Download - Project presentation

Project presentation

The study of human factor in industrial safety – response to risk

and hazard communication

By Joseph Wong

Content

Introduction

Methodology

Result

Expected finding

Introduction

Which of the following would bring the most

hazardous feeling to you???

DANGER DANGER DANGER

CAUTIONCAUTIONCAUTION

WARNINGWARNING

BEWARENOTICE

Component of a warning signBoarder

*Background/Colour

*Symbol/Shape

Element

*Text label/Signal wordWARNING

!

Remark: *Our research would focus on the hazardous perception of these sort of matters

The schematic diagram for the research design

Colour Word Shape

Colour/ Word

Colour/

Shape

Shape/Word

2nd Level

1st Level

Methodology

Study Population

Study Method

Study Material

Study population70 Higher Form student (Form 4) from a government secondary school in Hong Kong

Student profile:

40 female and 30 male

Average age range:

14.5-15 years old

Study Method

-By mean of experiment

-A seven-point scale was provided to rate the the seriousness of hazardous that they would associate with:

-Each colour, word, shape and

-The combination of colour/word, colour/shape and shape/word

Details of matter under testFor level 1 of experiment

Colour:

Red, Yellow, Orange, Green, Blue

Signal word:

Danger, Warning, Caution, Notice, Beware

Sign shape:

Triangle Pentagon Hexagon CircleSquare

Details of matter under testFor level 2 of experiment

Red, Yellow, Orange, Green, Blue

Danger, Warning, Caution, Notice, Beware

Triangle Pentagon Hexagon CircleSquare

Colour/word

Colour/shape

Word/shape

Study Material

A notebook computer

A set of power-point slides

An overhead projector

A white screen for display

And a preprinted rating sheet with 7-point scale for each elements under test

ResultHazardous perception on colour

Mean rating for each colour

3.83

4.03

2.93

3.13

5

3.23

3.7

1.75

2.93

4.13

3.49

3.84

2.26

3.01

4.5

2.51

3.76

2.51

4.66

6.24

Green

yellow

blue

orange

red

Leonard 1997

Total

Female

Male

ResultPerception of hazardous on colour (General)

The ranking order (highest to lowest) is: Red, Yellow, Green Orange and Blue

Mean rating:

Red (4.5), Yellow (3.84), Green (3.49), Orange (3.01), Blue (2.26)

Result consistent with Griffith and Leonard, 1988 with exception of orange


- Consistent with Braun and Silver, 1995; Griffith, 1995; Woglater et al, 1997a, 1998 that red colour connotes highest hazard, i.e not different between people with Western cultures.

- Similar to the ranking order (with expectation of orange) as Rodriguez (1991) and Dunlap et al (1986). i.e Red, Yellow, Green, Blue.


-can differentiate between yellow and orange colour as pointed out by Chapins, 1994; Griffith, 1995; Woglater et al, 1998.

-Showed that the different between the people in Western culture and Eastern culture.

ResultPerception of hazardous on colour (Gender Group)

Mean rating between Gender Group

3.83

4.03

2.93

3.13

5

3.23

3.7

1.75

2.93

4.13

Green

yellow

blue

orange

red

Female

Male

ResultPerception of hazardous on colour (Gender Group)

-Ranking order is the same between gender group, i.e. Red, Yellow, Green, Orange, Blue

-Male group has an average rating higher than Female group.

-Higher different was occurred at Blue colour as Male (2.93), Female (2.26); 0.67 different.

-Further study is required.

ResultPerception of hazardous on colour (Compare with other research)

Mean rating compare with Leonard, 1997

3.49

3.84

2.26

3.01

4.5

2.51

3.76

2.51

4.66

6.24

Green

yellow

blue

orange

red

Leonard 1997

Total

Result Perception of hazardous on colour (Compare

with other research)

-With exception of orange colour, ranking order is same as Leonard, 1997 as Red, Yellow, Green, Blue.

-Have a closer mean rating in colour yellow and Blue

-Blue and Green were seen to be the least hazardous perception among population in different cultural background

ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (General)

Mean rating for signal word

2.63

4.03

5.27

2.37

5.03

3

4.02

5.6

2.47

5.25

2.84

4.03

5.46

2.43

5.16

Beware

Caution

Danger

Notice

Warning

Total

Female

Male

Result Perception of hazardous on Signal Words

(General)

-Ranking order (Highest to lowest):

DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION, BEWARE.

-Highest rating for DANGER compare with WARNING and CAUTION corroborates the findings of Bresnahan and Bryk, 1975; Dunlap et al, 1986; Wogalter and Silver, 1990.

-In line with the findings reported by Marhefka and Dorris, 1990. DANGER >WARNING or CAUTION and WARNING always >CAUTION.

ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words

(General)

-Similar to the result worked by Wogalter and Silver, 1990:

College student gave DANGER and WARNING significantly higher than CAUTION, but DANGER and WARNING did not different from each other. 5.46 (DANGER) and 5.16 (WARNING) respectively.


(General)

-Significant differences in connoted hazard between individual pairs of terms, such as DANGER (5.46) and CAUTION (4.03). (Bresnahan and Bryk, 1975 and Dunlap et al, 1986). Thus no major different across study population

- No differentiation problem between WARNING and CAUTION compare with result obtained from the other research


(General)

-Findings on differentiation between WARNING and CAUTION provide support to Wogalter and Silver, 1995 with the ASU college student.


(Gender)Mean rating between gender group

2.63

4.03

5.27

2.37

5.03

3

4.02

5.6

2.47

5.25

Beware

Caution

Danger

Notice

Warning

Female

Male


(Gender)

-Provide same ranking order

-Mean rating between DANGER (5.27/Male) (5.6/Female) and WARNING (5.03/Male) (5.25/Female) is so close between group

-On average female have a higher rating than male

-Both male and female give a close rating to the signal word ‘CAUTION’ as 4.03 and 4.02 respectively


(Gender)

-Female have a higher hazardous perception on signal words than male.

ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (Compare

with other research)

Mean rating compare w ith other research

2.84

4.03

5.46

2.43

5.16

3.39

5.54

1.83

4.02

2.21

3.45

2.53

3.22

6.67

1

4.33

3.78

6.22

2

4.11

5.96

5.96

6.99

4.99

6.44

Bew are

Caution

Danger

Notice

Warning Wogalter et al (1995)

Wogalter et al (1988)com vlo

Wogalter et al (1988)student

Leonard et al (1988)

Lonard (1997)

Current

ResultPerception of hazardous level on Signal word

(compare with other research)

-With exception of the danger, all rating for others signal words in current study is higher than others

-Demographic factors:

Gender, Age and Personality (Wogalter et al, 1999)

-Female may more sensitive to take appropriate action in response to warning

ResultPerception of hazardous level on Signal word

(compare with other research)

-Influence in age significantly influence the result

Middle school student generally assign higher rating than college did (Wogalter et al, 1994)

-Ranking order was consistent across different group

Result for others like shape and the combination of colour, shape and word are in progress!!!!

Expected finding-Different in hazardous perception in Colour, Words and sign shape between people in Western culture and Eastern Culture

-Different in hazardous perception between gender group

-Report the hazardous perception for the subject in colour, word and sign shape

The end!!

Thank You!!!

Download - Project presentation

Top Related