Responsibility allocation for child injury: victim age and positive vs. negative framing of manufacturer's safety policy

Two experiments examined allocation of responsibility in the context of a fictitious, but realistic, product-use scenario in which a young girl suffers serious brain injury after consuming a product with a non-obvious hazard (marshmallows). The research investigated whether the responsibility allocated to the various parties would depend on the age of the child and whether the manufacturer took, or failed to take, precautions. Scenarios given to participants stated the age of the girl as 1½ years, 4 years, 8 years, or 16 years and had positive, negative, or no supplemental information about the manufacturer and its safety practices. Both experiments showed that the parents were considered most responsible for a young child's injury, but the allocation decreased with the older child. When negative information about the manufacturer's safety practices was given, allocations of responsibility for the girl's injury to the manufacturer increased significantly. In Experiment 2, the presence of warnings in the positive supplemental information condition reduced the manufacturer's responsibility for the oldest (16-year old) child. Negative impressions due to poor safety practices by manufacturers can lead to increased levels of responsibility allocated for injury. Primary caretakers are responsible for the safety of young children, but as they get older, children are viewed as being more responsible for their own safety. These results have implications for product-development decisions including labelling. They also point out a role for human factors professionals before and during product-related forensic litigation.