Do Consumers Avoid Watching

Over-the-Counter Drug Advertisements?

An Analysis of Cognitive and Affective Factors

That Prompt Advertising Avoidance

JISU HUH Do consumers avoid viewing over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical advertisements? And,
University of Minnesota
if so, why? The authors of the current study tested their proposed “Ad Avoidance Model”
jhuh@umn.edu
by surveying a nationally-representative sample of U.S. adults about their reactions to
DENISE E. DELORME
advertisements for OTC drugs (specifically analgesics). The researchers focused on how
University of Central
Florida four advertising-reaction factors—two cognitive (perceived utility and skepticism) and two
denise.delorme@ucf.edu affective (irritation and attitude toward advertising)—influenced avoidance behaviors. The

LEONARD N. REID
results revealed that avoidance was directly linked to irritation and attitude, although
University of Georgia attitude also partially mediated the relationship between irritation and avoidance. Age and
Virginia Commonwealth
socioeconomic status also played roles in these relationships.
University
lnreid@uga.edu

INTRODUCTION psychological and other intervening variables, the

In most situations, advertising is created to influ­
ence consumers by affecting a positive sequence of
communication events, known as the "hierarchy of
effects" (DeLorme, Huh, and Reid, 2006; Menon,
Deshpande, Zinkhan, and Perri, 2004; Vakratsas
and Ambler, 1999). Although advertisers recognize
that the nature of advertisement processing (e.g .,
low and high involvement) is affected by a host of
primary goal of most advertising messaging is to
move consumers along a positive-oriented process­
ing path involving cognitive, affective, and behav­
ioral reactions to advertisements.
Early examinations of consumers' general atti­
tudes or reactions toward advertising have pro­
duced mixed findings. But studies in 1995 and
1998 comparing those earlier findings with their

• Consumer avoidance of over-the-counter (OTC) drug advertising is more directly and strongly
influenced by affective reactions (e.g., irritation) and attitude toward such advertising than
cognitive reactions (e.g., perceived utility or skepticism).

• As such, when consumers are more irritated by and feel less favorable toward OTC drug
advertisements, they are more likely to avoid them.

• High-income and younger consumers most likely will be irritated by (and avoid) OTC drug
advertisements, so diagnostic pretesting should consider these particular segments.

• Irritation and perceived utility are inversely linked, hence irritation could be mitigated by making
advertisements more informational and useful to the target consumers.

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-022 December 2015 JOURnflL OF HDUERTiSMG RESEARCH 4 0 1

DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
S o m e h a v e fo u n d
a d v e r tis in g ir r ita tio n
to b e a n e m o tio n a l
r e s p o n s e a s s o c ia te d
w ith d is p le a s u r e
a n d im p a tie n c e .
own results revealed that attitudes toward
advertising seem to be more favorable than
previously suggested (e.g., O'Donohoe,
1995; Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner, 1998).
These studies documented that many
consumers like advertisements and that
their attitudes tend to vary by attitudinal
dimensions and types of attitudes (e.g.,
Reid and Soley, 1982).
Yet, consumers often react to advertising
in negative ways. Two of the many nega­
tive reactions are irritation and avoidance.
Both are widespread, increasing, and con­
cerning as they can potentially damage
effectiveness of individual advertisements,
campaigns, and the industry overall (Duff
and Faber, 2011).
Some have found advertising irrita­
tion to be an emotional response associ­
ated with displeasure and impatience
(Aaker and Bruzzone, 1985). Others have
described advertising irritation as feelings
of annoyance that are less intense than
offensiveness (which stems from moral
concerns) (Li, Edwards, and Lee, 2002),
but more intense than dislike (Aaker and
Bruzzone, 1985). But the antecedents and
consequences of advertising irritation have
been the subject of substantial research
(See "Literature Review" on pp. 279-280).
Advertising avoidance is a behavio­
ral outcome of advertising exposure.
It includes all actions by consumers to
402 J0URM1L OF HDUERTISMG RESEARCH D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
escape encountered advertisements that
reduce their exposure to and process­
ing of advertisement content (Speck and
Elliott, 1997). Advertising avoidance may
be intentional or unintentional (Duff and
Faber, 2011) and involves both deliberate
decisions and habit-based behaviors (Baek
and Morimoto, 2012), which tend to be
similar across different media (Prender-
gast, Cheung, and West, 2010).
Advertising avoidance has been concep­
tualized in various ways in the literature.
Common classifications are:
• "cognitive avoidance" (e.g., intentionally
ignoring advertisements);
• "mechanical avoidance" (e.g., using a
DVR to skip television commercials);
• "behavioral avoidance" (e.g., leaving the
room during a commercial break; Cho
and Cheon, 2004; Kelly, Kerr, and Dren-
nan, 2010; Speck and Elliott, 1997);
• "active avoidance" versus "passive
avoidance" (Duff and Faber, 2011).
A more complete overview of advertising-
avoidance research is provided later in
this article.
The current study analyzed key factors
influencing advertising avoidance. In the
context of over-the-counter (OTC) drug
advertising—specifically for analgesics—
this study compared the relationships
between advertising avoidance and four
advertising-reaction factors:
• advertising irritation
• utility
• skepticism
• attitude.
Specifically, the authors:
• investigated how advertising avoidance
differentially is related to key demo­
graphics and the above four advertising-
reaction factors;
• identified the interconnected relation­
ships among the cognitive, affective,
and behavioral components of advertis­
ing avoidance;
• used a comprehensive model-testing
approach based on the hierarchy of
effects (HOE) framework (Menon et al.,
2004).
Research on advertising irritation and
advertising avoidance mainly has been
descriptive, and, to the current authors'
knowledge, none of this work has been
conducted within the domain of OTC drug
advertising. Recent advertising-avoidance
inquiry has been more theoretically driven,
and several conceptual models have
been proposed and tested (e.g., Baek and
Morimoto, 2012; Cho and Cheon, 2004;
Edwards, Li, and Lee, 2002).
The authors of the current article believe,
however, that there is a need for more com­
prehensive identification and explanation
of the drivers of advertising avoidance and
their underlying mechanisms. This espe­
cially is the case regarding the influence
of irritation, other advertising-reaction
factors, and individual differences (Speck
and Elliott, 1997). The authors furthermore
believe their research addresses this gap
and contributes benchmark evidence for
future comparison.
Advertising irritation and avoidance
also are worthy of additional investigation
for practical purposes. In the United States,
billions of dollars are spent on advertising
annually to generate positive responses
to branded products. In 2014 advertising
spending experienced its biggest increase
in a decade at an estimated $180.12 bil­
lion, expected to reach $189.38 billion in
2015 and $200 billion by 2016.1Thus, there
is significant monetary value associated
1 "Total US A d Spending to See Largest Increase Since
2004." (2014, July 2). Retrieved July 22, 2015, from
eMarketer Press Release: http://www.emarketer.com/
A rticle,/T otal-U S-A d-Spending-See-Largest-Increase-
Since-2004/1010982.
 DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
with understanding advertising irrita­
tion and avoidance in an effort to mitigate
and reduce these two negative consumer
responses to advertising for different types
of products. Scholars, in fact, have urged
both advertising theorists and practition­
ers to pay attention to advertisements that
are ignored and to identify why they are
ignored (Duff and Faber, 2011).
R esearch Product Focus: OTC Drugs
The authors of the current paper sought
a common field of consumption experi­
ence for comparative purposes. Hence,
they restricted their study to analgesics,
a widely experienced type of OTC drug.
Such a narrow focus is in line with a tra­
dition of product category research (e.g.,
Grow, Park, and Han, 2006; Kim and King,
2009). Although a general, nonproduct-
specific advertising-avoidance model
could provide informative results, the cur­
rent authors believed a test of a product-
specific model would produce more useful
results and provide greater certainty of
comparative uniformity of advertising-
related consumer responses.
The authors believed their results would
have broad theoretical implications to help
explain other product advertising avoid­
ance and effects beyond the OTC drug
advertising context. Indeed, scholars have
considered OTC drugs as a:
• "think product" (a product for which
the purchase decision is mainly logical
based mainly on functional facts);
• "search product" (a product dominated
by attributes for which information can
be obtained before purchase);
• "high-involvement product" (a prod­
uct that requires extensive thinking and
information-seeking for purchase deci­
sion making);
• a product with "high-risk trial" (a prod­
uct that involves a high level of risk if
a wrong product were purchased; e.g.,
Gore, Madhavan, McClung, and Riley,
1994; Kim, 2005; Ratchford, 1987).
The current study conceptually was
grounded in the fundamental elements
of the "hierarchy of effects" (HOE) frame­
work of how advertising works (e.g.,
Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999).
Although some theories acknowledge
that advertising may work differently
under different product-based circum­
stances, HOE models are claimed—both
explicitly and implicitly—to have uni­
versal applicability (e.g., Vakratsas and
Ambler, 1999).
The HOE model posits that consumer
responses to advertising occur sequen­
tially, starting with a cognitive response,
leading to an affective response and in turn
to a behavioral response.
The current authors built their
"advertising-avoidance model" within
the HOE framework. The advertising-
avoidance model, the authors believe, can
be used to explain advertising effects and
outcomes—including advertising irritation
and avoidance, respectively—for other
types of products that share many of the
same cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral
responses to OTC drug advertisements.
Theoretical ideas about how advertis­
ing works must be considered relative to
particular advertising domains (Nyilasy
and Reid, 2009). A domain represents a
boundary condition, which is believed
to influence basic relationships between
advertising factors and outcome variables.
There are four known domains (Nyilasy
and Reid, 2009):
• product category
• strategic objective/intent
• media form
• historical time period.
Accordingly, understanding how advertis­
ing works is viewed as dependent on the
D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
THEARF.ORG
specific domains in which advertising is
used. Furthermore, knowledge is believed
best advanced by studying advertis­
ing within the context of these domains
(Nyilasy and Reid, 2009).
Thus, the current authors believe,
product-specific, focused investigations:
• are less removed from actual consumer
experiences than nonproduct-specific
investigations, and
• should be considered additive in the
search for universal applicability of
psychological concepts across different
product advertising domains.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Advertising avoidance has received con­
siderable research attention (e.g., Duff
and Faber, 2011; Kelly et al, 2010; Speck
and Elliott, 1997). Although advertising
avoidance has been examined across all
media (e.g., Baek and Morimoto, 2012; Cho
and Cheon, 2004; Prendergast et al., 2010;
Rojas-Mendez and Davies, 2015; Speck
and Elliott, 1997), television has received
the most avoidance attention. Many tele­
vision advertising studies have been
sought to determine the influences of new
technologies on commercial viewing and
avoidance—e.g., "zipping (fast-forwarding
commercials) and zapping (channel
switching)"—(Cronin and Menelly, 1992;
Heeter and Greenberg, 1985; Krugman,
Cameron, and White, 1995; Krugman and
Johnson, 1991; Stout and Burda, 1989).
To the current authors' knowledge, pub­
lished research on advertising avoidance in
print media is rare (Prendergast et al, 2010;
Speck and Elliott, 1997). There has been
significant interest in investigating adver­
tising avoidance in the online environ­
ment— e.g., pop-up advertisements, spam,
advertisements on social networking sites,
and online video advertising (Baek and
Morimoto, 2012; Cho and Cheon, 2004;
Duff and Faber, 2011; Edwards et al, 2002;
J0URM1L OF HDUERTISinG RESEARCH 4 0 3
DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
Goodrich, Schiller, and Galletta, 2015; Kelly
et al, 2010; Morimoto and Chang, 2006).
Much research on advertising avoidance
has studied the processes of avoidance and
the influence of different types of avoid­
ance on advertising effectiveness. A subset
of this literature, however, has explored
potential antecedents of advertising avoid­
ance in one or more media and the ways
these factors operate. Antecedents exam­
ined include:
• dem ographics (e.g., Heeter and Green­
berg, 1985; Speck and Elliott, 1997);
• perceived advertising clutter (e.g., Cho
and Cheon, 2004);
• perceived irritation (e.g., Baek and Mori­
moto, 2012; Edwards et al., 2002);
• perceived intrusiveness (e.g., Edwards
et al, 2002; Goodrich et al, 2015);
• advertising skepticism (e.g., Baek and
Morimoto, 2012);
• advertising usefulness, informativeness,
or utility (e.g., Edwards et al, 2002; Lee
and Lumpkin, 1992; Speck and Elliott,
1997);
• goal im pedim ent (e.g., Cho and Cheon,
2004);
• attitude tow ard advertising (e.g., Cho
and Cheon, 2004; Prendergast et al, 2010;
Rojas-Mendez and Davies, 2015; Speck
and Elliott, 1997).
A lthough some advertising-avoidance
antecedents ap p ear u niversal, others
depend on media context, individual dif­
ferences, and situational factors (Speck
and Elliott, 1997). Overall, advertising
inform ativeness (utility) and a ttitu d e
tow ard advertising have been identified
as rather consistent predictors of advertis­
ing avoidance (e.g., Cho and Cheon, 2004;
Edw ards et a l, 2002; Lee and Lum pkin,
1992; Prendergast et a l, 2010; Speck and
Elliott, 1997).
Various theory-based, systematic m od­
eling approaches to examining influencing
404 JO UR flfiL OF RDUERTIBIIIG RESEARCH
factors of advertising avoidance have been
taken in the context of:
• online p o p-up ad v ertisin g —testing
the impact of various advertising mes­
sage factors and consumer advertising-
reaction factors on avoidance of pop-up
advertisem ents. The proposed model
explained the interconnected role of per­
ceived advertising entertainment, infor­
mativeness, intrusiveness, and irritation
in shaping pop-up advertising avoid­
ance (Edwards et al, 2002).
• Internet advertising—a causal model of
general Internet advertising avoidance
that encom passed three dim ensions
(cognitive, affective, behavioral; Cho
and Cheon, 2004). The model stemmed
from previous research findings that had
identified three significant antecedents
of Internet advertising avoidance (per­
ceived advertising clutter online, per­
ceived goal impediment, negative prior
experience with online advertising).
Perceived advertising clutter and
goal im pedim ent were consistent with
prior findings on advertising avoidance
in traditional media (Speck and Elliott,
1997), whereas negative prior experi­
ence (i.e., overall dissatisfaction and
perceived lack of utility) was identified
as a new predictor for Internet advertis­
ing avoidance.
• personalized advertising—a model of
advertising avoidance for personal­
ized advertisem ents (Baek and M ori­
moto, 2012). The model was composed
of two factors influencing personalized
advertising-avoidance behavior:
-v*cognitive (personalized advertising
skepticism)
■ ^affective (p riv a c y c o n c e rn s ,
a d v ertisin g irritatio n , perceived
personalization).
D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
Results revealed privacy concerns,
advertising irritation, perceived person­
alization, and skepticism toward per­
sonalized advertising were significant
antecedents of advertising avoidance.
Applying a similar conceptual framework
of advertising-avoidance antecedents as
used in the latter two studies (Baek and
Morimoto, 2012; Cho and Cheon, 2004), the
authors of the current study focused on a
set of affective and cognitive advertising-
reaction factors as key antecedents of
advertising avoidance across different
media and advertising forms.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Affective Advertising-Reaction Factors:
Irritation and Attitude
In considerable prior research on adver­
tising in general and on pharmaceutical
advertising in particular,
• advertising irritation (e.g., Baek and
M orimoto, 2012; De Pelsmacker and
Van den Bergh, 1998; Edw ards et al,
2002; Fennis and Bakker, 2001; Pasadeos,
1990) and
• attitude toward advertising (e.g., Diehl,
Mueller, and Terlutter, 2008; Menon
et al, 2004)
have been conceptualized and examined
as important affective consumer responses
to advertisements.
A dvertising irritation is considered a
potentially im portant advertising-reaction
factor that influences advertising avoid­
ance (De Pelsmacker and Van den Bergh,
1998; Edwards et al, 2002). Because of its
potential importance, a num ber of stud­
ies have investigated the antecedents and
consequences of advertising irritation
(e.g., Aaker and Bruzzone, 1985; De Pels­
macker and Van den Bergh, 1998; Fennis
and Bakker, 2001; Greyser, 1973; Pasa­
deos, 1990). However, little research has
 DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
Advertising irritation
is considered a
potentially important
advertising-reaction
factor that influences
advertising avoidance.
em pirically investigated the connection
betw een advertising irritation and adver­
tising avoidance.
The authors believe that only two stud­
ies explicitly have examined the relation­
ship betw een advertising irritation and
avoidance (Baek and M orim oto, 2012;
Edwards et al, 2002). From an online sur­
vey of a convenience sam ple of college
students, advertising irritation was found
to have a direct positive effect on respond­
ents' avoidance of personalized advertise­
ments (Baek and Morimoto, 2012). And an
analysis of the relationships am ong p op­
up advertising intrusiveness, irritation,
and avoidance found perceived intrusive­
ness of online pop-up advertisements gen­
erated irritation and advertising avoidance
(Edwards et al., 2002).
Com pared w ith research on the rela­
tionship betw een advertising irritation
and avoidance, there are relatively more
empirical studies providing evidence of
attitude tow ard advertising influencing
advertising avoidance. More positive atti­
tudes tow ard advertising are associated
with lower advertising avoidance, as dem ­
onstrated in studies that have examined
attitudes toward:
• advertising in general (e.g., Prendergast
et a l, 2010; Rojas-Mendez and Davies,
2015; R ojas-M endez, D avies, and
Madran, 2009);
• advertising in particular media (e.g., Cho
and Cheon, 2004; Cronin and Menelly,
1992; Lee and Lumpkin, 1992; Speck and
Elliott, 1997);
• attitude toward the advertisement (e.g.,
Stout and Burda, 1989).
In research on advertising-avoidance
research in traditional and new media,
attitude toward advertising in a particular
medium is the most prominent advertising-
avoidance antecedent. For example:
• Consumers who zapped television com­
mercials tended to have less positive
attitudes tow ard the advertisem ents
(Stout and Burda, 1989).
• Greater zipping and zapping was asso­
ciated with negative attitudes toward
television advertising (Lee and Lum p­
kin, 1992).
• When potential predictors of advertising
avoidance were compared across four
traditional media including two broad­
cast (television, radio) and two print
(magazines, newspapers) media, atti­
tude toward advertising in the medium
was the strongest predictor of advertis­
ing avoidance for all media (Speck and
Elliott, 1997).
• Consumers likely avoided an advertise­
m ent sim ply on awareness that it was
an advertisem ent, not because of the
advertising content, a finding that sug­
gests attitudes tow ard advertising in
general can lead to advertising avoid­
ance (Cronin and Menelly, 1992).
To the current authors' knowledge, there
is no formal theory or empirical research
sim ultaneously examining the relation­
ships among advertising irritation, adver­
tising attitude, and advertising avoidance.
On the basis of the works they have cited,
however, they offer the following hypothe­
ses regarding the relationships between the
two affective advertising-reaction factors
D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
T H E A R F .O R G
(advertising irritation and attitude) and
advertising avoidance:
HI: A dvertising irritation will be
positively related to advertising
avoidance.
H2: The relationship between adver­
tising irritation and advertising
avoidance will be m ediated by
attitude toward advertising.
Cognitive Factors:
Perceived U tility and S kepticism
In the literature, both perceived adver­
tising utility or inform ativeness (e.g.,
Ducoffe, 1995) and advertising skepti­
cism (e.g., Baek and Morimoto, 2012; Fri-
estad and W right, 1994; Oberm iller and
Spangenberg, 2000) have been character­
ized and treated as cognitive consum er
advertising-reaction factors.
From existing research on advertising
avoidance, advertising utility (i.e., per­
ceived usefulness or informativeness of
advertisements) has emerged as a consist­
ently significant antecedent of advertis­
ing avoidance (e.g., Cho and Cheon, 2004;
Edwards et al, 2002; Lee and Lumpkin,
1992; Speck and Elliott, 1997).
Some stu d ies on the relationship
between advertising utility or usefulness
and advertising avoidance have in d i­
cated advertisem ents that are perceived
as useful and informative are less likely
to be avoided. For example, television-
com m ercial avoidance w as inversely
related to belief of advertising-information
usefulness (Lee and Lumpkin, 1992). Like­
wise, advertising avoiders considered
advertisem ents less useful than did non
avoiders for both broadcast and print
media (Speck and Elliott, 1997).
Similar findings have been reported
for Internet advertising. Pop-up adver­
tisements less likely w ould be avoided if
they were thought to provide information
JOURRAL OF RDUERTISIRG RESEARCH 4 05
DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
(Edwards et al, 2002). And, perceived lack
of utility, w hich was m easured as part
of prior negative experience w ith Inter­
net advertising, was positively related to
Internet advertising avoidance (Cho and
Cheon, 2004).
"Advertising skepticism," a consumer
trait defined as a tendency to disbelieve
advertising claims (Obermiller and Span-
genberg, 1998), has been found to play a
role in advertising responses, including
advertising avoidance (Obermiller and
Spangenberg, 2000). In addition, skeptical
consumers tend to exhibit greater advertis­
ing irritation and, thus, are more likely to
avoid advertisements:
• Skepticism has been associated nega­
tively with attitudes toward advertising
and positively w ith advertising avoid­
ance (Obermiller, Spangenberg, and
MacLachlan, 2005).
• Advertising skepticism partially m edi­
ated the relationship between advertis­
ing irritation and avoidance regarding
personalized advertising (Baek and
Morimoto, 2012).
Despite the potential importance of adver­
tising skepticism in shaping adv ertis­
ing avoidance, em pirical investigation
of advertising skepticism has been rela­
tively limited compared w ith studies on
advertising utility, to the current authors'
knowledge—a failing that calls for more
scholarly attention.
Regarding the relationship betw een
the cognitive and affective advertising-
reaction factors, research has demonstrated
an inverse relationship between advertis­
ing usefulness and advertising irritation,
suggesting that advertisements perceived
as useful {i.e., inform ative, relevant, of
value) elicit less irritation than do other
advertisements (e.g., Aaker and Bruzzone,
1985; Aaker and Norris, 1982; Ducoffe,
1995; Edwards et al., 2002; Pasadeos, 1990).
406 JOURFIRL OF RDUERTISIRG RESEARCH D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
In the context of these findings and
applying the basic conceptual model of
the hierarchy of effects (HOE) model, the
authors of the current study proposed the
following hypotheses:
H3: Perceived advertising utility will
have an indirect negative rela­
tionship to advertising avoid­
ance through its negative link to
advertising irritation.
H4: A dvertising skepticism w ill
have an indirect positive rela­
tionship to advertising avoid­
ance through its positive link to
advertising irritation.
C o n s u m e r D e m o g ra p h ic s an d
A d v e rtis in g A v o id a n c e
Previous research {e.g., Heeter and Green­
berg, 1985; K rugm an, Cam eron, and
White, 1995; Prendergast et al, 2010; Speck
and Elliott, 1997) has explored advertis­
ing avoidance among various consumer
demographics including:
• age
• gender
• income
• education
• race
• marital status.
Yet only a few variables, such as age and
income, significantly have been related
to a d v e rtisin g -av o id an ce beh av io rs
(Speck and Elliott, 1997). Evidence of
dem ographic antecedents of advertising
avoidance is inconsistent and weak when
consumer predispositions and advertising-
reaction factors are considered (Prender­
gast et al., 2010; Speck and Elliott, 1997),
the current authors believe.
Demographic characteristics more likely
are related to advertising avoidance indi­
rectly through their influence on cognitive
and affective advertising reactions. Empiri­
cal evidence in the advertising-irritation
literature, for example, indicates younger
consum ers exhibit higher advertising
irritation than older consumers (Greyser,
1973). And, higher socioeconomic status
(SES; white-collar, higher income, college-
educated) consum ers had significantly
higher advertising irritation than their
lower SES counterparts (Aaker and Bruz­
zone, 1985).
A dvertising skepticism also has been
associated with certain consumer dem o­
graphic characteristics, particularly age,
education, and income (DeLorme, Huh,
and Reid, 2009; Obermiller and Spangen­
berg, 1998). Advertising skepticism has
varied by age and education as well as by
experience and marketplace beliefs (Ober­
miller and Spangenberg, 1998).
Skepticism tow ard direct-to-consumer
prescription drug (DTC) advertising has
been positively related to education and
income, b u t w hen all exam ined dem o­
graphic and health-related characteristics
were considered concurrently using a
m ultivariate analysis m ethod, only edu­
cation rem ained a significant predictor
of DTC advertising skepticism (DeLorme
et a l, 2009).
There is evidence that perceived adver­
tising utility or usefulness also varies by
consumer demographic characteristics (e.g.,
DeLorme et al., 2010; Deshpande, Menon,
Perri, and Zinkhan, 2004; O'Keefe, Nash,
and Liu, 1981; Soley and Reid, 1983). In this
stream of literature, significant differences
in perceptions of advertising utility or infor­
mativeness were found for consumers':
• age {e.g., King, Reid, Tinkham, and
Pokrywczynski, 1987),
• race {e.g., DeLorme et al, 2010; Soley and
Reid, 1983),
• socioeconomic background (education,
income; e.g., O'Keefe et al, 1981; Soley
and Reid, 1983).
 DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
On the basis of these previous findings, the
following hypotheses predicted the role of
dem ographics in influencing advertising
avoidance indirectly through their relation­
ships to advertising-reaction antecedents:
H5: Age, income, and education will
be significantly related to the
consum er advertising-reaction
factors that are related to adver­
tising avoidance. Specifically,
H5a: Age will be positively related
to advertising utility and nega­
tively related to advertising
skepticism.
H5b: Income and education will be
negatively related to advertising
utility and positively related to
advertising skepticism.
A dvertising Avoidance M odel
Previous studies on advertising avoidance
proposed conceptual tripartite m odels
of advertising avoidance (e.g., Baek and
M orimoto, 2012; Cho and Cheon, 2004),
based on a three-com ponent structure of
consumer response to advertising stimuli
(Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999):
• cognition
• affect
• behavior.
Those studies ap p eared to have con­
structed and tested similar tripartite m od­
els because they included sim ilar types
of affective and cognitive advertising-
reaction factors influencing advertising-
avoidance behavior. Yet, the causal order
of the affective and cognitive advertising-
reaction factors differed across differ­
ent stu d ies, an d the m ethodological
approaches v aried d e p en d in g on the
research context and specific advertising-
reaction factors considered.
To investigate general Internet adver­
tising avoidance, a model had been pro­
posed in which cognitive and affective
advertising-reaction factors influenced
advertising-avoidance behavior concur­
rently with no particular sequential order
(Cho and Cheon, 2004). That model was
tested w ith a convenience-sample survey
of college students; the results indicated
perceived goal im pedim ent, perceived
advertisem ent clutter, and prior negative
experience significantly predicted avoid­
ance of Internet advertising.
In contrast, four advertising-reaction
constructs were examined in the context
of personalized advertising (privacy con­
cern, perceived personalization, advertis­
ing irritation, and advertising skepticism)
in a sequential model (Baek and Morimoto,
2012), in which:
• advertising irritation (affective fac­
tor)—directly and indirectly through
skepticism — influenced advertising
avoidance;
• advertising skepticism (cognitive fac­
tor) operated as both a direct predictor
of advertising avoidance and a mediator
between other advertising-reaction fac­
tors and advertising avoidance.
Still others proposed an empirically based
model depicting how consumer reactions
(i.e., perceived advertising informativeness
and advertising entertainment) to different
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Advertising Avoidance
D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
THEARF.ORG
stim uli advertisem ents influenced p er­
ceived advertising intrusiveness. And that
perceived advertising intrusiveness, in
turn, influenced advertising irritation and
avoidance (Edwards et al, 2002).
In the latter experiment, the scholars
m anipulated three advertising message
factors:
• editorial-advertisement congruence,
• duration of interruption, and
• intensity of cognition
w hen faced w ith a pop-up advertise­
ment, measuring four advertising-reaction
variables, and docum enting advertising-
avoidance behavior through observation.
The results supported the hypothesized
model with slight modification by adding
a direct path from advertising entertain­
ment and advertising irritation.
The c u rren t a u th o rs' adv ertisin g -
avoidance m odel was inform ed by the
literature on advertising avoidance and its
antecedents as well as by the conceptual
tripartite m odels of advertising avoid­
ance (Baek and M orim oto, 2012; Cho
and Cheon, 2004). Using this model, the
authors predicted (See Figure 1):
• a d v e rtis in g -a v o id a n c e b e h a v io rs
directly w ould be influenced by con­
sum ers' negative affective reactions to
advertising {i.e., advertising irritation
and advertising attitude);
J0UR1L OF RDUERTISinG RESERRCH 4 0 7
DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
• negative affective reactions would
be shaped by cognitive reactions (i.e.,
advertising utility and advertising
skepticism);
• cognitive reactions would be affected by
consumer demographics, particularly
age, income, and education.
METHODOLOGY
An online survey was conducted with a
nationally-representative sample of U.S.
adults (age 18 years or older). The study
used OTC analgesic advertising as an
advertising context for more focused and
better contextualized data collection. Thus,
the sampling procedure used an inclusion
criterion of "currently using" or "having
ever used any OTC analgesics in the past
six months."
The survey sample was purchased from
the online survey firm, Knowledge Net­
works, which provides nationally rep­
resentative samples for online surveys.
Knowledge Networks panel members are
recruited through probability-based ran­
dom digit dialing (RDD) sampling, and
households are provided with Internet
access and a computer, if needed.
From this preestablished survey panel, a
sample of 909 adults was drawn randomly
and 553 completed the screener, result­
ing in a 60.8 percent survey response rate.
After filtering through the screening ques­
tion (OTC analgesic use), 418 qualified and
completed the survey. The qualification
rate was 75.6 percent.
All sample members received a notifica­
tion e-mail containing a link to the survey
site informing them that a new survey was
available for them to complete. After three
days, e-mail reminders were sent to all
non-responders. Telephone reminder calls
were also implemented three to four days
after the e-mail reminder to generate a suf­
ficient response. To enhance survey coop­
eration, various financial incentives were
offered to respondents, including special
408 J O U IH L OF HOUERTISIFIG RESEARCH D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
raffles or sweepstakes with cash rewards
and other prizes.
Respondents completed the survey in
about 14 minutes on average. Of the 418
completed surveys, 17 cases were elimi­
nated because of an unusually short time
for survey completion (between one min­
ute and five minutes) and patterns of low-
quality responses. After this data cleaning
process, a poststratification procedure
(i.e., application of weighting) was used to
adjust for any survey nonresponse, non­
coverage, or under- and oversampling
resulting from the sample design.
Questionnaire and Measurements
The 27-item questionnaire collected infor­
mation on:
• advertising avoidance (measured by
seven 7-point scales; Speck and Elliott,
1997; See Table 1);
• advertising utility (measured by five
items adapted from three earlier studies;
Deshpande et al., 2004; Obermiller and
Spangenberg, 1998; and Shavitt et al.,
1998);
• advertising skepticism (measured using
a nine-item 7-point Likert scale; Ober­
miller and Spangenberg, 1998; see also
DeLorme et al., 2009; Huh, DeLorme,
and Reid, 2012);
• advertising irritation (measured by four
items; used by Fennis and Bakker, 2001);
• advertising attitude (measured by eight
7-point Likert scales adapted from
research on global attitude toward adver­
tising in general; Pollay and Mittal, 1993);
• OTC analgesic use:
■4*OTC analgesic use on a regular
basis (measured by a single yes-no
question);
number of OTC analgesics taken on a
regular basis (measured by an open-
ended question).
• perceived health (measured by a
7-point scale, ranging from 1 [extremely
unhealthy] to 7 [extremely healthy]);
• demographics (age was measured using
an open-ended question, and gender,
education, race, and income were meas­
ured through closed-ended questions).
The questionnaire first was pretested with
a small sample of adults to diagnose any
problems or issues with survey instruc­
tions, question wording, and question
order. A second small pretest was con­
ducted after development of the online
survey site to verify the survey length and
proper operation of the online data collec­
tion system.
RESULTS
The age of the respondents ranged from
18 to 87 years, and the average age was
51 (SD = 17.1). The respondents were pre­
dominantly White (79.3 percent), and the
sample included slightly more females
(55.4 percent) than males (44.6 percent).
About one-third (32.9 percent) of the
respondents had at least a college degree.
Median household income was $60,000-
under $75,000.
Of the 418 respondents, 157 (39.2 per­
cent) reported being regular users of OTC
analgesics. The number of OTC analge­
sics used on a regular basis ranged from
0 to 6. However, a large proportion of
respondents reported using only one drug
(44.4 percent) on a regular basis and the
mean score was 1.18 (SD = 0.99).
Descriptive Statistics
Before testing the hypotheses, the data
were carefully examined and edited,
and preliminary univariate and bivari­
ate analyses were performed for statisti­
cal assumption checking. The descriptive
statistic of summated advertising irrita­
tion (Cronbach's a = 0.95) revealed the
 DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
TABLE1
Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Advertising-Avoidance Behaviors
Behavior
Rip out or discard advertising inserts for OTC analgesics
before reading a magazine or a newspaper
Flip past or skip over ads fo r OTC analgesics in a magazine
or a newspaper
Ignore ads fo r OTC analgesics
Switch the TV channel during com m ercials fo r OTC analgesics
Tune out TV com m ercials fo r OTC analgesics
Switch radio stations during com m ercials fo r OTC analgesics
Tune out radio com m ercials for OTC analgesics
respondents w ere not particularly irri­
tated by OTC analgesic advertising in
general (M = 3.99, SD = 1.28). However,
about a quarter of the sam ple (24.4%) had
sum m ated advertising irritation scores of
>5 on a 7-point scale.
All respondents reported taking some
advertising-avoidance actions. The most
common advertising-avoidance behaviors
were:
• "flipping past or skipping over adver­
tisem ents in a m agazine or a new s­
paper" (M = 5.43, on a 7-point scale);
• "ignoring advertisements" (M = 5.30);
• "tuning out television commercials" (M
= 4.70);
• "tuning out radio commercials" (M =
4.47).
"R ipping out or discarding ad v ertis­
ing inserts before reading a magazine or
a new spaper" (M = 2.90) was the least
reported advertising-avoidance behavior
(See Table 1).
Model Testing and Improvement
The c u rre n t p ro p o se d ad v e rtisin g -
a v o id a n c e m o d el (See F ig u re 1)
predicted sequential links am ong cog­
n itiv e a d v e rtis in g -re a c tio n facto rs,
Mean (SD) N/A (%)
2 .9 0 (2.22) 89 (22.7)
5 .4 3 (1.60) 61 (15.4)
5 .3 0 (1 .5 5 ) 30 (7.5)
3.91 (1.80) 43 (10.9)
4 .7 0 (1 .8 1 ) 39 (9.9)
3 .7 7 (1 .9 1 ) 101 (25.8)
4.47 (1.89) 99 (25.4)
affective advertising-reaction factors, and
advertising-avoidance behavior. All vari­
ables and intervariable relationships in
the hypotheses were incorporated in this
conceptual model. To test the hypotheses
sim ultaneously and to test this study's
proposed m odel, the authors conducted
structural equation modeling (SEM) analy­
sis with LISREL 9.1. Model estimation was
performed using the maximum likelihood
estimation method.
The initial output testing the original
advertising-avoidance model exhibited a
poor fit betw een the original model and
the data, y} = 925.19; d f = 128, p = 0.00;
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.80; com­
parative fit index (CFI) = 0.91; norm ed
fit index (NFI) = 0.90; root-mean-square
error of approxim ation (RMSEA) = 0.13
(See Table 2). Subsequently, modified com­
peting models were developed based on
theoretical considerations and previous
empirical studies by adding or removing
paths between variables.
To improve the model, the authors used
m ultiple criteria for adding and delet­
ing estimated parameters from the origi­
nal model as recommended by the SEM
method literature (Kline, 2011), including
theoretical/empirical justifications, residu­
als, and modification indices. Particular
December 201 5
THEARF.ORG
theoretical considerations were given to the
relationships among advertising irritation,
advertising attitude, and advertising avoid­
ance, based on the previous literature (Baek
and Morimoto, 2012; Edwards et al., 2002).
From this process, two competing modi­
fied models were identified with w hat the
current authors believed was a better fit
than the original proposed model in all fit
indices (See Table 2).
The two modified m odels included an
added latent exogenous variable, socio­
economic status (SES). That variable was
observed by two indicators, income and
education, which are considered the most
common indicators of consum ers' SES
(e.g., Aaker and Bruzzone, 1985; Schiff-
m an and Kanuk, 2010). Also, two direct
paths were added:
• between the two cognitive advertising-
reaction factors (advertising utility and
advertising skepticism) and advertising
attitude;
• betw een ad v ertisin g irritatio n and
advertising avoidance, based on previ­
ous em pirical studies (e.g., Baek and
Morimoto, 2012; Edwards et al., 2002).
The two m odified m odels exhibited a
reasonably good fit for explaining the
advertising-reaction factors and the pro­
cess of their operation leading to advertis­
ing avoidance. According to the authors, a
"reasonably good fit" is acceptable under
the SEM analysis approach, which is not
a statistical testing and, as a result, often
involves researchers' subjective judgments.
Between the two m odified m odels,
the second m odified m odel included
one additional path: residual covariance
between advertising utility and advertis­
ing skepticism, which slightly im proved
the model fit.
On the basis of the model modification
and fitting results, the current study pro­
posed the modified model with individual
JDURnRL OF RDUERTISinG RESEARCH 4 0 9
DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?

TABLE 2
Goodness-of-Fit Indices of Original and Modified Models
Model Model Diagram Fit Stats
Original X 2 = 9 2 5.19
d f = 128
GFI = 0.80
CFI = 0.91
NFI = 0.90
RMSEA = 0.1 25

M o d ifie d l X 2 = 357.02
d f = 125
GFI = 0.91
CFI = 0.97
NFI = 0.9 6
RMSEA = 0.071

M odified2 X 2 = 3 2 6 .5 4
d f = 124
GFI = 0.92
CFI = 0.9 8
NFI = 0.96
RMSEA = 0 .0 6 6

Note: Minimum-fit function yf (nonsignificant value indicates a good model-data fit); GFI = goodness-of-fit index (values close to 0.90 or 0.95 indicate a good fit); CFI = comparativefit index
(values close to 1 indicate a goodfit); NFI = normedfit index (values greater than 0.95 are typically considered a good fit); RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation (values of 0.05 to
0.08 indicate close fit, the smaller the better).

4 1 0 J0URI1HL OFHDUERTISinG RESEARCH December 2015

 DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS? THEARF.ORG

♦All path coefficients, except for the one between age and ad skepticism, are significant at p < 0.05.

Figure 2 A d ve rtisin g -A vo id a n ce M o d e l—Final M odel

path statistics shown as its final improved
model (See Figure 2).
The paths of the modified model pro­
vided support for this study's individual
hypotheses as well as the overall concep­
tual model:
• All (but one) path coefficients were sig­
nificant in the hypothesized direction.
• The findings indicated the significant
influence of advertising irritation on
advertising avoidance both directly and
indirectly through mediation by adver­
tising attitude (supporting HI and H2).
• As hypothesized, advertising utility
and advertising skepticism (cognitive
advertising-reaction factors) were sig­
nificantly related to advertising irritation
and advertising attitude and seemed to
exert indirect influence on advertising
avoidance through these relationships
(supporting H3 and H4).
• SES was found to substantially impact
both advertising utility and advertising
skepticism, indicating that consumers
with higher SES tend to have higher
advertising skepticism and lower per­
ceived advertising utility (support­
ing H5). The role of age in this model
seemed to be relatively weak, suggest­
ing just a weak positive relationship to
advertising utility.
DISCUSSION
The current study examined advertising
avoidance as a negative outcome of adver­
tising and how consumer advertising-
reaction factors influenced the outcome,
with focus on advertising irritation. Specif­
ically, the study investigated how advertis­
ing avoidance was differentially related to
the factors of perceived utility, skepticism,
irritation, and attitude. It also examined
these factors' relationships in the context
of OTC drug advertising, using a compre­
hensive model testing approach.
Results revealed:
• Respondents were not strongly irritated
by OTC drug advertising, given that the
average score fell around the middle
point of the measurement scale.
• Nonetheless, all reported taking some
advertising-avoidance actions.
• "Flipping past or skipping over adver­
tisements in a magazine or a news­
paper" was the most common behavior,
followed by "ignoring ads," "tuning out
television commercials," and "tuning
out radio commercials."
• The least reported advertising-avoidance
behavior was "ripping out or discard­
ing advertising inserts before reading a
magazine or a newspaper."
SEM analysis testing the proposed
advertising-avoidance model and sub­
sequent model modification procedures
generated results that supported this
study's overall conceptual model as well

D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5 J0UR1L OF HDUERTISII1G RESERRCH 411

DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?

W h e n c o n s u m e rs a r e m o re ir r it a te d by a n d f e e l Moreover, the final paths of the cur­

le s s f a v o r a b le to w a rd a d v e r tis e m e n ts , th e y
m o re lik e ly w ill a v o id th e m , r e g a r d le s s o f t h e ir
d e m o g r a p h ic a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l c h a r a c te r is tic s .
as individual hypotheses. The final m odi­
fied model showed:
• relatively older consumers w ith lower
SES likely will perceive higher advertis­
ing utility and lower skepticism;
• perceived advertising utility is nega­
tively linked to advertising irritation and
positively to advertising attitude;
• advertising skepticism is positively
linked to advertising irritation and nega­
tively to advertising attitude;
• advertising irritation is, in turn, posi­
tively linked to advertising avoidance
both directly and indirectly through its
relation to advertising attitude; and
• advertising attitude is directly and nega­
tively linked to advertising avoidance.
The findings indicated significant direct
influence of both advertising irritation
and advertising attitude (affective factors)
on advertising avoidance, w hile adver­
tising irritation also operated through
its link to advertising attitude. The two
cognitive factors (perceived utility and
skepticism) seemed to exert indirect influ­
ence on advertising avoidance through
their relationship to advertising irritation
and attitude.
Among demographics, SES emerged as
the most significant factor exerting influ­
ence on advertising responses: Higher SES
was linked to higher advertising skep­
ticism and lower perceived utility. The
prom inent direct link betw een the two
affective factors and advertising avoid­
ance suggested when consumers are more
irritated by and feel less favorable toward
advertisements, they more likely will avoid
them, regardless of their demographic and
psychological characteristics.
Im p lic a tio n s fo r A d v e rtis in g R e s e a rc h
Of the many potential demographic, pre-
dispositional, and advertising-reaction
influencers of advertising irritation—per­
ceived utility and skepticism seem the
most prominent. This indicates the demo­
graphic variables significantly related to
advertising irritation in prior research
might actually be:
• operating through their relationships
to interm ediate perceptual reactions
linked to advertising irritation (e.g., per­
ceived advertising utility or inform a­
tiveness and advertising skepticism),
rather than...
• ... influencing advertising irritation
directly.
In other words, the authors of the current
study found that the mixed or conflicting
evidence of the influence of various demo­
graphics on advertising irritation (dem­
onstrated in prior studies) may have been
due to the rather fragmented approaches
to examining the role of demographics as
antecedents of advertising irritation, with­
out considering more directly linked psy­
chological and advertising-reaction factors.
rent authors' modified model supported
this study's conceptual model of adver­
tising avoidance. The researchers found
substantial direct influence from affective
advertising-reaction factors and indirect
influence of cognitive advertising-reaction
factors through their relation to affective
advertising-reaction factors.
Between the cognitive and affective
advertising-reaction variables an interest­
ing pattern emerged: The path coefficients
suggest advertising irritation seems more
strongly related to advertising skepti­
cism, whereas advertising attitude is more
strongly related to advertising utility. And,
although attitude toward advertising was
found to have a significant and direct
impact on advertising avoidance, the influ­
ence of advertising irritation seems also as
prominent and direct.
The authors believe that this finding
calls for more attention to advertising irri­
tation in advertising-effect theory building.
Specifically, they encourage further empiri­
cal research on the relationship between
advertising irritation and advertising
avoidance and other types of behavioral
responses to advertisements.
P r a c tic a l Im p lic a tio n s
The results of the current study, its authors
believe, send a clear, straightforward mes­
sage to advertising practitioners involved
w ith product categories similar to OTC
drugs:
• Because advertising irritation leads
directly to advertising avoidance, adver­
tisers should strive to minimize irrita­
tion with their advertisements.
This finding is particularly true for the
types of products sharing the characteristics
of OTC advertising, such as rational, high-
involvement, and search products. Other
types of product advertising also might

412 JOURdHL OF RDUERTISIOG RESERRCH D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5


benefit from this study's findings. However,
more empirical studies are needed in con­
texts of different product types.
As noted earlier, extant research has
established that advertising irritation is
associated with:
• product category;
• consum er c h a r a c te r is tic s
perceptions;
• level of advertising repetition;
• message and tactical elements of adver­
tisements (De Pelsmacker and Van den
Bergh, 1998; Fennis and Bakker, 2001;
Pasadeos, 1990).
The advertiser has no control over two of
these factors:
• the product is the product;
• the consumer controls messaging effects
as an active interpreter, not a passive
reactor.
Advertising content and repetition, how ­
ever, can be m anipulated by advertisers to
mitigate the direct im pact of advertising
irritation on advertising avoidance.
In the creation of advertisem ents for
products such as OTC m edicines, the
potential of advertisem ents to irritate
should be assessed diagnostically d u r­
ing the production process (e.g., pretested
for irritation at various stages of creation
before m edia placem ent). Such p retest­
ing will help advertisers avoid message
and executional elem ents, w hich trig ­
ger advertising irritation and avoidance.
Irritability pretesting m ay be especially
im portant for high income and younger
consumers. As suggested by this study's
results, these consumer types m ost likely
w ill avoid advertisem en ts because of
advertising irritation.
Another technique for reducing adver­
tising irritation pertains to the inverse link
betw een irritation and utility. Given that
DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
irritating advertisem ents are perceived
as possessing low information utility, it
is reasonable to assume irritation could
be m itigated by making advertisem ents
more informational and useful to the tar­
get consumers.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
and Like most research, this study has method­
ological limitations. Thus, the findings and
suggestions should be interpreted with
caution. Although this study proposed and
tested a comprehensive conceptual model
explaining advertising avoidance and
influencing factors, not all potential factors
were included nor did it address all ques­
tions regarding advertising avoidance.
A dvertising clutter and advertising
intrusiveness, for exam ple, w ere not
measured.
Future research on the role of these
factors in connection to those investi­
gated in this article w ould offer valu ­
able additional insight. In addition, due
to the natu re of a survey m ethod, this
study could capture only w hat respond­
ents recalled, rather than collecting real­
time data. With technological advances in
social-scientific m ethods, future research
may be able to capture data on consumer
irritatio n and avoidance of advertise­
m ents at the m om ent such responses
occur, which should help advance scien­
tists' understanding of the phenomenon.
Another limitation is this study meas­
ured and analyzed advertising avoidance
in general and did not examine situational
factors such as media content, mood, emo­
tions, and time. This limitation calls for
future research to include these potentially
im portant factors in examining advertising
irritation and avoidance.
The a u th o rs also a c k n o w led g e
th at—although there is value in con­
d u c tin g p ro d u c t-c a te g o ry -s p e c ific
research—the findings might not apply to
advertising avoidance for product types
D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
THEARF.ORG
that are more emotional, low involvement,
and experiential.
Since prior research has established
product category as a significant influenc­
ing factor on advertising avoidance, the
proposed advertising-avoidance model
should be tested further in other advertis­
ing contexts, especially for product catego­
ries vastly different from OTC drugs (e.g.,
snack foods, financial services, gardening
equipment, etc.).
Finally, although a path analysis using
LISREL is considered a useful statisti­
cal tool for inferring causal relationships
among variables, establishing the temporal
sequences among the variables could not
be tested empirically but presumed based
on theories and previous literature. Thus,
caution is advised in interpreting the find­
ings as true evidence of causal links among
the variables.
Advertising avoidance is a serious prob­
lem for advertisers. Despite the aforemen­
tioned limitations, the current study offers
valuable insight for future research and
advertising campaign developm ent deci­
sions for OTC medicines specifically and
other similar products generally.
Given the financial resources allocated to
product advertising, it is hoped the results
of this study will stimulate more research
on advertising irritation and advertising
avoidance across other types of products
to better understand and improve adver­
tising effectiveness.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jisu H uh is associate professor a t the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication a t the University of
Minnesota. She specializes in research about advertising
effects, particularly in the area of direct-to-consumer
(DTC) prescription drug advertising. Her other specialties
include the effects of indirect advertising as well as
credibility and tru st in interactive advertising. Her work
has been published in such journals as Communication
Research, International Journal o f Advertising,
JOURflflL OF OOUERTISinG RESEARCH 4 1 3
DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
Journal o f Advertising, Journal o f Advertising Research,
Journal o f Consumer Affairs, and Journal o f Health
Communication.
D enise E. D eL orme is professor of advertising at the
University of Central Florida. Her research interests
include pharmaceutical advertising and consumer
health information-seeking behavior. Her work can
be found in the Journal o f Advertising, International
Journal o f Advertising, Journal o f Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, Communication Research,
Journal o f Health Communication, Health Marketing
Quarterly, among other publications.
L eonard N. R eid is professor emeritus of advertising
a t the University o f Georgia and affiliate professor
of mass com munication at Virginia Commonwealth
University. His research on pharmaceutical
advertising and drug information-seeking behavior
has appeared in the Journal o f Advertising Research
and other advertising, marketing, and communication
journals. Reid is a Fellow of the American Academy
of Advertising and a form er editor o f the Journal of
Advertising.
REFERENCES
A aker, D. A., and D. E. Bruzzone. "Causes of
Irritation in Advertising." journal of Marketing
49, 2 (1985): 47-57.
A aker, D. A., and D. N orris. "Characteristics
of TV Commercials Perceived as Informative."
Journal of Advertising Research 22, 2 (1982): 61-70.
Baek, T. H ., and M. M orimoto . "Stay Away
From Me: Examining the Determinants of Con­
sumer Avoidance of Personalized Advertising."
Journal of Advertising 41,1 (2012): 59-76.
C ho , C., and H. J. C heon . "Why Do People
Avoid Advertising on the Internet." Journal of
Advertising 33,4 (2004): 89-97.
C ronin , J. J., and N. E. M enelly. "Discrimi­
nation vs. Avoidance: 'Zipping' of Television
414 JOURRRL OF RDUERTISIRG RESEARCH D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
Commercials." Journal of Advertising 21,2 (1992):
1-7.
D eL orme, D. E., J. H uh , and L. N. R eid . "Age
Differences in How Consumers Behave Follow­
ing Exposure to DTC Advertising." Health Com­
munication 20, 3 (2006): 255-265.
D eL orme, D. E., J. H uh , and L. N. R eid. "DTC
Advertising Skepticism and the Use and Per­
ceived Usefulness of Prescription Drug Infor­
mation Sources." Health Marketing Quarterly 26
(2009): 293-314.
D eLorme, D. E., J. H uh , and L. N. R eid. "Eval­
uation, Use, and Usefulness of Prescription
Drug Information Sources among Anglo- and
Hispanic-Americans." Journal of Health Commu­
nication 15,1 (2010): 18-38.
D e P elsmacker, P., and J. V an den Bergh .
"Advertising Content and Irritation: A Study
of 226 TV Commercials." Journal of International
Consumer Marketing 10, 4 (1998): 5-27.
D eshpande, A., A. M enon, M. P erri III, and G.
M. Z inkhan . "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
and Its Utility in Health Care Decision Making:
A Consumer Perspective." Journal of Health Com­
munication 9, 6 (2004): 499-513.
D iehl, S., B. M ueller, and R. T erlutter. "Con­
sumer Responses Towards Non-Prescription
and Prescription Drug Advertising in the US
and Germany." International Journal of Advertis­
ing 27,1 (2008): 99-131.
D ucoffe, R. H . "H ow Consumers Assess the
Value of Advertising." Journal of Current Issues
and Research in Advertising 17,1 (1995): 1-18.
Duff, B. R. L., and R. J. F aber. "Missing the
Mark: Advertising Avoidance and Distractor
Devaluation." Journal of Advertising 40, 2 (2011):
51-62.
E dwards, S. M., H. L i, and J. L ee. "Forced Expo­
sure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents
and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusive­
ness of Pop-Up Ads." Journal of Advertising 31,
3 (2002): 83-95.
F ennis, B. M., and A. B. Barker. "'Stay Tuned—
We Will Be Back Right After These Messages':
Need to Evaluate Moderates the Transfer of Irri­
tation in Advertising." Journal of Advertising 30,
3 (2001): 15-25.
F riestad, M., and P. W right . "The Persuasion
Knowledge Model: How People Cope With Per­
suasion Attempts." Journal of Consumer Research
21,1 (1994): 1-31.
G oodrich , K., S. Z. S chiller , and D. G al-
letta. "Consumer Reactions to Intrusiveness
of Online-Video Advertisements: Do Length,
Informativeness, and Humor Help (or Hinder)
Marketing Outcomes?" Journal of Advertising
Research 55,1 (2015): 37-50.
G ore, P., S. M adhavan, G. M c C lung, and D.
R iley. "Consumer Involvement in Nonprescrip­
tion Medicine Purchase Decisions." Journal of
Health Care Marketing 14, 2 (1994): 16-23.
G reyser, S. "Irritation in Advertising." Journal of
Advertising Research 13,1 (1973): 3-7.
G row, J. M., J. S. P ark, and X. H an . "Your Life
in Waiting: Symbolic Meanings in Direct-to-
Consumer Antidepressant Advertising." Journal
of Communication Inquiry 30,2 (2006): 1630-1688.
H eeter, C., and B. S. G reenberg. "Profiling the
Zappers." Journal of Advertising Research 25, 2
(1985): 15-19.
H uh , J., D. E. D eL orme, and L. N. R eid. "Scepti­
cism towards DTC Advertising: A Comparative
Study of Korean and White Americans." Interna­
tional Journal of Advertising 31,1 (2012): 147-168.
K elly, L., G. K err, and J. D rennan . "Avoid­
ance of Advertising in Social Networking Sites:
 DO CONSUMERS AVOID WATCHING OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS?
The Teenage Perspective." journal of Interactive
Advertising 10,2 (2010): 16-27.
K im, W. An Exploratory Investigation of Consum­
ers' Pre-Purchase External Information Search for
Prescription and Non-Prescription Drugs. (Unpub­
lished doctoral dissertation), Athens, GA: Uni­
versity of Georgia, 2005.
K im, W. J., and K. W. K ing . "Product Category
Effects on External Search for Prescription and
Non-Prescription Drugs." Journal of Advertising
38,1 (2009): 5-19.
K ing , K. W., L. N. R eid, S. F. T inkham , and J.
P okrywczynski. "The Perceived Informativeness
of National and Retail Advertising." Current
Issues and Research in Advertising 10, 1-2 (1987):
173-197.
K line, R. B. Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guil­
ford Press, 2011.
K rugman, D. M., and K. F. Johnson . "Difference
in the Consumption of Traditional Broadcast
and VCR Movie Rental." journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media 35, 2 (1991): 213-232.
K rugman , D. M., G. T. C ameron , and C. M.
W hite. "Visual Attention to Programming and
Commercials: The Use of In-Home Observa­
tions." Journal of Advertising 24,1 (1995): 1-12.
Lee, S., and J. R. L umpkin . "Differences in Atti­
tude Towards TV Advertising: VCR Usage as a
Moderator." International Journal of Advertising
11, 4 (1992): 333-342.
Li, H., S. M. E dwards, and J. Lee. "Measur­
ing the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale
Development and Validation." Journal of Adver­
tising 31,2 (2002): 37-47.
M en o n , A. M.; A. D. D eshpande , G. M.
Z inkhan , and M. P erri. "A Model Assess­
ing the Effectiveness of Direct-to-Consumer
Advertising: Integration of Concepts and Meas­
ures From Marketing and Healthcare." Interna­
tional Journal of Advertising 23 (2004): 91-118.
M orimoto, M., and S. C hang . "Consumer Atti­
tudes Toward Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
and Postal Direct Mail Marketing Methods:
Intrusiveness, Perceived Loss of Control, and
Irritation." Journal of Interactive Advertising 7, 1
(2006): 8-20.
N yilasy, G., and L. N . R eid . "Agency Practi­
tioner Theories of How Advertising Works."
Journal of Advertising 38,3 (2009): 81-96.
O bermiller, C., and E. R. S pangenberg. "Devel­
opment of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepti­
cism Toward Advertising." Journal of Consumer
Psychology 7,2 (1998): 159-186.
O bermiller, C., and E. R. S pangenberg. "On the
Origin and Distinctness of Skepticism Toward
Advertising." Marketing Letters 11, 4 (2000):
311-322.
O bermiller, C., E. R. S pangenberg , and D. L.
M ac L achlan . "Ad Skepticism: The Conse­
quences of Disbelief." Journal of Advertising 34,
3 (2005): 7-17.
O 'D o nohoe , S. "Attitudes to Advertising:
Review of British and American Research."
International Journal of Advertising 14, 3 (1995):
245-261.
O 'K eefe, G. J., K. N ash, and J. Liu. "The Per­
ceived Utility of Advertising." Journalism Quar­
terly 58,4 (1981): 535-542.
P asadeos, Y. "Perceived Informativeness of and
Irritation With Local Advertising." Journalism
Quarterly 67,1 (1990): 35-39.
P ollay, R. W., and B. M ittal. "Here's the Beef:
Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Con­
sumer Criticism of Advertising." Journal of Mar­
keting 57, 3 (1993): 99-114.
D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5
THEARF.ORG
P rendergast, G., W. C heung , and D. W est.
"Antecedents to Advertising Avoidance in
China." Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising 32, 2 (2010): 87-100.
R atchford, B. T. "New Insights About the FCB
Grid." Journal of Advertising Research 27,4 (1987):
24-38.
R eid, L. N., and L. C. Soley. "Generalized and
Personalized Attitudes Toward Advertising's
Social and Economic Effects." Journal of Adver­
tising 11, 3 (1982): 3-7.
R ojas-M endez , J. I., and G. D avies. "Avoid­
ing Television Advertising: Some Explanations
From Time Allocation Theory." Journal of Adver­
tising Research 45, 1 (2005): 34-48.
R ojas-M endez, J. I., G. D avies, and C. M adran .
"Universal Differences in Advertising Avoid­
ance Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study." Journal
of Business Research 62 (2009): 947-954.
Schiffman , L. G., and L. L. K anuk . Consumer
Behavior, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren­
tice Hall, 2010.
S havitt, S., P. Lowrey, and J. H aefner. "Public
Attitudes Toward Advertising: More Favorable
Than You Might Think." Journal of Advertising
Research 38,4 (1998): 7-22.
Soley, L. C., and L. N. R eid . "Satisfaction With
the Informational Value of Magazine and Tele­
vision Advertising." Journal of Advertising 12, 3
(1983): 27-31.
S peck, P. S., and M. T. E lliott. "Predictors of
Advertising Avoidance in Print and Broadcast
Media." Journal of Advertising 26,3 (1997): 61-76.
Stout, P. A., and B. A. Burda . "Zipped Com­
mercials: Are They Effective?" Journal of Adver­
tising 18, 4 (1989): 23-32.
V akratsas, D., and T. A mbler. "H ow Advertis­
ing Works: What Do We Really Know?" Journal
of Marketing 63,1 (1999): 26-43.
JDURF1RL OF RDUERTISIRG RESEARCH 415
Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.