An Experimental Investigation of Hazard Statement Compliance in Procedures Using Eye Tracking Technology: Should Task be Included in the C-HIP Model?

Abstract

Objective

Using eye tracking technology, this study sought to determine if differences in hazard statement (HS) compliance based on design elements are attributable to attention maintenance (AM).

Background

Recent empirical work has demonstrated counter-intuitive findings for HS designs embedded in procedures. Specifically, prevalent HS designs in procedures were associated with lower compliance.

Method

The current study utilized eye tracking technology to determine whether participants are attending to HSs differently based on the inclusion or absence of visually distinct HS design elements typically used for consumer products. We used two different designs that previously yielded the largest gap in HS compliance. In a fully-crossed design, 33 participants completed four rounds of tasks using four procedures with embedded HSs. To assess AM, eye tracking was used to measure gaze and fixation duration.

Results

The results indicated there are differences in AM between the two designs. The HSs that included elements traditionally considered effective in the consumer products literature elicited lower fixation duration times, and were associated with lower compliance. However, AM did not mediate the design effect on compliance.

Conclusions

The study results suggest the design of HSs are impacting individuals as early as the AM stage of the C-HIP model. The absence of HS design-AM-compliance mediation suggests other C-HIP elements more directly explain the HS design-compliance effects.

Application

These results provide more evidence that the communication of Health, Environment, and Safety information in procedures may need to be different from those on consumer products, suggesting design efficacy may be task dependent.