Chapter 2 - Quantitative Research Findings and Implications

The raw data tabulations were analyzed by the Research Core Group for several reasons:

• to discover what overall findings, or observations, could be made from the quantitative data about consumers' comprehension, attitudes, behavior and satisfaction with labeling;
• to identify the implications, or connections, among the various findings related to a learning objective or topic area; and
• to evaluate labeling alternatives (for both registered and non-registered products) in the outdoor pesticides, indoor insecticides, and hard surface cleaner categories.

The Core Group hoped to be able to organize the findings in accordance with the learning questions and the topic areas studied in the quantitative research. Once in-depth analysis began, however, it became evident that the data leading to the findings were not clear-cut, but in fact overlapped with one or more of the learning objectives and topic areas.

Wherever possible in this report, findings and implications have been organized according to topic area. Data charts and tables follow the findings that they support; most charts are presented in both graphic and numerical formats. Implications of the findings are provided following the findings from which these have been drawn.

Learning Objectives and Topic Areas

The quantitative survey was designed to address six learning objectives identified by the CLI Partner and Task Force members at the beginning of Phase II.

In addition to the learning objectives, the quantitative study also focused on the following topic areas:

Findings and Implications

Terminology

Findings are observations resulting directly from the quantitative survey results and are supported by the data.

Implications show connections among the various findings related to a topic or learning objective and are derived from consideration of the quantitative findings.

Findings on Respondents' Satisfaction with Existing Labels (Chart 2-1, Table 2-2)

In general, respondents expressed overall satisfaction with the product labels in the three product categories. However, when presented with specific alternate label formats or language preferences, they indicated a desire for specific changes.

Findings on Respondents Comprehension of Existing Labels (Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-5)

1. Overall respondents' comprehension of the label sections was high in all three product categories. A consistent exception to this finding is that over half of the respondents found the words in the ingredients section to be confusing.

2. The overwhelming majority of respondents for all three product categories said there were no confusing words or phrases in any of the various label sections. In the outdoor pesticides category, however, over one third said there were confusing words or phrases in the environmental hazards section.

3. In all three product categories, respondents preferred the alternative, revised statements over the existing label language, with only a few limited exceptions.

4. In each of the three product categories, comprehension of the label language was high, with just a few exceptions. However, there are noteworthy findings for Indoor insecticides and outdoor pesticide categories:

• For indoor insecticides -- nearly one-half of the respondents indicated that there was something confusing about the First Aid section of the label. A large majority of these respondents had difficulty with the phrase "gastric lavage is indicated if material is taken internally."
• For outdoor pesticides -- one-third of the respondents indicated confusion with the Environmental Hazards section. The phrase "This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates" was mentioned most often as the source of this confusion.

5. Respondents were fairly definitive with regard to the preference for various statements tested related to household cleaners. In particular, each statement had two-thirds or more of the respondents preferring one alternative or the other. Please refer to the following table for a complete listing of statement preferences.

6. While consumers exhibited strong preference for certain statements on indoor insecticide labels such as "Can be absorbed through skin" (97%) versus "Can be absorbed dermally" (3%), there was considerably less agreement on statements such as "Do not re-enter for X hours after application" (52%) versus "Allow X hours before re-entering treated rooms" (48%). Please refer to the following table for a complete listing of statement preferences.

7. Consumers exhibited strong preferences for certain statements found on outdoor pesticide labels such as "Hazards to humans and animals" (96%) versus "Human and animal effects" (4%). There was considerably less agreement on statements such as "This pesticide can kill wildlife" (56%) versus "This pesticide is toxic to wildlife" (44%). Please refer to the following table for a complete listing of statement preferences.

8. There were demographic differences in respondents' comprehension of the labels:

• Respondents in higher income categories understood labels better.
• Respondents at higher education levels understood labels better.
• Respondents in the younger age categories understood labels better.
 

9. Ability to locate information on the label and comprehension of that information correlate positively with income and education and correlate inversely with age. This is true despite higher reported interest in label information among the elderly, less educated, and lower income participants in the survey.

10. Interest in specific information on labels (e.g., looking for information on harmful effects) correlates positively with understanding labels.

11. In all three product categories, an overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that the information on the label was where they expected it to be. Of those who did not find the information where they expected, the most popular suggestion was to put the ingredients on the back label. (For specific product information, see Charts 2-3 and 2-4 and Table 2-7.)

12. The information respondents found most difficult to locate on product labels were:

• For all three product categories -- where the product should not be used.
• For outdoor pesticides -- First Aid information and precautions to pets and the environmental effects for wildlife.
• For indoor insecticides -- precautions to personal health.

Findings on Respondents' Hierarchy of Importance of Information on Product Labels (Chart 2-5, Chart 2-6, Table 2-9, Table 2-10, Table 2-11, Table 2-12, Table 2-13)

13. For all three product categories, the label information that respondents read in the store and before use included: brand name, directions for use, a description of what the product does, a description of where not to use the product, and precautions for the effects on personal and children's health.

14. The frequencies of reading labels were significantly higher among outdoor pesticides users followed by indoor insecticides users followed by household cleaners users. This is true for nearly all sections of the label.

[Go to next section]