This research investigated whether safety labeling design guidelines, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z535 series, contribute to better warnings.
Background
Studies investigating the impact of safety label formatting on warning effectiveness have produced mixed findings. Additionally, research has failed to find a consistent relationship between measures of predicted and actual compliance. One commonality is that all of these studies have investigated the ANSI Z535 guidelines as a binary variable rather than as an integrative system of separable features.
Method
We measured predicted compliance using both a within-subjects and a between-subjects design, but actual compliance using only a between-subjects design. Data were analyzed using both analysis of variance and linear/probit regressions to test the relationships between warning features recommended in the ANSI Z535 guidelines and measures of behavioral compliance.
Results
Predicted compliance assessed via a within-subjects design differed greatly from predicted compliance assessed via a between-subjects design. Levels of predicted and actual compliance were most similar when both measures were assessed using a between-subjects design. Consistent with previous research, location had a strong relationship with actual compliance, but surprisingly, presence of an ANSI-style orange warning header had a negative relationship with compliance.
Conclusion
The choice of experimental design and analytical methods can dramatically influence a study’s results and conclusions drawn. This research identified several aspects of experimental design that should be considered in future research on warning effectiveness.
Application
Testing features recommended in the ANSI Z535 guidelines under varying conditions can contribute to the development of more effective warnings.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
ANSI. (1991). American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
3.
ANSI. (1998). American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
4.
ANSI. (2007). American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
5.
ANSI. (2011). ANSI Z535.4-2011 American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
6.
ArghamiS.KianM. P.MohammadfamI. (2009). Effects of safety signs on the modification of unsafe behaviours. ZUMS Journal, 17(68), 93–98.
7.
BarrettM. J.KottD. R. (1994). Warnings: Duty to retrofit / Subsequent duty to warn. In McGoldrickJ. L.SmithF. T. (Eds.), New Jersey Product Liability Law (pp. 97–125). Newark, NJ: New Jersey Law Journal Books.
8.
BoradeA. B.BansodS. V.GandhewarV. R. (2008). Hazard perception based on safety words and colors: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 14(4), 407–416. http://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2008.11076777
9.
BraunC. C.SilverN. C. (1995). Interaction of signal word and colour on warning labels: Differences in perceived hazard and behavioural compliance. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2207–2220.
CheathamD. B.WogalterM. S. (1999). Connoted hazard and perceived conspicuity of warning configurations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(16), 883–887.
12.
City News Service. (2015, October2). Canyon country couple sue Kohl’s, pressure cooker maker after explosion. Los Angeles Daily News.
13.
DingusT. A.WreggitS. S.HathawayJ. A. (1993). Warning variables affecting personal protective equipment use. Safety Science, 16(5–6), 655–673. http://doi.org/10.1016/0925-7535(93)90029-D
14.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
FrantzJ. P.RhoadesT. P. (1993). A task-analytic approach to the temporal and spatial placement of product warnings. Human Factors, 35(4), 719–730.
16.
FrantzJ. P.RhoadesT. P.YoungS. L.SchillerJ. A. (2000). Assessing the effects of adding messages to warning labels. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 44th Annual Meeting, 44, 818–821. http://doi.org/10.1177/1541931200044028113
17.
FrantzJ. P.YoungS. L.RhoadesT. P.WisniewskiE. C. (2005). Predicted versus actual response to warning signs and labels: Examining the role of ANSI Z535 features. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, 49, 1785–1789.
18.
GaitoJ. (1980). Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87(3), 564–567. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.3.564
19.
GlassG. V.PeckhamP. D.SandersJ. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042003237
20.
HathawayJ. A.DingusT. A. (1992). The effects of compliance cost and specific consequence information on the use of safety equipment. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24(6), 577–584.
21.
HeckmanG. M.HarleyE. M.ScherI.YoungD. E. (2010). Helmet use in sledding: Do users comply with manufacturer warnings?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54h Annual Meeting, 54, 733–737.
22.
HunnB. P.DingusT. A. (1992). Interactivity, information, and compliance cost in a consumer product warning scenario. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24(5), 497–505. http://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(92)90058-Q
23.
Huntley-FennerG.HarleyE.TrachtmanD.YoungD. (2007). ANSI Z535.6 and conspicuity: A test of the new state of the art format for instructions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 51(17), 1029–1033. http://doi.org/10.1177/154193120705101707
24.
KalsherM. J.GalloJ. B.WilliamsK. J.WogalterM. S. (2000). High levels of behavioral compliance in a realistic product assembly task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(28), 822–825. http://doi.org/10.1177/1541931200044028114
25.
KalsherM. J.ObenauerW. G.WeissC. F. (2016). Evaluating ANSI Z535-formatted warning labels as an integrative system. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting (pp. 1642–1646). Washington, DC.
26.
KalsherM. J.WogalterM. S.BrewsterB. M.SpunarM. E. (1995). Hazard level perceptions of current and proposed warning sign and label panels. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(5).
27.
KimS.WogalterM. S. (2009). Habituation, dishabituation, and recovery effects in visual warnings. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting Proceedings, 53, 1612–1616. http://doi.org/10.1518/107118109X12524444080675
28.
LaugheryK. R.PaigeD. L.LaugheryB. R.WogalterM. S.KalsherM. J.LeonardS. D. (2002). Guidelines for warnings design: Do they matter?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, 46, 1708–1712. http://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204601904
LaugheryK. R.WogalterM. S. (2014). A three-stage model summarizes product warning and environmental sign research. Safety Science, 61, 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.012
31.
LehtoM. R. (1992). Designing warning signs and warning labels: Part II - Scientific basis for initial guidelines. International Journal of Lndustrial Ergonomics, 10, 115–138. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1572-347X(00)80021-X
32.
LeschM. F.RauP.-L. P.ChoiY. (2016). Effects of culture (China vs. US) and task on perceived hazard: Evidence from product ratings, label ratings, and product to label matching. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 43–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.010
33.
LeschM. F.RauP.-L. P.ZhaoZ.LiuC. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived hazard in response to warning components and configurations: US vs. China. Applied Ergonomics, 40(5), 953–961. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.02.004
34.
Levy Konigsberg LLP. (2012). LK wins historic youth smoking verdict in NY against RJ Reynolds on behalf of family of lung cancer victim. Retrieved from http://www.levylaw.com/lung-cancer-lawyers.php
35.
LoringB. A.WiklundM. E. (1988). Improving swimming pool warning signs. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 32(15), 910–914.
NadolnyT. (2015, May28). IKEA sued over dresser tip-over that killed Chesco toddler. Philly.Com.
39.
RogersW. A.LamsonN.RousseauG. K. (2000). Warning research: An integrative perspective. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42(1), 102–139. http://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656624
40.
SandlerL. (2015, April15). GM can’t be sued for making faulty switches. Bloomberg Business.
41.
ShaverE. F.BraunC. C. (2000). Effects of warning symbol explicitness and warning color on behavioral compliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(27), 290–293. http://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004402702
42.
ShaverE. F.YoungS. L.FrantzJ. P.RhoadesT. P.HallS. M.ShahR. J. (2006). Comparison of ANSI and ISO standard formats on people’s response to product warnings. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, 50, 2197–2201.
43.
SingletonR. A.Jr.StraitsB. C. (2005). Approaches to social research (Fourth). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
Smith-JacksonT. L.Essuman-JohnsonA. (2002). Cultural ergonomics in Ghana, West Africa: A descriptive survey of industry and trade workers’ interpretations of safety symbols. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 8(1), 37–50. http://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2002.11076513
45.
SmithJ. J.WogalterM. S. (2010). Behavioral compliance to in-manual and on-product warnings. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, 54, 1846–1850. http://doi.org/10.1177/154193121005402104
46.
StockJ. H.WatsonM. W. (2015). Introduction to econometrics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
47.
WattsE. (2015, October7). Sen. Harry Reid suing exercise band maker over eye injury. Fox 5 Vegas. Las Vegas.
48.
WogalterM. S.ConzolaV. C.Smith-JacksonT. L. (2002). Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 219–230. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00009-1
49.
WogalterM. S.KalsherM. J.FrederickL. J.MagurnoA. B.BrewsterB. M. (1998). Hazard level perceptions of warning component and configurations. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.
50.
WogalterM. S.KalsherM. J.RacicotB. M. (1993). Behavioral compliance with warnings: Effects of voice, context, and location. Safety Science, 16(5–6), 637–654. http://doi.org/10.1016/0925-7535(93)90028-C
51.
WogalterM. S.PaineC. S.MillsB. J.CarolinaN.CarolinaN.Smith-JacksonT. L. (1999). Application of cognitive principles to the design of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(6), 515–519.
52.
YoungS. L.FrantzJ. P.RhoadesT. P.DarnellK. R. (2002). Does compliance with ANSI Z535 increase compliance with warnings?Professional Safety, (September), 18–23.
53.
YoungS. L.FrantzJ. P.RhoadesT. P.HallS. M. (2006). Development and objectives of the ANSI Z535 series of standards for safety signs and colors: A historical perspective. In WogalterM. S. (Ed.), Handbook of warnings (pp. 445–454). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54.
YuR.ChanA. H.SalvendyG. (2004). Chinese perceptions of implied hazard for signal words and surround shapes. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(1), 69–80.
