Chapter 5
Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs as an argumentative activity type
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Intrinsic and extrinsic constraints on argumentative discourse
- 3.
Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements
- 4.DTCA as an argumentative activity type
- 5.Example: Nexium advertisement
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References
Bell, Robert A., Richard L. Kravitz and Michael S. Wilkes
(
2000)
“Direct-to-consumer Prescription Drug Advertising, 1989–1998: A content Analysis of Conditions, Targets, Inducements and Appeals.” The Journal of Family Practice, 49(4): 329–335.

Calfee, John E.
(
2002)
“Public Policy Issues in Direct-to-consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(2): 174–193.


Cohen, Eric P.
(
1990)
“Are Pharmaceutical Ads Good Medicine?” Business and Society Review, 2: 8–10

Goodnight, G. Thomas
(
2008)
“Strategic Maneuvering in Direct to Consumer Drug Advertising: A Study in Argumentation Theory and New Institutional Theory.” Argumentation, 22(3): 359–371.


Harker, Michael and Debra Harker
(
2007)
“Direct-to-consumer Advertising of Prescription Medicines: A Systematic Review of the Evidence from the Perspective of the Consumer.” Journal of medical Marketing, 7:45–54.


Huh, Jisu, Denise E. DeLorme, Leonard N. Reid and Soontae An
(
2010)
“Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising: History, Regulation, and Issues.” Minnesota Medicine March 2010: 50–52.

Levinson, Stephen C.
(
1992)
“Activity Types and Language.” In
Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by
Paul Drew and
John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mohammed, Dima and Peter Schulz
(
2011)
“Argumentative Insights for the Analysis of Direct-to-consumer Advertising.” In
Proceedings of the seventh ISSA conference on argumentation, edited by
F. H. van Eemeren,
B. Garssen,
D. Godden and
G. Mitchell, 1322–1333. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Orizio, Grazia, Peter Schulz, Serena Domenighini, Maura Bressanelli, Sara Rubinelli, Luigi Caimi and Umberto Gelatti
(
2009)
“Online Consultations in Cyberpharamcies: Completeness and Patient Safety.” Telemedicine and e-Health, 15(10): 1022–1025.


Rubinelli, Sara, Kent Nakamoto and Peter Schulz
(
2008)
“The Rabbit in the Hat: Dubious Argumentation and the Persuasive Effects of Prescription Drug Advertising.” Communication & Medicine, 5(1):49–58.


van Eemeren, Frans H. and Bart Garssen
(
2009)
“In Varietate Concordia – United in Diversity: European Parliamentary Debate as an Argumentative Activity Type.” Controversia, 7(1):19–37.

van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
(
1984)
Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin: de Gruyter.


van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
(
2004)
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, Frans H. and Peter Houtlosser
(
2002)
“Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.” In
Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, edited by
F. H. van Eemeren and
P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.


van Haaften, Ton
(
2011)
“Dutch Parliamentary Debate as Communicative Activity Type.” In
Proceedings of the seventh ISSA conference on argumentation, edited by
F. H. van Eemeren,
B. Garssen,
D. Godden and
G. Mitchell, 687–695. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

van Poppel, Lotte and Sara Rubinelli
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.