The Ability of two lay groups to Judge Product Warning Effectiveness

Abstract

How well can lay people assess the effectiveness or “adequacy” of product warnings without assistance from expert testimony? To begin to answer this question, two studies were conducted to determine the extent to which law students and engineering students could assess the relative effectiveness of two drain opener warning label designs. In the first experiment, only 18 of the 38 engineering students (47%) correctly identified the warning label design that had, in a previous study, been shown to be significantly more effective with similar subjects who actually used the product. In addition, these subjects did not accurately predict the likelihood that their peers would read and comply with the precautions. In the second experiment, only 14 of the 42 law students (33%) correctly identified the more effective of two label designs. This research contradicts several legal authors who postulate that juries are capable of determining the effectiveness of a warning unaided by well-founded expert testimony. More specifically, these studies do not support the assertion that the “knowledge of ordinary people” is sufficient to 1) distinguish between warnings that differ in their behavioral effectiveness and 2) accurately predict the likelihood that people such as themselves will read and heed safety instructions when using a product.