How Do People Attribute Blame for Burns Sustained from Hot Coffee? The Role of Causal Attributions

Abstract

Safety researchers have begun to systematically examine how people assign blame for injuries sustained during the use of or exposure to consumer products. In this study we examine people's attributions in the context of product-use scenarios loosely based on the now famous incident in which a woman was scalded by hot coffee from McDonald's. Each scenario described a situation in which a person (driver or passenger) was burned when they spilled hot coffee on themselves while going to work. Supplementary information intended to be either positive or detrimental to McDonald's was either present or absent from the scenario. In general, participants allocated more responsibility to the consumer than to McDonald's. Depicting the consumer as the driver or passenger had no effect on participants' allocations. As expected, adding information that is detrimental to McDonald's shifted blame away from the consumer and toward McDonald's. Adding positive information had no corresponding effect. The implications of these results for consumers, legal professionals, and researchers are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kelley

H. H.

(1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. New York: General Learning press.

Kelley

H. H.

(1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

Laughery

K. R.

Lovvoll

D. R.

McQuilkin

M. L.

(1996). Allocation of responsibility for child safety. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40, 810–813.

Lovvoll

D. R.

Laughery

K. R.

McQuilkin

M. L.

Wogalter

M. S.

(1996). Responsibility for product safety in the work environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40, 814–817.

Phoenix

G. M.

Kalsher

M. J.

Champagne

M. V.

(1997). Allocation of responsibility for injuries sustained from the use of technologically-mediated consumer products. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 41, 400–404.