This experiment investigated the influence of warnings, signal words, and a signal icon on perceived hazard of consumer products. Under the guise of a marketing research study, 135 people (high school students, college students, and participants from a shopping mall) rated product labels on six dimensions, including how hazardous they perceived the products to be. A total of 16 labels from actual household products were used: 9 carried the experimental conditions, and 7 were filler product labels that never carried a warning. Five conditions presented the signal words NOTE, CAUTION, WARNING, DANGER, and LETHAL together with a brief warning message. In another two conditions, a signal icon (exclamation point surrounded by a triangle) was presented together with the terms DANGER and LETHAL. In the final two conditions, one lacked a signal word but retained the warning message, and the other lacked both the warning message and the signal word. Results showed that the presence of a signal word increased perceived product hazard compared with its absence. Significant differences were noted between extreme terms (e.g., NOTE and DANGER) but not between terms usually recommended in warning design guidelines (e.g., CAUTION and WARNING). The signal icon showed no significant effect on hazard perception. Implications of the results and the value of the methodology for future warnings investigations are discussed.

This experiment investigated the influence of warning signal words and a signal icon on perceptions of hazard for consumer products. Under the pretext of a marketing research study, 90 high school and college students rated product labels on variables such as product familiarity, frequency of use, and perceived hazard. Sixteen labels from actual household products were used and stored on a computer. Nine of the products labels were used to carry the nine signal word conditions. Five conditions presented the signal words NOTE, CAUTION, WARNING, DANGER, and LETHAL together with a brief warning message. In two other conditions a signal icon (exclamation point surrounded by a triangle) was presented together with the terms DANGER and LETHAL. The final two conditions were controls, one had a warning message but had no signal word, and the other had no warning message or signal word. Seven product labels were “fillers” that never contained a warning. Results showed that the presence of a signal word increased perceived hazard compared to its absence. Between extreme terms (e.g., NOTE and DANGER), significant differences were noted, but not between terms usually recommended in warning design guidelines. The presence of the signal icon had no significant effect on hazard perception. Implications of the results and the value of the research methodology for future warnings” investigations are discussed.

No abstract

This experiment examined the effects of three methods of presentation, one massed and two distributed, on recognition of complex visual stimuli (military aircraft). Also examined was whether the effects of these methods differ as a function of the view at test (same or different from the studied view). In the massed presentation, aircraft were exposed once for eight seconds with each exposure separated by a blank interval of 20 seconds. In the successive distributed condition, each target aircraft was presented four times in a row for two seconds with each exposure separated by blank intervals of five seconds. In the random distributed condition, the aircraft were presented for the same on-off time intervals as the successive distributed condition, but the sequence of the study list was random. Results showed that recognition performance, as assessed by measures of hits, false alarms, and discrimination accuracy was significantly better when the same view was given at study and at test versus a different view. While presentation method did not produce an effect by itself, it did interact with test view. With a different view at test, distributed presentation showed a small, but significant, improvement in recognition performance compared to massed presentation. These results are discussed with regard to the high likelihood that most real-word visual stimuli are seen in a different views at subsequent exposures. Distributed presentation may be a useful way to prepare individuals for a different view at a later time.

This study examined the effects of three presentation methods (one massed and two distributed) and two visual rehearsal conditions (rehearsal allowed and not allowed) on recognition of complex visual stimuli. The stimuli, photographs of military aircraft, were tested using a different view than the three views given at study. Recognition performance was measured by hit, false alarm, and discrimination indices to assess differences among the presentation and rehearsal conditions. A substantial effect of rehearsal was found. Allowing intervals for, and encouraging, postexposure imaging increased hit and discrimination scores compared to conditions where postexposure imaging w a prevented. No significant effect of presentation method or interaction with rehearsal was noted. Exploratory analyses suggested that a study strategy involving attention to individual features to be associated with higher recognition performance. Empirical, theoretical, and applied implications of the study are discussed, and suggestions for further research are described.