Compliance with Static vs. Dynamic Warnings in Workplaces such as Warehouses: A Study Using Virtual Reality

The static nature of traditional warnings cannot always capture the user’s attention. The effectiveness of a warning refers to the way in which it prompts the user to engage in safe behavior. It is known that behavioral compliance is the “golden measure” for evaluating the effectiveness of a warning. Several studies have shown that traditional warnings are not effective in an emergency. Several researches indicate that dynamic safety warnings are more effective than static ones. However, these studies are mostly in critical situations such as emergency evacuations. Literature is not clear about the existence of research on warnings in warehouse operating environments. However, it is known that warehouses are environments where employees often work under pressure and are often involved in accidents. This study objective was to compare the effectiveness of static safety warnings with dynamic ones. This kind of study in real-life is a difficult issue. So, we used an immersive virtual environment for this purpose. Virtual Reality (VR) can be assumed as the most adequate methodology to use in this context, as it overcomes methodological, financial and ethical limitations. Fourteen volunteers participated in the experience. Main results confirmed that dynamic warnings produce greater behavioral compliance even in less dynamic situations such as workplaces such warehouses .

[1]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Designing Effective Warnings , 2006 .

[2]  Alwine Mohnen,et al.  Caution! Warnings as a Useless Countermeasure to Reduce Overconfidence? An Experimental Evaluation in Light of Enhanced and Dynamic Warning Designs , 2017 .

[3]  Francisco Rebelo,et al.  Virtual Reality in Consumer Product Design: Methods and Applications , 2011 .

[4]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  A Personalized Speech Warning Facilitates Compliance in an Immersive Virtual Environment , 2012 .

[5]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Behavioral compliance with warnings: effects of voice, context, and location , 1993 .

[6]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Stepping into virtual reality , 2008 .

[7]  Christopher B. Mayhorn,et al.  WARNINGS AND HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS , 2006, Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics.

[8]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Personalization of warning signs: The role of perceived relevance on behavioral compliance , 1994 .

[9]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  Evaluation of Warning Effectiveness , 2006 .

[10]  Francisco Rebelo,et al.  Behavioral compliance for dynamic versus static signs in an immersive virtual environment. , 2014, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Using technology to facilitate the design and delivery of warnings , 2002, Int. J. Syst. Sci..

[12]  Christian Kray,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Dynamic Public Signage on Mass Evacuation , 2014, PerDis.

[13]  Mark Billinghurst Review of Virtual reality technology (2nd Edition) by Grigore Burdea and Philippe Coiffet, Wiley-Interscience , 2003 .