The Effect of Adding Symbols to Written Warning Labels on User Behavior and Receall

Abstract

The use of consumer products by 144 college students was studied to determine the effects that (a) adding symbols to written warnings, (b) subjects' familiarity with the product, and (c) type of hazard would have on their noticing, recalling, or complying with the warning. Subjective ratings of perceived confidence, hazardousness, likelihood of injury, and severity of injury were also collected. Across all behavioral measures there was a steady decline in the number of subjects who first noticed (88%), then read (46%), and finally followed the warning (27%). In some conditions, however, compliance levels were as high as 42%. Symbols added to written warning labels did not significantly increase levels of compliance. A significant positive relationship was found between the perceived hazardousness of the product and reading, following, and recalling the warning. Factors affecting the user's motivation to read and follow on-product warnings were also noted.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Broadbent, D. (1977). Language and ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 8, (1), 15–18.

Easterby, R. , Hakiel, S. , and Graydon, I. (1980). Safety sign conspicuity: The effect of sign size and position on detection (Tech. Report 89). Birmingham, England: University of Aston, Applied Psychology Department.

FMC Corporation . (1980). Product safety sign and label system (3rd ed.) Santa Clara, CA: Author.

Godfrey, S. , Allender, L. , Laughery, K. , and Smith, V. (1983). Warning messages: Will the consumer bother to look? In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 950–954). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society

Godfrey, S. , and Laughery, K. (1984). The biasing effects of product familiarity on consumers' awarcness of hazard. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting (pp. 483–486). Santa Monica, CA Human Factors Society.

Interagency Task Force on Products Liability . (1977). Final Report II-54. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.

Macketl-Stout, J. , and Dewar, R. (1981). Evaluation of public information signs. Human Factors, 23, 139–151.

McCarthy, R. , Finnegan, J. , Krumm-Scott, S. , and McCarthy, G. (1984). Product information presentation, user behavior, and safety. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting (pp. 81–85). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Peters, G. (1984, May). Fifteen cardinal principles to ensure effectiveness of warning systems. Occupational Health and Safety, pp. 76–79.

10.

Rothstein, P. (1985). Designing warnings to be read and remembered. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting (pp. 684–688). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

11.

Seamon, J (1980).Memory and cognition: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

12.

Strawbridge, J. (1985). The influence of position, highlighting, and imbedding on warning effectiveness. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Northridge.

13.

Wogalter, M. , Fontenelle, G. , and Laughery, K. (1985). Behavioral effectiveness of warnings. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting(pp. 679–683). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

14.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission . (1982). NEISS Data Highlights (Vol. 6, No.3). Washington, DC: Author.