This study examined people’s safety perceptions concerning consumer products. Participants (n=129) were asked about their overall beliefs concerning safety of consumer products sold in the U.S. Beliefs regarding government and industry policies concerning safety were also collected. Results showed that participants gave ratings indicating believing that consumer products sold in the U.S. are safe. People tended to trust U.S. government’s policies towards product safety. However, participants’ responses indicate skepticism about manufacturers’ motivations. Implications for HF/E research in risk communication are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Consumer Reports (2010, September). The 12 most dangerous supplements, which ones to avoid why they’re on the market, 16-23.
2.
DejoyD. M. (1999). Attitudes and Beliefs. In WogalterM. S.DejoyD. M.LaugheryK. R. (Eds.), Warnings and risk communication (pp. 189-219). London: Taylor and Francis.
GodfreyS. S.LaugheryK. R. (1984). The biasing effect of familiarity on consumer’s awareness of hazard. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 28, 483-486.
5.
GoldhaberG. M.deTurckM. A. (1988). Effects of consumer’s familiarity with a product on attention and compliance with warnings. Journal of Products Liability, 11, 29-37.
LaugheryK. R. (2006). Safety communications: Warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 467-478.
8.
LeschM. F. (2006). Consumer product warnings: Research and recommendations (Chap. 10). In WogalterM. S. (Ed.) Handbook of Warnings (pp. 137-146). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
MehlenbacherB.WogalterM.S.LaugheryK.R. (2002). On the reading of product owner’s manuals: Perceptions and product complexity. Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, 46, 730-734.
OrtizJ.ResnickM. L.KengkoolK (2000, July). The effects of familiarity and risk perception on workplace warning compliance. In IEA/HFES 2000 Congress Proceedings (14th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; pp. 4826-4829). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
RhoadesT. P.FrantzJ. P.MillerJ.M. (1990). Emerging methodologies for the assessment of safety-related product communications. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34, 998-1002.
13.
RileyD. M. (2006). Beliefs, attitudes, and motivation (Chap. 21). In WogalterM. S. (Ed.) Handbook of Warnings (pp. 289-300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
WogalterM. S. (2006a). Purposes and scope of warning (Chap. 1). In WogalterM. S. (Ed.) Handbook of Warnings (pp. 3-9). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
WogalterM. S. (2006b). C-HIP model (Chap. 5). In WogalterM. S. (Ed.) Handbook of Warnings (pp. 51-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
WogalterM. S.BrelsfordJ. W.DesaulniersD. R.LaugheryK. R. (1991). Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception. Journal of Safety Research, 22, 71-82.
17.
WogalterM.S.BarlowT.MurphyS. A. (1995). Compliance to owner’s manual warnings: influence of familiarity and the placement of a supplemental directive. Ergonomics, 38, 6, 1081-1091.
18.
WogalterM. S.DeJoyD. M.LaugheryK. R. (1999). Organizing theoretical framework: A consolidated communication human information processing (C-HIP) model. In WogalterM. S.DejoyD. M.LaugheryK. R. (Eds.), Warnings and risk communication (pp. 15-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
