Citation

Wogalter MS, Racicot BM, Kalsher MJ, Noel Simpson S. Int. J. Ind. Ergonomics 1994; 14(3): 233-242.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1994, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Research suggests that compliance to a highly visible posted warning sign is significantly lower than the same warning located within a set of task instruction. One possible reason for this finding is that the participants believed that the posted sign was not directed to them and not relevant to the particular task they are doing compared to the within-instructions warning. One purpose of the present research was to compare the influence of a personally relevant sign (displaying participants' name) to a more conventional impersonal sign (displaying the signal word CAUTION) on behavioral compliance. A second purpose was to examine the influence of a dynamic versus a static display. A sign composed of programmable light-emitting diodes (LEDs) exhibited the warning using special effects (apparent motion) or it was exhibited continuously. A third purpose was to examine the effect of sign placement in a cluttered environment. The wearing of protective equipment as directed by the warning during a chemistry laboratory task was measured. The results showed that participants more frequently wore the protective equipment when a warning was present than when it was absent. The personalized sign significantly increased warning compliance compared to the impersonal sign. No effect of dynamic presentation was found, and the only effect of sign placement was on task-accuracy judgments. The effect of personalization is explained in terms of the special alerting feature of one's own name and enhanced perceived relevance when there is no ambiguity as to whom the message is directed to. Implications for flexible control of warnings using available technology are discussed.