4.4 Article

Experimental study of consumer responses to different sources of information about prescription drugs

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION
Volume 186, Issue -, Pages 754-771

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.10.025

Keywords

Risk updating; Experimental; Bayesian learning; Attorney advertising; Litigation advertising; Direct-to-consumer advertising; Prescription drugs

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Consumers receive risk information about prescription drugs from various sources, including attorney advertisements. Risk beliefs significantly impact drug-taking behavior, and experience with the drug also plays a role in the learning process of risk beliefs.
Consumers receive risk information about prescription drugs from many sources, including from largely unregulated attorney advertisements. This experiment measures subjective risk beliefs about prescription drugs and subjects' drug-taking behavior in an incentivized setting. Results of the experiment are used to estimate a Bayesian learning model to ascertain the risk levels implied by different information sources and the informational weights subjects place on these sources. Even after people have received scientifically based drug risk information from a doctor and product label, attorney litigation advertising boosts risk beliefs about side effects by an average of 16 out of 100 cases, which is roughly a 50% increase over baseline risk beliefs. Risk beliefs have a significant effect on drug-taking behavior in an incentivized environment. Experience with taking the drug also feeds back into the learning process about risk beliefs. Our experimental results help formalize how consumers update risk beliefs and suggest ways to encourage a learning environment that avoids alarmist updating based on information sources like attorney advertising. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available