Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 120, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-11

  O'Donoghue, Amie C ^a   Williams, Pamela A ^b   Sullivan, Helen W ^a   Boudewyns, Vanessa ^b   Squire, Claudia ^b   Willoughby, Jessica Fitts ^b  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication; Comparative advertising; Direct to consumer (DTC) advertisements; Marketing; Perceived risk; Prescription drugs; United States

Indexed keywords

PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

ADVERTISING; BODY MASS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; DRUG; MARKETING; PERCEPTION;

ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG LABELING; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG MECHANISM; HUMAN; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRINTING; VIDEORECORDING; VISUAL STIMULATION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84907070758     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.039     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ang S.H., Leong S.B. Comparative advertising: superiority despite interference?. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 1994, 11(1):33-46.
2. Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug, 21 C.F.R. §314.126 2008, Retrieved from. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr314.126.pdf.
3. Barone M.J., Rose R.J., Miniard P.W., Manning K.C. Enhancing the detection of misleading comparative advertising. J. Advert. Res. 1999, 39:43-50.
4. Beard F.K. A history of comparative advertising in the United States. Journalism Commun. Monogr. 2013, 15(3):114-216.
5. Bowman M.L. The perfidy of percentiles. Archives Clin. Neuropsychol. 2002, 17(3):295-303.
6. Burke R.J. Deception by implication: an experimental investigation. J. Consumer Res. 1988, 14:483-494.
7. National Health Expenditure Data Fact Sheet 2011, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Retrieved from. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet.html.
8. Cohen D.J., Ferrell J.M., Johnson N. What very small numbers mean. J. Exp. Psychol. General. 2002, 131(3):424-442.
9. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20(1):37-46. 10.1177/001316446002000104.
10. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1969, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
11. Davis J.J. Consumers' preferences for the communication of risk information in drug advertising. Health Aff. 2007, 26(3):863-870.
12. Demirdjian Z.S. Sales effectiveness of comparative advertising: an experimental field investigation. J. Consumer Res. 1983, 10:362-364.
13. Gorn G.J., Weinberg C.B. The impact of comparative advertising on perception and attitude: some positive findings. J. Consumer Res. 1984, 11:719-727.
14. Grewal D., Kavanoor S., Fern E.F., Costley C., Barnes J. Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. J. Mark. 1997, 61(4):1-15.
15. Grossbart S., Muehling D.D., Kangun N. Verbal and visual references to competition in comparative advertising. J. Advert. Res. 1986, 15(1):10-23.
16. Harris R.J. Inferences in information processing. The psychology of learning and motivation 1981, vol. 15:81-128. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
17. Harris R.J., Dubitsky T.M., Bruno K.J. Psycholinguistic studies of misleading advertising. Information Processing Research in Advertising 1983, 241-262. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ. R.J. Harris (Ed.).
18. Hauber A.B., Mohamed A.F., Johnson F.R., Falvey H. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with Type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet. Med. 2009, 26(4):416-424.
19. Hoek J. Ethical and practical implications of pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising. Int. J. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect. Mark. 2008, 13(1):73-87.
20. Iyer E.S. The influence of verbal content and relative newness on the effectiveness of comparative advertising. J. Advert. 1988, 17(3):15-21.
21. Kalro A.D., Sivakumaran B., Marathe R.R. Comparative advertising in India: a content analysis of English print advertisements. J. Int. Consumer Mark. 2010, 22(4):377-394.
22. Kalro A.D., Sivakumaran B., Marathe R.R. Direct or indirect comparative ads: the moderating role of information processing modes. J. Consumer Behav. 2013, 12(2):133-147.
23. Kees J., Bone P.F., Kozup J., Ellen P.S. Barely or fairly balancing drug risks? Content and format effects in direct-to-consumer online prescription drug promotions. Psychol. Mark. 2008, 25(7):675-691.
24. Malaviya P., Kisielius J., Sternthal B. The effect of type of elaboration on advertisement processing and judgment. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33:410-421.
25. Marois R., Ivanoff J. Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends Cognitive Sci. 2005, 9(6):296-305.
26. Miniard P.W., Barone M.J., Rose R.L., Manning K.C. A re-examination of the relative persuasiveness of comparative and noncomparative advertising. Adv. Consumer Res. 1994, 21(1):299-303.
27. Miniard P.W., Rose R.L., Barone M.J., Manning K.C. On the need for relative measures when assessing comparative advertising effects. J. Advert. Res. 1993, 22:41-57.
28. Miniard P.W., Rose R.L., Manning K.C., Barone M.J. Tracking the effects of comparative and noncomparative advertising with relative and nonrelative measures: a further examination of the framing correspondence hypothesis. J. Bus. Res. 1998, 41(2):137-143.
29. Mitra A., Swasy J., Aikin K. How do consumers interpret market leadership claims in direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?. Adv. Consumer Res. 2006, 33:381-387.
30. Pechmann C., Ratneshwar S. The use of comparative advertising for brand positioning: association versus differentiation. J. Consumer Res. 1991, 18:145-160.
31. Pechmann C., Stewart D.W. The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions. J. Consumer Res. 1990, 17(2):180-191.
32. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 19:123-192.
33. Rogers J.C., Williams T.G. Comparative advertising effectiveness: practitioners' perceptions versus academic research findings. J. Advert. Res. 1989, 29(5):22-37.
34. Rose R.L., Miniard P.W., Barone M.J., Manning K.C., Till B.D. When persuasion goes undetected: the case of comparative advertising. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 30(3):315-330.
35. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Welch H.G. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 150(8):516-527.
36. Scott L.M. Images in advertising: the need for a theory of visual rhetoric. J. Consumer Res. 1994, 21(2):252-273.
37. Snyder R. Comparative advertising and brand evaluation: toward developing a categorization approach. J. Consumer Psychol. 1992, 1(1):15-30.
38. Xie G.-X., Boush D.M. How susceptible are consumers to deceptive advertising claims? A retrospective look at the experimental research literature. Mark. Rev. 2011, 11(3):293-314.