Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception

Three studies examined factors associated with people's hazard perceptions of consumer products. A specific interest was how these perceptions relate to willingness to read product warnings. In Study 1, 72 generically-named products were rated on perceived hazard, familiarity, and several expectations associated with warnings, including willingness to read them. Willingness to read warnings was found to have a strong positive relationship with perceived hazard. Though familiarity was negatively related to willingness to read warnings, it provided little predictive value beyond perceived hazard. In addition, products judged as more hazardous were expected to have warnings, to have them in close proximity to the product, and to be less aesthetically impaired by prominent warnings. Since hazard perception was found to be an important determinant of willlingness to read warnings, potential components of hazard perception were examined in Studies 2 and 3. Study 2 showed that perceived severity of injury related more strongly to perceptions of hazard than likelihood of injury. In Study 3, participants generated accident scenarios and rated the severity and likelihood of each scenario. For each product, they also judged overall hazard and their intent to behave cautiously. Results supported the two earlier studies and showed that severity of the first generated scenario was most predictive of hazard perception. Theoretical implications and applications for warning design are discussed.

[1]  David M. DeJoy,et al.  Consumer Product Warnings: Review and Analysis of Effectiveness Research , 1989 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the study of statistical intuitions , 1982, Cognition.

[3]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Risk Perception and Precautionary Intent for Common Consumer Products , 1989 .

[4]  L A Morris,et al.  Application of the readability concept to patient-oriented drug information. , 1980, American journal of hospital pharmacy.

[5]  D. H. Roth,et al.  The readability of directions on non-prescription drugs. , 1976, Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association.

[6]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[7]  Roger L. McCarthy,et al.  Warnings on Consumer Products: Objective Criteria for their use , 1982 .

[8]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Effectiveness of Warnings , 1987 .

[9]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[10]  H. Harvey Cohen,et al.  Factors Affecting Consumers' Perceptions of Product Warnings: An Examination of the Differences between Male and Female Consumers , 1987 .

[11]  Kimberly A. Donner,et al.  The effects of warning modality, warning formality, and product on safety behavior , 1990 .

[12]  Kenneth R. Laughery,et al.  Effects of Warning Explicitness on Product Perceptions , 1989 .

[13]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. , 1978 .

[14]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Effects of Cost and Social Influence on Warning Compliance , 1989 .

[15]  Kenneth R. Laughery,et al.  Warning Messages: Will the Consumer Bother to Look? , 1983 .

[16]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[17]  Michael L. Ursic RESEARCH NOTE, The Impact of Safety Warnings on Perception and Memory , 1984 .

[18]  Patricia Wright,et al.  Some factors determining when instructions will be read , 1982 .

[19]  P. Slovic,et al.  FACTS AND FEARS: UNDERSTANDING PERCEIVED RISK.: P/3 , 1980 .

[20]  William W. Lowrance,et al.  The Nature of Risk , 1980 .

[21]  S. Oppe,et al.  The concept of risk: a decision theoretic approach , 1988 .