Warning symbols as reminders of hazards: impact of training.

Prior research indicates that many warning symbols are poorly understood. However Lesch [Lesch, M.F., 2003. Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: Age-related differences and impact of training. J. Safety Res. 34, 495-505] found that accident scenarios could be used to improve comprehension of warning symbols. The current study further investigated the potential benefits of accident scenario training. During training, warning symbols with verbal labels corresponding to the meaning of the symbol were paired with accident scenarios which expanded on the nature of the hazard, the required/prohibited actions, as well as the possible consequences of failing to comply. A number of measures were obtained prior to, and following (immediately and 2 weeks later), the accident scenario training: comprehension across three knowledge types (verbal label, required/prohibited actions, potential consequences of failure to comply), ratings of agreement with statements reflecting perceived control, and ratings of hazard and intent to comply. Benefits of training were observed on all dependent measures: Comprehension improved from 43 to 82% correct, reaction times were reduced by about 2s, and level of confidence in correct responses increased by 23%. Ratings of perceived hazard, intent to comply, and perceived control over accident/injury involvement also increased. It is suggested that accident scenario training can be used to help prevent accidents and injuries by ensuring that responses to warnings are "sure and swift".

[1]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension of Pictorial Symbols: Effects of Context and Test Method , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Kenneth R. Laughery,et al.  Warning Messages: Will the Consumer Bother to Look? , 1983 .

[3]  J R Wilson,et al.  Safety pictograms: are they getting the message across? , 1998, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  Kenneth R. Laughery,et al.  The Biasing Effects of Product Familiarity on Consumers' Awareness of Hazard , 1984 .

[5]  William R. Myers,et al.  Handbook of Pictorial Symbols: 3250 Examples from International Sources , 1976 .

[6]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics , 2005 .

[7]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception , 1991 .

[8]  Keyla Friedmann,et al.  The effect of adding symbols to written warning labels on user behavior and recall , 1988 .

[9]  Henry Dreyfuss.  Symbol Sourcebook: An Authoritative Guide to International Graphic Symbols , 1972 .

[10]  A. Loewenthal,et al.  The Effectiveness of Warning Labels , 1980 .

[11]  David M. DeJoy,et al.  Consumer Product Warnings: Review and Analysis of Effectiveness Research , 1989 .

[12]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[13]  Shirley M. Otsubo.  A Behavioral Study of Warning Labels for Consumer Products: Perceived Danger and Use of Pictographs , 1988 .

[14]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[16]  Mary F Lesch,et al.  A comparison of two training methods for improving warning symbol comprehension. , 2008, Applied ergonomics.

[17]  Wendy A. Rogers,et al.  Warning Research: An Integrative Perspective , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[18]  M. Lesch.  Remembering to be afraid: applications of theories of memory to the science of safety communication , 2005 .

[19]  Mary F Lesch,et al.  Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: age-related differences and impact of training. , 2003, Journal of safety research.

[20]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  A heuristic‐systematic processing analysis of the effectiveness of product warning labels , 1998 .

[21]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  WARNING! Sign and Label Effectiveness , 1996 .

[22]  A Adams,et al.  The effectiveness of warning signs in hazardous work places: cognitive and social determinants. , 1998, Applied ergonomics.

[23]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials , 1997 .