Motive-based consumer segments and their fruit and vegetable consumption in several contexts

Journal Pre-proofs Motive-based consumer segments and their fruit and vegetable consumption in several contexts Muriel C.D. Verain, Siet J. Sijtsema, Danny Taufik, Ireen Raaijmakers, Machiel J. Reinders PII: DOI: Reference:

S0963-9969(19)30617-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108731 FRIN 108731

To appear in:

Food Research International

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

8 April 2019 25 September 2019 28 September 2019

Please cite this article as: Verain, M.C.D., Sijtsema, S.J., Taufik, D., Raaijmakers, I., Reinders, M.J., Motive-based consumer segments and their fruit and vegetable consumption in several contexts, Food Research International (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108731

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Motive-based consumer segments and their fruit and vegetable consumption in several contexts Muriel C.D. Veraina* Siet J. Sijtsemaa Danny Taufikb Ireen Raaijmakersb Machiel J. Reindersb

a

Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen Economic Research, P.O. Box 35, 6700

AA Wageningen, The Netherlands. [email protected]; [email protected]. b

Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen Economic Research, P.O. Box 29703,

2502 LS 'S Gravenhage, The Netherlands. [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]. *Corresponding author: P.O. Box 35, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected], Tel: + 31 6 83297238

1

Abstract A targeted approach to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, considering the heterogeneity of food choice motives across consumers and across contexts, is expected to be more effective than the often used ‘one-size-fits-all approach’. Therefore, the current study aims to increase understanding of consumers’ food choice motives across contexts, to identify consumer segments based on these motives and to gain insights in fruit and vegetable consumption, perception and demographic characteristics of these segments. An online survey was conducted in May 2015 among consumers in the Netherlands, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, Greece, Croatia and Serbia. 3,064 participants completed the survey on fruit and 2,998 participants completed the survey on vegetables. Four segments were identified, differing in their focus on present versus future food choice motives for main meals at home and for other contexts. The segments differed in their consumption, perceptions of fruit and vegetables and in their demographic characteristics. Implications for targeted approaches to increase fruit and vegetable consumption are discussed.

Key words: Fruit; vegetables; food consumption; consumer segmentation; food choice motives; consumption context

2

1 Introduction EU citizens generally do not reach the recommended amount of 400 grams of fruit and vegetables (F&V) per day (Eurostat, 2016; Freshfel, 2015; Santeramo et al., 2018). Increased intake of F&V could lead to significant improvements in public health, as it reduces the risk of major chronic diseases (Aune et al., 2017; Joffe & Robertson, 2001). Until now, promotion campaigns such as ‘5 a day’, were not very successful in increasing F&V intake (Naska et al., 2000; Rekhy & McConchie, 2014). A possible reason for the ineffectiveness of such promotion campaigns is the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach (Kazbare, van Trijp, & Eskildsen, 2010). F&V consumption greatly differs across countries, across contexts (both moment and location of consumption;e.g. Jaeger, Bava, Worch, Dawson, & Marshall, 2011; Lui, Han, & Cohen, 2015; Onwezen et al., 2012) and across consumers (Naska et al., 2000). In addition, the correlation between fruit consumption and vegetable consumption is low. These insights indicate the need for a targeted approach (Naska et al., 2000). A second possible reason for the ineffectiveness of F&V interventions is that they often have a one-sided emphasis on health and neglect other food choice motives (FCM) of consumers (e.g. Geeroms, Verbeke, & Kenhove, 2008). FCM refer to consumers’ motives or reasons for purchasing, choosing or eating certain food (Steptoe et al., 1995). Steptoe and colleagues (1995) identified nine FCM: health, mood, sensory appeal, natural content, weight control, convenience, familiarity, price and ethical concern. FCM are important determinants of F&V intake (Konttinen, Sarlio-Lähteenkorva, Silventoinen, Männistö & Haukkala, 2013). Specifically taste, health and familiarity are important motives when considering F&V consumption (e.g. Appleton et al., 2017; Dinehart et al., 2006, Drewnowski and Gomez-Carneros, 2000), but the (relative) importance of these motives differ across consumers (e.g. Verain, Sijtsema, & Antonides, 2016). Consumers’ FCM are a useful basis for segmentation (e.g. Brečić, Mesić, & Cerjak, 2017; Onwezen et al., 2012; Verain et al., 2016; Verain, Sijtsema, Dagevos, & Antonides, 2017). They can be helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of consumers’ food consumption (Wedel & Kamakura, 2000), which is valuable in the development of 3

interventions and campaigns around food consumption (e.g., Glanz, Basil, Maibach, Goldberg, & Snyder, 1998). Similar to consumption, underlying FCM not only differ across consumers but also across consumption contexts (Pollard, Steptoe, & Wardle, 1998; Steptoe et al., 1995; Verain, Dagevos, & Antonides, 2015; Verain et al., 2016). Only a limited number of studies looked at contextual differences (in moments and/or locations) of FCM (Chambers et al., 2016; Kyotoku et al., 2012; Machín et al., 2014; Onwezen et al., 2012; Phan & Chambers, 2016; Phan & Chambers, 2018). These studies amongst others show that motives for snacking differ over the day (Chambers et al., 2016; Phan and Chambers IV, 2016, 2018) and that motives differ across meal moments (Kyutoku et al., 2012) and between snacks and main meals (Onwezen et al., 2012). For the importance of different FCM, not only the physical location, but also the social context (e.g. being with friends and/or family) appears to matter (Phan & Chamberts, 2016; Machín et al., 2014). Based on the findings in these studies, the current study further examines whether consumers attach different importance to FCM in different contexts (different meal moments and consumption locations). Underlying dimensions of the context-specific FCM are identified in order to group FCM across contexts. Considering the interaction between consumer differences and contextual differences in FCM is novel. Available literature focusses either on consumer differences or on contextual differences. Insights into consumer segments that differ in their contextspecific FCM are valuable in the development of targeted interventions and campaigns around F&V consumption (e.g., Glanz, Basil, Maibach, Goldberg, & Snyder, 1998). Therefore, the current study aims to identify cross-cultural consumer segments by grouping them based on their dominating FCM in several consumption contexts. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to combine FCM and contextual factors as a segmentation basis. By doing so, this study goes one step further then Onwezen et al. (2012) who grouped consumers based on general food benefits and looked at contextual differences of benefits in the profiling stages. Considering the combination of FCM and contexts is useful in identifying overarching European consumer groups that should be 4

targeted with different motives, in different contexts. Furthermore, the current study specifically focuses on F&V consumption, whereas the study by Onwezen and colleagues (2012) was on a more general level. In sum, in order to develop targeted interventions aimed at supporting F&V consumption in Europe, it is valuable to gain insights into consumers’ context-specific FCM. Therefore, the current study explores F&V consumption and underlying FCM in different contexts and identifies consumer segments based on these context-specific FCM. More specifically, this explorative study aims 1) to increase understanding of consumers’ FCM across contexts, 2) to identify consumer segments based on these context-specific motives and 3) to gain insights into the profile of these segments in terms of their F&V consumption and other characteristics in three accompanying steps (see Figure 1). Three categories of variables will be included to profile the segments. First, demographic variables will be incorporated to provide descriptions of the segments, but the link with consumption behaviour is often weak (Haley, 1968; Weinstein, 1987). Second, current F&V consumption as well as habits related to F&V intake will be included and is used to explain behavioural differences across the segments. The final category of profiling variables concern consumers’ perceptions of F&V, as insights in perceptions are important to tailor interventions to fit the image of the consumer (e.g. Verain et al., 2016; Verain et al., 2017). Since our research is exploratory, we refrain from stating hypotheses concerning the specific relationships of these variables and the identified segments. To address the above-mentioned aims an online survey was conducted in May 2015 in nine European countries. Two versions of the questionnaire were created: one on fruit and one on vegetables. Together, the insights obtained by this survey can help in developing new products or interventions in order to increase F&V consumption.

5

Step 1: Identify underlying dimensions of context-specific food choice motives.

Step 2: Grouping consumers into apriori identified segments based on the importance they attach to a range of food choice motives in several contexts.

Step 3: Profiling consumer segments in terms of demographics, fruit and vegetable consumption and perceptions.

Figure 1: Research steps carried out in the current study

2 Materials and methods 2.1 Sample and procedure An online survey was conducted in May 2015 in the Netherlands, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, Greece, Croatia and Serbia. The survey was administered by a professional market research company (MSI-ACI Europe BV) and was identical for all countries, created in English, translated into the different national languages and back-translated as appropriate. Quota sampling was used, in order to have a representative sample of the specific countries for age and gender. Participants were approached by email to fill out an online self-administered survey. The survey focused on consumption behaviour, habits, perceptions and food choice motives related to F&V (the questionnaire is added as supplementary material). In order to restrict the length of the survey, two versions were created: one on fruit and one on vegetables. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two versions. In total, 3,064 participants completed the survey on fruit and 2,998 participants completed the survey on vegetables. The total sample was nearly equally distributed in terms of gender, with 50.5% males (fruit: 50.1% males; vegetables: 50.9% males) and the mean age was 44 with an age range of 18 to 82 (idem for the fruit and vegetable subsamples). Demographics per country are presented in Table 1.

6

2.2 Measures Segmentation variables Food choice motives – A single-item scale for the nine dimensions of the original Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) developed by Steptoe et al. (1995) was used (Onwezen, Reinders, Verain, & Snoek, 2019). The respondents rated the importance of these nine motives for six different contexts, i.e., for main meals and snacks in three different consumption situations: at home, at work/school and on the move (similar to Onwezen et al., 2012). For example, respondents were asked to respond to the statement ‘It is important to me that the food I eat when I have my main meal at home: is healthy/makes me feel good/is convenient/tastes good/is natural/is not expensive/helps me control my weight/is familiar/is environmentally friendly’. Each item was assessed on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important’. Profiling variables Fruit or vegetable consumption – To measure fruit or vegetable consumption, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency at which they consumed fruit or vegetables with the following question: ‘How often do you usually eat fruit/vegetables?’ To measure context-specific fruit or vegetable consumption, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency at which they consumed fruit or vegetables with the following question: ‘How often do you consume fruit/vegetables in each of the following situations?’ The question had to be answered for six consumption contexts: main meal at home, main meal at work/school, main meal on the move, snack at home, snack at work/school and snack on the move. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency at which they consumed fruit or vegetables at different eating moments with the following question: ‘How often do you consume fruit/vegetables during breakfast/during lunch/as a snack(in between meals)/during dinner?’. Answer options for all questions on fruit or vegetable consumption were: ‘daily’, ‘3-6 days a week’, ‘1-2 days a week’, ‘1-3 days a month’, ‘less than 1 day a month’ and ‘never’.

7

Habits – Habits regarding fruit or vegetable consumption were measured by three items: ‘I eat fruits/vegetables routinely’, ‘Eating fruit/vegetables suits me’ and ‘I have been eating fruit/vegetables since I was a child’. These items were based on the three items used by Reinaerts et al. (2007) and were originally selected from the Self-Report Index of Habit Strength (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003) and each represent one of the three features of habit strength, namely a history of repetition, automaticity and reflection of personal identity. Perceptions – Respondents have been asked how they perceive eating fruit or vegetables. The question was asked as follows: ‘(Eating) fruit/vegetables is healthy/makes me feel good/is convenient/tastes good/is natural/is not expensive/helps me control my weight/is familiar/is environmentally friendly’. Perceptions were measured on 7-point scales ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Demographics – Age, gender, income, education level, family composition, employment status and country were included in the analyses to profile the segments. 2.3 Data analysis Data analysis consisted of three steps, following the procedure as used by Verain et al. (2015). In the first step, data reduction was applied to look for underlying dimensions of the context-specific FCM. First, repeated measures analyses were conducted for each of the FCM, to check whether the importance of the FCM differs across contexts. The nine FCM (health, mood, convenience, taste, natural, price, weight control, familiar and environment) were included as the dependent variables and the six consumption contexts (main meal at home, main meal at work/school, main meal on the move, snack at home, snack at work/school, snack on the move) as the independent variables. Next, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the FCM for each of the six contexts separately, to determine whether the motives can be grouped into underlying factors per context. The Kaiser-Meyer-Okin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (all above .50) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (all significance values below .05) show that the data is suitable for factor analysis. Subsequently, a second order factor analysis was conducted to see whether contexts could be grouped. 8

In the second step, respondents were grouped into a-priori identified segments based on the importance they attach to a range of FCM in different contexts (see section 3.2 for an overview of the segments). A-priori identified segments were used, to ensure that the segments were useful for tailoring F&V interventions. This procedure is more often used in literature (e.g., Dolcinar et al., 2004; Verain et al., 2015). A-priori segments are very clearly defined in advance and therefore the researcher can make sure the segments that are described are useful for the purpose of the study. Respondents were allocated to four different segments based on their mean scores on the context-specific FCM factors. In the third step, the segments were profiled in terms of their demographics, their F&V consumption and their perceptions of F&V. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) with posthoc Tukey comparisons of mean scores were conducted to compare the segments on the profiling variables. 3 Results 3.1 Context specificity of food choice motives The first aim was to increase understanding of consumers’ FCM across contexts, by investigating how these context-specific FCM can be grouped. A repeated measures analysis showed that the importance of all FCM differ significantly across contexts (Table 2). From this, we can conclude that motives are context-specific: the importance that respondents attribute to FCM differ from context to context. The motives differed the most between a main meal at home and a snack on the move. To give an example, health is more important when choosing a main meal at home as compared to choosing a snack on the move. An EFA was conducted on all context-specific FCM for each of the six contexts separately, to determine whether the context-specific FCM can be grouped into underlying factors. Based on the eigenvalue ≥ 1 criterion, the inspection of the scree plot and interpretability, a two-factor solution seems most appropriate for all contexts (Table 3). New variables have been computed by averaging the scores of the items belonging to the factor. The FCM ‘familiar’ has been excluded, except for main meal at home, because

9

of the low factor loadings, the improvement in reliability of the scale by removing this item and the interpretability of the underlying factor. After the FCM had been grouped per context, we investigated whether contexts can be grouped. Results show a similar pattern of motives across all contexts, except for main meals at home. The first factor is formed by future-focused motives: natural, environmentally-friendly, health and weight control. These are motives that can lead to long-term benefits. The second factor is formed by present-focused motives: price, taste, mood and convenience. These motives are more rewarding in the short-term. The factors for the main meal at home context are somewhat different. Here, the first factor is formed by health, environmentally-friendly, natural, weight control, mood and taste and the second factor by price, familiarity and convenience. Because of the high correlations between the factors (all correlations were significant at the p<.001 level, with the lowest correlation being .402 and the highest correlation being .788) and the similarity of the factors for main meals at work or school, main meals on the move, snacks at home, snacks at work or school and snacks on the move, a second-order factor analysis has been performed to assess whether these context-specific factors were influenced by context-transcending dimensions and can therefore be merged (Sautron et al., 2015). Results show that the context-specific factors can be grouped into two higher-order factors. This results in one factor combining future-focused motives for main meals at work, main meals on the move, snacks at home, snacks at work, and snacks on the move and a second factor combining presentfocused motives for main meals at work, main meals on the move, snacks at home, snacks at work and snacks on the move (Table 4). In conclusion, the results showed significant differences in motives across consumption contexts, although differences are small. The motives load on two factors per context; a more future-focused factor and a more present-focused factor. Because of the similarity in loadings across the contexts, the contexts can be merged. The pattern in

10

loadings for motives for main meal at home deviates from the other contexts and is kept separate.1 3.2 Consumer segmentation The second aim was to identify consumer segments based on these contextspecific motives. Respondents have been placed in one of four segments, based on their mean scores on the four identified factors. This leads to four a-priori constructed segments: 1. Future-all: higher importance of future-oriented motives as compared to presentoriented motives in all contexts; 2. Present-all: higher importance of present-oriented motives as compared to futureoriented motives in all contexts; 3. Future-home and present-other: higher importance of future-oriented motives for main meals at home and present-oriented motives for the remaining contexts; 4. Present-home and future-other: higher importance of present-oriented motives for main meals at home and future-oriented motives in the remaining contexts. The four segments differ significantly in their demographic profile, and also the distribution of the respondents over the countries differs (Table 5). Segment 1 is labelled as ‘Future-all’ and consists of 24.1% (N=1,092) of the sample and is characterized by a consistent preference for future-oriented motives such as healthiness and environmental impact both at home and out of home and both for main meals and for snacks. This segment consists of 47.2% males, with a mean age of 48 and has a relatively high percentage of couples with children who left home (16.7%) and relatively many retired respondents (23.3%). Compared to other segments, a low percentage of this segment consists of singles without children (18.7%). This segment is characterized by a high number of highly educated people (40.3%). Segment 1 includes

We checked whether age and gender differences could be found on the factors based on the context-specific food choice motives. An overall trend was found, showing that females score higher on all factors as compared to males and older age categories score higher as compared to younger age categories. With minor exceptions, this trend was found for all countries. 1

11

a relatively large percentage of respondents from Germany and Greece, and a relatively small percentage of respondents from the United Kingdom and Poland. Segment 2 is labelled as ‘Present-all’ and consists of 27.8% (N=1,262) of the sample and is characterized by a consistent preference for present-focused motives such as price, taste and convenience both at home and out of home and both for main meals and for snacks. This segment consists of 55.8% males, with a mean age of 41. Segment 2 has a relatively large percentage of singles without children (30.4%). This segment is characterized by a relatively high percentage of lower educated people (35.8%). Segment 2 includes relatively many respondents from the United Kingdom and Poland, and little respondents from Germany and Greece. Segment 3 is labelled as ‘Future-home and present-other’ and consists of 43.8% (N=1,989) of the sample and is characterized by a preference for future-focused motives for main meals at home and present-focused motives for the other contexts. This segment consists of 48.3% males, with a mean age of 43. Segment 3 has a relatively low percentage of couples with children at home (28.2%). Similar to segment 1, this segment is characterized by a high number of highly educated people (37.2%). Segment 3 includes relatively many respondents from the Netherlands and Germany and little respondents from Poland and Greece. Segment 4 is labelled as ‘Present-home and future-other’ and is the smallest segment, consisting of 4.3% (N=193) of the sample. This segment is characterized by a preference for present-focused motives for mean meals at home and future-focused motives for the other contexts. This segment consists of 60.1% males, with a mean age of 42. Segment 4 has a relatively high percentage of couples with children at home (39.9%). This segments includes relatively little respondents from the Netherlands. 3.3 Consumption of fruit and vegetables The third aim was to gain insights into the profile of these segments in terms of their F&V consumption and related perceptions. Frequency of F&V consumption and habits regarding F&V consumption differ across segments (see Table 6 and 7). In

12

addition, F&V consumption at different moments and in different contexts differs significantly across segments (see Table 8 and 9). The ‘Future-all’ segment is characterized by a relatively high level of F&V consumption at all meal moments and in all contexts. 56.5% of the respondents indicate to daily consume fruit and 36.3% consumes vegetables daily. The ‘Present-all’ segment is characterized by a relatively low level of F&V consumption at all meal moments and in all contexts. Only 31.5% of the respondents in this segment indicates to consume fruit daily and 19.3% consumes vegetables daily. The ‘Future-home, present-other’ segment shows a less clear pattern, with relatively low levels of fruit consumption at main meals and a relatively low level of vegetable consumption on the move. In contrast, vegetable consumption as a snack and as a main meal at home is relatively high. 43.8% consumes fruit daily, and 27.7% consumes vegetables daily. The ‘Present-home, future-all’ segment also shows a mixed pattern, with a relatively high level of fruit consumption at main meals both in and out of home and also at breakfast. Fruit consumption as a snack is relatively low, particularly at work/school. Vegetable consumption is relatively high, except for main meals at home. 49.0% consumes fruit daily and 31.5% consumes vegetables daily. Habits concerning F&V intake are strongest in the ‘Future-all’ segment, followed by the ‘Future-home, present-other’ segment. Habits are weakest in the ‘Present-all’ and the ‘Present-home, future-all’ segments. The mean scores, however, indicate that for all segments, habits concerning F&V consumption are quite high. All means are above 5 on a 7-point scale. This indicates that F&V consumption is strongly related to personal routines (see Table 7). 3.4 Consumer perceptions of fruit and vegetables Concerning consumer perceptions it can be concluded that the ‘Future-all’ segment perceives F&V most positively on almost all aspects (see Table 10). The ‘Present-home, future-other’ segment has the most negative perceptions of fruit on almost all aspects, except for price. For vegetables, this overall picture is less clear. If we look per segment, we see that the ‘Future-all’, ‘Present-all’ and ‘Future-home, present13

other’ segments perceive fruit mostly as healthy, followed by tasty and natural. The ‘Present-home, future-other’ segment perceives fruit mostly as natural and positive for one’s mood, followed by healthy. The ‘Future-all’, ‘Present-all’ and ‘Future-home, present-other’ segments perceive vegetables mainly as healthy, followed by natural and positive for one’s mood. The ‘Present-home, future-other’ segment perceives vegetables as healthy, tasty and natural. 4 Discussion and conclusion 4.1 Overall findings European consumer segments based on context-specific FCM show differences in consumption and perceptions of F&V, and therefore seem a valuable segmentation basis. The development of targeted interventions that consider different contexts can be supportive to increase F&V consumption of these consumer segments. By examining the role of consumer segments based on context-specific motives, this study advances insights in F&V consumption in several ways. First, this study showed significant differences in importance of FCM across contexts. This finding corresponds with previous literature, which also found that consumers have different FCM, depending on the moment of food consumption (i.e. Machín et al., 2014; Onwezen et al., 2012). In addition, the results show a similar pattern in the grouping of motives across contexts, except for main meals at home. Apparently, FCM for main meals at home are most deviating from FCM in other contexts. The different types of FCM vary on the dimension to which they have immediate consequences for consumers (so-called ‘present-focused’ motives) or have consequences that only become more tangible in the long-term (so-called ‘future-focused’ motives). These consequences can be presented in terms of either rewards or costs. The FCM health, environment, natural and weight control all loaded on one factor, which can be characterized as ‘future-focused’ motives. For instance, the health and environmental consequences of the food choices consumers make will only become visible in weeks, months or even years. The motives mood, taste, price and convenience all loaded on another factor, which can be characterized as ‘present-focused’. To illustrate, when you 14

eat something it has direct consequences for your wallet (price) and how you feel at that moment (mood). The distinction in more future-focused and more present-focused motives has been made in previous research in the food domain. For example, Van Beek et al. (2013) made a distinction between consideration of immediate consequences and consideration of future consequences in relation to healthy food consumption. Related to this, Olsen and Tuu (2017) found that a focus on immediate consequences was a better predictor of hedonic eating values, whereas a focus on future consequences was a better predictor of healthy eating values. Moreover, the distinction between present-focused motives and future-focused motives has also been discussed in the food domain from a more neuropsychological perspective. Specifically, Volkow and Baler (2015) discuss how ‘now’ versus ‘later’ processes in brain circuits can affect choices that have implications for consumers’ health, such as food choices. Conceptually, these ‘now’ versus ‘later’ processes show similarities with the distinction between present-focused and futurefocused motives in our study. Second, based on their preference for different FCM in different contexts, consumers can be segmented into a number of segments. More specifically, consumers can be placed in one of four a-priori constructed segments: 1) higher importance of futurefocused motives in all contexts, 2) higher importance of present-focused motives in all contexts, 3) higher importance of future-focused motives for main meals at home and present-focused motives for the remaining contexts, and 4) higher importance of present-focused motives for main meals at home and future-focused motives for the remaining contexts. These segments are largely in line with previous studies, which found a distinction between consumers who place a greater emphasis on the immediate (i.e., present focus) versus long term (i.e., future focus) benefits of certain behaviours (Joireman, Strathman, & Balliet, 2006; Kees, Burton, & Tangari, 2010). Additionally, this study is also in line with Olsen and Tuu (2017) who studied the effects of time perspectives on eating values. The segments are also in line with two previous studies that used FCM as a basis for consumer segments, and found segments that were more present-focused (pro-self) and more future-focused (sustainable conscious consumers) 15

(Verain et al., 2016, 2017). However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that relates these temporal consumer orientations to context-specific FCM, i.e., FCM at different consumption moments and locations, by identifying segments that have different motives (present- versus future-oriented) at different moments (main meals at home versus other contexts). Finally, consumption and perceptions of F&V at different moments and in different contexts differ significantly across segments. Generally, the future-focused segment tends to consume more F&V than the present-focused segment. For the segments that have different orientations in different contexts, results are less clear. The future-focused segment also perceives F&V most positive on almost all aspects, whereas the other segments have more mixed perceptions. In the studies by Verain and colleagues, the link between FCM-based segments and food perceptions (Verain et al., 2016) and consumption intentions (Verain et al., 2017) was also observed. In addition, responsiveness to targeted communication was investigated and shows the practical relevance of such FCM-based segments (Verain et al., 2017). Taken together, paying attention to consumers’ temporal focus in relation to FCM might be an interesting avenue for future research examining strategies to enhance F&V consumption in Europe. 4.2 Limitations and future research There are some limitations in our study that can be (partly) addressed in future research. First, our aim was to focus on differences across consumption contexts (main meal versus snacks and eating either at home, at work/school or while being on the move) in the development of FCM-based consumer segments. The analyses showed that the most dominant distinction in contexts is between main meals at home and all other contexts. This means that a rather diverse range of contexts are grouped here, into ‘other contexts’. FCM for both snack and main meals, and both home and out of home can apparently by grouped. This suggests that interventions should be developed for main meals at home and for other contexts separately. Whether this distinction in contexts can actually lead to more effective interventions remains a question for future research. 16

Second, the FCM ‘familiarity’ did not fit well with either the ‘present-focused’ factor or ‘future-focused’ factor. It could be that familiarity differs from both ‘presentfocused’ and ‘future-focused’ motives in some respect. One possibility is that the way in which familiarity affects consumers’ food choices is more unconscious or habitual compared to the other motives. Familiarity is based on peoples’ prior experiences and decisions. Therefore, the more eating of certain food items appears to be familiar for consumers, the more strongly eating of these food items is ingrained in consumers’ habits and the more eating these food items has become internalized. Finally, the four segments that we identified differ on a whole range of variables. Based on this study, it is difficult to establish the best way to ultimately target each of these segments in order to increase the F&V consumption of the type of consumers identified in these segments. Future research should investigate which of the characteristics are most effective to take into account in designing policies or campaigns that aim to increase the F&V consumption of the different consumer segments. Additionally, future research should include the consideration of future consequencesscale developed by Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger and Edwards (1994). Knowing how consumers score on this personality characteristic can confirm the present versus future focus of the different consumer segments and can contribute to optimally design targeted interventions to promote F&V consumption. 4.3 Recommendations for targeted interventions The results show that the four identified segments differ in their level of F&V consumption, their perceptions of F&V and some demographic factors. These insights can be used to develop targeted interventions in order to support these segments to increase their F&V consumption. First, implications of some overall insights will be discussed. Next, important specific aspects that should be taken into account for the four segments will be considered. Overall, taste appears to be the most important FCM in all contexts. Health and mood also score high in all contexts. The importance of convenience seems very contextdependent, as convenience is much more important for snacks and for out of home 17

contexts as compared to main meals at home. Interestingly, price does not rank in the top three most important motives in any of the contexts, although in the literature price is often identified as one of the top most important motives together with taste, health and convenience (Fotopoulos, Krystallis, Vassallo, & Pagiaslis, 2009; Milošević, Žeželj, Gorton, & Barjolle, 2012; Steptoe et al., 1995). These insights indicate that some motives are important to take into consideration in all contexts (e.g. taste), whereas other motives are important to take into consideration in specific contexts (e.g. convenience). Strategies should especially distinguish main meals at home from other contexts. Altogether, this shows the importance to take contextual differences into account. This is in line with literature, in which the use of context-specific measures is recommended (Judge & Kammeyer‐Mueller, 2012), as they show a higher explained variance regarding behaviours on the same level of specificity (Goldsmith, Freiden, & Eastman, 1995; Onwezen et al., 2019; Van Trijp & Fischer, 2011). Context plays a major explanatory role in food choices (De Castro 1987; Hein, Hamid, Jaeger, & Delahunty, 2012; Koukova, Kannan, & Kirmani, 2012; Kyutoku et al., 2012; Machín et al., 2014; Meiselman, 2006; Onwezen et al., 2012; Peters, Rappoport, Huff-Corzine, Nelsen, & Downey, 1995; Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2014; Rappoport, Peters, Downey, McCann, & Huff-Corzine, 1993; Rappoport, Downey, & Huff-Corzine, 2001; Rozin & Tuorila, 1993; Van Raaij & Verhallen, 1994; Warlop & Ratneshwar, 1993). Demographic characteristics of the segments show that females are overrepresented in the ‘Future-all’ segment and the ‘Future-home, present-other’ segment. In addition, the ‘Future-all’ segment is characterised by a relatively high mean age. These findings are in accordance with the literature. Steptoe et al. (1995) show that females score higher on all food choice motives with future benefits as compared to males. In addition, they show that those with a higher age score higher on several of the food choice motives with future benefits (naturalness, ethical concern, health(for females)). In addition, Verain et al. (2017) found a consumer segment of ‘conscious consumers’ that was characterised by a high mean age and a large percentage of females. 18

The ‘Present-all’ and the ‘Future-home and present-other’ segments seem most interesting to focus on with targeted approaches. The ‘Present-all’ segment shows a low level of both F&V consumption and is focused on present benefits of food consumption. Although this segment perceives taste of F&V least positive, the absolute scores (see Table 10) show that this segment is still rather positive about the taste of F&V, which seems promising to focus on. The ‘Future-home and present-all’ segment also shows room for improvement, especially concerning fruit consumption at main meals and vegetables on the move. This is the largest segment (43.8%) and therefore, interventions targeted at this segment might potentially affect food choices related to F&V of many consumers. The ‘Future-all’ segment already has a quite high intake of F&V and is therefore less important to focus on in first instance. The ‘Present-home and future-other’ segment is very small (4.3%), and difficult to capture, and is therefore also less interesting. Some starting points for targeted approaches for each of the segments will be discussed now. Future-all: Members in this segment are mainly focused on motives with longterm rewards. Marketing strategies that focus on the healthiness or naturalness of F&V are expected to be most appealing for these consumers. Interventions supporting F&V consumption might be accomplished using communication messages that for instance centre around the future-focused motive ‘weight control’ or the nutritional benefits of F&V consumption. Marketing strategies and interventions might be more successful in Greece and Germany as these countries are represented quite well in this segment. Present-all: Product innovations and/or marketing strategies for consumers in this segment should overcome the lack of convenience. This is in line with the trend towards more fresh-cut F&V products, as reported by Santeramo and colleagues (2018). They state that those products ‘represent one of the most important innovations for the industry, capable of reshaping consumer patterns’. In addition, a focus on the benefits on one’s mood related to F&V consumption is important in this segment. Product innovations should focus on improved taste, convenience of buying, preparing and eating and combine this in order to fulfil the present-oriented motive mood so that consuming F&V 19

makes consumers in this segment feel good. The ‘Present-all’ segment is relatively large in Poland and UK, so this strategy may especially appeal to consumers in these countries. Future-home and present-other: The importance of present-focused versus future-focused motives differs across contexts for consumers in this segment. Therefore marketing strategies should consider the context when targeting this segment to promote F&V consumption. More specifically, these strategies should highlight the futurefocused motives such as health for the main meal at home context and present-focused motives such as taste (for fruit) and mood (for vegetables) for the other contexts. Like other segments, this segment could be reached by mentioning the health and taste characteristics and naturalness for fruit and, specifically for vegetables, in marketing communication (e.g. campaigns), in order to improve the good feeling consumers can get from consuming F&V. This approach might be particularly successful in The Netherlands and Germany as they have the highest market share of ‘Future-home and present-other’ members. Present-home and future-other: Just like the ‘Future-home and present-other’ members, the context influences whether the ‘present-home and future-other members focus on future-focused or present-focused motives. Members of this segment focus more on present-focused motives for main meals at home, while they focus more on future-focused motives in the other contexts. For this segment, marketing strategies should be tailored to these differences in focus across context. This segment has the most negative perceptions of F&V (except for price), so it might be important to develop interventions that aim to change perceptions. This segment is particularly large in Spain. 4.4 General conclusion This study shows the potential of consumer segmentation based on contextspecific FCM in the promotion of F&V consumption. This study is one of the first to consider contextual differences in FCM, and shows the importance thereof. Understanding consumers’ food choice motives can be increased by considering both consumption moment and location. Strategies for main meals at home should differ from strategies to increase F&V consumption in other contexts. The distinction between present-focused 20

FCM with immediate benefits and future-focused FCM with future benefits is important to take into consideration. In addition, it seems promising to consider the heterogeneity of consumers as well as the heterogeneity of consumption texts and develop targeted approaches. The identified segments differ not only in their context-specific FCM, but also in their F&V consumption and perceptions, and in their demographic characteristics. These insights can be helpful in developing effective interventions to promote F&V consumption.

21

Acknowledgements Funding: This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs through the Topsector Tuinbouw & Uitgangsmaterialen (Horticulture and Starting Materials) and the Fresh Produce Centre (GroentenFruitHuis).

22

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall. Appleton, K. M., Dinnella, C., Spinelli, S., Morizet, D., Saulais, L., Hemingway, A., . . . Hartwell, H. (2017). Consumption of a high quantity and a wide variety of vegetables are predicted by different food choice motives in older adults from france, italy and the UK. Nutrients, 9(9), 923. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu9090923. Aune, D., Giovannucci, E., Boffetta, P., Fadnes, L. T., Keum, N., Norat, T., . . . Tonstad, S. (2017). Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality–a systematic review and dose-response metaanalysis of prospective studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(3), 1029-1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw319. Bell, R., & Marshall, D. W. (2003). The construct of food involvement in behavioral research: scale development and validation. Appetite, 40(3), 235-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00009-6 Brečić, R., Mesić, Ž., & Cerjak, M. (2017). Importance of intrinsic and extrinsic quality food characteristics by different consumer segments. British Food Journal, 119(4), 845-862. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0284. Chambers, D., Phan, U., Chanadang, S., Maughan, C., Sanchez, K., Di Donfrancesco, B., ... & Esen, E. (2016). Motivations for food consumption during specific eating occasions in Turkey. Foods, 5(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods5020039 De Castro, J. M. (1987). Circadian rhythms of the spontaneous meal pattern, macronutrient intake, and mood of humans. Physiology & behavior, 40(4), 437446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(87)90028-X. De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Jan Renes, R., & Frewer, L. (2007). Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: its two‐dimensional structure and determinants. 23

Risk analysis, 27(3), 729-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15396924.2007.00917.x. Dinehart, M. Hayes, J. Bartoshuk, L. Lanier, & S. Duffy, V. (2006). Bitter taste markers explain variability in vegetable sweetness, bitterness, and intake. Physiology & Behavior, 87, 304-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.10.018. Dolnicar, S. (2004). Insights into sustainable tourists in Austria: A data-based a priori segmentation approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3), 209-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580408667234. Drewnowski, A., & Gomez-Carneros, C., (2000). Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: A review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72 (6), 14241435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/72.6.1424. Eurostat. (2016). Consumption of fruit and vegetables in the EU. 1 in 7 persons aged 15 or over eats at least 5 portions of fruit or vegetables daily … while 1 in 3 does not eat any fruit or vegetables every day. [Press release] Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Pagiaslis, A. (2009). Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced general food motivation model. Appetite, 52(1), 199-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.09.014. Freshfel. (2015). Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Production, Trade, Supply and Consumption Monitor in the EU-28. Retrieved from http://freshfel.org/what-wedo/consumption-monitor/. Geeroms, N., Verbeke, W., & Kenhove, P. V. (2008). Health advertising to promote fruit and vegetable intake: Application of health-related motive segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 19(5), 481-497. Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., & Snyder, D. (1998). Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98(10), 1118-1126.

24

Goldsmith, R. E., Freiden, J. B., & Eastman, J. K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15(10), 601-612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(95)99328-D. Grunert, K. G., Brunso, K., & Bisp, S. (1993). Food-related life style: Development of a cross-culturally valid instrument for market surveillance: MAPP Århus, Denmark. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2001). Temptation and self‐control. Econometrica, 69(6), 1403-1435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00252. Hein, K. A., Hamid, N., Jaeger, S. R., & Delahunty, C. M., (2012). Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: A case study with two fruit beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 26(1), 35–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.014. Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C., & Troy, D. (2014). Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Science, 98(3), 561-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007. Jaeger, S. R., Bava, C. M., Worch, T., Dawson, J., & Marshall, D. W. (2011). The food choice kaleidoscope. A framework for structured description of product, place and person as sources of variation in food choices. Appetite, 56(2), 412-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.012. Joffe, M., & Robertson, A. (2001). The potential contribution of increased vegetable and fruit consumption to health gain in the European Union. Public health nutrition, 4(4), 893-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/PHN2001126. Joireman, J., Strathman, A., & Balliet, D. P. (2006). Considering future consequences: An integrative model. In L. J. Sanna, & E. C. Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behavior. New York: Oxford University press. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. D. (2012). General and specific measures in organizational behavior research: Considerations, examples, and recommendations for researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 161174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.764.

25

Kazbare, L., van Trijp, H. C., & Eskildsen, J. K. (2010). A-priori and post-hoc segmentation in the design of healthy eating campaigns. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(1-2), 21-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260903342712. Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 19-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390102. Konttinen, H., Sarlio-Lähteenkorva, S., Silventoinen, K., Männistö, S., & Haukkala, A. (2013). Socio-economic disparities in the consumption of vegetables, fruit and energy-dense foods: the role of motive priorities. Public health nutrition, 16(5), 873-882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012003540. Koukova, N. T., Kannan, P. K., & Kirmani, A. (2012). Multiformat digital products: how design attributes interact with usage situations to determine choice. Journal of marketing research, 49(1), 100-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0058. Kugler, K., & Jones, W. H. (1992). On conceptualizing and assessing guilt. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(2), 318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.62.2.318. Kyutoku, Y., Minami, Y., Koizumi, T., Okamoto, M., Kusakabe, Y., & Dan, I. (2012). Conceptualization of food choice motives and consumption among Japanese in light of meal, gender, and age effects. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 213217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.002. Liu, J. L., Han, B., & Cohen, D. A. (2015). Associations between eating occasions and places of consumption among adults. Appetite, 87, 199-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.217. Machín, L., Giménez, A., Vidal, L., & Ares, G. (2014). Influence of context on motives underlying food choice. Journal of sensory studies, 29(5), 313-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joss.12107. Meiselman, H. L. (2006). The role of context in food choice, food acceptance and food consumption. Frontiers in Nutritional Science, 3, 179. 26

Milošević, J., Žeželj, I., Gorton, M., & Barjolle, D. (2012). Understanding the motives for food choice in Western Balkan Countries. Appetite, 58(1), 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.012. Naska, A., Vasdekis, V. G., Trichopoulou, A., Friel, S., LeonhaÈuser, I. U., Moreiras, O., . . . Sekula, W. (2000). Fruit and vegetable availability among ten European countries: how does it compare with the ‘five-a-day’recommendation? British journal of nutrition, 84(4), 549-556. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114500001860. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd Edit.) McGraw-Hill. Hillsdale, NJ. Olsen, S. O., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Verbeke, W. (2007). Exploring the relationship between convenience and fish consumption: a cross-cultural study. Appetite, 49(1), 84-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.002. Olsen, S. O., & Tuu, H. H. (2017). Time perspectives and convenience food consumption among teenagers in Vietnam: The dual role of hedonic and healthy eating values. Food Research International, 99, 98-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.008. Onwezen, M. C., Reinders, M. J., van der Lans, I. A., Sijtsema, S. J., Jasiulewicz, A., Guardia, M. D., & Guerrero, L. (2012). A cross-national consumer segmentation based on food benefits: The link with consumption situations and food perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 24(2), 276-286. Onwezen, M. C., Reinders, M. J., Verain, M. C. D., & Snoek, H. M. (2019). The development of a single-item Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 34-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.11.002. Peters, G. R., Rappoport, L., Huff-Corzine, L., Nelsen, C., & Downey, R. G. (1995). Food preferences in daily life: Cognitive, affective and social predictors. Ecology of food and nutrition, 33(3), 215-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03670244.1995.9991429. Phan, U. T., & Chambers IV, E. (2016). Motivations for choosing various food groups based on individual foods. Appetite, 105, 204-211. 27

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.031 Phan, U. T., & Chambers IV, E. (2018). Motivations for meal and snack times: Three approaches reveal similar constructs. Food quality and preference, 68, 267-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.03.018 Piqueras-Fiszman, B. & Jaeger, S. R. (2014). The impact of the means of context evocation on consumers’ emotion associations towards eating occasions. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.017. Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/01956663(92)90014-W. Pollard, T. M., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (1998). Motives underlying healthy eating: using the Food Choice Questionnaire to explain variation in dietary intake. Journal of biosocial science, 30(2), 165-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021932098001655. Rappoport, L., Peters, G. R., Downey, R. G., McCann, T., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1993). Gender and age differences in food cognition. Appetite, 20(1), 489–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1993.1004. Rappoport, L., Downey, R. G., & Huff-Corzine, L. (2001). Conceptual differences between meals. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 9-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00023-9. Realini, C., Kallas, Z., Pérez-Juan, M., Gómez, I., Olleta, J., Beriain, M., . . . Sañudo, C. (2014). Relative importance of cues underlying Spanish consumers’ beef choice and segmentation, and consumer liking of beef enriched with n-3 and CLA fatty acids. Food Quality and Preference, 33, 74-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.11.007. Reinaerts, E., de Nooijer, J., Candel, M., & de Vries, N. (2007). Explaining school children’s fruit and vegetable consumption: The contributions of availability,

28

accessibility, exposure, parental consumption and habit in addition to psychosocial factors. Appetite, 48, 248-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.09.007. Rekhy, R., & McConchie, R. (2014). Promoting consumption of fruit and vegetables for better health. Have campaigns delivered on the goals? Appetite, 79, 113-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.012. Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of consumer research, 24(2), 127-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209499. Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite, 33(1), 71-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0232. Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4(1-2), 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(93)90309-T. Santeramo, F. G., Carlucci, D., De Devitiis, B., Seccia, A., Stasi, A., Viscecchia, R., & Nardone, G. (2018). Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Research International, 104, 39-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.039. Sautron, V., Péneau, S., Camilleri, G. M., Muller, L., Ruffieux, B., Hercberg, S., & Méjean, C. (2015). Validity of a questionnaire measuring motives for choosing foods including sustainable concerns. Appetite, 87, 90-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.205. Simunaniemi, A. M., Nydahl, M., & Andersson, A. (2013). Cluster analysis of fruit and vegetable‐related perceptions: an alternative approach of consumer segmentation. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 26(1), 38-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2012.01272.x. 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(3), 267-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0061.

29

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(4), 742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.00223506.2004.00263.x. Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research: Guilford Press. Van Beek, J., Antonides, G., & Handgraaf, M.J.J. (2013). Eat now, exercise later: The relation between consideration of immediate and future consequences and healthy behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 785-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.015. Van Raaij, W. F., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (1994). Domain-specific Market Segmentation. European Journal of Marketing, 28(10), 49-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569410075786. Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Fischer, A. R. H. (2011). Mobilizing consumer demand for sustainable development. In H. van Latesteijn & K. Andeweg (Eds.), The Transforum model:Transforming agro innovation towards sustainable development. (pp. 73-96). Dordrecht, Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/97890-481-9781-1_5. Verain, M. C. D., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption. Product choice or curtailment? Appetite, 91, 375-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.055. Verain, M. C. D., Sijtsema, S. J., & Antonides, G. (2016). Consumer segmentation based on food-category attribute importance: The relation with healthiness and sustainability perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 99-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.012. 30

Verain, M. C. D., Sijtsema, S. J., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2017). Attribute Segmentation and Communication Effects on Healthy and Sustainable Consumer Diet Intentions. Sustainability, 9(5), 743. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9050743. Vermeer, F. (2009). Snackgroenten, een goed gevoel. Kwalitatief onderzoek naar de beleving en het gebruik van snackgroenten. Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections on past behavior: A selfreport index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01951.x Volkow, N. D., & Baler, R. D. (2015). NOW vs LATER brain circuits: implications for obesity and addiction. Trends in neurosciences, 38(6), 345-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.04.002. Warlop, L., & Ratneshwar, S. (1993). The role of usage context in consumer choice: A problem solving perspective. ACR North American Advances.20, 377-382. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (2000). Market Segmentation: conceptual and methodological foundations. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

31

Tables Table 1: Demographics per country NL N 701 Gender (% males) 51 Mean age 45 Age range 18-75

DE 712 50 45 18-78

GB 695 50 44 18-79

PL 626 52 43 18-82

ES 651 51 44 18-82

Table 2: Repeated measure analysis on context-specific food choice motives (Mean(Sd)) Main meal Snack Home Work/ school On the move Home

GR 637 50 43 18-71

FR 649 50 45 18-78

Work/ school 5.74 (1.19)d 5.83 (1.04)c 5.82 (1.03)b 6.11 (.90)b,d 5.57 (1.22)c 5.61 (1.14)a 5.11 (1.46)c 4.98 (1.48)c 5.21 (1.36)c

HR 680 50 43 18-69

RS 710 50 44 18-73

On the move

Health 6.09 (1.01)a 5.88 (1.09)b 5.79 (1.15)c 5.76 (1.19)c,d 5.62 (1.24)e Mood 6.04 (1.00)a 5.87(1.03)b 5.85 (1.04)b,c 5.88 (1.02)b 5.78 (1.07)d Convenient 5.65 (1.20)a 5.80 (1.04)b 5.77 (1.10)b 5.70 (1.07)c 5.83 (1.03)b Taste 6.34 (.81)a 6.14 (.89)b 6.13 (.88)b 6.18 (.86)c 6.07 (.89)d a b c b Natural 5.85 (1.13) 5.66 (1.18) 5.58 (1.23) 5.62 (1.22) 5.47 (1.26)d Price 5.62 (1.19)a 5.63 (1.15)a 5.59 (1.15)a,b 5.54 (1.18)c 5.56 (1.15)b,c Weight control 5.34 (1.47)a 5.20 (1.45)b 5.12 (1.47)c 5.14 (1.48)c 5.02 (1.48)d a b c,d b Familiar 5.17 (1.51) 5.03 (1.47) 4.98 (1.47) 5.04 (1.49) 4.93 (1.48)d a b b,c b Environment 5.36 (1.34) 5.25 (1.35) 5.22 (1.35) 5.25 (1.34) 5.15 (1.36)d a-d Different superscripts per row indicate significant differences * The F-statistic is significant at the p<.001 level. Note: Greenhouse-Geisser correction has been used as the assumption for sphericity was violated. All items were answered on a 1=very unimportant to 7=very important.

F(5,23495)=241.41* F(5,24189)=88.92* F(5,23070)=40.78* F(5,24000)=118.70* F(5,24080)=159.21* F(5,24485)=11.65* F(5,24135)=101.49* F(5,24192)=47.47* F(5,24462)=45.744* 7-point scale from

Table 3: Items and factor loadings (pattern matrix) Main meal Home

Snack Work/ school

on the move

Home

Work/ school

On the move

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Health

.902

-.099

.718

.181

.779

.099

.826

.056

.780

.115

.828

.055

Environment

.633

.174

.905

-.109

.906

-.119

.862

-.048

.893

-.101

.869

-.062

32

Natural

.838

.009

.838

.057

.853

.025

.861

.023

.851

.031

.871

.011

Weight

.485

.242

.790

-.067

.777

-.028

.783

-.045

.766

-.040

.809

-.058

Familiar

.067

.718

.475

.186

.529

.159

.391

.283

.542

.108

.476

.188

Mood

.683

.102

.261

.628

.266

.601

.173

.687

.208

.670

.219

.653

Taste

.663

-.009

-.044

.838

-.078

.838

-.146

.865

-.107

.905

-.102

.888

Price

-.084

.814

-.046

.753

.031

.701

.075

.613

.043

.657

.075

.636

Convenient

.107

.728

.058

.770

-.005

.793

.018

.772

.012

.821

-.036

.839

Cronbachs alpha

.818

.666

.830

.788

.841

.762

.854

.741

.835

.793

.843

.776

Table 4: Items and factor loadings of the second-order factor analysis (pattern matrix) 1 2 Main_Work_Future

.878

.037

Main_Work_Present

.023

.842

Main_Move_Future

.890

.012

Main_Move_Present

.004

.846

Snack_Home_Future

.907

-.023

Snack_Home_Present

.004

.838

Snack_Work_Future

.894

.028

Snack_Work_Present

-.019

.881

Snack_Move_Future

.930

-.041

Snack_Move_Present

-.008

.856

Table 5: Demographic characteristics per segment (%) Future-all Present-all Size (N) Size (%)

1092 24.1

1262 27.8

Future-home and present-other 1989 43.8

Present-home and future-other 193 4.3 33

Gender (% males) 47.2a 55.8b Age (M) 48a 41b Education level(%)  Low 27.4a 35.8b  Middle 31.1 29.2  High 40.3a 32.6b  Refused to say 1.2 2.5 Family income (last month)  Lower than average 21.8a 37.4b  About average 60.6a 51.0b a  Higher than average 17.6 11.6b Country (%)  Netherlands 9.9a 11.9a,b  Germany 15.4a 7.2b a  United Kingdom 8.3 16.3b a  Poland 8.7 12.6b  Spain 11.0 9.6  Greece 12.4a 8.6b  France 10.7 11.1  Croatia 11.6 11.5  Serbia 12.0 11.1 a-c Different superscripts per row indicate significant different

48.3a 43b

60.1b 42b

29.3a 31.1 37.2a 2.4

33.7a,b 30.1 35.2a,b 1.0

29.4c 55.8a 14.8a,b

29.4a,b,c 57.2a,b 13.4a,b

14.5b 13.6a 12.5c 8.4a 10.6 8.2b 9.4 10.0 12.8 percentages.

5.7a 10.9a,b 14.1a,b,c 10.4a,b 14.6 10.9a,b 12.0 9.4 12.0

Table 6: Frequency of total fruit and vegetable consumption, per segment (%) Fruit

Daily 3-6 days a week 1-2 days a week 1-3 days a month Less than 1 day a month Never

Future-all

Present-all

56.5% 29.3% 10.2% 2.5% 1.1% 0.4%

31.5% 32.8% 21.1% 11.0% 2.9% 0.6%

Future-all

Present-all

36.3%

19.3%

Future-home and present-other 43.8% 34.5% 14.4% 5.0% 1.9% 0.4%

Present-home and future-other 49.0% 18.3% 23.1% 5.8% 2.9% 1.0%

Future-home and present-other 27.7%

Present-home and future-other 31.5%

Vegetables

Daily

34

3-6 days a week 41.2% 39.7% 44.1% 1-2 days a week 17.6% 28.0% 22.2% 1-3 days a month 3.2% 7.5% 3.7% Less than 1 day a month 1.1% 3.4% 1.6% Never 0.6% 2.0% 0.6% a-d Different superscripts across rows indicate significant different percentages. Note: All items were answered on a 6-point scale from 1=never to 6=daily.

36.0% 24.7% 6.7% 0.0% 1.1%

Table 7: Habitual fruit and vegetable intake, per segment Future-all

Present-all

Future-home and Present-home and present-other future-other Fruit 5.78a 5.21b 5.52c 5.25b a b c Vegetables 5.85 5.25 5.59 5.42b,c a-b Different superscripts per row indicate significant differences. * The F-statistic is significant at the p<.001 level. Note: All items were answered on a 7-point scale from 1=very unimportant to 7=very important.

F(3,2326)=31,358* F(3,2166)=34.078*

Table 8: Fruit and vegetable consumption across meal moments, per segment Fruit Future-home and present-other 2.80b 2.82a,b 4.06a,b 2.76b

Present-home and future-other 3.25a 3.00a,b 4.02b 3.20a

Future-home and present-other Breakfast 2.27a 1.81b 1.98a,b a b Lunch 4.68 3.82 4.21c a b Snack 2.70 2.05 2.40a Diner 4.52a,b 4.23a 4.44a,b a-d Different superscripts across rows indicate significant different percentages. Note: All items were answered on a 6-point scale from 1=never to 6=daily.

Present-home and future-other 2.29a 4.22c 2.64a 4.56b

Breakfast Lunch Snack Diner

Future-all

Present-all

3.00a,b 3.18a 4.38a 3.19a

2.34c 2.72b 3.92b 2.53b

Future-all

Present-all

Vegetables

35

Table 9: Fruit and vegetable consumption across contexts, per segment Fruit Future-home and present-other 3.17b 2.58b 2.28b 3.86b 3.02a,b 2.63a,b

Present-home and future-other 3.62a 2.95a 2.96a 3.98a,b 3.26a 3.23c

Future-home and present-other Main at home 5.16a 4.65b 4.96a Main at work/school 3.32a 2.75b 2.98a,b Main on the move 3.04a 2.38b 2.58b Snack at home 3.56a 2.85b 3.14b,c a,c b Snack at work/school 2.83 2.20 2.48a,b Snack on the move 2.66a 2.04b 2.31b a-d Different superscripts across rows indicate significant different percentages. Note: All items were answered on a 6-point scale from 1=never to 6=daily.

Present-home and future-other 4.68b 3.22a 3.11a 3.35a,c 2.97c 2.94a

Main at home Main at work/school Main on the move Snack at home Snack at work/school Snack on the move

Future-all

Present-all

3.71a 2.93a 2.67a 4.18a 3.17a 2.87a

3.04b 2.49b 2.21b 3.70b 2.81b 2.43b

Future-all

Present-all

Vegetables

Table 10: Perceptions of fruit and vegetables, per segment Fruit Future-all Present-all Is healthy Makes me feel good Is convenient Tastes good Is natural Is not expensive Helps me control my weight Is familiar Is environmental friendly

6.58a* 6.39a 6.25a 6.47a 6.41a 4.67a,b 5.52a 5.89a 5.81a

6.49a 6.13b 5.92b 6.17b,c 6.26a,b 4.32c 5.02b 5.65a.b 5.59a,b

Future-home and present-other 6.58a 6.24a,b 5.97b 6.29a.b 6.30a 4.37a,c 5.11b,c 5.70a.b 5.51b

Present-home and future-other 6.07b 6.09b 5.89b 6.06c 6.09b 4.77b 5.33a,c 5.62b 5.54b

36

Vegetables Future-all

Present-all

Future-home and Present-home present-other and future-other Is healthy 6.57a* 6.45a 6.54a 6.18b Makes me feel good 6.35a 5.84b 6.14a 5.84b Is convenient 6.12a 5.72b 5.89a,b 5.89b a b c Tastes good 6.28 5.74 6.01 6.05a,c a b a,b Is natural 6.36 6.13 6.25 6.04c Is not expensive 5.11a 4.68b 4.71b 5.14a Helps me control my weight 5.96a 5.25b 5.56c 5.63c a b a,b Is familiar 5.99 5.68 5.76 5.75a,b a b b Is environmental friendly 5.92 5.53 5.57 5.68a,b a-d: different superscripts indicate significant differences between the segments Note: All items were measured on a 7-point scale from 1=very unimportant to 7=very important

37

38

39

The research described in this manuscript is original, unpublished, and is not under review for publication elsewhere. Publication is approved by all authors and by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out. If accepted, the manuscript will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, including electronically without the written consent of the copyright-holder.

40

Highlights 

Four segments are identified based on present versus future food choice motives.



The segments differed in their consumption and perceptions of fruit and vegetables.



Consumers’ motives differ between main meals at home and other contexts.



Targeted approaches to stimulate fruit and vegetable consumption are discussed.

41