Chapter 2 - Quantitative Research Findings and Implications (cont.)

* Please refer to Question 9 on the mail questionnaire, Appendix 2-4  

26. The symbols with descriptive language (e.g., "100% Recycled Paperboard") did provide some improvement in response accuracy. However, the correct response rate was less than 75% in every case and usually less than 60%.

27. For the HDPE question, there was no answer selection for the type of plastic from which the package was made. This confounded the interpretation of responses to that question, since respondents may have felt compelled to provide some other answer.

28. The demographic groups and other subgroups that demonstrated more capability for reading and understanding labels identified the correct responses for these symbols more frequently. These same consumers also tended to view products bearing these symbols as environmentally preferable.

Findings on Product Label Signal Words (Chart 2-14, Chart 2-15, Chart 2-16)

29. Respondents understood that the terms DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION characterize a level of risk or personal hazard. They understood the three terms to be generally relative, with DANGER describing the highest risk, WARNING a medium risk, and CAUTION a lower risk. Respondents also perceived the range of risk described by the three words to start at a medium, rather than at a low, risk level. Even CAUTION was perceived by over half of the respondents to describe a lower to moderate level of risk, not a low risk.

30. None of the respondents mentioned the signal word as one of the things they use to determine the possible harmful effects of a product.

31. Just under half of respondents agreed either completely or somewhat that the words CAUTION, WARNING, and DANGER on a product mean the same thing to them.

Findings on Respondents' Sources of Information and Education (Chart 2-17, Table 2-19)

32. Besides the packaging, respondents identified the top sources to which they referred for product information to be (see Chart 2-17):

• Indoor insecticides -- store displays, TV ads, friends/family/co-workers, product brochures, and magazine ads;
• Outdoor pesticides -- store displays, product brochures, friends/family/co-workers, store salespersons, and TV ads; and
• Household cleaners -- TV ads, friends/family/co-workers, store displays, magazine ads, product brochures;

33. One in five outdoor pesticide users would contact a university or county extension service for more information about a product.

34. Approximately 90% of the telephone survey respondents were able to find and properly identify the ingredients/contents section of the label for all three product categories. The ability to find this section on the cleaners label, however, was significantly lower than on the other labels. Demographic subgroups did not show any surprising subgroup trends in their ability to find this label section.

35. After trying to find various sections during the phone survey, nearly 90% of the respondents stated that label information was positioned where they expected it to be. There were statistical differences among all categories, with satisfaction being greatest with outdoor pesticide and poorest with cleaners, although cleaners still received an 87.6% affirmative response. Of the specific requests for change, the highest was "ingredients should be on the back label." However, only 2 to 4% of all respondents voiced that request.

36. In all three product categories, of those respondents who never read the ingredients section (approximately 25% for all categories), an unusually high percentage of them did not read it because they did not understand the information in the section.

37. When asked if they look for ingredient information, approximately 40% responded affirmatively for the household cleaner and indoor insecticide product categories, but a statistically higher percentage (48%) answered "yes" in the outdoor pesticide category. The most prominent reason for reading this section was product comparison. However, approximately 15% claimed concern for health of a family member; this was higher (and the difference statistically significant) for indoor pesticide and household cleaners.

38. In all three product categories, few survey respondents specified a label change request, but the highest response (~3%) was "list all ingredients."

^a (For charts 2-19, 2-20, and 2-21) Please refer to Question 4c in the mail questionnaires in Appendix 2-4.

39. When given a choice of "ingredients" formats, three out of four respondents chose less than full disclosure (providing names and % of all ingredients). Options listing categories of ingredients along with a description of the purpose of the ingredients were preferred.

40. One in eight respondents used the ingredient statement to determine possible harmful effects from the ingredients listed.

41. In each of the three product categories, the phrase "other ingredients" was not fully understood.

42. "Ingredients" was ranked seventh among sections for importance, but well below the top six in all three product categories. It was also infrequently cited as a section to be found most easily.

43. The label preference for the ingredients section of the FIFRA vs. non-FIFRA cleaners label was comparable to the overall preference (58% favoring FIFRA) and the highest preference for FIFRA labeling of the individual sections tested.

Findings on Respondents' Attitude Toward Product Categories

The following table captures reactions to consumer values in the attitude battery for each of the three product categories. (Please refer to question 11 in the indoor insecticide and outdoor pesticide mail questionnaires and question 12 in the household cleaner mail questionnaire in Appendix 2-4.)

ATTITUDE BATTERY KEY

• Number on top left of each cell indicates percentage of respondents who said they "agree completely" with the statements given.
• Number on top right of each cell indicates percentage of respondents who said they either "agree completely" or "agree somewhat" with the statements given.
• Number in the middle center of each cell indicates the deviation from the mean. The higher the deviation, the more strongly the attitude is held.
• [Brackets] indicate a negative deviation from the mean.

Findings are as follows:

44. The highest response to attitude questions was for personal health and safety information and for instructions, especially those associated with safe use.

45. The consumer attitude toward household cleaners was different from attitudes toward the other two product categories. Significant differences were found from both indoor insecticides and outdoor pesticides in about 60% of the questions, and at least one other category in about 95% of the questions common to all categories.

46. In approximately two-thirds of the questions common to indoor insecticides and outdoor pesticides, there was a significant difference in attitudes between those two product categories.

47. The largest numerical differences in response were those for down the drain disposal, knowing what to recycle without label assistance, and greater reliance on experience than label information for either disposal or use. In each case, respondents showed much less concern and/or greater familiarity for household cleaners.

48. Respondents understood that cleaners may be disposed of down the drain but indoor insecticides and outdoor pesticides should not be.

Findings on Germ Killing Potential Information

49. Respondents were asked to rank, from high to low, the germ killing potential of each of the following terms: deodorizer, cleaner, sanitizer, anti-bacterial, and disinfectant. Respondents indicated the germ killing power of each individual term, and generally ranked all the terms in the correct order. The exception, however, was that respondents saw "anti-bacterial" as having more germ killing potential than either disinfectants or sanitizers, when, in fact, "anti-bacterial" refers to any product which kills bacteria.

50. When asked on the phone survey to define "disinfection," over 80% of respondents answered correctly.

Findings on Product Category Comparisons

51. The labels of household cleaners are less completely read than those of indoor insecticides and outdoor pesticides. Fewer consumers routinely read any section of the label on cleaners except the brand name.

52. For household cleaners label readers:

• Brand name is of higher importance, and
• Health and safety information of lower importance.

53. For all sections of the label, the indoor insecticide product label was found to be more effective in communicating the right amount of information with a greater specificity.

• Active and Other Ingredients -- indoor insecticide better than both household cleaner and outdoor pesticide,
• Directions for Use -- indoor insecticide better than outdoor pesticide and much better than cleaner,
• Storage and Disposal -- outdoor pesticide worse than either indoor insecticide or household cleaner,
• Precautionary Statements -- both indoor insecticide and outdoor pesticide better than household cleaner, and
• First Aid -- both indoor insecticide and household cleaners better than outdoor pesticide.

54. About twice as many consumers had purchased cleaning products as had purchased either indoor insecticides or outdoor pesticides.

55. Many more consumers disposed of unwanted household cleaning products and/or containers by rinsing out, pouring down the drain, throwing in the trash unwrapped, and recycling. The indoor insecticide and outdoor pesticide products and containers were wrapped before being placed in trash much more than household cleaners were.

Implications Regarding Product Category Comparisons

A. Household cleaners have greater familiarity and lower perceived risk for consumers. This results in more purchasing by brand name and less label reading. The most effective labels are on indoor insecticides, possibly because these labels are routinely read by consumers with a higher level of concern.