Safety researchers have investigated how people assign blame for injuries sustained during the use of or exposure to consumer products. In this study, we examine attributions made by people given product-use scenarios that describe a girl whose age is manipulated to be from 18 months to 16 years and who suffers serious brain damage after chocking on marshmallows 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. Approximately half of the participants in the positive frame condition also received sample product warnings purportedly developed and used by the manufactuer. In general, participants allocated more responsibility to the girl's parents than to the manufacturer. As predicted, allocation of blame to the girl varied directly with her age. The greater the age of the child, the greater the blame she received. Supplementary informaiton that casts the manufacturer and the manufacturer's practices in a positive light shifted blame away from the manufactuer toward the giral and her parents. COnversely, supplementary informaiton detrimental to the manufactuer shifted blame away from the girl and her parents and toward the manufacturer. The warnings had no measurable effect on allocation of blame. The implications of these results for consumers, legal professionals, and researchers are discussed.
展开▼
