Standards, guidelines, and research findings suggest that safety signs should generally contain four components: signal word, hazard, consequence and instruction statements. The purpose of this research is to determine the relative importance of different safety sign components. Two experiments examined this issue by having subjects construct a set of warning signs from component sections. In Experiment 1, participants manipulated component sections and assembled them onto a metal plate (of limited size). In Experiment 2, subjects worked with a technician to produce the signs on a computer. The relative importance of the individual components was determined by examining (1) use vs. omission rates, ( 2 ) size, and (3) order. The results show that few subjects used all the components in their warnings. Participants enlarged certain statements (Experiment 1) or added pictorials (Experiment 2) which necessitated the omission of other, presumably lessimportant, elements. The order of sign components was consistent only for signal words, which were placed generally at the top. The results suggest that, for certain hazards, the overall quality of information conveyed by a sign might be improved by eliminating or making smaller less important information, while simultaneously increasing the size of more relevant verbal information (or adding pictorials).
Three studies were carried out to explore how people allocate responsibility for safety during product use. In Study 1 29 consumer products were named and subjects apportioned safety responsibility to the manufacturer, the retailer, the user, and a potentially relevant organization not in the stream of commerce (e.g., FDA, CPSC, Underwriters Laboratories). The mean percent responsibility allocated to these four alternatives was 43%, 9%, 27% and 21% respectively. A significant interaction indicated that the allocation varied across products. In Study 2 safety responsibility for the same products was allocated to the manufacturer, retailer and user, but the “outside” organization was omitted. The mean percent allocated was 51%, 20% and 30% respectively. In this study, additional questions assessed various perceptions of the products and the subject's familiarity with the products. The results indicated that responsibility allocation was a function of perception of product hazardousness; the more hazardous a product is perceived to be, the more responsibility is allocated to the user. Study 3 investigated some of the attributes of high hazard products which are associated with various allocations of product safety. For high hazard products with open and obvious risks (chain saws, cutting torches), more responsibility was allocated to consumers as opposed to manufacturers. On the other hand, for those high hazard products with “hidden” risks (pesticides, antifreeze), manufacturers were typically allocated a much higher degree of responsibility.
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.
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.