A study was carried out using four measures of effectiveness to compare product warnings that are consistent with the American National Standards Institute Product Safety Signs and Labels standard (ANSI 2535.4) to warnings that are not consistent with the standard. Inconsistent warnings were based on the format of existing product warnings. Two warnings, consistent and inconsistent, for each of ten different products were evaluated: cooking oil, trampoline, paint, dresser, airbag, seat belt, tire, sports utility vehicle, reclining seat and swimming pool. The four effectiveness criteria were judgments of noticeability, likelihood to read, understandability and likelihood of complying. Participants were 176 students with varied majors from five different universities. Results indicated higher levels of judged effectiveness for the warnings that were consistent with the ANSI standard. The differences were statistically significant for all four effectiveness measures for all ten products. While warnings that are consistent with the ANSI 2535.4 standard do not by themselves necessarily constitute an adequate warning system, these results indicate that the standard does have merit and utility and represents a good starting point in warning design.
A study explored how injury severity and the presence of warnings influence people's allocation of responsibility for safety during consumer product use. Eighty-eight subjects were shown ten scenarios, one for each of ten products, describing an accident and injury. The subjects assigned responsibility to the manufacturer, the retailer and the consumer (user). Two variables were manipulated: injury severity and the presence or absence of a warning. The mean responsibility assigned to consumers was 85% and 41% with and without warnings, respectively. The mean allocations to manufacturers was 11% and 49% with and without warnings. The warning effect was less, however, when hazards were more obvious, with consumers generally assigned more responsibility when hazards were obvious. Injury severity was a factor only when warnings were present; manufacturers were assigned greater responsibility for severe injury accidents than for less severe injuries. These results have implications for policies about the need for warnings and for understanding or predicting outcomes of jury decisions in product liability litigation.
This study explored how product users' risk taking characteristics and the presence or absence of a warning influenced allocation of responsibility for accidents during consumer product use. Sixty-three subjects were shown eight scenarios describing a product accident and injury. The scenarios described a litigation context that implicated the consumer as a high or low risk taker. Subjects allocated accident responsibility between the manufacturer, retailer, and consumer (user). Two variables were manipulated; descriptions of users' prior risk taking behaviors, and presence or absence of a warning. A warning effect was found; mean allocation to manufacturers was 20% and 60% with and without warnings, and 74% and 31% to consumers with and without warnings. High risk takers received more responsibility (85%) than low risk takers (65%) when warnings were present; however, in the no-warning condition the difference between allocations made to high and low risk takers was greatly reduced (28% and 35% respectively).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.