Hazard or ‘hack’? Exploring risk perceptions of intended and unintended product use among UK regulators and consumers

Consumers frequently engage in unintended uses of products—referred to as ‘hacks’—such as using an oven to heat a room. While these practices are widely shared within consumers, they may introduce significant risks. This quantitative study (N = 206) examined differences in risk perception between consumers and UK product safety regulators regarding both intended and unintended product uses. Regulators (n = 90) and consumers (n = 116) evaluated ten products on four risk perception dimensions: overall risk judgment, likelihood of harm, severity of harm, and benefits both before and after being presented with hack information. Participants also reported familiarity with the products beforehand and intention to use them after hack exposure. Results indicated that regulators consistently rated products as riskier, with higher likelihood and severity of harm, compared to consumers, both before and after exposure to hack information. Although overall risk judgment increased for both groups after learning about hacks, regulators’ risk perceptions remained significantly higher. This persistent gap indicates that consumers and regulators continued to differ in their evaluations of risks associated with unintended product use, even after exposure to hack information. Perceived benefits were the strongest predictors of intention to adopt hacks. These findings underscore the need for policy frameworks addressing risks from hazardous, unintended product applications.