IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/doi10.1086-677562.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is It Still Working? Task Difficulty Promotes a Rapid Wear-Off Bias in Judgments of Pharmacological Products

Author

Listed:
  • Veronika Ilyuk
  • Lauren Block
  • David Faro

Abstract

Misuse of pharmacological products is a major public health concern. Seven studies provide evidence of a rapid wear-off bias in judgments of pharmacological products: consumers infer that duration of product efficacy is dependent on concurrent task difficulty, such that relatively more difficult tasks lead to faster product wear-off. This bias appears to be grounded in consumers' incorrect application of a mental model about substance wear-off based on their experiences with, and beliefs about, various physical and biological phenomena. Results indicate that the rapid wear-off bias affects consumption frequency and may thus contribute to overdosing of widely available pharmacological products. Further, manufacturers' intake instructions in an interval format (e.g., "Take one pill every 2-4 hours") are shown to signal that efficacy is task dependent and reinforce the bias. Debiasing mechanisms--interventions to reduce the rapid wear-off bias and its impact--along with implications for consumers, marketers, and public health officials, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronika Ilyuk & Lauren Block & David Faro, 2014. "Is It Still Working? Task Difficulty Promotes a Rapid Wear-Off Bias in Judgments of Pharmacological Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 775-793.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/677562
    DOI: 10.1086/677562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677562
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677562
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/677562?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/677562. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.