How Do People Attribute Blame for Burns Sustained from Hot Coffee? The Role of Causal Attributions

Abstract

Safety researchers have begun to systematically examine how people assign blame for injuries sustained during the use of or exposure to consumer products. In this study we examine people's attributions in the context of product-use scenarios loosely based on the now famous incident in which a woman was scalded by hot coffee from McDonald's. Each scenario described a situation in which a person (driver or passenger) was burned when they spilled hot coffee on themselves while going to work. Supplementary information intended to be either positive or detrimental to McDonald's was either present or absent from the scenario. In general, participants allocated more responsibility to the consumer than to McDonald's. Depicting the consumer as the driver or passenger had no effect on participants' allocations. As expected, adding information that is detrimental to McDonald's shifted blame away from the consumer and toward McDonald's. Adding positive information had no corresponding effect. The implications of these results for consumers, legal professionals, and researchers are discussed.

Allocation of Responsibility for Injuries from a “Hidden” Hazard

“…This finding supports the results reported by Kalsher et al (1998) in which participants affixed more blame to McDonalds when they were portrayed in a negative light. However, in the present study, the positively framed information condition had a significant-and opposite-effect on participants allocations that did not occur in the Kalsher et al (1998) study. Specifically, providing participants with positive information about the manufacturer's policies and practices shifted the blame toward the parents.…”

“…We did so by using the single-scenario approach used by Kalsher et al (1998). In the present study, we created scenarios in which a girl (of varying ages) is severely brain-damaged as a result of choking on marshmallows.…”

“…In a recent field investigation, Kalsher, Phoenix, Wogalter, and Braun (1998) examined how participants allocated blame in fictitious scenarios loosely based on the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case in which an elderly woman was scalded when she spilled coffee obtained from the drive-through window onto her lap. In the study, supplementary information intended to be either positive or detrimental to the manufacturer and its safety practices was either present or absent from the scenario.…”

“…The purpose of the present study is to build on previous research by investigating how people attribute blame for injuries sustained from the use of consumer products in which the hazards are either hidden or unknown. We did so by using the single-scenario approach used by Kalsher et al (1998). In the present study, we created scenarios in which a girl (of varying ages) is severely brain-damaged as a result of choking on marshmallows.…”

Separating the Effects of Warning and Information Distribution Practices: A Case of Cascading Responsibility

“…A field investigation by Kalsher, Phoenix, Wogalter and Braun (1998) supports this reasoning. These researchers examined how participants allocated blame in fictitious scenarios based loosely on the McDonald's hot coffee case.…”