Our expectations can influence whether we read warnings, how we process warning content, and whether we decide to comply. For example, a person who believes that an activity is not hazardous may be less likely to attend to a warning regarding that activity. This person’s knowledge base, whether accurate or not, will influence related behaviors. In fact, expectations will influence how people approach and interact with virtually any hazardous situation.
Prior knowledge often assists people in new situations and is an important ingredient in forming expectations. This is through a process called transfer of learning where prior knowledge is applied to similar situations. Maximum transfer of learning occurs when more similar elements exist in a given situation because this leads to increased familiarity. For example, a study found that the more familiar people were with cars, the more new information about cars people were able to recall. Transfer of learning can also impact expectations about similar products. This can be dangerous when products perceived as the same are actually more risky. Users may have the same expectations for two different products even though one product is different and may be more hazardous.
Studies have found that increased familiarity with a product reduces its perceived hazardousness. Familiarity with a product tends to reduce the likelihood of looking for warnings, particularly when products are perceived as less hazardous. This relationship was weakened when the products were perceived as highly hazardous (pesticide, turpentine). When products are judged to be more familiar, easier to use, safer, cheaper, or are used more frequently, people also report they are less likely to read labels. People familiar with a product or activity typically have well-formed expectations about related hazards and do not actively seek new information. Habituation is a factor often used to explain the effect of familiarity on attention to warnings. As a result of repeated exposure to a warning, people may become habituated to it and fail to notice it. They may also become desensitized to warnings as a result of repeated exposure without immediate consequences. If no immediate consequence occurs (false alarms), it may affect expectations and subsequent behavior. False alarms that alert people when a hazard is not present result in a tendency to reduce the credibility of warnings based on expectations of no imminent hazard. If a warning is presented without an aversive incident occurring, the likelihood of heeding subsequent warnings is reduced because previous experience leads to no expectation of danger. Benign experiences occur when people perform a risky behavior without an adverse outcome and experiences can be used to explain why familiarity often decreases warning compliance. When a product is used without incident, familiarity develops, confidence builds about the product’s safe use and safety concerns decrease even when a warning is present. This regular and benign exposure likely results in warnings being filtered out. If people do not expect a warning to be relevant to the task they are performing or the situation, then they may not read enough of the warning to determine that it is in fact relevant to them. Consumers may ignore certain warnings because they do not believe they are relevant (and thus they hold no interest). Consider warnings regarding the dangers of alcohol to pregnant women. A man will likely ignore warnings of this nature because they are not relevant to him. On the other hand, the warning will be of greater interest and relevance to a pregnant woman because of the risk to her child. Warnings are most likely to be effective when people are in a receptive or information-seeking mode, typically when a high hazard level is perceived and when the product or activity is unfamiliar. Lack of perceived personal relevance of a warning may facilitate inattention. When there is an expectation of risk, it is more likely that available warnings will be attended to. In a study on the memory of cigarette warnings, smokers recalled more warning information than non-smokers. The smokers may have recalled these warnings better because they found them more relevant than did the non-smokers, but also may be due to prior exposure frequency.
There is a need for further study on how to develop warnings that can work with and alter expectations to motivate people to protect themselves regardless of different situational factors. Specifically, more research is needed to find out how warnings themselves can influence expectations, limiting the impact of the person variables discussed in this article. While no warning can elicit absolute compliance, by understanding how expectations impact safety-related behavior, warning designers can maximize the efficacy of product labeling.
This article by Alison Vredenburgh, Ph.D., was published in The San Diego Daily Transcript on July 20, 2006 as part of the Forensic Consultants Association Spadia. Alison Vredenburgh, Ph.D., CPE is the Principal of Vredenburgh & Associates, Inc. She has designed on-product warnings and operating instructions. She is frequently retained as an expert to evaluate consumer, industrial and medical product warnings. She can be reached at 760-434-4741 or by email at alisonv@adelphia.net. Her website is www.vandainc.com.
For more articles from FCA, please visit the
Forensic Consultants Association Article Index
To locate a consultant / expert witness, please visit our Forensic Specialist search page.
© Copyright 2007 Website Code by G-Force Services