Chapter published in:
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 77–92

Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs as an argumentative activity type

Published online: 12 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.05wie
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Eric P.
(1990) “Are Pharmaceutical Ads Good Medicine?” Business and Society Review, 2: 8–10Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H.
(2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
(1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Poppel, Lotte and Sara Rubinelli
(2011) “‘Try the Smarter Way’: On the Claimed Efficacy of Advertised Medicines.” In Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics, edited by Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 153–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar