Considerable research has focused on the hazard-conveying qualities of warning colors, signal words, hazard symbols, and text descriptions. Little research, however, has considered how these elements interact to affect perceived hazard. This study evaluated the effects of these warning sign components. 178 participants evaluated warning signs representing the factorial combination of two colors, three signal words, two hazard types, three levels of symbol explicitness, and two levels of text explicitness. Warning signs were presented tachistoscopically, and hazard perceptions were measured using magnitude estimations. The data revealed significant effects for hazard type, symbol explicitness, and text explicitness. These variables were also involved in significant two-way interactions. Previous findings concerning color and signal word were not supported. Findings suggest that designers should consider the explicitness of text and symbols when designing warning signs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alves-FossJ. D.ThomasG. W.BraunC. C. (1995). The effects of pictograph explicitness on hazard perceptions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (p. 934). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
2.
ANSI (1991). American national standard for product safety signs and labels (Z535.4). New York, NY: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
3.
ANSI (1998). American national standard criteria for safety symbols (Z535.3-1998). Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
4.
BraunC. C.GluskerS. A.HoltR. S.SilverN. C. (1995). Adding consequence information to product instructions: Changes in hazard perceptions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 346–350). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
BraunC. C.KlineP. B.SilverN. C. (1995). The influence of color on warning label perceptions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 179–187.
6.
BraunC. C.SansingL.SilverN. C. (1994). The interaction of signal words and color on warning labels: Differences in perceived hazard. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (pp. 831–835). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
7.
BraunC. C.SilverN. C. (1995). The interaction of signal word and colour on warning labels: Differences in perceived hazard and behavioural compliance. Ergonomics,38, 2207–2220.
8.
BresnahanT. F.BrykJ. (1975). The hazard association values of accident-prevention signs. Professional Safety, January, 17–25.
9.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
10.
DunlapG. L.GrandaR. E.KustasM. S. (1986). Observer perceptions of implied hazard: Safety signal word and color words. IBM Technical Report (T 00.3428).
11.
EngenT. (1971). Scaling methods. In KlingJ. W.RiggsL. A., Experimental Psychology3rd ed.New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
FriedmannK. (1988). The effects of adding symbols to written warnings labels on user behavior and recall. Human Factors, 30, 507–515.
14.
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 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 351–355). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
KlineP. B.BraunC. C.PetersonN.SilverN. C. (1993). Impact of color on warnings research. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 940–943). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16.
LaugheryK. R.Rowe-HallbertA. L.YoungS. L.VaubelK. P.LauxL. F. (1991). Effects of explicitness in conveying severity information in product warnings. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 481–485). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
LeornardS. D.KarnesE. W.SchneiderT. (1988). Scale values for warning symbol and words. In AghazadenF., Trends in ergonomics/human factors V (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 669–674.
18.
LeonardS. D.MatthewsD.KarnesE. W. (1986). How does the population interpret warning signals? Proceedings of the Human Factors 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 116–120). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
19.
SilverN. C.WogalterM. S. (1991). Strength and understanding of signal words by elementary and middle school students. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 590–594). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
SnowM. P.WilligesR. C. (1998). Empirical models based on free-modulus magnitude estimation of perceived presence in virtual environments. Human Factors, 40, 386–402.
21.
StevensS. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review,78, 426–450.
22.
UrsicM. (1984). The impact of safety warnings on perception and memory. Human Factors,26, 677–682.
WinerB. J.BrownD. R.MichelsK. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
25.
WogalterM. S.JarrardS. W.SimpsonS. N. (1992). Effects of warning signal words on consumer-product hazard perceptions. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 935–939). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
26.
YoungS. L.WogalterM. S. (1990). Comprehension and memory of instruction manual warnings: Conspicuous print and pictorial icons. Human Factors,32, 637–649.
27.
YoungS. L.WogalterM. S. (1998). Relative importance of different verbal components in conveying hazard-level information in warnings. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1063–1067). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
