Abstract
This study examined allocations of blame for injuries sustained from the consumption of a product with a non-obvious hazard. Participants were given product-use scenarios that described a girl whose age was manipulated to be from 18 months to 16 years and who suffered serious brain damage after choking on a marshmallow made available to her by her mother. Supplementary information intended to be either positive or detrimental to the manufacturer and its safety practices was either present or absent from the scenario. When present and positive, the manufacturer put a warning on the product about the non-obvious hazard. The warning was manipulated by having color or not and a multi-frame or single-frame pictorial. Results replicated findings reported initially by Kalsher et al. (1999). When supplementary information was positive or not provided, participants directed more blame toward the parents of the young victim and less to the manufacturer. The opposite pattern was shown when negative supplementary information about the manufacturer and its safety practices was provided, suggesting that people perceived the manufacturer as irresponsible in their practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.