Allocation of Responsibility for Injuries Sustained from the Use of Technologically-Mediated Consumer Products

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Kelly's (1972) theory of causal attribution was used as a basis for assessing how participants allocated responsibility for injuries sustained in four fictitious product-use scenarios. Each scenario described an injury (mild or severe) that occurred during the use of a consumer product that was mediated by a computerized device. Different versions of each product-use scenario were created to account for manipulations of consensus, consistency, distinctiveness, and injury type. Results showed that participants' overall scores of attribution allocations were consistent with Kelly's attributional model and McArthur's (1972) findings. In situations of low consensus, high consistency, and low distinctiveness, participants made internal causal attributions; and for situations of high consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness, participants made external attributions. The manipulation of accident severity (mild or severe) had no significant effect on attributional tendencies. The availability of a product-use warning was associated with a greater tendency to attribute responsibility for the injury to the consumer. Implications of these results are discussed and suggestions for further research are offered.