“Give me happiness vs. Take away our pain:” Consumers’ motivation in responding to prescription drug advertising. Nithima Sumpradit, PhD 1 Frank J. Ascione, PharmD. PhD 2 Richard P. Bagozzi, PhD 3 1 Thai Food and Drug Administration 2 University of Michigan, College of Pharmacy
Nithima Sumpradit, PhD1
Frank J. Ascione, PharmD. PhD2
Richard P. Bagozzi, PhD3
1 Thai Food and Drug Administration
2 University of Michigan, College of Pharmacy
3 Rice University, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management
Problem Statement: Although direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is banned in Thailand, it recently became a global phenomenon largely because of advances in information technology. Proponents suggest that DTCA educates consumers about diseases and treatment. Opponents argue that DTCA misleads consumers and causes irrational drug use. Understanding the effects of DTCA can assist policy makers in making informed, appropriate decisions on this issue.
Objective: To determine how DTCA motivates consumers, based on self-regulatory focus and self-construal orientation. Self-regulatory focus posits that behavior is regulated by two systems: promotion (emphasizing achievements) and prevention (emphasizing safety/obligations). Self-construal orientation suggests that behavior is guided by two self-views: independent self (emphasizing self-fulfillment/uniqueness) and interdependent self (emphasizing family/social relationships). The independent self emphasizes self-fulfillment and therefore is compatible with a focus on promotion. The interdependent self emphasizes maintaining relationships and avoiding mistakes, and therefore is consistent with a focus on prevention. We hypothesized that goal-compatible ads will lead to more favorable attitudes toward the ad and the brand advertised, greater intention to act and greater likelihood of action, and more perceived benefits and fewer perceived risks of the product. We also hypothesized that prevention ads will elicit better recall of risk information, more negative emotions, and fewer positive emotions than promotion ads.
Design: A 2 (independence vs. interdependence) × 2 (promotion vs. prevention) factorial design was used.
Setting and Study Population: A random sample of 220 females aged 40 years or older, who work at a large university but are not faculty members or healthcare professionals/practitioners, were randomly assigned to view one of the four mock ads for an anti-hyperlipidemia drug and complete a questionnaire.
Outcome Measures: Main outcome measures included attitude toward the ad and the brand advertised, intention to act, likelihood of action, perceived benefits and risks of the drug, emotional response, and recall of risk information. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and ANCOVA.
Results: Results partially supported the hypotheses regarding goal-compatibility and emotional responses to the ad. Surprisingly, results for recall of risk information were opposite to those hypothesized. Subgroup analysis showed that individuals with a positive or neutral attitude toward DTCA reacted to ads consistently with our predictions, whereas those with a negative attitude toward DTCA reacted to the same message in the opposite way to what we predicted.
Conclusions: The motivational themes in DTCA affect consumer behavior. The impact is a function of the interaction between the themes and the pre-existing attitudes of consumers.
Submitted: February 15, 2004
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 1- 04.01.04
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 2- 04.01.04
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 3- 04.01.04
H 1 – 6: Ads with goal compatibility will elicit 1) more favorable ad attitude, 2) more positive brand attitude, 3) greater intention-to-act, 4) greater likelihood-of-action, 5) higher perceived drug’s benefits, and 6) lower perceived drug’s risks.
H 7: Prevention focused ads will elicit better recall of risk information.
H 8a: Promotion focused ads will elicit more positive emotional responses to the ad. H 8b: Prevention focused ads will elicit more negative emotional responses to the ad.
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 4- 04.01.04
Design: A 2 (promotion vs. prevention) x 2 (independence vs. interdependence) factorial design
- Females - Age 40 years old or older- Work or used to work at U of M - Living in Ann Arbor or nearby areas- Not faculty members or health practitioners
- An invitation letter with a follow-up postcard- Incentive- Accommodating sessions
Data collection procedures:
- A random sample of 234 subjects attended the session (17.7% response rate). - They were randomly assigned to view one of the four mock ads for cholesterol-lowering drug (Travacor) and completed a questionnaire. - Of a total of 234, a sample of 220 yield useable questionnaires.
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 5- 04.01.04
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 6- 04.01.04
The purpose of the subgroup analysis is to reduce within group error variance
Total sample N = 220
Positive/Neutral DTCA attitude N = 95
Negative DTCA attitude N = 102
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 7- 04.01.04
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 8- 04.01.04
(Scale from 1 = definitely not to talk to 5 = definitely yes to talk with MD)Example of profile plot: Simple main effects
Positive/Neutral DTCA attitude
Negative DTCA attitude
- Interaction effects are in the predicted direction
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 9- 04.01.04
* Opposite direction
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 10- 04.01.04
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 11- 04.01.04
Public policy implications
Motivation & DTC advertising-Slide 12- 04.01.04