Little research has been done concerning consumer product safety warnings. This study, using 91 undergraduates, attempts to alleviate this void through an experiment in which the design and presence of a safety warning are systematically varied. The presence of a warning is found to have a positive impact on an individual's perception of the effectiveness and safety of a brand. The use of a pictogram, the strength of a signal word, and the use of capital letters in a safety warning are found to have little effect on perception of a brand or on memory of safety information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Optical v. Weiderhamer, 404 N.E. 2d 606 (Ind. 1980).
2.
Bishop, N. H., Feinberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Black and Decker Corp., 518 S. W. 2d 868 (Tex. 1974).
4.
Code of Federal Regulations, (1982). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.
Collins, B., and Lerner N. (1982). Assessment of fire-safety symbols. Human Factors, 24, 75–84.
6.
FMC Corporation. (1980). Product safety and label system (3rd ed.). Santa Clara, CA: Author.
7.
Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S. W. 2d 582 (Tex. 1982).
8.
Formella v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 300 N. W. 2d 356 (Mich. 1981).
9.
Griggs v. Firestone Tire and Rubber, 513 F. 2d 851 (8th Cir. 1973).
10.
Restatement or Torts 2d. (1965). St. Paul, MN; American Law Institute.
11.
Riley M., Cochran D., and Ballard J. (1982). An investigation into the preferred shapes for warning labels. Human Factors, 24, 737–743.
12.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (1982). Neiss data highlights, national electronic injury surveillance system. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
Wallinger v. Martin Stamping & Stove Co., 236 N. E. 2d 755 (III. 1968).
14.
Wright, P. (1979). Concrete action plans in TV messages to increase reading of drug warnings. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 256–270.
