Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy Expectations and Adherence: Evidence of Consumer Biases and Heuristics in Pharmaceutical Marketing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation and Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Part of the book series: International Series in Quantitative Marketing ((ISQM,volume 20))

Abstract

Pharmaceutical non-adherence is a major issue in both the United States and worldwide. In fact, lack of medication adherence has been called “America’s other drug problem.” It is estimated that globally only about 50 % of patients take their medicines as prescribed, and in the United States the annual cost of poor adherence has been estimated to be approximately $177 billion. In this chapter, we cull from the vast body of work in consumer behavior those theories of consumer processing that are directly relevant to this behavioral problem. Although many factors influence (non)adherence to medicines, we focus our chapter on perceived efficacy since a consumer’s perception of poor product efficacy is one of the primary reasons for non-adherence with a particular medicine and a major cause of brand switching. We identify the biases, heuristics, and lay theories consumers use to infer and judge pharmaceutical product efficacy at two primary stages of the evaluation process: pre-consumption efficacy expectations that drive initial adherence and post-consumption efficacy judgments that drive continued adherence. For example, consumers employ a no-pain-no-gain rule of thumb when judging product efficacy such that products with stronger side effects or bad taste are judged more effective than those without. Given the detrimental consequences of non-adherence in terms of health risks to consumers and losses for the pharmaceutical industry in general, we suggest that efforts to enhance efficacy perceptions are key in creating value for all constituents in the pharmaceutical marketing chain—from manufacturers to end users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adaval R, Monroe KB (2002) Automatic construction and use of contextual information for product and price evaluations. J Consum Res 28(4):572–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal N, Menon G, Aaker JL (2007) Getting emotional about health. J Mark Res 44(1):100–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Aratani L (2009) Mainstream physicians try such alternatives as herbs, acupuncture and yoga. Washington Post, June 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker SM, Gentry JW, Rittenburg TL (2005) Building understanding of the domain of consumer vulnerability. J Macromark 25(2):128–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Barone MJ, Miniard PW (1999) How and when factual ad claims mislead consumers: examining the deceptive consequences of copy x copy interactions for partial comparative advertisements. J Mark Res 36(1):58–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Batra RK (2009) When good looks kill: an examination of consumer response to visually attractive product design. Adv Consum Res—Asia-Pac Conf Proc 8:252–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker MH (1974) The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 2(4):324–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg JS, Dischler J, Wagner DJ, Raia JJ, Palmer-Shevlin N (1993) Medication compliance: a healthcare problem. Ann Pharmacother 27(Suppl):5–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergus GR, Levin IP, Johnson C (1998) The influence of information order on patient decision making. Med Decis Making 18:460

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergus GR, Levin IP, Elstein AS (2002) Presenting risks and benefits to patients. J Gen Intern Med 17(8):612–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry DC (2006) Informing people about the risks and benefits of medicines: implications for the safe and effective use of medicinal products. Curr Drug Saf 1(1):121–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry DC, Knapp P, Raynor DK (2002) Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet 359(9309):853–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry DC, Raynor DK, Knapp P (2003) Communicating risk of medication side-effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychol Health Med 8(3):251–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman JR, John DR, Scott CA (1986) Covariation assessment by consumers. J Consum Res 13(3):316–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell B, Bloomfield SS, Buncher CR (1972) Demonstration to medical students of placebo responses and non-drug factors. Lancet 299(7763):1279–1282

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding W, Kirmani A (1993) A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? J Consum Res 20(1):111–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman D, Heilman CM, Seetharaman PB (2004) Determinants of product-use compliance behavior. J Mark Res 41:324–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Briesacher BA, Andrade SE, Fouayzi H, Chan A (2008) Comparison of drug adherence rates among patients with seven different medical conditions. Pharmacotherapy 28(4):437–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk SM, Alba JW (1994) The role of consumers’ intuitions in inference-making. J Consum Res 21(3):393–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckalew LW, Coffield KE (1982) An investigation of drug expectancy as a function of capsule color and size and preparation form. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2(4):245–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckalew LW, Ross PJ (1991) Medication property effects on expectations of action. Drug Dev Res 23:101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke RR, DeSarbo WS, Oliver RL, Robertson TS (1988) Deception by implication: an experimental investigation. J Consum Res 14(4):483–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle E, Shafir E (2005) Heuristics and biases in attitudes towards herbal medicines. In: Girotto V, Johnson-Laird PN (eds) The shape of reason: essays in honour of Paolo Legrenzi. Psychology Press, New York, pp 205–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandran S, Menon G (2004) When a day means more than a year: effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. J Consum Res 31(2):375–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernev A, Carpenter GS (2001) The role of market efficiency institutions in consumer choice: a case of compensatory inferences. J Mark Res 38(3):349–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffield KE, Buckalew LW (1988) A study of color preferences for drugs and implications for compliance and drug-taking. J Alcohol Drug Educ 34(1):28–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Corn D (2008) Obama and Clinton debate in Cleveland: no pain, no gain. Mother Jones, February 26. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/02/obama-and-clinton-debate-cleveland-nopain-no-gain. Accessed 29 April 2009

  • Cosmides L, Tooby J (1996) Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions of the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58:1–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox AD, Cox D, Zimet G (2006) Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. J Mark 70:79–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox AD, Cox D, Mantel SP (2010) Consumer response to drug risk information: the role of positive affect. J Mark 74:31–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Creyer EH, Hrsistodoulakis I, Cole CA (2001) Changing a drug from Rx to OTC status: the consumer behavior and public policy implications of switch drugs. J Prod Brand Manage 10(1):52–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Deese J, Kaufman RA (1957) Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material. J Exp Psychol 54(3):180–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Denes-Raj V, Epstein S (1994) Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 66(5):819–829

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D (1991) Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J Mark Res 28(3):307–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Faro D (2010) Changing the future by reshaping the past: the influence of causal beliefs on estimates of time to onset. J Consum Res 37(2):279–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Making 13(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Gana K, Lourel M, Trouillet R, Fort I, Mezred D, Blaison C, Boudjemadi V, K’Delant P, Ledrich J (2010) Judgment of riskiness: impact of personality, naive theories and heuristic thinking among female students. Psychol Health 25(2):131–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev 102:684–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurm H, Litaker DG (2000) Framing procedural risks to patients: is 99% safe the same as a risk of 1 in 100? Acad Med 75(8):840–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern DF, Blackman S, Salzman B (1989) Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety. Appl Cogn Psychol 3(3):251–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Brown SK, Cameron R (2004) Graphic Canadian cigarette warning labels and adverse outcomes: evidence from Canadian smokers. Am J Public Health 94(8):1442–1444

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins SA, Hoch SJ (1992) Low-involvement learning: memory without evaluation. J Consum Res 19(2):212–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins SA, Hoch SJ, Meyers-Levy J (2001) Low-involvement learning: repetition and coherence in familiarity and belief. J Consum Psychol 11(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickx L, Vlek C, Oppewal H (1989) Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgment of risk. Acta Psychol 72(1):41–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill RP (1995) Researching sensitive topics in marketing: the special case of vulnerable populations. J Public Policy Mark 14(1):143–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (2000) Communicating statistical information. Science 290(5500):2261–2262

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy MG (1994) Switch drugs vis-a-vis Rx and OTC: policy, marketing, and research considerations. J Public Policy Mark 13:85–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber J, McCann J (1982) The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. J Mark Res 19(3):324–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilyuk V, Block LG, Faro D (2012) The influence of task difficulty on perceived product efficacy. Working paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Irmak C, Block LG, Fitzsimons G (2005) The placebo effect in marketing: sometimes you just have to want it to work. J Mark Res 42(4):406–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs KW, Nordan PM (1979) Classification of placebo drugs: effect of color. Percept Mot Skills 49(2):367–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RD (1987) Making judgments when information is missing: inferences, biases, and framing effects. Acta Psychol 66(1):69–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RD (1989) Making decisions with incomplete information: the first complete test of the inference model. Adv Consum Res 16(1):522–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RD, Levin IP (1985) More than meets the eye: the effect of missing information on purchase evaluations. J Consum Res 12(2):169–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EJ, Tversky A (1983) Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 45(1):20–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EJ, Meyer RK, Ghose S (1989) When choice models fail: compensatory models in negatively correlated environments. J Mark Res 26(3):255–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EJ, Hershey J, Meszaros J, Kunreuther H (1993) Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J Risk Uncertainty 7(1):35–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardes FR, Cronley ML, Kellaris JJ, Posavac SS (2004a) The role of selective information processing in price-quality inference. J Consum Res 31(2):368–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardes FR, Posavac SS, Cronley ML (2004b) Consumer inferences: a review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. J Consum Psychol 14(3):230–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Katapodi MC, Facione NC, Humphreys JC, Dodd MJ (2005) Perceived breast cancer risk: heuristic reasoning and search for a dominance structure. Soc Sci Med 60(2):421–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC (2004) Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care 13(3):176–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer T, Irmak C, Block L, Ilyuk V (2011) The effect of a no-pain, no-gain lay theory on product efficacy perceptions. Working paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12(2):215–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski A, Webster DM (1996) Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psychol Rev 103(2):263–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale. Med Decis Making 21(1):37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Loden J, Schooler C (2000) Patient compliance. Pharm Exec 20(7):88–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM (1993) The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 8(1):543–548

    Google Scholar 

  • McMorrow B (2002) No pain, no gain. California Law Business, March 18. http://www.mcmorrowsavarese.com/nopainnogain.html. Accessed 29 April 2009

  • McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A (1982) On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 306(21):1259–1262

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon G, Block LG, Ramanathan S (2002) We’re at as much risk as we are led to believe: effects of message cues on judgments of health risk. J Consum Res 28(4):533–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon A, Deshpande A, Perri M, Zinkhan G (2003) Consumers’ attention to the brief summary in print direct-to-consumer advertisements: perceived usefulness in patient-physician discussions. J Public Policy Mark 22:181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council on Patient Information and Education (2007) Enhancing prescription medicine adherence: a national action plan. http://www.talkaboutrx.org/documents/enhancing_prescription_medicine_adherence.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2011

  • Natter HM, Berry DC (2005) Effects of presenting the baseline risk when communicating absolute and relative risk reductions. Psychol Health Med 10(4):326–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Pain D (2009) No pain, no gain: more means less when it comes to profit and loss. The Independent, April 29. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/no-pain-no-gain-more-means-lesswhen-it-comes-to-profit-and-loss-1670308.html. Accessed 29 April 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann C, Ratneshwar S (1992) Consumer covariation judgments: theory or data driven? J Consum Res 19(3):373–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto MB, Leonidas L (1994) The impact of office characteristics on satisfaction with medical care: a ‘before and after’ analysis. Health Mark Q 12(2):43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontes MC, Pontes NM (1997) Variables that influence consumers’ inferences about physician ability and accountability. Health Care Manage Rev 22(2):7–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Purohit D, Srivastava J (2001) Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: a cue diagnosticity framework. J Consum Psychol 10(3):123–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghunathan R, Naylor RW, Hoyer WD (2006) The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. J Mark 70:170–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao AR, Monroe KB (1989) The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: an integrative review. J Mark Res 26(3):351–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees D (2006) Feelings outweigh facts. Suppl Pharm Exec 5(6):28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendón LI, Gans WL, Calleroz MD (1998) No pain, no gain: assessing the learning curve of collaboratives. New Dir Community Coll 103:71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich Y, Hsee CK (2001) Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 12(3):185–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich Y, Kivetz R (2006) On decision making without likelihood judgment. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 101(1):74–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Roullet B, Droulers O (2005) Pharmaceutical packaging color and drug expectancy. Adv Consum Res 32(1):164–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields C (2005) Conceptions of ‘natural’ in the domain of foods in France, Germany, Italy, U.K., and the USA. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D, Swerdlin A, Wood K (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43(2):147–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabate E (2003) Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Sallis RE, Buckalew LW (1984) Relation of capsule color and perceived potency. Percept Mot Skills 58(3):897–898

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 127(11):966–972

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N (2002) Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: cognitive tuning. In: Feldman Barrett L, Salovey P (eds) The wisdom in feelings. Guilford, New York, pp 144–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N, Song H, Xu J (2009) When thinking is difficult: metacognitive experiences as information. In: Wänke M (ed) Social psychology of consumer behavior. Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp 201–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Scitovszky T (1945) Some consequences of the habit of judging quality by price. Rev Econ Stud 12(2):100–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan SL, Pignone M (2002) Numeracy and the medical student’s ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract 5(1):35–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimp TA (1978) Do incomplete comparisons mislead? J Advertising Res 18:21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiv B, Carmon Z, Ariely D (2005) Placebo effects of marketing actions: consumers may get what they pay for. J Mark Res 42(4):383–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (1997) Communicating low risk magnitudes: incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Anal 17(4):507–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Skurnik I, Yoon C, Park DC, Schwarz N (2005) How warnings about false claims become recommendations. J Consum Res 31(4):713–724

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG (2000) Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav 24:271–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) Rational actions or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. J Socio-Econ 31(4):329–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, MacGregor DG (2005) Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol 24(4):S35–S40

    Google Scholar 

  • Song H, Schwarz N (2009) If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Psychol Sci 20(2):135–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams S, Podd J (2004) The placebo effect: dissolving the expectancy versus conditioning debate. Psychol Bull 130(2):324–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone ER, Frank Yates J, Parker AM (1994) Risk communication: absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60(3):387–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilson HH (2004) Adherence or compliance? Changes in terminology. Ann Pharmacother 38:161–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Turett N (2005) Communications delivery chain. Pharm Exec 25(10):126–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade G, Vrain KS (2005) Perfect package. Pharm Exec 24(10):114–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Keh HT, Bolton LE (2010) Lay theories of medicine and a healthy lifestyle. J Consum Res 37(1):80–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanke M, Bohner G, Jurkowitsch A (1997) There are many reasons to drive a BMW: does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? J Consum Res 24(2):170–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Wosinska M (2005) Direct-to-consumer advertising and drug therapy compliance. J Mark Res 42:323–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer RS (2004) Social comparison and judgment: the role of situation models, narratives, and implicit theories. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi K (1997) When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:495–506

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baruch College, City University of New York, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY, 10010, US

    Veronika Ilyuk & Lauren Block

  2. Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, 310 Herty Drive, Athens, GA, 30602, US

    Caglar Irmak

  3. University of South Carolina, 1705 College Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, US

    Thomas Kramer

Authors
  1. Veronika Ilyuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caglar Irmak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lauren Block
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronika Ilyuk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

    Min Ding

  2. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Jehoshua Eliashberg

  3. Department of Business Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Stefan Stremersch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ilyuk, V., Irmak, C., Kramer, T., Block, L. (2014). Efficacy Expectations and Adherence: Evidence of Consumer Biases and Heuristics in Pharmaceutical Marketing. In: Ding, M., Eliashberg, J., Stremersch, S. (eds) Innovation and Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry. International Series in Quantitative Marketing, vol 20. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7801-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation