Relative Importance of Different Verbal Components in Conveying Hazard-Level Information in Warnings

Abstract

Participants rated 18 different warning-type statements describing various hazardous scenarios. The components of the statements were manipulated according to five variables: duration of exposure to the hazard, quantity of exposure to the hazard, likelihood of injury, severity of injury, and duration of injury. The relative importance of these variables in influencing hazard ratings was evaluated. The component describing injury severity was by far the best single predictor of hazard ratings (accounting for almost 78% of the hazard variance). Injury duration contributed an additional 15% of the variance. These results suggest that people consider the dimensions of injury severity and duration when evaluating the degree of hazard conveyed by warning text. Using these dimensions, warning text could be calibrated to the level of actual hazard to convey a better sense of hazardousness.