The Role of Equipment Warning Labels in the Industrial Workplace

• Autorzy: McGrath J. M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Among the many ways in which workers can get safety information, the role of equipment warning labels has not been well articulated. Presumably, warning labels help prevent accidents, but questions remain about how well those labels can be expected to work. This essay describes how contextual analysis can assist our understanding of warning label effectiveness. A contextual approach was conceptualized in terms of underlying communication variables and an exploratory study was conducted in which workers were asked if they noticed and remembered warning labels on an industrial table saw that they used over a 3-month period. Results showed that equipment warning labels had a limited impact on workers. The contextual approach explained the relative effectiveness of multiple sources of information. Implications for safety training and accident liability are discussed.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

communication; context; message; safety information; warning labels

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 17, No. 1
• Strony: 49--60
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

McGrath J. M.

• Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA

Bibliografia

• 1.NIOSH (content source); Draggan S (topic editor). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), United States. In: Cleveland CJ, editor. Encyclopedia of earth. Washington, DC, USA: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment; 2006. Retrieved December 20, 2010, from: http://www.eoearth.org/article/National_Institute_for_Occupational_Safety_and_Health_(NIOSH),_United_States.
• 2.American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Safety signs and labels (Standard No. ANSI Z535.4-2007). New York, NY, USA: ANSI; 2007.
• 3.Borade A, Bansod S, Gandhewar V. Hazard perception based on safety words and colors: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2008;14(4):407–16.
• 4.Hellier E, Edworthy J. Signal words. In: Wogalter MS, editor. Handbook of warnings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 407–17.
• 5.Lim R, Wogalter M. Printed warning statements and signal words on intended carefulness. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2004. p. 2031–4.
• 6.Leonard S, Karnes E, Schneider T. Scale values for warning symbols and words. In: Aghazadeh F, editor. Trends in ergonomics/human factors V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1988. p. 669–74.
• 7.Chapanis A. Hazards associated with three signal words and four colours on warning signs. Ergonomics. 1994;37(2):265–75.
• 8.Bresnahan T, Bryk J. The hazard association values of accident prevention signs.Prof Saf. 1975;20(1):17–25.
• 9.Bzostek J, Wogalter M. Measuring visual search time for a product warning label as a function of icon, color, column, and vertical placement. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 43rd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1999. p. 888–92.
• 10.Sojourner R, Wogalter M. The influence of pictorials on evaluations of prescription medication instructions. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:963–72.
• 11.Murray IA, Magurno AB, Glover BL, Wogalter M. Prohibitive pictorials: evaluations of different circle-slash negation symbols. Int J Ind Ergon. 1998:22:473–82.
• 12.Banda S, Sichilongo K. Analysis of the level of comprehension of chemical hazard labels: a case for Zambia. Sci Total Environ. 2006:363(1):22–7.
• 13.Lesch MF, Rau P, Zhao Z, Liu C. A crosscultural comparison of perceived hazard in response to warning components and configurations: US vs. China. Appl Ergon. 2009;40(5):953–61.
• 14.Lesch MF. A semantic relatedness paradigm for assessing comprehension of warning symbols. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2005. p. 782–5.
• 15.Lesch MF. A comparison of two training methods for improving warning symbol comprehension. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(2):135–43.
• 16.Goldsworthy RC, Mayhorn CB. On warning symbols, text and “getting it right”: the iterative refinement of a teratogenic pharmaceutical label. In: Proceedings of the 53th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2009. p. 1603–7.
• 17.American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Criteria for safety symbols (Standard No. ANSI Z535.3-2002). New York, NY, USA: ANSI; 2002.
• 18.Martin BJ. The value of explicit hazard and consequence warnings for products with hidden dangers. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2000. p. (4) 302–5.
• 19.Heaps CM, Henley TB. Language matters: warning considerations in hazard perception and warning comprehension. J Psychol. 1999;133(3):341–51.
• 20.Braun CC, Holt RS, Silver NC. Adding consequence information to product instructions: changes in hazard perception. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1995. p. 346–50.
• 21.Wolf MC, Davis TC, Bass PF. Improving prescription drug warnings to promote patient comprehension. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(1):50–6.
• 22.Wolf MC, Davis TC, Shrank W. To err is human: patient misinterpretations of prescription drug label instructions. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67(3): 293–300.
• 23.McGuire WJ. The communicationpersuasion model and health-risk labeling. In: Morris LA, editor. Product labeling and health risks (Bambury Report 6). Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1980. p. 99–122.
• 24.Pronovost P, Sexton B. Assessing safety culture: guidelines and recommendations. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:231–3.
• 25.Guldenmund FW. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Saf Sci. 2000;34:215–57.
• 26.Joyner P, Lardner R, Reeves G, Small A, Smith J. Why do people do what they do?—Influencing the human factors in accidents at work. In: Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, 151. London, UK: Institution of Chemical Engineers; 2006. p. 469–78.
• 27.Blanc P, Montaudoin T, Lafaille A, Boissieres I, Simard M. Assessing safety culture with the help of an innovative dedicated interpretation tool. In: The SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE); 2010. vol. 2, p. 880–90.
• 28.Hale AR, Guldenmund FW, van Loenhout PLCH, Oh JIH. Evaluating safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: effective intervention strategies. Saf Sci. 2010;48(8):1026–35.
• 29.Goldhaber GM, deTurck MA. Effects of consumer familiarity with a product on attention and compliance with warnings. J Prod Liability. 1988;11:29–37.
• 30.Godfrey SS, Laughery KR. The biasing effect of familiarity on consumer’s awareness of hazard. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1984. p. 483–6.
• 31.Argo JJ, Main KJ. Meta-analyses of the effectiveness of warning labels. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 2004;23(2):193–208.
• 32.Di Giampaolo L, Di Stefano F, Antonucci A, Di Alessandro R, Pacini A, Di Giampaolo P, et al. Identifying risks for construction workers. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2006;28(3):354–5. In Italian, with an abstract in English. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from: http://gimle.fsm.it/28/3/02.pdf.
• 33.Martin LF, Smith-Jackson TL, Artis S. Cultural differences in risk perception: comparison of USA and Ghanaian workers. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2003. p. 1762–6.
• 34.Wogalter M, Kalsher MJ, Rashid R. Effect of signal word source attribution on judgments of warning credibility and compliance likelihood. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;24:185–92.
• 35.O’Keefe DJ. Persuasion: theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2001.
• 36.Cox EP, Wogalter MS. Warning source. In: Wogalter MS, editor. Handbook of warnings. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 111–22.
• 37.Harvey Cohen H, Cohen J, Mendat CC, Wogalter MS. Warning channel: modality and media. In: Wogalter MS, editor. Handbook of warnings. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 123–34.
• 38.Dzwiarek M, Łuczak A. Application prospects of augmented reality technology for improving safety of machine operators. In: Asai K, editor. Human–computer interaction: new developments. Vienna, Austria: In-Tech; 2008. p. 217–30.