As consumers are increasingly exposed to direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, critics are concerned about frequent uses of emotional appeals and influential endorsers that may mislead consumers’ judgments in favor of the advertised drug. To investigate this issue, we developed a set of hypotheses based on the marketing and consumer behavior literature and tested independent and interactive effects of fear appeal and endorser types (physician, peer, and no endorser) on consumers’ cognitive and attitudinal responses to direct-to-consumer ads. Results from an experiment suggest that the endorser and fear appeal can influence consumers’ evaluation of the ad message, but do not necessarily overpower their judgments regarding the drug. Findings on the interactive effects suggest that direct-to-consumer advertisers must give a careful consideration to the right match of an endorser type and an emotional appeal to avoid any negative unintended effects. Implications for future research and practices for direct-to-consumer advertising are discussed.
KesslerDAPinesWL. The federal regulation of prescription drug advertising and promotion. J Am Med Assoc1990; 264(18): 2409–2415.
2.
Media IntelligenceTNS. Ad$pender [Database], New York: TNS Media Intelligence, 2012.
3.
FroschDLKruegerPMHornickRC. Creating demand for prescription drugs: A content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising. Ann Fam Med2007; 5(January/February): 6–13.
SokolJWackowskiOLewisMJ. Marketing pharmaceutical drugs to women in magazines: A content analysis. Am J Health Behav2010; 34(4): 402–411.
7.
Federal Trade Commission. In the matter of request for comments on consumer-directed promotionhttp://www.ftc.gov/be/v040002 text.pdf (accessed 20 February 2012).
8.
KelmanHC. Processes of opinion change. Publ Opin Quart1961; 25(1): 57–78.
9.
SimonsHWBerkowitzNNMoyerRJ. Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychol Bull1970; 73(1): 1–16.
10.
BriñolPPettyRE. Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. Eur J Soc Psychol2009; 20: 49–96.
FeickLHigieRA. The effects of preference heterogeneity and source characteristics on ad processing and judgments about endorsers. J Advert1992; 21(Summer): 9–24.
13.
StaffordMRStaffordTFDayE. A contingency approach: The effects of spokesperson type and service type on service advertising perceptions. J Advert2002; 31(Summer): 17–35.
14.
LordKRPutrevuS. Informational and transformational responses to celebrity endorsements. J Curr Issue Res Advert2009; 31(Spring): 1–13.
15.
KahleLRHomerPM. Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. J Consum Res1985; 11(March): 954–961.
16.
PettyRECacioppoJT. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
FloraJAMaibachEW. Cognitive responses to AIDS information: The effects of issue involvement and message appeal. Commun Res1990; 17(6): 759–774.
19.
LeeJSDavieW. Audience recall of AIDS PSAs among U.S. and international college students. Journ Mass Commun Quart1997; 74(1): 7–22.
20.
SantaAFCochranBN. Does the impact of anti-drinking and driving public service announcements differ based on message type and viewer characteristics?J Drug Educ2008; 38(2): 109–129.
21.
RayMLWilkieWL. Fear: The potential of an appeal neglected by marketing. J Market1970; 34(January): 54–62.
22.
HenthorneTLLaTourMSNataraajanR. Fear appeals in print advertising: An analysis of arousal and ad response. J Advert1993; 22(2): 59–69.
23.
LangA. Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. J Commun2006; 56: s57–s80.
24.
NorrisRLBaileyRLBollsPD. Effects of emotional tone and visual complexity on processing health information in prescription drug advertising. Health Commun2012; 27: 42–48.
25.
TiedensLLintonS. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. J Person Soc Psychol2001; 81(6): 973–988.
26.
GriskeviciusVGoldsteinNJMortensenCR. Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion. J Market Res2009; 46(June): 384–395.
27.
SchwarzNCloreGL. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. J Person Soc Psychol1983; 45: 512–523.
28.
LazarusRS. How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. Sport Psychol2000; 14(3): 229–252.
29.
RosemanIJWiestCSwartzTS. Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. J Person Soc Psychol1994; 67(2): 206–221.
RogersRW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol1975; 91: 93–114.
32.
WitteK. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr1992; 59(4): 329–349.
33.
TannerJF. Read this or die: A cognitive approach to an appeal to emotions. Int J Advert2006; 25(3): 414–416.
34.
KavadasCKatsanisLPLeBelF. The effects of risk disclosure and ad involvement on consumers in DTC advertising. J Consum Market2007; 24(3): 171–179.
35.
PharmaceuticalExecutive. The secret of my success. 2007; 27(7): 82–83.
36.
JonesLWSinclairRCCourneyaKS. The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. J Appl Soc Psychol2003; 33(1): 179–196.
37.
MillerCHLaneLTDeatrickLM. Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Commun Res2007; 33(2): 219–240.
38.
QuickBLBatesBR. The use of gain- or loss-frame messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. J Health Commun2010; 15: 603–628.
39.
HewgillMAMillerGR. Source credibility and response to fear-arousing communications. Speech Monogr1965; 32(June): 95–101.
40.
GreenwaldAGCognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In: GreenwaldAGBrockTCOstromTM (eds). Psychological foundations of attitudes, New York: Academic Press, 1968; 147–170.
VargasS. Under pressure. Pharmaceut Execut2008; 28(May): 87–94.
43.
de HoogNStroebeWde WitJBF. The impact of vulnerability to and severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications: A meta-analysis. Rev Gen Psychol2007; 11(Autumn): 258–285.
44.
LaczniakRNMuehlingDD. The relationship between experimental manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising message involvement context. J Advert1993; 22(Autumn): 59–74.
45.
ZhangY. Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating effect of need for cognition. J Advert1996; 25(Spring): 15–32.
46.
MacKenzieSBLutzRJ. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. J Market1989; 53(April): 48–65.
47.
HuhJDeLormeDEReidLN. Factors affecting trust in on-line prescription drug information and impact of trust on behavior following exposure to DTC advertising. J Health Commun2005; 10(December): 711–731.
48.
LernerJSKeltnerD. Fear, anger, and risk. J Person Soc Psychol2001; 81(January): 146–159.
49.
OhanianR. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J Advert1990; 19(Autumn): 39–52.
50.
RifonNJChoiSMTrimbleCS. Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. J Advert2004; 33(Spring): 29–42.
51.
MittalB. A comparative analysis of four scales of consumer involvement. Psychol Market1995; 12(July): 663–682.
52.
HovlandCIJanisILKellyHH. Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953.
53.
CopeFRichardsonD. The effects of reassuring recommendations in a fear-arousing speech. Speech Monogr1972; 39(2): 148–150.
54.
ArtzNTyboutAM. The moderating impact of quantitative information on the relationship between source credibility and persuasion: A persuasion knowledge model interpretation. Market Lett1999; 10(January): 51–62.
55.
LeshnerGBollsPThomasE. Scare ’em or disgust ’em: The effects of graphic health promotion messages. Health Commun2009; 24: 447–458.
