Three studies explored amateur and professional users' compliance with pesticide warning labels. Professionals were classified as people working in a profession in which the use of pesticides is a necessary part of their job. Amateurs used pesticides only in their leisure time. The first study showed that the wording used affected perception of the appropriateness of hazard statements, one of the most effective variations being the use of the personal pronoun (statements beginning “You should...”). The location of warning information was also found to affect actual compliance: Compliance increased when warning information was presented in the directions for use section. A supplemental directive increased compliance only for professional users. In a final study, “best-case” and “worst-case” linguistic variations were combined with best-case and worst-case locations for safety information. Instruction statements using the personal pronoun and presented in the directions for use section resulted in the highest levels of compliance. The differences in compliance between amateur and professional users are interpreted within the framework of Rasmussen's (1986) distinction among skill-, rule-, and knowledgebased behavior. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of warning labels and safety information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, A. S., & Edworthy, J. (1995). Quantifying and predicting the effects of basic text display parameters on the perceived urgency of warning labels: Trade-offs involving font size, border weight and color. Ergonomics, 38, 2221–2237.
2.
Akerboom, S., & Trommelen, M. (1998). Environmental labeling on household chemicals: Comprehensibility and impact on warning information. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2(1/2), 107–122.
3.
American National Standards Institute. (1987). Criteria for safety symbols (ANSI Z.535). Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Braun, C. C., & Silver, N. C. (1995). Interaction of signal words and color on warning labels: Differences in perceived hazard and behavioral compliance. Ergonomics, 38, 2207–2220.
5.
Dejoy, D. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs. In M. S. Wogalter, D. M. Dejoy, & K. R. Laughery (Eds.), Warnings and risk communication (pp. 189–219). London: Taylor & Francis.
6.
Easterby, R. S., & Zwaga, H. J. G. (1976). Evaluation of public information symbols ISO tests: 1975 series (AP Report 60). Birmingham, UK: University of Aston in Birmingham, Applied Psychology Department.
7.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380–417.
8.
Edworthy, J. (1998). Warnings and hazards: An integrative approach to warnings research. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2(1/2), 3–18.
9.
Edworthy, J., & Adams, A. S. (1996). Warning design: A research prospective. London: Taylor & Francis.
10.
Edworthy, J., Hellier, E. J., Lambell, N., Grey, C., Aldrich, K., & Lee, A. (2001), The effectiveness of labeling of pesticides (Report on HSE Project Number 3917/R67.137). Liverpool, UK: Health and Safety Executive.
11.
Edworthy, J., & Stanton, N. S. (1995). A user-centered approach to the design and evaluation of auditory warning signals: 1. Methodology. Ergonomics, 38, 2262–2280.
12.
Frantz, J. P. (1994). Effect of location and procedural explicitness on user processing of and compliance with product warnings. Human Factors, 36, 532–546.
13.
Frantz, J. P., & Rhoades, T. P. (1993). A task-analytic approach to the temporal and spatial placement of product warnings. Human Factors, 35, 719–730.
14.
Frantz, J. P., Rhoades, T. P., & Lehto, M. R. (1999). Practical considerations regarding the design and evaluation of product warnings. In M. S. Wogalter, D. M. Dejoy, & K. R. Laughery (Eds.), Warnings and risk communication (pp. 291–311). London: Taylor & Francis.
15.
Friedmann, K. (1988). The effect of adding symbols to written warning labels on user behavior and recall. Human Factors, 30, 507–515.
16.
Gill, R., Barbera, C., & Precht, T. (1987). A comparative evaluation of warning label designs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 476–478). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
Godfrey, S. S., Allender, L., Laughery, K. R., & 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 and Ergonomics Society.
18.
Heaps, C. M., & Henley, T. B. (1999). Language matters: Wording considerations in hazard perception and warning comprehension. Journal of Psychology, 133, 341–351.
19.
Hellier, E. J., Wright, D. B., Edworthy, J., & Newstead, S. E. (2000). On the stability of the arousal strength of signal words. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 577–592.
20.
Hunn, B., & Dingus, T. (1992). Interactivity, information and compliance cost in a consumer product warning scenario. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24, 497–505.
21.
ISO. (1989). Procedures for the development and testing of public information symbols (ISO 9186). Geneva: Author.
22.
Laughery, K. R., Vaubel, K. P., Young, S. L., Brelsford, J. W., & Rowe, A. L. (1993). Explicitness of consequence information in warnings. Safety Science, 16, 597–614.
23.
Lehto, M. R., Papastavrou, J. D., & Giffen, W. J. (1998). An empirical study of adaptive warnings: Human- versus computer-adjusted warning thresholds. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2(1/2), 19–33.
24.
Papastavrou, J. D., & Lehto, M. R. (1993). Models of the warning process: Important implications towards effectiveness. Safety Science, 16, 569–595.
25.
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human machine interaction: An approach to cognitive Engineering. New York: North-Holland.
26.
Rogers, W. A., Lamson, N., & Rousseau, G. K. (2000). Warnings research: An integrative perspective. Human Factors, 42, 102–139.
27.
Sojourner, R. J., & Wogalter, M. S. (1998). The influence of pictorials on the comprehension and recall of pharmaceutical safety and warning information. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2(1/2), 93–106.
28.
Sorkin, R. D., Kantowitz, B. H., & Kantowitz, S. C. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors, 30, 445–449.
29.
Sutton, S. R., & Eiser, J. R. (1990). The decision to wear a seatbelt: The role of cognitive factors. Psychology and Health, 4, 111–124.
30.
Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293.
31.
Wilkinson, R. L., Cary, J. W., Barr, N. F., & Reynolds, J. (1997). Comprehension of pesticide safety information: Effects of pictorial and textual warnings. Journal of Pest Management, 43, 239–245.
32.
Wogalter, M. S., Barlow, T., & Murphy, S. A. (1995). Compliance to owner's manual warnings: Influence of familiarity on the placement of a supplemental directive. Ergonomics, 38, 1081–1091.
33.
Wogalter, M. S., Brelsford, J. W., Desaulniers, D. R., & Laughery, K. R. (1991). Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception. Journal of Safety Research, 22, 7–82.
34.
Wogalter, M. S., Dejoy, D. M., & Laughery, K. R. (Eds.). (1999). Warnings and risk communication. London: Taylor & Francis.
35.
Wogalter, M. S., Godfrey, S. E., Fontenelle, G. A., Desaulniers, D. R., Rothstein, P. R., & Laughery, K. R. (1987). Effectiveness of warnings. Human Factors, 29, 599–612.
36.
Wright, P., Creighton, P., & Threlfall, S. M. (1982). Some factors determining when instructions will be read. Ergonomics, 25, 225–227.
37.
Young, S. L., Laughery, K. R., & Bell, M. (1992). Effects of two type density characteristics on the legibility of print. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 504–508). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
