Consumers' Interpretation of the Statement: “Do not leave [insert product here] unattended”

Abstract

Consumer's interpretation and understanding of the commonly encountered instruction/warning “do not leave unattended” with respect to three different types of consumer products were examined. Two hundred and eleven respondents were surveyed in the Los Angeles, CA area. The majority of the participants interpreted the phrase differently than how the warning designer intended. The results were also affected by the type of consumer product, for example: battery charger v. cooking appliance v. open flame. The results offer interesting insight into the varying understandings that consumers possess of statements similar to “do not leave [product] unattended” with respect to different types of consumer products. The consequences of the misunderstandings are significant if the warning designer's is relying upon the instruction to ensure the safety of the products and the end user. The results also highlight the necessity of using explicit and specific information when providing consumer instructions and warnings to ensure that the intent of the warning is adequately communicated and the importance of testing warning text to ensure product users understand the intended meaning of the warning.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Frantz (1994). Effect of location and procedural explicitness on users processing of and compliance with product warnings. Human Factors, 36 (3). Pgs. 532–546.

Godfrey

S. S.

Allender

Laughery

K.R.

Smith

V.L.

(1983). Warning message: will the consumer bother to look. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting. Pgs. 950–954. HFES: Santa Monica, CA.

Laughery

K.R.

Hammond

(1999). Chapter 1: Overview. In Warnings and Risk Communication (Eds. De Wogalter

Joy

). Pgs. 3–13. Taylor & Francis: Philadelphia, PA.

Laughery

K.R.

Paige-Smith

(2006). Chapter 31: Explicit information in warnings. In Handbook of Warnings (Ed. Wogalter

). Pgs. 419–428. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

Peters

(1980). 15 cardinal principles to ensure effectiveness of warning systems. Occupational Health and Safety, May. Pgs. 76–79.

Riley

D.M.

(2006). Chapter 21: Beliefs, attitudes, and motivation. In Handbook of Warnings (Ed. Wogalter

). Pgs. 289–301. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

Smith-Jackson

Wogalter

M.S.

(2006). Chapter 3: Methods and procedures. In Handbook of Warnings (Ed. Wogalter

). Pgs. 23–32. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

Vigilante

W.J.

Lim

R.W.

(2010). Consumer product risk perception. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. AHEA International.

Wagenaar

W.A.

(1992). Chapter 9: Risk taking and accident causation. In Risk Taking Behavior (Ed. Yates

J.F.

). Pgs. 257–280. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: New York, NY.

10.

Weegles

W.F.

Kanis

(2000). Risk perception in consumer product use. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32. Pgs. 365–370.

11.

Wogalter

M.S.

(2006). Chapter 5: Communication-Human Information Processing (C-HIP) model. In Handbook of Warnings (Ed. Wogalter

). Pgs. 51–61. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

12.

Wogalter

M.S.

Brelsford

J.W.

Desaulniers

D.R.

Laughery

K.R.

(1991). Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception. Journal of Safety Research, 22. Pgs. 71–82.

13.

Wogalter

M.S.

Conzola

V.C.

Vigilante

W.J.

(2006). Chatper 38: Applying usability engineering principles to the design and testing of warning text. In Handbook of Warnings (Ed. Wogalter

). Pgs. 487–498. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

14.

Wogalter

M.S.

Young

S.L.

Brelsford

J.W.

Barlow

(1999). The relative contributes of injury severity and likelihood information on hazard-risk judgments and warning compliance. Journal of Safety Research, 30(3), Pgs. 151–162.

15.

Woodson

Tillman

(1992). Human Factors Design Handbook (2nd Ed.). McGraw Hill, Inc.: Columbus, OH.