Abstract
Results of this study revealed that interior designers, furniture retailers, furniture sales personnel, and consumers within the state of Alabama differed only slightly in their general knowledge of and attitudes toward fire resistant standards for upholstered furniture and in their knowledge of trade–offs identified by UFAC. These slight differences were evidenced by MANOVA results which indicated a trend toward a difference at the .07 level of probability in the ways the four groups responded to 16 attitude and knowledge statements.
This evidence of a trend toward a difference in group responses led to an analysis of the univariate tests which produced the MANOVA results. Through this analysis it was found that significant differences at the .05 and .01 levels of probability existed for group responses to eight of the 16 statements. Interestingly, even when significant differences were present, responses of the four groups tended to cluster on the seven point scale of agreement/disagreement.
Essentially the knowledge and attitudes of interior designers concerning inflammability standards for upholstered furniture were like those of consumers. Only one significant difference was found between these two groups.
This difference was in the area of knowledge about trade–offs. Consumers were less certain that retail prices would increase if such standards were implemented.
Interior designers’ knowledge and attitudes differed from those of sales personnel in regard to only three statements. One difference related to whether UFAC hangtags were important in consumer decisions to purchase upholstered furniture. Interior designers thought the tags were more important than did sales people. A second difference concerned the locus of responsibility for preventing upholstered furniture fires. Sales personnel believed that it was the consumer's responsibility to prevent such fires and interior designers were neutral on the issue. The third difference centered upon government participation in establishing fire resistant standards for upholstered furniture. Interior designers were less convinced of the necessity for government involvement.
Interior designers were like retailers in knowledge and attitudes with the exception of three statements. Retailers were more convinced than interior designers that UFAC hangtags were not important considerations in consumers’ purchasing decisions. In terms of establishing standards for fire resistant upholstered furniture, retailers were more convinced of the need for government participation. Although both groups were in favor of standards for fire resistant upholstered furniture, interior designers wanted standards to a greater extent. The three professional groups did not differ on the basis of their knowledge of trade–offs which are likely to result from the production of fire resistant furniture.
The knowledge and attitudes of sales personnel and retailers were not significantly different from each other in any way. Perhaps a major factor in the similarity between these two groups can be attributed to the closeness of their working situation. In addition, the major function of both sales personnel and retailers is simply to sell furniture.
Even though consumers were like interior designers in knowledge and attitudes they were unlike sales personnel on all eight statements and unlike retailers on seven statements where significant differences occurred. On the issue of the importance of UFAC hangtags in purchasing decisions, consumers were undecided while sales personnel and retailers did not think UFAC tags made a difference.
Consumers believed more strongly than sales personnel and retailers that it is practical to produce flame retardant furniture and that it is the industry's responsibiltiy to do so. In view of these beliefs it was not surprising to find that consumers were more in favor of the establishment of fire resistant standards. Interestingly, they were less convinced than sales personnel of the need for government involvement in establishing these standards.
Sales personnel and retailers were more aware than consumers that regulations implementing fire resistant standards would increase production costs and retail prices of upholstered furniture. These are the only two trade–off statements that showed a significant difference betwen these two professional groups and consumers.
In terms of responsibility for preventing furniture fires caused by burning cigarettes, consumers believed that it was the industry's responsibility. Sales personnel and retailers believed that it was the consumer's responsibility. This was the only statement on which these groups expressed opposing attitudes.
All groups agreed that choices of cover fabrics would decrease to some extent as a result of flame retardant standards. They were not certain, however, that the selection of fabrics would be reduced by 50 percent as had been suggested by UFAC.
All groups believed that government regulation would cost more than voluntary industry standards but they were not sure how these costs would affect small manufacturers. None of the groups was sure that taxes would increase as a result of government regulation of the furniture industry.
Thus, even though the groups tended to be aware of trade–offs, favorable attitudes were voiced by all groups toward the production of fire resistant upholstered furniture. This was in accord with their favorable attitude toward the establishment of flame retardant standards to govern upholstered furniture. However, none of the groups was certain about the government's interest in working toward such standards. This uncertianty might be attributed to cut–backs in the federal budget and to the position taken by the Reagan administration in regard to government regulation of industry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.