Previous research has indicated that many persons have difficulty in describing the seriousness of hazards that are associated with some terms frequently used in warnings. Alternative explanations for this failure could be lack of understanding or simply inability to express their knowledge. Two studies were conducted in an effort to get more definitive information about what the general public knows about these terms. The obtained evidence suggested that many terms commonly used alone in warnings are not adequate to inform users of the extent of the hazards associated with those warnings. These results are discussed in terms of the need for completeness in warnings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChapanisA. (1985). Words, words, words. Human Factors, 7, 1–17.
2.
KreindlerR.J.LuchsingerV.P. (1978). How readable are your safety publications?Professional Safety, Sept. 40–42.
3.
LeonardS.D.CreelE.KarnesE.W. (in press). Commonly used hazard descriptors are not well understood. In Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety, III.London: Taylor & Francis.
4.
McCarthyG.E.HorstD.P.BeyerR.R.RobinsonJ.N.McCarthyR.L. (1987). Measured impact of a mandated warning on user behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society–31st Annual Meeting.Santa Monica, CA.: Human Factors Society, pp. 479–483.
5.
RileyM.W.CochranD.J.DeacyJ.E. (1981). Warning label design. Professional Safety, Oct. 44–46.
6.
WilcoxA.L. (1979). Have you seen any good danger signs?Hazard Prevention, Sept/Oct., 14.
7.
WogalterM.S.GodfreyS.S.FontenelleG.A.DesaulniersD.R.RothsteinP.R.LaugheryK.R. (1987). Effectiveness of warnings. Human Factors, 29, 599–612.
