No abstract

Knowledge about the level of danger associated with fire hazards is crucial for avoiding injury when dealing with hazardous materials. Participants (N=107) comprised of undergraduate students and nonstudent adults rated 12 one-and two-word phrases based on the extent of fire hazard conveyed. Evaluated were four root words (Inflammable, Combustible, Flammable, and Explosive) combined with three qualifiers (no qualifier, Very, and Extremely). Inflammable has the same meaning as Flammable but was rated as if it was of very low flammability, consistent with previous research. Explosive was rated higher than the other root words but was followed closely by Flammable and Combustible, which themselves did not differ. By including qualifiers, there was an increased hazard connotation over the root word alone, with the qualifier Extremely producing significantly higher ratings than with the qualifier Very. Even though Inflammable was rated erroneously as low in flammability when Very or Extremely were added, participants (particularly nonstudents) gave higher ratings of hazard than the root word alone. Analyses including demographic variables showed the ratings of the terms interacted with student status and age, which were mainly due to how the term Inflammable was rated. The evidence suggests that Explosive is a good term to express severe fire hazard, and the confusing term Inflammable should be avoided as much as possible. The results give some guidance on terminology in warnings that could be useful in matching connotations of hazard words with different danger levels.

No abstract