An especially useful structure for investigating warning variables that are interrelated was established by Rogers et al. (2000). The four principle components of any warning process are: Observe; Encode; Comprehend; Comply. Rogers et el. (2000) proposed that there are four steps in the warning process. These steps relate the warning variables and the
Page 33 of 308
as part of the warning system cannot be explicitly altered or controlled since these types of products will be used by a substantial and assorted population. Products although aimed at an exclusive consumer sector ought to have a warning planned to suit every possible end user, since the manufacturers cannot broadly disregard other end consumers.
Consequently, human variables, for example the different ages of the consumer, should be adapted and warning variables adjusted, for example the text dimensions and
sophistication.
The primary stage is to observe or become aware of the warning. It has been
demonstrated that the Warning variables which influence this stage are broadly perceptual elements for example the colour, shape, and dimensions of the warning label. Perceptual variables are crucial in establishing the prominence of the warning and observing the warning. Symbols, pictures and signal words also perform an essential part in this stage. Appropriate pictograms, including symbols and other images, can assist in the warning being observed once situated in combination with warning text (Rogers et al., 2000).
Once the warning has been observed it is then essential that it is encoded. Encoding is the second, and subsequent, stage needed for the success of the warning system. Most of the observing variables are relevant to this stage also. Throughout the encoding phase,
people continue to read and start to interpret the warning message. Even if an end user notes the presence of a warning, it has not been encoded if it has not been read. There are several fundamental perceptual variables for example colour, emphasis and size that perform a significant part in prompting the end user to observe the warning and to encode it. There are also supplementary perceptual variables which relate particularly to text. The employment of appropriate text and font style are crucial to evoke encoding in warnings.
Page 34 of 308
Employment of signal words is once more significant, with the words ‘Warning' and
‘Danger' strengthening the probability that encoding of the warning will take place (Rogers
et al., 2000; Wogalter et al., 1994). Lastly, and very importantly, the physical integrity of the communication device used to communicate the warning message should be
sustained throughout the life of the product, for example the label should not become torn and the text should not fade (Rogers et al., 2000).
Once observed and encoded, it is then possible for a warning to be understood.
Accordingly the third phase in the warning system is understanding, and this depends on a mix of variables. A person processes the warnings’ meaning in the understanding phase,
consequently successful understanding and warning comprehension are synonymous. Warning placement and text layout are variables that have an effect on encoding and which also affect understanding. If a warning is to be understood, variables such as the text complexity and exactness are crucial. To understand a warning, text sophistication such as syntax, voice and terminology should be appropriate. Syntax and terminology should not be complicated or needlessly at an elevated level (Rogers et al., 2000; Lepkowska-White and Parsons, 2001). Potential consequences of non-conformity however, should be unambiguously stated in the warning, as specifically as possible, which will assist in precisely comprehending the significance of the hazard (Rogers et al., 2000; Wogalter et al., 2002; van Duijne et al., 2008).
Conformity is the last stage in the warning system and depends on the warning being comprehended. The end user is still required to take the decision to conform even if a warning is understood. Warning elements are crucial, and the choice to conform can be determined by the variables significant to prior stages, for example the use of colour and
Page 35 of 308
symbols. If conformity is to be the final outcome, then it is essential that the warning text communicates the characteristics of the danger, the appropriate behaviour to avoid the danger, and also the likely outcomes of not avoiding the danger. The literature includes a number of research investigations that assessed behaviour directly, for example obeying a prescribed action or reading a label, although these investigations have commonly been somewhat limited in approach. A study by Vernberg et al. (1984) demonstrated that warning stickers such as ‘Mr Yuk’ are not an effective deterrent for children. However,
internal validity was limited in this study by the lack of a control group, while the power and external validity was limited by the small sample size. Nevertheless, it is clear that some warning stickers can act as an attraction without the accompaniment of an appropriate educational programme. The statement of the danger, according to Rogers et al. (2000) must be explicit and include as much information as feasible to enhance conformity. The warning must also deliver guidance as to conforming conduct.
Supplying response information in this manner steers the end-user towards choosing safer conduct. The warning system exposes a number of variables of varying intricacy that promote warning effectiveness and offer possible objectives for enhancement. Whilst it is principally perceptual variables that broadly influence detection and encoding, it is on the warning text content that the understanding and conformity phases are dependent.
Label effectiveness is frequently determined on the foundation of individual's accounts of the assumptions that they might make if they happened upon a warning label or just subjective judgment. However, the definitive safety consequences of labelling options and comparative validity are inadequately understood (Sattler et al., 1997).
Page 36 of 308 2.3.3 Deduction and Warnings
A series of inferences regarding the meaning of the text are constructed each time individuals encounter original text, further than what is overtly stated (Cook et al., 2001). Individuals will engage in inferences when they read through certain kinds of text in order to anticipate the following text in a segment. This has the effect that the fundamental meaning of the passage can be confused (Gerrig, 2005). Both younger and older individuals have demonstrated the application of crystallized knowledge in order to
construct inferences regarding warning meaning, and this seems to be true even for brief passages that are offered without any related product information (Hancock et al., 2005). Additionally, Hancock et al. (2005) established that individuals will frequently remember a deduction they made in relation to a warning instead of the specific content of the warning when they encounter circumstances where they are required to recall a warning. However, individuals are frequently confronted with more than simple inferences regarding the warning meaning. Furthermore, factors such as the time available for processing warnings and a restricted area for product warning text put limitations on warning text length.
Consequently warnings frequently cannot include illustrations of safer conduct in all conceivable circumstances as a result of this restricted area. Individuals are obliged to form an assumption about safer conduct for each circumstance which the warning label does not overtly deal with. Therefore the content in the warning is translated into advice for product usage via these inferences (Argo and Main, 2004).
An inference that is inappropriate may produce a warning that falls short of providing an appropriate structure for safer interaction with a product. There would be a potential for failure if, after examining the warning with the intention of complying, an individual made inappropriate inferences (Edworthy et al., 2004). Even if the objective was safer conduct,
Page 37 of 308
the consequence could be that the user had inadvertently failed to comply by incorrectly deducing the safer conduct. How a product functions is not specifically explained in warnings, and frequently this can result in the end user making inferences regarding the characteristics of concealed dangers. Frequently, warnings about concealed dangers are unsuccessful since the characteristics of the concealed dangers are not wholly clarified, the end user merely being given a direction regarding how to avoid the concealed danger (Edworthy et al., 2004).
Three predictors of a product's danger ranking, as ascertained by Wogalter et al. (2002), are its technical complexity, the person’s perception of the risk and the self-confidence of
individuals about their ability to comprehend the dangers. A study performed by Bowles (2004) investigated risk perception relative to age concluding that older people had a greater risk perception than younger people and that the younger the individual the more likely it was that they would not read the hazard label. However this study had a
particularly complex design. It considered 7 types of hazard from chemical and electrical to medicinal and the use of tools such as axes and saws. Participants were given an 80 page pack with instructions, definitions and questions. The participants were expected to complete the survey in a 3 hour session. Half of the participants were young university students, and the other half were older people who lived in the locality. The student participants were not representative of the general population, and there is a question concerning the internal validity of using the older participants since they were chosen from a group of people who wanted to participate. However, this research generated some evidence to suggest that there was an age-related difference in the perception of hazards and their degree of severity.
Page 38 of 308
Merely knowing that a product may be hazardous does not permit the conclusion of safe behaviour even though consumers may comprehend that concealed dangers exist for certain products. Consequently, there are two possible circumstances which might develop. A person can decide on non-compliance with a warning without completely comprehending the consequences of their behaviour, or a person can endeavour to interact in a safe manner with a product and be unsuccessful (Nichols et al., 2002). There will, of course, be situations where the end user is required to make inferences regarding conformity as a warning label cannot overtly embrace all potential circumstances. These inferences can indicate a position where the warning process might breakdown, and, consequently, a position where an appropriate intervention could improve conformity.
There have, however, been numerous instances of weak study design or inappropriate deductions from the data obtained. The use of convenience samples has characterised a great deal of the literature, and participants are frequently university students. Such samples are limited and, very often, unsuitable, as such individuals might be at variance from normal consumers of the product, for example in terms of hazard perception, product knowledge, safety motivation or perceptual abilities. In label-creation, the design variables in terms of warning effectiveness are not related in any known way to a reduction in
injuries or a change in behaviour. In some research there is an anticipation that supplying safety information leads to an increase in safety behaviour, but this may be ill-founded. Recognition-recall studies investigate warning message recognition and also test the capability of people to retrieve the correct message some time later. They represent the majority of quantitative studies in the literature.
Page 39 of 308