Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 271–279 | Cite as

Feeling Is Believing: Evaluative Conditioning and the Ethics of Pharmaceutical Advertising

  • Paul Biegler
  • Patrick Vargas
Original Research


A central goal in regulating direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals (DTCA) is to ensure that explicit drug claims are truthful. Yet imagery can also alter viewer attitudes, and the degree to which this occurs in DTCA is uncertain. Addressing this data gap, we provide evidence that positive feelings produced by images can promote favourable beliefs about pharmaceuticals. We had participants view a fictitious anti-influenza drug paired with unrelated images that elicited either positive, neutral or negative feelings. Participants who viewed positive images rated the influenza drug as significantly more effective, safe, and beneficial than did participants who viewed negative images. This effect, known as evaluative conditioning, is well described in experimental social psychology but has not previously been shown with pharmaceuticals. We discuss how evaluative conditioning in DTCA may compromise viewer autonomy, and canvass possible regulatory responses.


Autonomy Behavioural research Drugs and drug industry Health promotion Informed consent 


  1. Aikin, K.J., J.L. Swasy, and A.C. Braman. 2004. Patient and physician attitudes and behaviors associated with DTC promotion of prescription drugs—summary of FDA survey research results. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
  2. Almasi, E.A., R.S. Stafford, R.L. Kravitz, and P.R. Mansfield. 2006. What are the public health effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising? PLoS Medicine 3(3): e145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Berinksy, A.J., G.A. Huber, and G.S. Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biegler, P., and P. Vargas. 2013. Ban the sunset? Nonpropositional content and regulation of pharmaceutical advertising. The American Journal of Bioethics 13(5): 3–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, M.M., and P.J. Lang. 2007. The international affective digitized sounds: Affective ratings of sounds and instruction manual, 2nd ed., IADS-2. Gainesville: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  6. Brass, E.P. 2001. Changing the status of drugs from prescription to over-the-counter availability. The New England Journal of Medicine 345(11): 810–816.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownfield, E.D., J.M. Bernhardt, J.L. Phan, M.V. Williams, and R.M. Parker. 2004. Direct-to-consumer drug advertisements on network television: an exploration of quantity, frequency, and placement. Journal of Health Communication 9(6): 491–497.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De Houwer, J. 2009. Conditioning as a source of liking: There is nothing simple about it. In Social psychology of consumer behavior, edited by M. Wanke, 151–166. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. De Houwer, J., F. Baeyens, and P. Eelen. 1994. Verbal evaluative conditioning with undetected US presentations. Behaviour Research and Therapy 32(6): 629–633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Faden, R.R., T.L. Beauchamp, and N.M.P. King. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Improving public health through human drugs. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.Google Scholar
  12. Food and Drug Administration. 2009. Guidance for industry: Presenting risk information in prescription drug and medical device promotion. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.Google Scholar
  13. Food and Drug Administration. 2011. A supplementary test of distraction in DTC advertising using an implicit measure, the affect misattribution procedure. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.Google Scholar
  14. Food and Drug Administration. 2012. Be smart about prescription drug advertising: A guide for consumers. Accessed June 16, 2015.
  15. Food and Drug Administration. 2015. The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP). Accessed June 16, 2015.
  16. Gilbody, S., P. Wilson, and I. Watt. 2005. Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: A systematic review. Quality and Safety in Health Care 14(4): 246–250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasman, A., and S. Holm. 2006. Direct-to-consumer advertising: Should there be a free market in healthcare information? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15(1): 42–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, A.F. 2013. An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hofmann, W., J. De Houwer, M. Perugini, F. Baeyens, and G. Crombez. 2010. Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 136(3): 390–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollon, M.F. 2005. Direct-to-consumer advertising: A haphazard approach to health promotion. The Journal of the American Medical Association 293(16): 2030–2033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kravitz, R.L., R.M. Epstein, M.D. Feldman, et al. 2005. Influence of patients’ requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association 293(16): 1995–2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Krosnick, J.A., L.J. Jussim, and A.R. Lynn. 1992. Subliminal conditioning of attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(2): 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Labovitz, S. 1967. Some observations on measurement and statistics. Social Forces 46(2): 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lang P.J., M.M. Bradley, and B.N. Cuthbert. 2008. International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, technical report A-8.Google Scholar
  25. Lazarou, J., B.H. Pomeranz, and P.N. Corey. 1998. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. The Journal of the American Medical Association 279(15): 1200–1205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Limbu, Y.B., B.A. Huhmann, and R.T. Peterson. 2012. An examination of humor and endorser effects on consumers’ responses to direct-to-consumer advertising: The moderating role of product involvement. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing 6(1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mintzes, B. 2009. Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs? No. Canadian Family Physician 55(2): 131–133.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mintzes, B. 2012. Advertising of prescription-only medicines to the public: Does evidence of benefit counterbalance harm? Annual Review of Public Health 33: 259–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Paolacci, G., J. Chandler, and P.G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5(5): 411–419.Google Scholar
  30. Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pfizer. Lipitor Medication. 2010. [Commercial]. Accessed June 16, 2015.
  32. Pleyers, G., O. Corneille, O. Luminet, and V. Yzerbyt. 2007. Aware and (dis)liking: Item-based analyses reveal that valence acquisition via evaluative conditioning emerges only when there is contingency awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(1): 130–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Redelmeier, D.A., and D. Kahneman. 1996. Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 66(1): 3–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schachtman, T.R., J. Walker, and S. Fowler. 2011. Effects of conditioning in advertising. In Associative learning and conditioning theory: Human and non-human applications, edited by T.R. Schachtman and S. Reilly, 481–506. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, L.M., S. Woloshin, and H.G. Welch. 2009. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 150(8): 516–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Skene, L., and R. Smallwood. 2002. Informed consent: Lessons from Australia. British Medical Journal 324(7328): 39–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, P.W., R.A. Feinberg, and D.J. Burns. 1998. An examination of classical conditioning principles in an ecologically valid advertising context. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 6(1): 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sweldens, S., S.M.J. Van Osselaer, and C. Janiszewski. 2010. Evaluative conditioning procedures and the resilience of conditioned brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research 37(October): 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swinburne, R. 2001. Epistemic justification. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Traylor, M. 1983. Ordinal and interval scaling. Journal of the Market Research Society 25(4): 297–303.Google Scholar
  41. Ventola, C.L. 2011. Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: therapeutic or toxic? Pharmacy & Therapeutics 36(10): 669–684.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Human Bioethics, School of Philosophical, Historical and International StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Department of AdvertisingUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations