The Effects of Print Format in Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements on Risk Knowledge and Preference


This research examined the effects of format in print direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements in communicating benefit and risks. Print advertisements for sixfictitious drugs were created. Each drug was manipulated on the basis of six conditions, differing on the basis of color and the integration or separation of the benefit and risk information. A sixth condition (control) lacked risk information. Participants were presented with the DTC advertisements. Performance on a subsequent knowledge test of benefit and risk information was measured. Later participants were shown six advertisements of a single drug advertisement each representing the manipulations and were asked to rank them on perceived effectiveness of communicating drug benefits and risks. Results showed that the presence of physical features (eg, color) that distinguish the risk information from other text facilitated knowledge acquisition and increased perceived effectiveness ranks. Implications for the presentation of print risk information in advertisements are discussed.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 189

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.


  1. 1.

    Wogalter MS. Knowledge gained about prescription drug benefits and risks from DTC print advertisements as a function of warning format. Presented at the DIA 37th Annual Meeting, July 7-12, 2001, Denver, CO.

  2. 2.

    Wogalter M, Paine C, Mills B, Smith-Jackson T. Application of cognitive principles to the design of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1999;515–519.

  3. 3.

    Food and Drug Administration. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Portions Revised or New as Amended by the FDA Modernization Act of 1997. Subchapter D. Section 551.360 (a). Requirements for Dissemination of Treatment Information on Drugs or Devices. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 1998.

  4. 4.

    Pines WL. New challenges for medical product promotion and its regulation. Food Drug Law J. 1997; 52:61–65.

  5. 5.

    DiMatteo MR, Friedmen HS. Social Psychology and Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain; 1982.

  6. 6.

    Prevention Magazine. National Survey of Consumer Reactions to Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Em-maus. PA: Rodale Press; 1998.

  7. 7.

    Grant N. Prescription drugs: Concerns and controversies of direct-to-consumer advertisements. Cornell Political Forum. 1998:12:15–18.

  8. 8.

    American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy Statement: Prescription Drug Advertising Direct to the Consumer (RE9212). Pediatrics. 1991;88:174–175.

  9. 9.

    National Consumers League. Health Care Information and the Consumer: A Public Opinion Survey. Washington, DC: National Consumers League; 1998.

  10. 10.

    Davis JJ. Riskier than we think?: The relationship between risk statement completeness and perceptions of direct to consumer advertised prescription drugs. J Health Commun. 2000:5:349–369.

  11. 11.

    Steering Committee for the Collaborative Development of a Long-Range Action Plan for the Provision of Useful Prescription Medicine Information. Action Plan for the Provision of Useful Prescription Medicine Information. Keystone, CO: Keystone Center; 1996.

  12. 12.

    Laughery KR, Wogalter MS, Young SL, eds. Human Factors Perspectives on Warnings: Selections from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meetings 1980-1993. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1994.

  13. 13.

    Miller JM, Lehto MR. Warnings and Safety Instructions: Annotated and Indexed. Ann Arbor. MI: Fuller Technical Publications: 2001.

  14. 14.

    Wogalter MS, Young SL. Laughery KR. eds. Human Factors Perspectives on Warnings, Volume 2: Selections from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meetings 1993-2000. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2001.

  15. 15.

    Hartley J. Designing instruction text for older readers: A literature review. Br J Educa Tech. 2001,25: 172–188.

  16. 16.

    Wogalter MS, Shaver EF. Evaluation of list vs. paragraph text format on search time for warning symptoms in a product manual. In Bittner Jr, AC, Champ-ney PC, and Morrissey SJ, eds. Advances Occup Ergonomics Safety. Louisville, KY: IOS Press and Ohmsha; 2001:434–438.

  17. 17.

    Barlow T, Wogalter MS. Alcoholic beverage warnings in magazine and television advertisements. J Consumer Research. 1993;20:147–156.

  18. 18.

    Wickens C D. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1992.

  19. 19.

    Wickens CD, Carswell CM. The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and its relevance to display design. Human Factors. 1995; 37:473–494.

  20. 20.

    Buttigieg MA, Sanderson PM. Emergent features in visual display design for two types of failure detection tasks. Human Factors. 1991:33:631–651.

  21. 21.

    Young SL, Wogalter MS. Comprehension and memory of instruction manual warnings: Conspicuous print and pictorial icons. Human Factors. 1990:32: 637–649.

  22. 22.

    ANSI. Product Safety Signs and Labels: American National Standard Z535.4. Arlington, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1998.

  23. 23.

    Rashid R, Wogalter MS. Effects of warning border color, width, and design on perceived effectiveness. In Das B. Karwowski W. eds. Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety. II. Louisville, KY: IOS Press and Ohmsha: 1997:455–458.

  24. 24.

    Wogalter MS, Kaisher MJ, Frederick LJ, Magurno AB, Brewster BM. Hazard level perceptions of warning components and configurations. Int J Cognitive Ergonomics. 1998;2:123–143.

  25. 25.

    Sadler-Smith E. “Learning style”: Frameworks and instruments. Educat Psychol. 1997;17:51–63.

  26. 26.

    Smith PJ. Technology student learning preferences and the design of flexible learning programs. Instructional Science. 2001;29:237–254.

  27. 27.

    Walker D, Dubitsky TM. Why liking matters. J Adverts Research. 1994;34:9–18.

  28. 28.

    Allen PA, Coyne AC. Are there age differences in chunking? J Gerontol. 1989;44:181–183.

  29. 29.

    Guttentag RE, Hunt RR. Adult age differences in memory for imagined and performed actions. J Gerontol. 1988;43:107–108.

  30. 30.

    Morrell RW, Park DC, Poon LW. Effects of labeling techniques on memory and comprehension of prescription information in young and old adults. J Gerontol. 1990;45:166–172.

  31. 31.

    Hancock HE, Rogers WA, Fisk AD. Age as a predictor of adequate warning design. Proceedings of the 14th Triennial Conference of the International Ergonomics Association and the 44th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2000;44-4:802–805.

  32. 32.

    Hess TM, Flannagan D. Schema-based retrieval processes in young and older adults. J Gerontol. 1992; 47:52–58.

  33. 33.

    Morrow DG, Leirer VO, Andrassy JM, Tanke ED, Stine-Morrow EAL. Medication instruction design: Younger and older adult schémas for taking medication. Human Factors. 1996;38:556–573.

  34. 34.

    Boucher J, Osgood CE. The Pollyanna hypothesis. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior. 1969;8:1–8.

  35. 35.

    Matlin MW, Gawron VJ. Individual differences in Pollyannaism. J Personality Assess. 1979;43:411–412.

  36. 36.

    Everett SE. Lay audience response to prescription drug advertising. J Adverts Research. 1991;31: 43–49.

  37. 37.

    Young SL, Laughery KR, Wogalter MS, Lovvoll D. Receiver characteristics in safety communications. In Karwowski W, Marras WS, eds. The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1999:693–706.

  38. 38.

    Smedler A-C, Torestad BI. Verbal intelligence: A key to basic skills. Educational Studies. 1996;22:343–356.

  39. 39.

    Wogalter MS, Conzola VC, Vigilante WJ. Applying usability engineering principles to the design and testing of warning messages. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1999; 43:921–925.

  40. 40.

    Decker CL. Winning with P and G: 99 Principles and Practices of Proctor and Gamble’s Success. New York, NY: Pocket Books; 1998.

  41. 41.

    DuPlessis E. Recognition and recall. J Adverts Research. 1994;34:75–91.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Michael S. Wogalter PhD.

Additional information

Portions of this research were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wogalter, M.S., Smith-Jackson, T.L., Mills, B.J. et al. The Effects of Print Format in Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements on Risk Knowledge and Preference. Ther Innov Regul Sci 36, 693–705 (2002).

Download citation

Key Words

  • Direct-to-consumer
  • Risk communication
  • Consumer knowledge
  • Design of medical information
  • Drug advertisements