Guidelines for Warnings Design: Do They Matter?

Abstract

A study was carried out using four measures of effectiveness to compare product warnings that are consistent with the American National Standards Institute Product Safety Signs and Labels standard (ANSI 2535.4) to warnings that are not consistent with the standard. Inconsistent warnings were based on the format of existing product warnings. Two warnings, consistent and inconsistent, for each of ten different products were evaluated: cooking oil, trampoline, paint, dresser, airbag, seat belt, tire, sports utility vehicle, reclining seat and swimming pool. The four effectiveness criteria were judgments of noticeability, likelihood to read, understandability and likelihood of complying. Participants were 176 students with varied majors from five different universities. Results indicated higher levels of judged effectiveness for the warnings that were consistent with the ANSI standard. The differences were statistically significant for all four effectiveness measures for all ten products. While warnings that are consistent with the ANSI 2535.4 standard do not by themselves necessarily constitute an adequate warning system, these results indicate that the standard does have merit and utility and represents a good starting point in warning design.

Influences of Knowledge on Behavior in Automobiles

“…Further, only 28 percent of respondents said they made a practice of frequent adjustment of the head restraints. Laughery, Paige, Laughery, Wogalter, Kalsher, and Leonard (2002), using respondents from five different states, found that warnings designed to conform to the ANSI Z535.4 standard (1998) were rated about 1.5 to 2 times as effective as warnings that did not follow that format. As seen in Table 1, similar results were obtained from these participants.…”

“…The question of what warnings to provide and how to present them is not always easy to answer. Previous research (Laughery et al, 2002) has shown that using warnings designed on principles accepted in the human factors/ergonomics approach to warnings is thought to increase the likelihood that they will be noticed and obeyed. Further, evidence has been shown to support the notion that more information about hazards increases the subjective concern for avoiding the hazards (Leonard, 2002).…”

“…The study reported here was designed to obtain information about how some hazards of driving may be approached by the general public as exemplified by young adults in particular. In addition, a partial replication of the Laughery et al (2002) procedure was performed to see if there was a relationship between information provided in warnings and the concern of respondents for having that knowledge. Thus, in addition to evaluating warnings for their likelihood of being noticed, read, understood, and complied with, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had previously encountered the warnings presented and whether or not they might previously have been more concerned about the situations had they known the information in the warnings.…”

Fifty Years of Warning Researchers

“…Still, there has been a persistent treatment of warning labels and signs as components, and the development of the ANSI Z535 standards for labels, signs, tags, and instructions along with their colors and symbols reflects a tendency for HF professionals to reify warnings. It is an indication of progress that the ANSI safety information standards are increasingly tied to empirical research; it is also encouraging to note the open debate about the utility of these standards (e.g., Laughery et al, 2002;Frantz et al, 2005) Warnings research in the HF[E]S has evolved over time. Some of the first papers presented on warnings raised a challenge by pointing out a lack of empirical research on compliance with warnings (Dorris & Purswell, 1978;McCarthy et al, 1984).…”

Children’s Understanding of No Diving Warning Signs: Implications for Preventing Childhood Injury

“…Research with adults reveals a number of factors that affect viewers’ understanding of the message communicated by a warning sign, include the language expressed (e.g., word choice, explicitness) and pictorial images shown. Including a signal word (e.g., Caution , Warning , Danger ) that is immediately understood as communicating something about risk is an essential feature on warning signs [ 16 ]. The explicitness of the messaging also affects understanding.…”