Risk information can alter risk judgments and promote sound risk decisions. Hazard warnings are critical in providing such information. Both right-to-know and duty-to-warn obligations reflect this. Evidence suggests that warnings can significantly affect risk-taking decisions, but care is needed in interpreting whether their influence leads to successful outcomes. Hazard warnings must accommodate individuals' cognitive limitations. Salient problems include recipients who suffer information overload or are unable to grasp adequately the level of risk communicated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. A range of difficulties that people encounter is outlined in Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, eds., Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
2.
2. For discussion of the limitations on human information processing, see W. Kip Viscusi and Wesley A. Magat, Learning About Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).
3.
3. As another example, a study of consumer responses to household chemicals found that a cluttered warning actually led to increased likely riskiness of the product during use. Consumers did not accurately process product usage information if too much was provided. See Wesley A. Magat and W. Kip Viscusi, Informational Approaches to Regulation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992).
4.
4. The importance of a standardized warning vocabulary has been recognized in legal contexts by the American Law Institute. See American Law Institute, Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury: Reporters' Study (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 1991).
5.
5. James T. Heimbach, The Public Responds to Labeling of the Sodium Content of Foods (Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, 1991).
6.
6. Pauline M. Ippolito and Alan D. Mathios, “Information, Advertising and Health Choices: A Study of the Cereal Market,”Rand Journal of Economics, 21:459-556 (1990).
7.
7. See David Kanouseet al., “Informing Patients About Drugs” (Report R2800-FDA, RAND Corporation, 1981).
8.
8. See Louis A. Morris, Michael B. Mazis, and Evelyn Gordon, “A Survey of the Effects of Oral Contraceptive Patient Information,”Journal of the American Medical Association, 232:2504-2508 (1977).
9.
9. See Louis A. Morris and Ronald Klimburg, “A Survey of Aspirin Use and Reye's Syndrome Awareness Among Parents,”American Journal of Public Health, 76:1422-1424 (1986).
10.
10. See W. Kip Viscusi, Smoking: Making the Risky Decision (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
11.
11. James T. Heimbach, The Public Understanding of Food Label Information (Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, 1981).
12.
12. These statistics are based on Gallup poll results reported in Viscusi, Smoking, p. 50.
13.
13. See Viscusi, Smoking, chap. 4, for discussion of the different smoking survey questions and the responses.
14.
14. For discussion of California Proposition 65 as well as the empirical evidence regarding risk perceptions pertaining to it, see W. Kip Viscusi, Product Risk Labeling: A Federal Responsibility (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1993).
15.
15. For discussion of the rationality and the potential errors in individual seatbelt use, see Richard Arnould and Henry Grabowski, “Auto Safety Regulation: An Analysis of Market Failure,”Bell Journal of Economics, 12:27-45 (1981).
16.
16. For discussion of the tetracycline evidence, see W. Kip Viscusi, Reforming Products Liability (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
17.
17. The cigarette consumption trends are based on data presented in Viscusi, Smoking.
18.
18. See Robert G. Orwin, Raymond E. Schucker, and Raymond C. Stokes, “Evaluating the Life Cycle of a Product Warning: Saccharin and Diet Soft Drinks,”Evaluation Review, 8:801-822 (1984).
19.
19. See W. Kip Viscusi and Charles O'Connor, “Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?”American Economic Review, 74(5):942-956 (1984).
