Effects of warnings on responsibility allocation

Laughery, Kenneth R.; Laughery, Brenda R.; Lovvoll, David R.; McQuilkin, Meredith L.; Wogalter, Michael S.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199810)15:7<687::aid-mar5>3.0.co;2-b

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this sense, simulation can contribute to the design of the service provision process and the evaluation of different systems created under different what-if scenarios. In particular, the adoption of DES as a tool for SE can offer great potential as a mean for describing, analysing, and optimising the service provision process of many types [38]. It also supports their systematic and optimised engineering.…”

Section: Discrete Event Simulation In Service Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Service Engineering framework to design and assess an integrated product-service

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discrete Event Simulation In Service Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conceptual scheme underlying Service Explorer [25][26][27]. momentum due to the increasing scale of operations and to the complexity and the nature of connected operations [37,38]. By definition, a good service encompasses performance considerations of quality and timeliness.…”

Section: Discrete Event Simulation In Service Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Service Engineering framework to design and assess an integrated product-service

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When a warning label is present, consumers accepted more of the responsibility for safety and put less emphasis on the manufacturer as being responsible for the consumer safety (Laughery et al , 1996). Laughery et al (1998) suggests that regardless of the degree of injury severity, warnings play a significant role in the allocation of responsibility for safety:…”

Section: Theoretical Foundation Relevant Literature and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A satisfied customer is likely to communicate his or her satisfaction to approximately three people, while dissatisfied customers are likely to tell approximately 11 people. Laughery et al (1998) found that people engage in positive word‐of‐mouth advertising when a warning label is present.…”

Section: Theoretical Foundation Relevant Literature and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is socially responsible behavior good business? An investigation of tomorrow's business leaders

Cano

Sams²,

Schwartz³

2008

Social Responsibility Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to seek to answer the question as to why socially responsible behavior is good business behavior.Design/methodology/approachA two (presence/absence of warning label) by two (potentially hazardous/not hazardous product) experimental design tested four hypothesized relationships.FindingsIt was found that the more favorable attitudes formed when warning labels are present support the notion that consumers recognize and value the stewardship principle. The findings are consistent with the emerging trend toward the triple bottom line philosophy. The difference between 2002 and 2006 for condition 4 (i.e. potentially hazardous with warning label) suggest that market activities (i.e. increase awareness of hazardous products) results in a dilution effect in which weaker inferences are formed from non‐diagnostic information. Research limitations/implications – Clearly, the use of only USA samples provides a limitation in that we cannot address how these issues might vary across nations. Furthermore, moderating variables that might explain some of the counterintuitive findings were not considered in this study. As with all scientific research, bias (e.g. replying with an inaccurate but socially acceptable answer) should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study.Practical implicationsThe current research makes two major managerial contributions: it supports the triple bottom line framework which suggests that the value of an organization should integrate economic, environmental, and social activities; and confirms the importance of voluntary labeling as a tool for capturing a competitive advantage.Originality/valueThis study addresses the gap in the literature as to the relationship between voluntary labeling, attitudes, and intentions and provides empirical evidence of the causal relationship.

show abstract

“…A number of recent studies have explored the effects of various factors on the allocation of responsibility for consumer product accidents and injuries. Included in the factors that have been explored are product warnings (Laughery, Laughery, Lovvoll and McQuilkin, 1998), injury severity (Laughery, Laughery, McQuilkin and Lovvoll, 1997), risk taking (Meingast, Laughery, Laughery and Lovvoll, 1999), manufacturer's safety reputation (Kalsher, Wogalter and Williams, 1999;Resnick, Tschen and Kalsher, 1999) and expert testimony (Wogalter, Brantley, Laughery and Lovvoll, 1998). These stndies have implications for understanding jury decision making in product liability litigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allocation of Pain and Suffering Awards for Consumer Product Accidents: Effects of Level of Economic Damages

Laughery

Meingast

et al. 2000

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was carried out to explore the effects of the level of economic damage awards on the amount of pain and suffering awards in a product liability litigation context. Two separate accident scenarios were presented to participants who were instructed to consider themselves in the role of jurors. One scenario involved a vehicle accident resulting in permanent quadriplegia and the other described a work place incident where an employee received chemical burns on 65% of his body. Two levels of economic damages were manipulated for each scenario as a between-participants variable. Following the presentation of each scenario, including the economic damages award, participants were asked to make a pain and suffering award. There were no constraints on the size of the awards. Results indicated significant differences in pain and suffering allocations for the two scenarios (means in dollars were: quad = 2.3 million, burn = 1.4 million). While mean pain and suffering awards were higher for the condition of higher economic damage awards (2.0 million) than for lower economic damage awards (1.5 million), the difference was not statistically significant. Substantial variance in the pain and suffering awards was also found, which poses interesting challenges to juries in reaching agreement on such awards.

show abstract

Effects of warnings on responsibility allocation

Cited by 14 publications

References 7 publications

A Service Engineering framework to design and assess an integrated product-service

A Service Engineering framework to design and assess an integrated product-service

Is socially responsible behavior good business? An investigation of tomorrow's business leaders

Allocation of Pain and Suffering Awards for Consumer Product Accidents: Effects of Level of Economic Damages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About