Heeding the Warnings

Product warning labels—we all see them, but do they say enough, and do we really pay attention?

Rice University psychologist Kenneth Laughery says maybe not on both counts. A recognized leader in the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Laughery has spent close to three decades investigating issues related to the labeling and warnings associated with hazardous consumer products and hazardous environments. He also has conducted extensive research on hazard and risk perception and those factors that influence people’s acquisition and use of such knowledge. As a result, Laughery frequently is asked to give expert trial testimony on the design and effectiveness of warning labels for such products as automobile seat belts, air bags, kitchen appliances, and, more recently, dietary supplements.

The issues regarding a product’s safety communications can be complicated, and opinions of a safety communication’s effectiveness can differ even among experts. But Laughery, the Herbert S. Autrey Professor Emeritus of Psychology, and most practitioners in the field of safety communications base their evaluations on several criteria: Do the label’s design and location capture the consumer’s attention? Does the label contain information about the product’s hazards, the potential consequences of those hazards, and instructions for its proper use? Who is the target audience, and can they comprehend the label? Even the brevity of the content on the label and the durability of the label itself are taken into consideration.

Prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on diet pills containing ephedra, Laughery was asked by attorneys in a number of suits against Metabolife and other supplement manufacturers to assess the adequacy of the manufacturer’s warning labels on their products. In particular cases involving ephedra- or caffeine-based dietary supplements, Laughery was concerned that the warnings contained inadequate information about possible contraindications and side effects. “Some contraindications might be as straightforward as pregnancy or being under a certain age,” Laughery explains, “but examples of others might be less obvious or less known, such as the existence of high blood pressure, liver disease, or a family history of various kinds of health problems.”

One of the most difficult aspects of a warning label to evaluate, according to Laughery, is whether it motivates the consumer to comply with the warning. This was an issue in the case of dietary supplements. “Given people’s desperation to lose weight for health and cosmetic reasons,” he says, “one issue was whether a label that adequately warns about the effects of using dietary supplements with ephedra and caffeine would have resulted in a high rate of compliance.” Laughery believes that one way to encourage compliance is to provide labels with explicit information about the risks of using a product, particularly if those risks are severe. “Simply warning that a particular product may be hazardous to your health doesn’t really tell consumers what they need or want to know,” he says.

Still, even with adequate warning labels, consumer compliance can be a challenge. Most people view the risk of injury or illness due to product consumption in the same way they think about accidents—low-probability events that won’t happen to them.

There are other factors that influence compliance with warnings. Where and how the warning is presented matters. “In today’s cars, a front passenger’s seat in the reclining position negates the effectiveness of the seat belt,” Laughery says, “but most people are unaware of this.” Why? Laughery believes it’s because the warning is in the automobile manual, which is read by only about 5 percent of owners. “That’s an example of how a warning’s location influences its effectiveness,” he says. “Most people we’ve surveyed use their car manual as a reference document. It’s not something they would read cover-to-cover.”