Diversity effects 2
Demographic Diversity and Effective Message Design
The rationale of audience segmentation is that the effectiveness of a message increases
when the content and format of that message closely match dimensions that typify a particular
segment, given that those dimensions are associated with the target behavior (Burgoon, 1996;
Maibach, Maxfield, Ladin & Slater, 1996; Slater, 1995). Thus, before one can think about
creating messages one needs to conduct comprehensive formative research in order to identify
dimensions on which members of the population differ. On the basis of these dimensions one can
specify segments, and the differences between these segments may call for very different
messages (Fishbein, 2000). Of course, populations can differ on numerous dimensions, and
taking all of these dimensions into account to divide a population yields more segments than one
can or even should target (Atkin, 2002). A successful campaign’s segmentation strategy is to use
dimensions that discriminate best between subgroups and that are strongly related to the target
behavior. Only then will group identification facilitate message design in order to address the
particular needs of audience members within each group (Albrecht & Bryant, 1996).
An important question remains how exactly one can determine valid segmentation
dimensions. The literature suggests a number of systematic and often mathematically
sophisticated approaches. In practice, these methods may be too complex. Indeed, many health
interventions’ segmentation strategies seemingly rely on selecting variables that on the one hand
can easily be identified, and on the other hand can readily be used to design campaign messages,
e.g., ethnicity, gender and/or age. It seems obvious that such strategies will not necessarily be
effective. But how, then, should the health educator determine whether these dimensions are
important? Recall that stratification by ethnicity, gender and age can only be an effective
Convention