginter (1979) and Dickson (1982) who were among the first to
consider the role of intervening variables in personality research. Whereas in these previous
studies the intervening impact of situational factors (e.g. time constraints, interpersonal
308
interactions, task definition, etc.) was mainly investigated on the relationship between
personality traits and consumer behavior (e.g. Belk, 1975), our research offered additional
insights on how more person-related variables, i.e. underlying motive dispositions impact
trait-behavior relationships in predictable ways. Though personality traits and consumer
motives separately might be of only modest value when one is attempting to predict consumer
behavior, the results of our research clearly demonstrated that taking into consideration the
combined influence of both these variables is likely to give rise to more promising results.
To summarize, the results of the empirical studies conducted in the second research part of
this dissertation basically contributed to the assessment of the construct validity, i.e.
convergent and discriminant validity of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive taxonomy,
as several significant correlations (positive and negative) could be detected between the eight
consumer motives and the related concepts of personal values (Chapter IV) and human
personality traits (Chapter V). Additionally, regarding the study of individual value
differences, the findings of Chapter IV contributed to a better understanding of the role of
internal psychological constructs, i.e. one’s underlying motive dispositions in influencing
people’s value priorities, in addition to the role of external factors such as culture and social
environment. In a similar vein, the results of Chapter V provided new insights into the way
consumers’ motive dispositions as person-related variables impact trait-behavior relationships
in personality research, beyond the impact of situational factors as was considered by most
previous studies.
309
Besides its usefulness in commercial marketing areas (e.g. Croft, 1994; Berrigan and
Finkbeiner, 1992), the significance of meaningful audience segmentation is generally
acknowledged in social marketing as well, especially for designing persuasive messages that
are appropriate for and appeal to a particular target audience (e.g. Fennis, 2003; Atkin and
Freimuth, 1989; Slater and Flora, 1994; Freimuth et al., 2001; Grier and Bryant, 2005;
Boslaugh et al., 2005). Regarding marketing health information, people won’t change or
adopt a specific health-related consumption behavior (e.g. eating more fruits and vegetables,
using condoms) solely because some expert health educator told them to. Rather health
message design should be an audience-centered process, which means that health messages
should be designed primarily to respond to the motives and situation of the target audience,
rather than to the motives and situation of the message designers or sponsoring organizations
(e.g. Maibach and Parrott, 1995). The studies conducted in the final research part of the
present dissertation (Chapter VI & Chapter VII) contributed to the existing literature about
motive-related audience segmentation by outlining a new segmentation approach based on the
audience members’ health-related motive orientations, i.e. relatively enduring beliefs that
people hold about the fundamental meaning of health . Whereas most previous health studies
to date apply a rather restricted conceptualization of health focusing on physical well-being
only (e.g. Rappoport et al., 1993), within this new segmentation paradigm a broader health
conceptualization was employed, also comprising psychological dimensions of health concern
such as emotional well-being, enjoying life or social responsibility. Hence, the latter
segmentation paradigm could be considered as relevant for health communication, as
appropriate health messages could be designed that appeal to these psychological dimensions
of health concern, in addition to concerns about physical health. Moreover, as Callebaut et
310
al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives was applied as a theoretical framework to assess
people’s health-related motive orientations, our current work on motive-related audience
segmentation could be considered as an extension of the work of Silk et al. (2005), who
advocated for the use of theory-based segmentation approaches in the context of health
marketing. As mentioned by the latter authors, audience segmentation strategies traditionally
have been based on demographics, psychographics, or geography, with relatively few
attention to how theory might contribute to identifying target audiences. However, some
theories can provide relevant constructs that, when related to the behavior of interest, can
serve as relevant segmentation variables across a variety of contexts. In the present
dissertation, Callebaut et al.’s (1999) conceptual framework of consumer motives provided
the relevant constructs (i.e. health-related motive orientations) based on its application in a
health context. We assumed that including these health-related motive orientations within
message content to directly address different audiences may significantly improve the
effectiveness of these messages. In particular, our proposed segmentation approach could be
described as a kind of benefit-segmentation, based on which advantages people are looking
for in the context of their health-related motive orientations. However, the main advantage
over traditional benefit-segmentation approaches (e.g. Haley, 1968) – as mentioned above – is
that our segmentation paradigm is theory-based, whereas traditional approaches have no real
theoretical basis.
Regarding the application of our new segmentation paradigm in a health marketing context, in
Chapter VI we demonstrated its usefulness in the process of developing appropriate fruit and
vegetable health advertisements. Significant differences were found between health segments
with different health-related motive orientations both with regard to category-specific fruit
and vegetable consumption and reactions toward health advertising. Basically, our findings
311
provided an additional test of the proposition that motive-related health advertising is likely to
be more effective, as, in general, a segment’s reactions toward an appropriate motive-related
advertisement were significantly more positive than its reactions toward an advertisement that
was not responsive to that segment’s underlying motives.
By investigating how different health-related motive orientations influence both people’s
general food behavior patterns and ready meal consumption patterns, in Chapter VII, we
contributed to the study of consumer behavior at least in two ways. First, by also taking into
account several psychological dimensions of health concern when considering consumer food
patterns and behaviors (e.g. emotional well-being, social responsibility, etc.), we assisted in a
better understanding of food-health relationships beyond the level of physical health only.
Second, our research provided an insight into the important health-related determinants of
people’s ready meal consumption behavior. Based on these insights consumer-oriented
product development, positioning and marketing could be improved of food products
belonging to the category of ready meals (cf. infra: section 4.3.)
3. Methodological implications
Based on the research findings in Chapter III of this dissertation, some broad methodological
implications can be raised for both brand personality research and the study of consumer
motives. First, an important reflection has to be made regarding the predictive utility of the
concept of preferred brand personality. Whereas previously the impact of brand personality
on consumer brand evaluations and preferences has mainly been investigated based on self-
312
congruity theory, and thus, in terms of the similarity between an individual’s self-image and a
brand’s personality traits (e.g. Sirgy, 1982; Aaker, 1999; Kim et al., 2001), based on the
conceptualizations employed in the present dissertation, we suggest that future research
methods may benefit from also assessing the level of congruity between a brand’s ‘actual’
personality (i.e. the concept of perceived brand personality) and which brand personality is
‘preferred’ in function of one’s underlying motives (i.e. the concept of preferred brand
personality). It can reasonably be assumed that when congruity is high between measures of
both concepts, no significant differences in predictive ability will exist between perceived
brand personality and preferred brand personality, and as a result, perceived brand personality
could be proposed as a relevant predictor of consumer preference for a brand. However, in
the case of low empirical congruity between the concepts of perceived and preferred brand
personality, we suggest that attempting to predict consumer brand preference and usage based
on preferred brand personality is likely to give rise to more promising results, given this
concept’s basic connection with underlying consumer motives.
Second, regarding the study of consumer motives, the use of INDSCAL (e.g. Carroll and
Chang, 1970) as a technique for data analysis provided us with additional insights that are
lacking in other attempts at organizing the motivational domain. As mentioned in Chapter III,
INDSCAL is one of a variety of multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques, which put or
‘map’ stimuli onto a set of dimensions. The distances between the points represent the
empirical relations among the stimuli. Hence, based on this visual representation of the
empirical distances between stimuli (in our case a set of preferred brand personality traits), the
results of our analysis enabled us to validate a circumplex structure of continuous motive
dimensions in which relations of conflict and compatibility are represented (i.e. Schwartz,
1992: relations of conflict and compatibility among values). As closer distances in the visual
313
-mapping indicate stronger conceptual and empirical relationships between stimuli, adjacent
motive positions were postulated to be most compatible, whereas motive dimensions that
emerge in opposing directions from the origin were expected to be in greatest conflict. Given
these relational insights based on the INDSCAL analysis, our findings went beyond the
mainly descriptive nature of previous research on human motives, based on more common
hierarchical clustering or factor analytic techniques. In addition, as INDSCAL generates a
‘subject weight space’ – allowing for comparison of each individual sample in the analysis
with the average group stimulus space – this technique comprised a useful tool for assessing
the cross- cultural validity of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motivational structure. Both an
examination of the individual dimension weights and NRS measures for each sample and the
detection of a very high Tucker’s coefficient of congruence indicated a good correspondence
of the individual perceptual spaces and the aggregate perceptual map. Hence, based on these
findings structural robustness and consistency were confirmed across the different countries
and different product categories.
The most obvious methodological implication stemming from the studies conducted in the
second research part of the present dissertation (Chapter IV & Chapter V) comprises the
suggestion to use more structured implicit motive assessment procedures in personality
research. Previously, TAT-type implicit measures of motives were mainly used (e.g. Smith,
1992), whereas related constructs such as personal values (Chapter IV) and human personality
traits (Chapter V) were assessed by direct self-report questionnaires (e.g. Schwartz, 1992).
However, a problem related to these traditional measures of respectively motives and other
personality constructs is that they involve different stimuli (i.e. ambiguous pictures versus
314
structured questions) and use different response formats (i.e. constructed versus selected
responses), which may contribute to the previously detected lack of empirical correlation
between these measures (e.g. Brunstein and Schmitt, 2004; Tuerlinckx et al., 2002). The aim
of our research was to solve this problem of method variance between measures of motives
and related constructs by proposing an alternative implicit method of motive assessment,
based on respondents’ ratings of a set of 34 motive-expressive personality items which were
applied to the personality of a preferred brand as a third-person (see Chapter IV & Chapter V).
As the same structured response formats (i.e. Likert scales) were used in both cases, with our
particular method of motive assessment, we induced more method congruence between
implicit motive assessments and direct measures of other constructs, hereby resolving some of
the psychometric problems (i.e. reliability, validity) inherent in more traditional TAT-type
measures of motives. Though the results of our studies may indicate that – at least to some
extent – methodological issues contribute to the lack of significant relationships between
measures of motives and other related constructs that was detected in previous studies (e.g.
Biernat, 1989), one must be cautious when drawing conclusions about the impact of choice of
measurement method on correlations between motives and other constructs as no direct
comparisons were assessed between TAT-type measures of motives and the more structured
implicit method of motive assessment that we proposed. Moreover, TAT-type motive
measures are prone to deal with overall human motives that are stable across situations,
whereas an application of our implicit motive assessment procedure provides insight into how
consumer motives are at work in a particular brand category context. Hence, these two
distinct methods of motive assessment can not be considered as measuring exactly the same.
315
Although in fact this was beyond the scope of the final research part of the present
dissertation, a brief methodological remark can be made based on our work on motive-related
audience segmentation in Chapter VI and Chapter VII. Traditionally, audience demographics,
psychographics or geography have been used as a common basis for audience segmentation.
Within these approaches, the technique of cluster analysis was considered as the most
appropriate method to segment a heterogeneous group of subjects across these variables (e.g.
Slater, 1996). However, cluster analysis often has been employed as an a-theoretical
statistical tool of analysis designed primarily to discover underlying structures in data without
providing an explanation why they exist (e.g. Silk et al., 2005). As mentioned before, our
research on motive-related audience segmentation went beyond the primarily a-theoretical
nature of previous cluster analytic techniques as we based our new segmentation paradigm on
the application of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) theoretical framework of consumer motives in a
health context. By doing so, theory was added to our particular strategy that assists in
defining different health audience segments and, as a result, the absence of theory was
addressed associated with the technique of cluster analysis. In particular, based on the
interpretation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive taxonomy in the context of health
motivation, several a-priori hypotheses and explanations could be developed regarding the
existence of different health segments with different health-related motive orientations and, in
second instance, regarding the impact of these health-related motive orientations on (health-
related) consumer behavior (see Chapter VI & Chapter VII).
316
4. Managerial implications
Researchers in marketing have become increasingly aware of the strategic importance of
brand image (e.g. Aaker and Biel, 1993; Graeff, 1997). Whereas past research on this topic
has traditionally focused on perceived self-image/brand image similarities and has
investigated the effects of this factor on consumer brand preference and usage (e.g. Malhotra,
1988; Sirgy, 1982; 1985; 1986), based on the implications drawn from Chapter III of this
dissertation, we suggest researchers and practitioners also to consider the level of similarity
between what was called ‘perceived’ and ‘preferred’ brand personality. Though the impact of
the latter type of similarity on consumer brand evaluations or preferences has not been
investigated as such in the present dissertation, it might be recommended to marketing
practitioners to try to build brands imbued with strong ‘actual’ personalities that match the
kind of personality traits that are ‘preferred’ in function of one’s underlying motives. More
specifically, as in our research eight distinct ‘preferred’ brand personality dimensions could
be discovered whereas consumers’ perception of ‘actual’ brand personality is structured
among only five broad dimensions (Aaker, 1997), we posit that marketing practitioners may
benefit from attempting to refine the concept of perceived brand personality by developing
brands with more nuanced personalities. For instance, distinct actual personality profiles
could be created for preferred brand personality dimensions that seem to have been captured
by one common Aaker (1997) factor until now (i.e. Belonging/Conviviality/Pleasure and
Power/Recognition/Control). By doing so, more appropriate brand marketing and positioning
strategies could be developed that are specifically tailored or appeal to the distinct
motivational preferences of particular target audiences. Moreover, as none of the Aaker
317
(1997) dimensions seemed to fully capture our dimension of Security, marketing practitioners
may be encouraged to try to incorporate this particular preferred brand personality profile in
future brand image designs. Finally, Aaker’s fifth dimension of Ruggedness seemed to fit
less in our preferred brand personality structure, and as a result, may be less focused upon in
future attempts to develop brands with strong personalities as the latter dimension seems to
tap a perceived brand personality aspect that consumers may not necessarily desire.
Besides these specific implications in the context of brand image creation, from our findings
in Chapter III, also some general practical implications can be derived in the context of
marketing segmentation and targeting. In particular, based on the motivational framework of
Callebaut et al. (1999), marketing practitioners could be recommended to segment a
heterogeneous consumer audience according to its members’ underlying consumer motives or,
more specifically, according to which advantages people are looking for in a given product
environment in the light of underlying motive satisfaction. Afterwards, the resulting
information could be used by brand managers and communication specialists to develop
appropriate advertising campaigns and brand strategies that are responsive to these product-
specific motives.
Analogous to the previous section, an important practical implication from our research
conducted in the second part of this dissertation (Chapter IV & Chapter V) can be considered
in the context of consumer-oriented market segmentation. As commonly acknowledged,
general personality variables (e.g. personality traits, personal values) alone are insufficient to
effectively segment consumer markets, and as a result, many researchers have shifted their
318
attention to a segmentation perspective that includes both personality and situation-related
variables (e.g. Dickson, 1982; Mischel, 1977; McDonald and Goldman, 1980). The thrust of
our research is that also more person-related variables, i.e. one’s underlying motive
dispositions could be considered as intervening variables in personality research, and thus, as
useful bases for segmentation in addition to general personality variables. Especially, we
recommend researchers and practitioners to make use of a segmentation framework that
incorporates both personality variables and people’s motive orientations in combination, as
the latter approach will result in a much richer description and understanding of target
markets to our opinion.
From our motive-related audience segmentation approach, applied in Chapter VI and Chapter
VII of the present dissertation, five distinct health segments emerged with different health-
related motive orientations: Energetic Experimenters, Harmonious Enjoyers, Normative
Carers, Rationalists and Conscious Experts. The main objective of the present discussion is to
indicate that, in order to be effective, health practitioners should deliver tailored marketing
health information to each of these segments (e.g. Hastings and Haywood, 1994), rather than
appealing to the obligation of adopting some kind of health-related consumer behavior (e.g.
consuming a sufficient amount of fruits and vegetables) as such. Based on Means-End theory
(e.g. Olson and Reynolds, 1983), we assume that people seek for different product features
and/or health-related benefits in order to achieve distinct health-related motive orientations.
However, seeking products with motive-congruent attributes or benefits is not the same as
perceiving all types of products as such. Rather, the motive-related image of particular health
products or behaviors should be created by appropriate advertising and positioning strategies
319
that appeal to the health-related motive orientations of specific target audiences. In essence,
marketing health information directed to audiences with different health-related motive
orientations should stress those attributes/benefits of products or behaviors that are conform to
these underlying motives. Only by doing so, the particular health products or behaviors might
be able to compete with other (less healthy) consumer goods or practices.
Following the above reasoning, from the findings in Chapter VI of this dissertation, some
practical guidelines and recommendations can be derived for health communicators to use
when developing motive-related health advertisements in the context of fruit and vegetable
consumption. In particular, different consumer-oriented advertising strategies can be
proposed for the five health audience segments obtained in our research. Energetic
Experimenters have health-related motive orientations associated with vitality and energy.
Health advertisements designed for these people should focus on individual consumer
experiences such as feeling free, getting energy and power for the body and feeling very much
alive and kicking. A transformational/ self-directed advertising strategy is likely to be most
appropriate in this case. As Harmonious Enjoyers deal with health mainly in terms of
emotional well-being and enjoying life, advertisements geared toward this group should
express how the recommended behavior can be instrumental in achieving a complete and
happy life together with family and friends. A transformational/ other-directed advertising
strategy can be strongly recommended to use for these people. For the Normative Carers we
recommend an informational/ other-directed advertising strategy. As these people are mainly
concerned with the physical aspects of health, recommendations in the advertisements should
focus on functional benefits such as avoiding illness and health problems. In addition,
advertisements designed to these people should emphasize the social responsibility aspect that
is associated with health by communicating how the recommended responses may contribute
320
to the preservation of the health of close others (family, children…). In order to counteract
the natural disinterest toward advertising of Rationalists and Conscious Experts,
advertisements designed to them might emphasize one’s own independent capacities to deal
with health. Moreover, mainly verbal arguments should be used focusing on outward
appearance and showing off competence. In this case an informational/ self-directed
advertising strategy can be suggested.
In a similar vein, based on our significant results in Chapter VII, some comprehensive ready
meal positioning strategies can be suggested, that go beyond convenience-related aspects and
also take into account the psychological health-related motive orientations of the target
audience. Particularly, as Normative Carers and Rationalists suffer from feelings of guilt
associated with the consumption of ready meals, to attract these segments, marketing
practitioners should position the latter food category as a valid alternative to self-prepared
family meals, scoring equally high on credence attributes such as healthiness, nutritional
value and naturalness. In addition, promotional strategies (e.g. coupons, price reductions)
should be considered for these segments, as price is valued as an important criterion when
buying ready meals. Harmonious Enjoyers could be appealed by focusing on hedonic criteria
such as freshness and taste and – given the importance of social relationships for these
subjects – ready meals should be positioned as ‘something special’ that can be enjoyed
together with family and friends. In their turn, Energetic Experimenters could be approached
by marketing campaigns focusing on variety and diversity, with particular attention to ethnic
dishes and new recipes. As health-related motive orientations of Conscious Experts imply
less time for shopping and cooking-related activities, marketing campaigns directed to them
should focus on convenience-related aspects of ready meals such as quick to prepare and easy
to clean up. In addition, aspects of sophistication (e.g. stylish package, trendy dish, exclusive
321
brand) and low calorie (e.g. vegetarian or steamed dishes) should be stressed to attract these
people, as for Conscious Experts ready meal consumption is associated with modernity and
showing off.
In each chapter limitations and suggestions for future research were described. In the
following sections, we reconsider the most important ones and, in addition, we posit some
other more general ideas which may inspire motivational researchers in the years to come.
Regarding the study of brand personality, the distinction made in Chapter III between the
concepts of ‘perceived’ and ‘preferred’ brand personality may provide some future research
opportunities. For instance, it might be interesting to empirically assess the level of similarity
between both concepts and to investigate the effects of this factor on consumer brand
evaluations and preferences. It can be assumed that when congruity is high between a brand’s
‘actual’ personality and the brand personality that is ‘preferred’ in function of one’s
underlying motives, consumers will exhibit more favorable brand evaluations and as a result,
may have a more pronounced preference for the brand. Also, future research studies may
investigate the potential differences in predictive ability between ‘perceived’ and ‘preferred’
brand personality, under the conditions of both low and high congruity between these
constructs (cf. supra: section 3.1.).
322
With respect to the validation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives, we
have to recognize that actual behavioral measures were insufficiently included in our research.
Though the results of our studies clearly demonstrated significant effects of people’s
product/domain-specific motive dispositions on self-reported measures of consumer behavior
(e.g. fruit and vegetable intake, ready meal consumption, new-product adoption behavior,
etc.), the role of consumer motives in influencing real consumer preferences and behaviors
remained mainly unexplored. As what people report they do may not always be what they
actually do (e.g. Weber and Gillespie, 1998), future research could be suggested that further
investigates the predictive utility of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motivational framework and
checks our primary findings against actual choice or purchase behavior. In particular, a
challenging research opportunity can be found in the connection of motivational survey data
with consumers’ longitudinal purchase history which is available from scanner data nowadays.
In addition, though in its most fundamental form Callebaut et al.’s (1999) circumplex
taxonomy of consumer motives has been proven to be valid cross-culturally, it can be
assumed that culture specifics will exist in the ways in which these underlying motives
become manifest in consumer behavior. Hence, we must remark that caution is warranted
when extending the behavioral conclusions of our research to other countries and/or cultures
as differences in motivational expressions might exist due to the predominance of other
cultural dimensions (for an overview of the most important dimensions along which societies
may differ; see Hofstede, 1991). Future research may investigate these cultural differences in
motive expressions and behaviors and, by doing so, may provide additional insights into the
extent to which our behavioral findings can be generalized to other research countries beyond
Belgium.
323
An intractable limitation of the studies conducted in the second research part of this
dissertation (Chapter IV & Chapter V) is the measurement issue. As noted earlier, within
these studies an alternative implicit method of motive assessment has been proposed, based
on respondents’ valence ratings of a set of 34 motive-expressive personality items. As
structured response formats (i.e. Likert scales) were used to apply this 34-item scale to the
personality of a preferred brand as a third-person, there is necessarily common method
variance in our measures of motives and other related constructs (i.e. personal values and
human personality traits), which might have biased our results. To account for this problem
to some extent, some unrelated filler tasks were included in the questionnaires that had to be
completed between the independent and dependent variables of interest.
Second, whereas our 34-item Consumer Motive Scale performed rather well in the research
conducted in Chapter IV, in our studies in Chapter V, we were not able to compute composite
construct measures for all eight motive domains due to unsatisfactory Cronbach’s α
coefficients. Hence, within these studies, reliable motive constructs had to be created based
on combinations of items of adjacent positions with high intercorrelations. Given this lack of
measurement invariance across different studies, future research should be conducted that
attempts to improve the general psychometric stability of the Consumer Motive Scale.
Especially, the use of interview administered questionnaires (e.g. face to face, CAPI) could be
proposed in future studies in which respondents are guided through the process of assessing
their underlying motives, as measurement instability in our research might be due to a lack of
experience of respondents with completing rather implicit motive questions in self
administered ways (cf. infra: section 6.2).
324
In addition, another interesting pathway for future research implies the direct comparison of
our proposed method of motive assessment with traditional TAT-type measures of human
motives. Only by doing so reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding the impact of choice
of measurement method on the strength of the correlations between motives and other related
constructs such as personal values (Chapter IV) and human personality traits (Chapter V).
Besides the above limitations specifically related to the assessment of consumer motives,
some remarks have to be made with regard to the relationships found between motives and
other personality constructs. Though in general, the findings of our analyses provided support
for the majority of our propositions, especially in Chapter IV, still quite a few predictions
were not supported by the data. Whereas the signs of the multiple regression beta coefficients
truly went in the hypothesized directions, some of the proposed relationships between motives
and personal values appeared to be non-significant. To some extent, multi-collinearity
between the motivational predictor variables has been proposed as a possible contributor to
this problem, as some of the motive dimensions did show significant intercorrelations.
Furthermore, we have to admit that our attempt to trace the effect of underlying motives on
people’s value priorities is plagued by low predictive power (R² ≤ .16). However, as is the
case for previous investigations of individual value differences (e.g. Schiffmann et al., 2003;
Allen and Ng, 1999, 2003), the primary contribution of our research is to show a particular
pattern of relationships, more so than any absolute strength based on the predictive power.
Concerning Chapter V, we should recognize that the predictive utility of contingency models
in personality research that take into account the intervening role of one’s underlying motive
dispositions was not explicitly assessed. However, such models are assumed to have the
325
potential to account for considerable more variance in consumer behavior than the 10 percent
explained by trait-behavioral models as such. Hence, we propose that future research studies
should be established that examine this predictive ability more closely.
Finally, it is appropriate to notice that in the second research part of the present dissertation
we only concentrated on consumers’ personal values (Chapter IV) and two distinct
personality traits, i.e. consumer innovativeness and self-control (Chapter V) to assess the
construct validity of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive taxonomy. Still a lot of
questions remain about the relationships between consumer motives and a wide range of other
personal and psychological concepts. Clearly, future personality research is needed that
further investigates Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy’s convergent and discriminant validity
by analyzing the correlations with these other concepts, such as additional personality traits
(e.g. need for uniqueness, impulsiveness, competitiveness, etc.) and motivational constructs.
In the latter context, future research studies may explore the linkages between consumer
motives and Higgins’ self-regulatory focus theory. Basically, this theory predicts that human
behavior is guided by two distinct motivational systems, each employing different strategic
means for self-regulation (Higgins, 1999; 2002). The promotion system, which originates in
the regulation of nurturance needs, relies on approach strategies when regulating toward
desirable ends, i.e. striving for the attainment/presence of positive behavioral consequences.
In contrast, the prevention system, which originates in the regulation of security needs, relies
on avoidance strategies when self-regulating toward desirable ends, i.e. striving for the
avoidance/absence of negative behavioral consequences. Several previous studies have linked
self-regulation to various consumer behaviors and contexts (e.g. Zhou and Pham, 2004; Louro
et al., 2005; Pham and Higgins, 2005). In the context of the present dissertation, one might
wonder how and to what extent Callebaut et al.’s (1999) eight consumer motives are related to
326
Higgins’ basic principles of promotion and prevention motivation. Hence, future research can
be recommended that investigates these potential relationships more closely, hereby providing
useful insights into the similarities and differences between the two motivational frameworks.
Similar to the previous chapters, several limitations concerning Chapter VI and Chapter VII
of the present dissertation are worth mentioning. First, only two specific research contexts
were considered to investigate the impact of health-related motive orientations on consumer
behavior, i.e. fruit and vegetable intake (Chapter VI) and ready meal consumption behavior
(Chapter VII). Future research studies may enhance the generalizability of the findings to
other contexts by assessing the relationships between health-related motive orientations and
other aspects of health-related consumer behavior (e.g. buying processes or decision factors)
or the consumption of other food products with a predominant health image (e.g. fish or
functional foods). Moreover, the usefulness of the proposed motive-related audience
segmentation approach could be demonstrated in the context of health prevention instead of
health promotion. For example, when attempting to develop increasingly successful
antismoking or fat reduction advertisements, it may be appropriate for health communicators
to consider the manifest health-related motive orientations of the target audience.
Second, as previous literature regarding the influence of health-related motive orientations on
people’s consumption patterns and behaviors is almost non-existing, the studies conducted in
Chapter VI and Chapter VII were mainly exploratory in nature. Hence, behavioral
propositions in these studies were inferred from our personal a priori knowledge about the
fundamental meaning of health for each of the five health audience segments. Though the
327
found results provided support for the majority of our propositions, to some extent, some
minor deviations emerged from what was proposed in advance. In particular, some of the a
priori proposed relationships between health-related motive orientations and consumer
behavior appeared to be non-significant, whereas others were slightly different from our
expectations. Hence, future research is advised to additionally explore these non expected
results. Also, based on the results that did support our basic propositions, an attempt could be
made at further investigating the behavioral impact of health-related motive orientations in a
less exploratory way.
Furthermore, as in the present dissertation only perceived effects of motive-related health
advertising and positioning strategies were assessed on consumers’ self-reported reactions
(i.e. Aad and BI), future experimental intervention studies may be designed that also
investigate actual behavioral effects, by assessing the potential effectiveness of motive-
related health marketing strategies in influencing real consumer behavior.
To conclude, yet a final reflection should be made regarding the practical suggestions and
recommendations raised in Chapter VI and Chapter VII for health communicators and
practitioners. As Callebaut et al.’s (1999) framework of eight consumer motives has been
proven to be valid cross-culturally, the derived segmentation approach based on consumers’
health-related motive orientations allows for more global health marketing strategies where
targeting and positioning are based on universal underlying dimensions of consumer behavior.
However, as the ways in which consumers express their underlying motives are likely to be
very much influenced by factors such as language, local culture and history, the execution of
global marketing strategies based on Callebaut et al.’s (1999) general framework will mostly
remain very local. Hence, caution is warranted when generalizing our practical
328
recommendations regarding motive-related health advertising and positioning strategies to
other countries as specific implementation practices might be appropriate for audiences with
different cultural backgrounds.
6. Concluding remarks
To end this dissertation, some additional reflections should be made regarding Callebaut et
al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives, which scientific validation has been posited as
the main purpose of the present research project. More specifically, in the sections that
follow, an evaluation is provided of the latter motivational framework in the light of previous
human motive taxonomies that were discussed in Chapter II and, in addition, some critical
remarks are formulated regarding the usefulness of this taxonomy and its measurement
instability.
6.1. Link with previous taxonomies of human motives
Through the years, several authors have made fair attempts to classify the consumer motive
domain into a limited number of content categories. Besides some classic theories of
motivation (e.g. Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943; McClelland, 1961), in Chapter II, we provided
an overview of three more recently developed human motive taxonomies, by respectively
Wicker et al. (1984), Ford and Nichols (1987) and Chulef et al. (2001). Though Callebaut et
al.’s (1999) motivational framework has shown to be compatible with all of these prior
classifications of human motives (cf. supra: Chapter III), the most obvious conceptual
parallels could be discovered with Ford and Nichols’ (1987) motive taxonomy, given these
authors’ primary distinction between within-person (i.e. intrapersonal) and person-
329
environment (i.e. interpersonal) motives, respectively consisting of affective (i.e. Pleasure)
versus cognitive (i.e. Control) and self-assertion (i.e. Power) versus affiliation (i.e. Belonging)
sub-domains. Hence, the latter motive taxonomy could be considered as providing the best
alternative to the consumer motive taxonomy of Callebaut et al. (1999), at least on a
conceptual level.
As a major dissimilarity between the motivational frameworks of Ford and Nichols (1987)
and Callebaut et al. (1999), it should be noted that the former taxonomy is primarily based on
the theoretical preconceptions of its developers, whereas Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer
motive taxonomy has been validated on an empirical basis, taking into account true consumer
thoughts and perceptions. Moreover, Callebaut et al.’s (1999) motivational framework could
be considered as more satisfactory than the Ford and Nichols (1987) taxonomy, as it
comprises a dynamic structure of continuous motive dimensions, rather than a static
framework of discrete motive categories. In addition, given its link with consumer brand
perceptions 32 , Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy could be positioned as a sophisticated
instrument to assess how consumer motives are at work in a particular brand category context,
rather than a basic framework of overall motive classification. Hence, based on the latter
characteristics, the use of the motivational framework of Callebaut et al. (1999) might be
recommended over the use of previous human motive classifications (e.g. Ford and Nichols,
1987) in a marketing context. However, some critical remarks should be taken into account
regarding the application of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) consumer motive taxonomy, especially
when considering the moderate psychometric properties (i.e. measurement instability) of the
particular Consumer Motive Scale that was developed in the context of the present
dissertation (cf. infra: section 6.2).
32
In the context of the present dissertation consumer motives were operationalized by specific brand personality items instead of more
general motive units (cf. supra: Chapter III).
330
6.2. Additional critical reflections
Regarding the usefulness of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of consumer motives, this
framework has proven to have a lot of practical relevance, as many multinational companies
make use of it as an effective marketing tool (cf. supra: Chapter I). For instance, the
application of the latter framework may provide advantages in the context of consumer-
oriented market segmentation and targeting or may have impact on portfolio management
and/or communication and advertising development. Besides these managerial implications,
the motivational framework of Callebaut et al. (1999) should also be considered as having
scientific importance, as was indicated by the results of the research conducted in the present
dissertation (cf. supra: Chapter III – Chapter VII). However, some critical reflections should
be made regarding the scientific validation of Callebaut et al.’s (1999) taxonomy, as particular
psychometric problems could be detected in the context of measuring its eight underlying
constructs. Whereas our 34-item Consumer Motive Scale performed rather well in the studies
conducted in Chapter III, measurement instability appeared to be a problem in the remaining
chapters, as particular scale items failed to capture their underlying motive dimensions (i.e.
Chapter IV) and/or unsatisfactory reliability estimates restrained us from computing
composite construct measures for all eight motive domains (i.e. Chapter V & Chapter VI).
Though the specific product environment in which the research was conducted might play a
role in the bad performance of some items and, hence, it might be appropriate to reformulate
particular items in the context of different product categories, a lack of experience of
respondents with completing our implicit motive questions could be posited as a more
obvious reason for measurement instability to occur. Whereas in the research conducted in
Chapter III, fieldworkers of the market research company Synovate/Censydiam employed
331
personal interviews to guide respondents through the process of assessing their underlying
motives, in the context of the studies in the remaining chapters, our 34-item Consumer Motive
Scale had to be filled out in a self administered way (i.e. random walk methods, web surveys),
which may have implied difficult abstractions for our respondents in the context of the
projective nature of this scale. Hence, based on these insights, future research interventions
could be proposed that make use of interview administered questionnaires in an attempt to
improve the general psychometric stability of our Consumer Motive Scale. In particular,
computer or web-based questioning techniques might be recommended that allow for a more
interactive application of the latter scale, hereby providing more guidance for the respondents
and, as a result, a more reliable/stable assessment of people’s underlying motive orientations.
332
References
Aaker, D.A., & Biel, A.L. (1993). Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s role in
building strong brands. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(aug), 347- 356.
Aaker, J.L. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36 (feb), 45-57.
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of
Allen, N.W., & Ng, S.H. (1999). The direct and indirect influences of human values on
product ownership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(1), 5-39.
Allen, N.W., & Ng, S.H. (2003). Human Values, Utilitarian Benefits and Identification: the
case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 37-56.
Alpert, M.I. (1972). Personality and the determinants of product choice. Journal of
Marketing Research, 5(feb), 89-92.
Atkin, C.K., & Freimuth, V. (1989). Formative evaluation research in campaign design. In
R.E. Rice, & C.K. Atkin (Eds.). Public communication campaigns (2nd ed.) (pp. 131-
150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11(4), 629-654.
333
Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality component of brand
goodwill: some antecedents and consequences. In D.A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.),
Brand Equity and Advertising. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Belk, R.W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
research, 2, 157-164.
Berrigan, J., & Finkbeiner, C. (1992). Segmentation marketing: new methods for capturing
business markets. New York: Harper Business.
Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity. In D.A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand
Equity and Advertising (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boslaugh, S.E., Kreuter, M.W., Nicholson, R.A., & Naleid, K. (2005). Comparing
demographic, health status and psychosocial strategies of audience segmentation to
promote physical activity. Health Education Research, 20(4), 430-438.
Brody, R.P., & Cunningham, S.M. (1968). Personality variables and the consumer decision
process. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(feb), 50-57.
536-555.
334
Carroll, J.D., & Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional
scaling. Psychometrika, 35, 238–319.
Costa, A.I.A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W.M.F. (2005). To cook or not to
cook: a means-end study of motives for choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and
Preference, xxx, xxx-xxx (available online 4 oct 2005 at www.sciencedirect.com).
Croft, M.J. (1994). Market segmentation. London: Routledge.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
de Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., & Ryan, I. (2004). The influence of lifestyle
characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience
foods in the Irish market. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 155-165.
46, 56-64.
Dollinger, S.J., Leong, F.L., & Ulicni, S.K. (1996). On traits and values: with special
reference to openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 23-41.
Evans, F.B. (1959). Psychological and objective factors in the prediction of brand choice.
Journal of Business, 32 (oct), 340-369.
Fennis, B.M. (2003). Advertising, consumer behaviour and health: exploring possibilities for
health promotion. International Journal of Medical Marketing, 3,4, 316-326.
Ferrandi, J.M., Fine-Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (1999). L’échelle de personnalité des
marques de Aaker appliquée au contexte français: un premier test. Actes de l’AFM
(Mai).
335
Ferrandi, J.M., Fine-Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Transposition d’ une échelle de
personnalité humaine aux marques: un premier test. Actes de l’AFM (Mai).
Freimuth, V., Cole, G., & Kirby, S. (2001). Issues in evaluating mass media health
communication campaigns. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D.V.
McQueen, L. Potvin, J. Springett, & E. Ziglio (Eds.). Evaluation in health promotion:
Principles and perspectives (pp. 475-492). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for
Europe.
Graeff, T.R. (1997). Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’
brand evaluations. Psychology and Marketing, 14(jan), 49-70.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C.A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public
Health, 26, 319-339.
Haley, R.I. (1968). Benefit segmentation: a decision-oriented research tool. Journal of
Marketing, 32(july), 30-35.
Hastings, G.B., & Haywood, A.J. (1994). Social marketing: a critical response. Health
Promotion International, 9(1), 59-63.
Helgeson, J.G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of
self-congruity and brand personality. International Journal of Market Research,
46(2), 205-233.
336
Herringer, L.G. (1998). Relating values and personality traits. Psychological Reports, 83,
953-954.
Higgins, E.T. (1999). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: implications for
evaluative processes. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.). Dual-process theories in
social psychology. New York: Guilford.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Europe.
Jacoby, J. (1971). Multiple-indicant approaches for studying new product adopters. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 55, 384-388.
Kalar, S. (2003). Brands as complements to the self. Advances in Consumer Research, 31,
269.
Kassarjian, H.H., & Sheffet, M.J. (1991). Personality and consumer behavior: an update. In
H.H. Kassarjian and T.S. Robertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior (p.
281-303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kernan, J. (1968). Choice criteria, decision behavior and personality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 5(may), 155-164.
Kim, C.K., Han, D., & Park, S. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Japanese
Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206.
Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S.H. (2001). Value socialization in families of Israeli-born and
Soviet-born adolescents in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 213-228.
337
Koebel, M.N., & Ladwein, R. (1999). L’échelle de personnalité de la marque de Jennifer L.
Aaker: adaption au contexte français. Décisions Marketing, 16, 81-88.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Landy, F.J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: validation as hypothesis testing.
American Psychologist, 41, 1183-1192.
Lastovicka, J.L., & Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1988). Improving the detection of personality-
behavior relationships in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(March), 583-587.
Levy, S.J. (1959). Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117-124.
Louro, M.J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). Negative returns on positive emotions: the
influence of pride and self-regulatory goals on repurchase decisions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(4), 833-840.
Luk, C.L., & Bond, M.H. (1993). Personality variation and values endorsement in Chinese
university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 429-437.
Maibach, E., & Parrott, R.L. (1995). Designing health messages: approaches from
communication theory and public health practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Malhotra, N.K. (1988). Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 9, 1-28.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
338
Zeitlinger.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor
model of personality: theoretical perspectives (p. 51-87). New York: Guilford.
McDonald, S.S., & Goldman, A.E. (1980). Strategies of segmentation research. In G.B.
Hafer (Ed.), A look back, a look ahead (p. 30-42). Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
McGuire, W. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J.F.
Blumer & Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communication: current perspectives on
gratification research (pp.110-121). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012-
1027.
Miller, K.E., & Ginter, J.L. (1979). An investigation of situational variation in brand choice
and attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 111-123.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 32,
246-254.
339
Routledge.
Plummer, J.T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research,
24, 27-31.
Rappoport, L., Peters, G.R., Downey, R., McCann, T., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1993). Gender
and age differences in food cognition. Appetite, 20, 33-52.
Robertson, T.S., & Myers, J.H. (1969). Personality correlates of opinion leadership and
innovative buying behavior. Journal of Marketing research, 7(May), 164-168.
Rohan, M.J., & Zanna, M.P. (1996). Value transmission in families. In C. Seligman, J.M.
Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Psychology of Values: the Ontario Symposium (Vol.
8) (p. 253-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schiffman, L.G., Sherman, E., & Long, M.M. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the
interplay of personal values and the internet. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 169-
186.
340
Schoenpflug, U. (2001). Perspectives on cultural transmission (special issue). Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(2).
Schultheiss, O.C., & Brunstein, J.C. (2001). Assessment of implicit motives with a research
version of the TAT: picture profiles, gender differences, and relations to other
personality measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 71-86.
1–65.
Schwartz, S.H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure
of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.
Silk, K.J., Weiner, J., & Parrott, R.L. (2005). Gene Cuisine or Frankenfood? The theory of
reasoned action as an audience segmentation strategy for messages about genetically
modified foods. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 751-767.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of
Sirgy, M.J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation.
Journal of Business Research, 13, 195-206.
Sirgy, M.J. (1986). Self-Congruity. New York: Praeger.
Slater, M., & Flora, J. (1994). Is health behavior consumer behavior? Health behavior
determinants, audience segmentation, and designing media health campaigns. In E.M.
Clark, T.C. Brock, & D.W. Stewart (Eds.). Attention, Attitude and Affect in Response
to Advertising (pp.273-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
341
Slater, M.D. (1996). Theory and method in health audience segmentation. Journal of Health
Smith, C.P. (1992). Motivation and Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, G.T. (2005). On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychological
Assessment, 17(4), 396-408.
underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267-284.
Psychology, 82(3), 448-461.
Van Kenhove, P., De Wulf, K., & Van Waterschoot, W. (1999). The impact of task-
definition on store-attribute saliences and store choice. Journal of Retailing, 75(1),
125-137.
Verlegh, P.W.J., & Candel, M.J.J.M. (1999). The consumption of convenience foods:
reference groups and eating situations. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 457-464.
Weber, J., & Gillespie, J. (1998). Differences in ethical beliefs, intentions and behaviors.
Business and Society, 37(dec), 447-467.
305.
Williams, R.M. (1968). Values. In E. Sills (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social
sciences (pp. 89-103). New York: Macmillan.
342
Yik, M.S.M., & Tang, C.S. (1996). Linking personality and values: the importance of a
culturally relevant personality scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 767-
774.
Youniss, R.P., Lorr, M., & Stefic, E.C. (1979). Assessment of motives and orientations.
Zhou, R.R., & Pham, M.T. (2004). Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: when
financial products dictate consumers’ investment goals. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(1), 125-135.
343

Towards A Better Understanding of Motivational Consumer Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards A Better Understanding of Motivational Consumer Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards a Better Understanding of Motivational Consumer Behavior :

Cross-Validation, Construct Validation and Application

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Economics

Promotor : Prof. Dr. P. Van Kenhove

Prof. Dr. Patrick Van Kenhove

Prof. Dr. Maggie Geuens

Prof. Dr. Iris Vermeir

Prof. Dr. Wim Verbeke

Prof. Dr. Klaus Grunert

Prof. Dr. Dominika Maison

Decaan Prof. Dr. Roland Paemeleire

Prof. Dr. Eddy Omey

this work successfully.

Further, I am greatly indebted to the ‘Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds’ of Ghent University for

for keeping me going in times when my mind was troubled.

This dissertation is dedicated to the four of you!

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

1. SCIENTIFIC ORIENTATION .................................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER II : CONSUMER MOTIVES – LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 15

4.2. RECENT TAXONOMIES ......................................................................................................................... 31

A Taxonomy of Conumer Motives : Cross-Validity

CHAPTER III : A TAXONOMY OF CONSUMER MOTIVES THROUGH PREFERRED BRAND

A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives : Construct Validity

CHAPTER IV : RECONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER MOTIVES AND

CHAPTER V : HOW CONSUMER MOTIVES INFLUENCE TRAIT-BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIPS :

1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 131

A Taxonomy of Consumer Motives : Practical Applications

CHAPTER VI : HEALTH ADVERTISING TO PROMOTE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INTAKE :

1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 191

CHAPTER VII : UNDERSTANDING READY MEAL CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR : THE ROLE OF

1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 243

3.2.3. Ready meal consumption behavior.............................................................................................. 260

CHAPTER VIII : SUMMARY & DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 293

1. RECAPITULATION .............................................................................................................................. 295

Figure 2.1 : Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs ................................................................. 28

Figure 3.1 : INDSCAL analysis – Group Stimulus Space ....................................................... 70

Figure 7.1 : Geeroms et al.’s Health-related Motive Structure .............................................. 246

Table 2.1 : Murray’s List of Human Needs ............................................................................. 30

Table 3.1 : Characteristics of samples...................................................................................... 68

Table 4.1 : Motive Definitions and Scale Items..................................................................... 100

Table 5.1 : Motive Definitions and Measurement Items........................................................ 135

Table 6.1 : Motive Definitions ............................................................................................... 195

Table 7.1 : Five Health Audience Segments .......................................................................... 247

consumentengedrag. Een centraal aspect hierbij betreft de vraag op welke manier

beslissingsprocessen te bestuderen is het beschouwen van de consument als een volkomen

rationeel wezen dat op elk moment in staat is om coherente en weloverwogen beslissingen te

van het keuzegedrag van de consument, toch slaagt ze er niet in om consumentengedrag

van deze onbewuste drijfveren en motivaties in beschouwing te nemen.

niettegenstaande deze praktische relevantie, werd de taxonomie van consumentenmotivaties

van Callebaut en collega’s nog nooit wetenschappelijk gevalideerd of getest. Vandaar de

hoofddoelstelling van dit proefschrift om bij te dragen tot de validatie en kritische

doorlichting van dit model in een marketingcontext.

Drie onderzoeksthema’s werden bestudeerd in dit proefschrift om bovenstaande doelstelling

te bereiken. (1) een Taxonomie van Consumentenmotivaties: Cross-Validiteit. Dit eerste

betrouwbare) impliciete items. In tweede instantie werd de standvastigheid van de

motivationele structuur van Callebaut et al. (1999) vastgesteld doorheen verschillende

culturen en verschillende productcategorieën. (2) een Taxonomie van Consumentenmotivaties:

Construct Validiteit. Om construct validiteit na te gaan werden in dit onderzoeksthema

consumentenmotivaties gecorreleerd met andere aanverwante concepten in de literatuur. In

een tweede paper werden betekenisvolle relaties vastgesteld tussen consumentenmotivaties en

consumentenmotivaties en twee persoonlijkheidskenmerken onder de loep, namelijk

innovativiteit en zelfcontrole. (3) een Taxonomie van Consumentenmotivaties: Praktische

Toepassingen. In het laatste onderzoeksthema hebben we ons gefocust op de praktische