Psychologie & gezondheid

, 39:224 | Cite as

‘Betaserc® is beter’

Het derdepersoonseffect in reacties op publieksreclame voor medicijnen
  • Sandra Zwier
  • Wenda Bolink

‘Betaserc® is better’. The third-person effect in reactions to direct-to-consumer advertising

The present experimental study investigated Dutch respondents’ reactions to direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs (DTCA), whereby the focus was on the third-person effect. As well, on the role of the endorser’s supposed expertise and the seriousness of side-effects displayed in the advertisements in shaping these reactions. Results suggest that negative reactions to DTCA concerned the tolerability and appreciation of the advertisements more than the advertised drugs or interest in trying the drug per se, suggesting that Dutch reactions to DTCA are at least partly shaped by a third-person effect in the appraisal of controversial media content. In line with the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, the third-person perspective in the appraisal of the DTCA’s was further found to manifest particularly under conditions of the ‘peripheral cues’ of expert endorsement and milder side-effects. Discussion focuses among others on the role of the third-person effect in shaping negative media coverage of DTCA.


  1. Abel, G.A., Neufeld, E.J., & Sorel, M. (2008). Direct-to-consumer advertising for bleeding disorders: A content-analysis and expert evaluation of advertising claims. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostatis, 6, 1680–1684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An, S. (2007). Attitude towards direct-to-consumer advertising and drug inquiry intention: The moderating effect of perceived knowledge. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 567–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, D. (2001). Competing in the new economy. European Business Journal, 13, 119–126.Google Scholar
  4. Biswas, D., Biswas, A., & Das, N. (2006). The differential effects of celebrity and expert endorsements on consumer risk perceptions: The role of consumer knowledge, perceived congruency, and product technology orientation. Journal of Advertising, 35, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitner, M.J., & Obermiller, C. (1985). The ElaborationLikelihood Model: Limitations and extensions in marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 420–425.Google Scholar
  6. Boden, W.E., & Diamond, G.A. (2008). DTCA for PTCA: Crossing the line in consumer health education? New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2197–2200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolink, W. (2010). DTC-reclame voor geneesmiddelen: Verziekfarma of informatiebron? Doctoraalscriptie Communicatiewetenschap, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Bouma, J. (2007, 24 oktober). Patiënt is er niet voor de marketing. Trouw, artikel 1490028. Gevonden op 23 september 2010, op
  9. Chapin, J.R. (2000). Third person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at risk youth. Communication Research, 27, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, T.P., Ascione, F.J., & Bagozzi, R.P. (1997). Understanding how elderly patients process drug information: A test of a theory of information processing. Pharmaceutical Research, 14, 1589–1596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darby, M. R., & Karney, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davison, W.P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dehue, T. (2005). Verdienen aan neerslachtigheid. Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, 60, 223–234.Google Scholar
  14. Dens, N., Eagle, L., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2008). Attitudes and self-reported behavior of patients, doctors and pharmacists in New Zealand and Belgium towards direct-to-consumer advertising of medication. Health Communication, 23, 45–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erdogan, Z.B. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hollon, M.F. (2005). Direct to consumer advertising: A haphazard approach to health promotion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 2030–2033.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huh, J., DeLorme, D.E., & Reid, L.N. (2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context. Communication Research, 31, 568–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huh, J., DeLorme, D.E., & Reid, L.N. (2006). Perceived effects of direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising on self and others: A third-person effect study of older consumers. Journal of Advertising, 35, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hypeziektes (2009, 28 februari). Tros Radar. Gevonden op 23 september 2010, op &cHash=d5ef7e399e3ae47378102b1a765ef59b
  20. Kas, A. (2008, 28 oktober). Regels reclame medicijnen mogelijk versoepeld., artikel 2040290. Gevonden op 23 september 2010, op
  21. Kravitz, R.L., Epstein, R.M., Feldman, M.D., Franz, C.E., Azari, R., et al. (2005). Influence of patients’ requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants. Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA, 293, 1995–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lau, Y. (2005). Is banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicine justified paternalism? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2, 69–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lord, K., & Putrevu, S. (2009). The effects of information and transformational motivations on responses towards celebrity endorsements. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 291–293.Google Scholar
  24. McLeod, D.M., Detenber, B.H., & Eveland, W.P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McLeod, D.M., Eveland, W.P., & Nathanson, A.I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics. Communication Research, 24, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mintzes, B. (2009). Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: NO. Canadian Family Physician, 55, 131–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 673–675.Google Scholar
  28. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. “Reclame Oralgen misleidend”. (2008). Medisch Contact, 63, 1577.Google Scholar
  30. Rossiter, J.R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising communications & promotion management. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  31. “Run op arts na spot kalknagels”. (2005, 15 augustus). Trouw, artikel 1431504. Gevonden op 23 september 2010, op
  32. Steenhorst, R. (2006, 15 april). Ziek van medicijn-maffia [elektronische versie]. Telegraaf. Gevonden op 23 september 2010, op
  33. Tan, S.J. (1999). Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in Internet shopping. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trampe, D., Stapel, D.A., & Siero, F.W. (2010). Beauty as a tool: The effect of model attractiveness, product relevance, and elaboration likelihood on advertising effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 1101–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works. What do we really know? Journal of Marketing, 63, 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Velo, G., & Moretti, U. (2008). Direct-to-consumer information in Europe: The blurred margin between promotion and information. British Journal of Clinical Pharmalogy, 66, 626–628.Google Scholar
  37. Verboden reclame voor geneesmiddelen op Internet. (2008). Gevonden op 2 oktober 2010, op
  38. Wei, R,., Lo, V.H., & Lu, H.Y. (2010). The third-person effect of tainted food product recall news: Examining the role of credibility, attention and elaboration for college students in Taiwan. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 598–614.Google Scholar
  39. “Werken aan de afzetmarkt”. (2007). Huisarts en Wetenschap, 50, 82.Google Scholar
  40. White, H.A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 557–564.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, E.J., & Sherrell, D.L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Youn, S., Faber, R.J., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 633–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zwier, S., & Boekhorst A. (2010). Vraag uw huisarts om meer informatie: Van reclame voor receptgebonden medicijnen tot doktersrecept. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 38, 86–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn, Stafleu van Loghum 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Zwier
    • 1
  • Wenda Bolink
    • 1
  1. 1.Afdeling CommunicatiewetenschapUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations