- Email: [email protected]
Special issue: Risk communication and warnings
Safety Science 61 (2014) 1–2
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci
Preface
Special issue: Risk communication and warnings
Over the past quarter century, products, equipment, and environments have become increasingly complex. The resultant changes have, in turn, produced a concomitant increase in the number and variability of nonobvious hazards. In response to this, and related problems, thousands of warnings have been developed to protect people and prevent harm from residual hazards, defined as hazards not removed through design or guarding. Since the mid 1980s, significant progress has been made in identifying the factors that contribute to warning effectiveness. This progress is reflected to a certain extent in safety-related legislation and voluntary standards throughout the world and in warnings given on some products, equipment, and environments and in ancillary materials such as product manuals. It is also evident in litigation and lawsuits that focus on the inadequacy of warnings. Most research and discussions about risk communication and warnings has been presented in the context of professional conferences and conference proceedings. Less coverage of these important issues has been provided through more widely disseminated venues, such as in peer-reviewed journal publications and the mass media. As such, most findings on risk communication and warnings are not readily available to researchers, safety professionals, government officials, industry people and other decision makers, and perhaps most importantly, to members of the general public. Commonly, the warning systems for products and equipment are poorly designed. Thus, there is an urgent need to disseminate this important information to persons who will hopefully use it to inform their research programs, safety professionals who specify various health and compliance-related programs, to persons in the legal settings who can incorporate these findings into relevant legislation or present them in the court room, and ultimately to users so they can use the information to help them avoid serious injury or death. This special issue on risk communications and warnings is actually the second on this topic to appear in Safety Science. The first one, published in 1993, was organized by Michael Wogalter and David DeJoy and consisted of a collection of ten papers that reflected then state-of-the-art methodologies and approaches to warning and risk communication. During the intervening two decades, a substantial amount of additional empirical research on risk communications and warnings has been published. The current special issue provides an update of research that has occurred over the past 25 years and introduces new and different approaches to risk communication and warnings. Articles in this special issue are organized into three sections. The first section, entitled Summary of Empirical Research, contains the lead article written by Kenneth Laughery and Michael Wogalter, 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.008
two of the leading researchers/practitioners in this area. Their paper summarizes some of the most substantial findings from the body of research on safety communications and warnings that have accrued over the past quarter century. The authors do so in the context of a general three-stage model used to organize, guide and review warnings research. The three stages are attention, knowledge and compliance. Laughery and Wogalter contend that in order to be effective, warnings must capture attention, influence knowledge and affect compliance decisions. Factors found to influence warning effectiveness are partitioned into two categories: design and nondesign factors (i.e., characteristics of the target audience and the warning context). Research over the past two decades has confirmed that the most important design factors that contribute to warning effectiveness include location, size, color/contrast and presence of a signal word, format, symbols/pictorials, and explicit hazard, consequences and instructional information. Three of the most robust predictors of behavioral compliance, arguably the ultimate measure of warning effectiveness, are perceived hazard, experience, and cost of compliance. The second section, entitled Methodological Considerations and New Approaches to Risk Communication, contains four articles intended to challenge conventional ways of thinking about warning design and evaluation. The first article in this section by Donna Riley reviews the psychology of risk perception literature with the goal of identifying key principles for designing effective risk communications. Two case studies of chemical consumer products are presented to illustrate the promises and pitfalls of the mental models methodology for designing risk communications. The mental models methodology combines quantitative technical assessment of a hazard with qualitative methodologies for assessing beliefs and behaviors that are key determinants of risk. The next article by James Bliss and colleagues focuses on the use of close calls, often termed near misses, as actionable sources of information that designers and researchers can use to communicate risk, and ultimately, to increase safety. As a first step, these authors propose the development of a taxonomy and framework that reflects close call impacts, severity and the potential of close calls to serve as an effective means of risk communication. The article concludes with a proposed research agenda. The third article by Ellen Haas and Jan van Erp describes the use of multimodal warning displays that incorporate audio and tactile (skin-based) cues to supplement or replace visual cues in environments in which a user’s visual perception is busy, impaired or non-existent. The authors describe signal design guidelines for effectively using multimodal warning displays to communicate safety information and present recommendations for future multimodal display design and research.
2
Preface / Safety Science 61 (2014) 1–2
The final paper in this section by Mark Changizi and colleagues considers warning design, in particular warning symbols, from an ecological perspective. The authors argue that warnings that mimic ancestrally alerting stimuli found in nature will be among the most effective. They discuss, for example, how the color and geometry of an angry face may underlie the superiority of red color and V shapes in warnings and how radial line stimuli and the illusory effects they induce can be harnessed to capture an observer’s attention and then deter the person from moving closer to the hazard. They do so in light of recent research in three areas of vision: color perception, the evolution of writing and typography, and visual illusions and relate these findings to the design of warnings. The third section of this issue, entitled Globalization, Culture and Special Populations, presents four articles intended to highlight the importance of considering warnings and risk communication from a broader perspective. This is essential given the increasingly rapid shift of both developed and emerging countries toward a global economy. Today’s product and equipment designers and manufacturers must give special consideration to the characteristics of the wide range of people who are likely to purchase and/or use their products and the likely environments of use so they can develop warnings that enable consumers to use their products and equipment safely. The first article by Christopher Mayhorn and Anne Collins McLaughlin considers warnings that relate to natural and technological disasters from a global perspective. The authors first review several well-established theoretical frameworks to show how these structures can be used to predict how the public will respond to disaster warnings. They next describe the components of effective warnings and evaluation techniques that can be used to judge successful warning system implementation. The implications for future research in the area of international disaster warnings are discussed. The second article by Mohamed Dalvie, Hanna-Andrea Rother and Leslie London examines warnings for use with chemical hazards. More specifically, their experimental research evaluates the comprehensibility of hazard communication elements based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) among a group of respondents that included workers from manufacturing, transport and agricultural sectors, as well as consumers. The third article by Anne Collins McLaughlin and Christopher Mayhorn addresses the question of how to design risk communications for older adults. The authors discuss age-related changes and their relation to risk communication and provide examples and recommendations for design. In the last article Emília Duarte, Francisco Rebelo and Michael Wogalter examine comprehension of a set of symbol-based safety signs among three diverse groups of participants that included adult workers, university students and persons afflicted with cerebral palsy. This research is important because there are very few studies that have examined the differential effectiveness of warnings among ‘‘differently abled’’ populations. Open comprehension testing of a set of ISO (International Organization for Standardization) symbol-based safety sign components was assessed using both ISO 9186 and ANSI Z535.3 (American National Standards Institute) criteria. Participants’ compliance intentions vis-à-vis the set of safety signs was also assessed. As Guest Editor, I hope the collection of papers that comprise this special issue will help to move the research on risk communications and warnings forward, and in particular, to stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, practitioners, government officials, industry people, and ordinary citizens from around the world with the ultimate goal of enhancing safety. Although much has been accomplished in the past 25+ years, much remains to be discovered.
Table of Contents Preface Section 1: Summary of Empirical Research (1) A three-stage model summarizes product warning and environmental sign research. Kenneth R. Laughery and Michael S. Wogalter Section 2: Methodological Considerations and Some New Approaches to Risk Communications (2) A mental models approach to developing effective risk communications. Donna Riley (3) What are close calls? A proposed taxonomy to inform risk communication research. James Bliss, Stephen Rice, Gayle Hunt, Kasha Geels (4) Multimodal warnings to enhance risk communication and safety. Ellen C. Haas and Jan B.F. van Erp (5) Ecological warnings. Mark Changizi, Matt Brucksch, Ritesh Kotecha, Kyle McDonald and Kevin Rio Section 3: Globalization, Culture and Special Populations (6) Warning the world of extreme events: A global perspective on risk communication for natural and technological disaster. Christopher B. Mayhorn and Anne Collins McLaughlin (7) Chemical hazard communication comprehensibility in South Africa: Safety implications for the adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Mohamed Aqiel Dalvie, Hanna-Andrea Rother and Leslie London (8) Designing effective risk communications for older adults. Anne Collins McLaughlin and Christopher B. Mayhorn (9) Safety signs comprehension: Symbols, shape-color, and compliance intention comparison of university students, adult workers and disabled persons with cerebral palsy. M. Emília C. Duarte, Francisco Rebelo and Michael S. Wogalter
Acknowledgments I would like to offer my thanks to the editorial staff of Safety Science and Elsevier Publishing for their support and patience throughout the process of bringing this special issue on risk communication and warnings to fruition. I especially thank Kathryn Mearns, Samuel Roobesh Thomas and Jean-Luc Wybo. I would also like to thank all of the authors who submitted manuscripts in response to the call for papers for this special issue on risk communication. Although many very good papers were submitted, only a portion of them is represented in this special issue due to space limitations. I offer a special thanks to Michael Wogalter, Ellen Haas and Christopher Mayhorn for their advice and support throughout this project. Thanks also to the reviewers for their efforts and insights. Their input contributed significantly to the excellent quality of this collection of papers. Finally, it is my hope that this special issue will promote critical discussion of the current state of the art of warnings and risk communication and serve as a source of ideas for researchers interested in pursuing new research in the area of warnings and risk communication to accomplish the ultimate goal of improving methods of risk communication, and ultimately, safety. Guest Editor Michael J. Kalsher E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 16 August 2013
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci
Preface
Special issue: Risk communication and warnings
Over the past quarter century, products, equipment, and environments have become increasingly complex. The resultant changes have, in turn, produced a concomitant increase in the number and variability of nonobvious hazards. In response to this, and related problems, thousands of warnings have been developed to protect people and prevent harm from residual hazards, defined as hazards not removed through design or guarding. Since the mid 1980s, significant progress has been made in identifying the factors that contribute to warning effectiveness. This progress is reflected to a certain extent in safety-related legislation and voluntary standards throughout the world and in warnings given on some products, equipment, and environments and in ancillary materials such as product manuals. It is also evident in litigation and lawsuits that focus on the inadequacy of warnings. Most research and discussions about risk communication and warnings has been presented in the context of professional conferences and conference proceedings. Less coverage of these important issues has been provided through more widely disseminated venues, such as in peer-reviewed journal publications and the mass media. As such, most findings on risk communication and warnings are not readily available to researchers, safety professionals, government officials, industry people and other decision makers, and perhaps most importantly, to members of the general public. Commonly, the warning systems for products and equipment are poorly designed. Thus, there is an urgent need to disseminate this important information to persons who will hopefully use it to inform their research programs, safety professionals who specify various health and compliance-related programs, to persons in the legal settings who can incorporate these findings into relevant legislation or present them in the court room, and ultimately to users so they can use the information to help them avoid serious injury or death. This special issue on risk communications and warnings is actually the second on this topic to appear in Safety Science. The first one, published in 1993, was organized by Michael Wogalter and David DeJoy and consisted of a collection of ten papers that reflected then state-of-the-art methodologies and approaches to warning and risk communication. During the intervening two decades, a substantial amount of additional empirical research on risk communications and warnings has been published. The current special issue provides an update of research that has occurred over the past 25 years and introduces new and different approaches to risk communication and warnings. Articles in this special issue are organized into three sections. The first section, entitled Summary of Empirical Research, contains the lead article written by Kenneth Laughery and Michael Wogalter, 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.008
two of the leading researchers/practitioners in this area. Their paper summarizes some of the most substantial findings from the body of research on safety communications and warnings that have accrued over the past quarter century. The authors do so in the context of a general three-stage model used to organize, guide and review warnings research. The three stages are attention, knowledge and compliance. Laughery and Wogalter contend that in order to be effective, warnings must capture attention, influence knowledge and affect compliance decisions. Factors found to influence warning effectiveness are partitioned into two categories: design and nondesign factors (i.e., characteristics of the target audience and the warning context). Research over the past two decades has confirmed that the most important design factors that contribute to warning effectiveness include location, size, color/contrast and presence of a signal word, format, symbols/pictorials, and explicit hazard, consequences and instructional information. Three of the most robust predictors of behavioral compliance, arguably the ultimate measure of warning effectiveness, are perceived hazard, experience, and cost of compliance. The second section, entitled Methodological Considerations and New Approaches to Risk Communication, contains four articles intended to challenge conventional ways of thinking about warning design and evaluation. The first article in this section by Donna Riley reviews the psychology of risk perception literature with the goal of identifying key principles for designing effective risk communications. Two case studies of chemical consumer products are presented to illustrate the promises and pitfalls of the mental models methodology for designing risk communications. The mental models methodology combines quantitative technical assessment of a hazard with qualitative methodologies for assessing beliefs and behaviors that are key determinants of risk. The next article by James Bliss and colleagues focuses on the use of close calls, often termed near misses, as actionable sources of information that designers and researchers can use to communicate risk, and ultimately, to increase safety. As a first step, these authors propose the development of a taxonomy and framework that reflects close call impacts, severity and the potential of close calls to serve as an effective means of risk communication. The article concludes with a proposed research agenda. The third article by Ellen Haas and Jan van Erp describes the use of multimodal warning displays that incorporate audio and tactile (skin-based) cues to supplement or replace visual cues in environments in which a user’s visual perception is busy, impaired or non-existent. The authors describe signal design guidelines for effectively using multimodal warning displays to communicate safety information and present recommendations for future multimodal display design and research.
2
Preface / Safety Science 61 (2014) 1–2
The final paper in this section by Mark Changizi and colleagues considers warning design, in particular warning symbols, from an ecological perspective. The authors argue that warnings that mimic ancestrally alerting stimuli found in nature will be among the most effective. They discuss, for example, how the color and geometry of an angry face may underlie the superiority of red color and V shapes in warnings and how radial line stimuli and the illusory effects they induce can be harnessed to capture an observer’s attention and then deter the person from moving closer to the hazard. They do so in light of recent research in three areas of vision: color perception, the evolution of writing and typography, and visual illusions and relate these findings to the design of warnings. The third section of this issue, entitled Globalization, Culture and Special Populations, presents four articles intended to highlight the importance of considering warnings and risk communication from a broader perspective. This is essential given the increasingly rapid shift of both developed and emerging countries toward a global economy. Today’s product and equipment designers and manufacturers must give special consideration to the characteristics of the wide range of people who are likely to purchase and/or use their products and the likely environments of use so they can develop warnings that enable consumers to use their products and equipment safely. The first article by Christopher Mayhorn and Anne Collins McLaughlin considers warnings that relate to natural and technological disasters from a global perspective. The authors first review several well-established theoretical frameworks to show how these structures can be used to predict how the public will respond to disaster warnings. They next describe the components of effective warnings and evaluation techniques that can be used to judge successful warning system implementation. The implications for future research in the area of international disaster warnings are discussed. The second article by Mohamed Dalvie, Hanna-Andrea Rother and Leslie London examines warnings for use with chemical hazards. More specifically, their experimental research evaluates the comprehensibility of hazard communication elements based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) among a group of respondents that included workers from manufacturing, transport and agricultural sectors, as well as consumers. The third article by Anne Collins McLaughlin and Christopher Mayhorn addresses the question of how to design risk communications for older adults. The authors discuss age-related changes and their relation to risk communication and provide examples and recommendations for design. In the last article Emília Duarte, Francisco Rebelo and Michael Wogalter examine comprehension of a set of symbol-based safety signs among three diverse groups of participants that included adult workers, university students and persons afflicted with cerebral palsy. This research is important because there are very few studies that have examined the differential effectiveness of warnings among ‘‘differently abled’’ populations. Open comprehension testing of a set of ISO (International Organization for Standardization) symbol-based safety sign components was assessed using both ISO 9186 and ANSI Z535.3 (American National Standards Institute) criteria. Participants’ compliance intentions vis-à-vis the set of safety signs was also assessed. As Guest Editor, I hope the collection of papers that comprise this special issue will help to move the research on risk communications and warnings forward, and in particular, to stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, practitioners, government officials, industry people, and ordinary citizens from around the world with the ultimate goal of enhancing safety. Although much has been accomplished in the past 25+ years, much remains to be discovered.
Table of Contents Preface Section 1: Summary of Empirical Research (1) A three-stage model summarizes product warning and environmental sign research. Kenneth R. Laughery and Michael S. Wogalter Section 2: Methodological Considerations and Some New Approaches to Risk Communications (2) A mental models approach to developing effective risk communications. Donna Riley (3) What are close calls? A proposed taxonomy to inform risk communication research. James Bliss, Stephen Rice, Gayle Hunt, Kasha Geels (4) Multimodal warnings to enhance risk communication and safety. Ellen C. Haas and Jan B.F. van Erp (5) Ecological warnings. Mark Changizi, Matt Brucksch, Ritesh Kotecha, Kyle McDonald and Kevin Rio Section 3: Globalization, Culture and Special Populations (6) Warning the world of extreme events: A global perspective on risk communication for natural and technological disaster. Christopher B. Mayhorn and Anne Collins McLaughlin (7) Chemical hazard communication comprehensibility in South Africa: Safety implications for the adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Mohamed Aqiel Dalvie, Hanna-Andrea Rother and Leslie London (8) Designing effective risk communications for older adults. Anne Collins McLaughlin and Christopher B. Mayhorn (9) Safety signs comprehension: Symbols, shape-color, and compliance intention comparison of university students, adult workers and disabled persons with cerebral palsy. M. Emília C. Duarte, Francisco Rebelo and Michael S. Wogalter
Acknowledgments I would like to offer my thanks to the editorial staff of Safety Science and Elsevier Publishing for their support and patience throughout the process of bringing this special issue on risk communication and warnings to fruition. I especially thank Kathryn Mearns, Samuel Roobesh Thomas and Jean-Luc Wybo. I would also like to thank all of the authors who submitted manuscripts in response to the call for papers for this special issue on risk communication. Although many very good papers were submitted, only a portion of them is represented in this special issue due to space limitations. I offer a special thanks to Michael Wogalter, Ellen Haas and Christopher Mayhorn for their advice and support throughout this project. Thanks also to the reviewers for their efforts and insights. Their input contributed significantly to the excellent quality of this collection of papers. Finally, it is my hope that this special issue will promote critical discussion of the current state of the art of warnings and risk communication and serve as a source of ideas for researchers interested in pursuing new research in the area of warnings and risk communication to accomplish the ultimate goal of improving methods of risk communication, and ultimately, safety. Guest Editor Michael J. Kalsher E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 16 August 2013