Predicted versus Actual Response to Warning Signs and Labels: Examining the Role of ANSI Z535 Features

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which predicted responses to ANSI Z535-style warning signs and labels correspond to actual responses. In previous studies, lay people's impressions of the influence of warning attributes have not been found to accurately predict actual responses to warnings or to reflect the effects obtained in behavioral studies for different warning conditions. However, these studies have not specifically focused on the connection between predicted and actual responses to warnings that vary according to conformance with an ANSI standard for product warnings. Four warning scenarios were employed in the present study, with warnings varying according to the extent of ANSI-conformance. Participants consistently and incorrectly predicted that people would be more likely to notice and/or comply with warnings that were more consistent with ANSI as opposed to those warnings that were less-consistent with ANSI. Collectively, people's perception of differences in response to warnings was not consistent with what has been reported in observational studies.

Perceptions and Use of Product-Related Age Recommendations: A Case Study Involving ATVs

“…The fact that these parents did not follow the recommendations explicitly indicates that they attended to other sources of information in making potential purchase decisions. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that many factors other than the nature of a safety-related communication influence how people behave (Frantz, Young, Rhoades & Wisniewski, 2005;Shaver et al, 2006).…”

Ratings of the Effectiveness of Warnings on Consumer Paint Stripper Products

“…Such higher ratings for ANSI-consistent warnings were replicated in a later study using similar methodology (Frantz, Young, Rhoades, & Wisniewski, 2005). The ANSI-inconsistent warning labels used in Laughery, et al (2002) and Frantz et al (2005) used formatting and content similar to that consistent with FHSA requirements. However, the ANSI-inconsistent warnings in these two studies did not employ some features that are typically included in current FHSA-compliant labels such as the signal word DANGER and a hazard pictorial (Figure 1, top).…”

“…The university student participants gave statistically significant higher ratings to all the ANSI-consistent warnings compared with the warnings that were not consistent with ANSI guidelines. Such higher ratings for ANSI-consistent warnings were replicated in a later study using similar methodology (Frantz, Young, Rhoades, & Wisniewski, 2005). The ANSI-inconsistent warning labels used in Laughery, et al (2002) and Frantz et al (2005) used formatting and content similar to that consistent with FHSA requirements.…”

“…Participants in Laughery, et al (2002) viewed both the ANSI-consistent and non-consistent warnings. However, to help control for order effects and anchor effects (Frantz et al, 2005), as well as demand characteristics (Weber & Cook, 1972), each participant in the present study viewed only one of the warning formats. Furthermore, no instructions were given to either group that were not printed on the survey.…”

Evaluating ANSI Z535-Formatted Warning Labels as an Integrative System

“…This matter is further complicated by the fact that while Shaver et al (2006) tested a variety of labels for predicted compliance, their small sample size (n=22) limits the generalizability of their findings. Conversely, while Frantz et al (2005) and Laughery et al (2002) used larger sample sizes, their use of a binary compliance variable may impose similar limitations. Also, the role of perception of risk in predicted compliance is unclear as Shaver et al (2006) included only one condition, a two-drawer filing cabinet, in their compliance prediction study.…”