Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Hazards associated with three signal words and

four colours on warning signs

ALPHONSE CHAPANIS

To cite this article: ALPHONSE CHAPANIS (1994) Hazards associated with three
signal words and four colours on warning signs, Ergonomics, 37:2, 265-275, DOI:
10.1080/00140139408963644

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139408963644

Published online: 30 May 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 89

View related articles

Citing articles: 36 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20

Download by: [York University Libraries] Date: 24 May 2016, At: 08:39
 ERGONOMICS, 1994, VOL. 37, NO. 2, 265-275

Hazards associated with three signal words and four colours on

warning signs

Suite 2 10 Ruxton Towers, 8415 Bellona Lane, Baltimore, MD 21 204, USA

Keywords: Signal words; Colours; Safety; Warning signs.

This study assessed perceptions of hazard levels associated with three signal
words, CAUTION, WARNING, and DANGER, combined with four background
colours, white, yellow, orange, and red. In general, DANGER was perceived as
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

indicating the highest level of hazard, WARNING, an intermediate level, and

CAUTION, the lowest level. Greatest consistency was found for DANGER. There
was a small but significant amount of disagreement about the relative amounts of
hazard represented by CAUTION and WARNING. White, yellow, orange, and
red were also perceived as being associated with successively greater 1evels.of
hazard. Greatest consistency was found for DANGER with a red background.
There was little agreement about the best colours to be associated with CAUTION
and WARNING. Ratings on scales of seriousness of injury and probability of
injury show that people perceive CAUTION and WARNING to be much closer to
each other than to DANGER.

1. Introduction
Warning signs usually have two principal pans: An upper panel containing a signal
word that identifies the level of the hazard, and a lower panel containing messages
that identify the nature of the hazard, the consequences that could result from
ignoring the hazard, and instructions on how to avoid the hazard. Although attempts
have been made to develop standardized terminology to indicate the level of hazard
present in a particular product, different organizations recommend different signal
words (see Lehto and Miller (1986: 153-154) for a detailed comparison of seven
different sets of recommendations). Among the most popular signal words
recommended are: DANGER, to indicate the highest level of hazard; WARNING, to
indicate an intermediate hazard; and CAUTION, to indicate the lowest level of
hazard. Most standards also recommend that the field surrounding the signal word be
coloured, generally red, orange, and yellow for the highest, intermediate, and lowest
levels of hazard, respectively.
Since warning signs figure prominently in many product liability law suits, it is
important to know how people interpret the signal words and colours that appear on
those signs. Bresnahan and Bryk (1 975) were apparently the first to study the levels of
hazard associated with certain elements of accident-prevention signs. They
compared four signal words, DANGER, CAUTION, THINK, and NOTICE, with
and without colour, but colours were confounded with signal words. Red was used
only on the DANGER, yellow on the CAUTION, green on the THINK, and blue on
the NOTICE sign. In addition, groups of signs were presented in a fixed order with
increasing amounts of cues on them. For example, all the signs with no colour were
tested before those with colour. For purposes of this study about the only thing one
can conclude .validly from the data is that their subjects (workers from two light
industries) thought DANGER indicated more hazard than CAUTION. Because of
0014-0139/94 $10.00 0 1994 Taylor & Francis Lid.
 266 A. Chapanis

their order of presentation one cannot validly conclude anything about the use of
colour.
Dunlap et al. (1986) had participants rate seven signal words (Attention, Beware,
Caution, Danger, Notice, Think, and Warning) and six colour names (Blue, Green,
Orange, Red, White and Yellow) 'on the basis of the degree of PERSONAL hazard
you believe is implied or associated with each item'. Colour names, not actual
colours, were rated individually, that is, they were not com'bined with signal words.
Participants were 1169 IBM employees from plants in the USA, Canada, and
Belgium. The mean ratings for the signal words from highest to lowest perceived
hazard were: Danger, Warning, Caution, Beware, Attention, Notice, and Think.
Danger stood out by itself, and the mean ratings for Warning, Caution, and Beware
were very close to each other. The mean ratings for colour names from highest to
lowest perceived hazard were: Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue, Green, and White. Some
ratings differed significantly according to the native language of participants. For
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

example, persons whose native language was French, German, or Scandinavian rated
Caution as indicating a greater degree of hazard than Warning.
Ursic (1 984) had students study display boards containing information on three
hypothetical brands of bug killers and hair dryers. One of the factors studied was the
safety warning. On some displays the warning said DANGER, on others CAUTION,
and on still others the signal word was omitted. Although Ursic shows no data on this
point, he says that the strength of the signal word had no impact on perceptions of the
brand or memory of the safety message.
Negative findings have also been reported by Leonard et al. (1986) who had
students (1) rate the perceived riskiness of signs describing 12 hazardous
situations; and (2) say whether they would obey or disregard the sign in particular
situations. All signs were prepared with either the signal word DANGER,
WARNING, or CAUTION, and some signs were printed either in red or in black.
Their results show no differences among the signal words or between the two
colours. In a later study Leonard el al. (1989) found that subjects could assign the
words DEADLY, DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION, and ATTENTION to
match fairly closely the riskiness of a set of hazard scenarios that had been
determined independently.
Wogalter et al. (1987) report the results of two laboratory experiments, three
rating experiments, and three field demonstration studies. Signal words were varied
in one of the laboratory experiments and the three rating experiments. In the first
laboratory experiment the type of signal word (WARNING vs NOTE) did not affect
compliance with a warning message. In the three rating studies, deleting the signal
word (DANGER, WARNING, or CAUTION-for different hypothetical situations)
decreased mean ratings of the effectiveness of warnings, but deletion of the signal
word had a smaller effect on ratings than deletion of the consequence, instruction, or
hazard statement.
Three studies (Leonard et al. 1988, Silver and Wogalter 1989, and Wogalter and
Silver 1990) have scaled a number of signal words, including CAUTION,
WARNING, and DANGER. All agree in finding that DANGER is perceived as
indicating more hazard than WARNING or CAUTION and that there appears to be
little difference between the latter two words.
With the exception of the investigations by Bresnahan and Bryk (1 975) and that
by Dunlap et al. (1986), all the studies cited have used college students as subjects
and none has systematically studied actual colours in combination with signal words.
 Hazards and warning signs 267

2. Purpose
This study contributes additional data on perceptions of hazard levels associated
with three signal words, DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION, by subjects
selected from the general population. The contribution of colour was also studied by
testing each signal word with four background colours, white, yellow, orange, and
red.

3. Method
3.1. Subjects
Eleven female and seven male subjects were solicited by advertising in a
neighbourhood newsletter. The only restriction placed on their participation was that
they have normal colour vision, as determined by the A 0 H-R-R
Pseudoisochromatic Plates (Hardy et al. 1957). The male subjects had a mean age of
36.0 years (range = 23-51), and an average of 15.3 years of education
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

(range = 13- 18). The female subjects had a mean age of 35-5 years (range = 2 1-62)
and an average of 13-6 years of education (range = 12- 16). All subjects were tested
individually and paid for their participation.

3.2. Test materials

Figure 1 shows the three basic cards used in this study. Each card measured 88 x 1 19
mm, was mounted on heavy cardboard, and reproduced in four versions, with the
field surrounding the signal word either white, red, orange or yellow, making 12 test
cards in all. The colours conformed with American National Standard (ANSI)
253.1-1971, Safety Colors.

4. Part 1: Level of hazard associated with the signal words

4.1. Procedure
The three cards with white backgrounds (the ones shown in figure 1) were laid out in
front of the subject and the following instructions were read aloud by the
experimenter:
I have some signs here and I want to find out what you think about them. There
are no right or wrong answers to the questions I'll be asking you. I want to have
your honest opinions. Let's start with these three signs. Notice that they are all the
same except for one word [pointing to the signal words]. Look at them carefully,
take your time, and then tell me: which wording is the most forceful, the most
emphatic, the strongest?
My instructions to the assistant who conducted the tests was that she should never
say the words 'caution', 'warning', or 'danger' during Parts 1,2,3, and 4 of this study.
After the subject made a decision, the experimenter told the subject:
Fine. Now tell me: Which wording is the least forceful, the least emphatic, the
weakest?
Three subjects each were tested with cards laid out in each of the six possible orders
of arrangement.

4.2. Results
Fifteen subjects picked the words DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION, in that
 A. Chapanis

ACAUTION
Do Not U s e
This Equipment
Without Proper
Instructions
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

AWARNING ADANGER
Do Not Use Do Not Use
This Equipment This ~qui'pment
Without Proper Without Proper
lnstruct,ions Instructions

Figure I . The three basic types of signs used in this study.

order; three picked the order DANGER, CAUTION, and WARNING. In other
words, all subjects agreed that DANGER was the strongest word, and although most
subjects thought WARNING was stronger than CAUTION, there was no unanimity
on this point.

5. Part 2: Level of hazard associated with signal word and colour combinations
5.1. Procedure
At the conclusion of Part 1, all 12 cards were laid out in front of the subject (with a
 Hazards and warning signs 269

different random order for each subject), and the experimenter read the following
instructions:
OK, fine. Now here are 12 signs. You'll notice that I have added some signs with
colours. Look at them carefully, and pick out the one that is the least forceful, the
least emphatic, the weakest, and put it here [pointing to the left end of the table].
Fine. Now pick out the sign that is the most forceful, the most emphatic, the
strongest and put it here [pointing to the right end of the table].
When the subject had made the two selections, the experimenter said,
Now put all the others in a row between these two according to where you think
they fall between the two at the ends. Take your time. You can change your mind
as often as you like.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

After completing that step, the experimenter told the subject,

OK, fine. Now just to be sure, look at the signs one by one. The weakest sign is
here [pointing], and the strongest one is here [pointingk As you go from here
[pointing] to here [pointing], the signs get stronger. Please double-check to be sure
that's the way you arranged them.

Table 1. Mean rankings of the hazards associated with combinations of signal words and
colours.

Caution Warning Danger Mean

Red 8. l 8.4 11.1 9.2

Orange 6,1 6-7 9.3 7.4
Yellow 4.2 6.6 9.1 6.6
White 1.4 2.5 4.6 2.8
Mean 4.9 6.1 8.5

Table 2. Analysis of variance of the mean rankings of the hazard associated with
combinations of signal words and colours.

Source of variance Sum of squares df Mean squares F

Among signs (Si)

Among words (W)
Among colours (C)
cxw
Among subjects (S)
S/Si (S x Si)
snv (S x W)
SIC (S x C)
Pooled W x C/S -
WxC(SxWxC)
Total
 270 A. Chapanis

5.2. Results
The results of this part of the study are summarized in table 1. The data for the signal
words agree with the findings of Part 1. On the average CAUTION was ranked least
forceful, WARNING intermediate, and DANGER strongest. An analysis of variance
of the data (table 2) shows that the differences among the signal words and among the
colours are highly significant. The colours, in order from weakest to strongest are:
white, yellow, orange, and red.
The interaction of words with colo'urs was significant and is due to the slightly
lower average ratings for yellow-CAUTION, and slightly higher average ratings for
yellow-WARNING, yellow-DANGER, and red-CAUTION than one would expect
from the marginal values.
Post hoc analyses show that the difference between CAUTION and WARNING is
not statistically significant by the Scheffi test, but is significant at approximately the
5% level by the Newman-Keuls test. Differences between DANGER and each of the
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

other two words is highly significant ( p < 0.001) by both tests. The difference
between white and each of the other colours is highly significant ( p < 0.001) by both
the Scheffk and Newman-Keuls test; the difference between red and orange is
significant (0.025 >p > 0.01) by the Scheffi test and highly significant ( p < 0.001) by
the Newman-Keuls test. The difference between yellow and orange is not statistically
significant by either test.
Since the raw data for the analysis in table 2 are ranks assigned by individual
subjects to the 12 signs, there is no variability among subjects, resulting in a
somewhat unconventional analysis. The table shows the literal meaning of each of
the interaction terms with their conventional equivalents in parentheses.
The data were also analysed by Friedman two-way analyses of variance by ranks
for the word and colour data separately. The net result was that the two principal sets
of differences (among words and colours) are highly significant, no matter how one
analyses them. Since the analysis of variance has been shown to be robust even when
assumptions underlying it have been violated, I show only the results of that analysis
in table 2.

6. Part 3: The 'best' combination of signal words and colours

6.1. Procedure
In this part of the experiment, three piles of cards were laid out in front of the subject,
one pile of the four cards with the signal word DANGER, a second with the signal
word WARNING, and the third with the signal word CAUTION. Subjects were told,
Fine. Now one more set of judgements. I've arranged the signs in three piles. I
want you to pick out the best possible set of three signs, but one sign must come
from this pile [pointing], one sign must come from this pile [pointing], and one
sign must come from this pile [pointing]. I want to see what you think would
make the best set of three signs.
Subjects were not allowed to have.more than one red, one orange, or one yellow sign
in the final set. If a subject picked two signs with the same colour, the experimenter
said, 'I'm sorry, there's a restriction I didn't tell you about. You can't have these signs
the same colour.'

6.2. Results
The results of this part of the study are shown in table 3. There is almost complete
 Hazards and warning signs

Table 3. Selection frequencies for the 'best' warning signs.

Set n

Caution (Y) Warning (0) Danger (R) 6

Caution (0) Warning (Y) Danger (R) 6
Caution (Y) Warning (W) Danger (R) 1
Caution (W) Warning (0) Danger (R) 1
Caution (0)Warning (W) Danger (R) 1
Caution (R) Warning (Y) Danger (0)1
Caution (Y) Warning (R) Danger (0)I
Caution (W) Warning (Y) Danger (0)1
Y = yellow; 0 = orange; W = white;
R = red.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

agreement that DANGER should be associated with red. Results for the WARNING
and CAUTION signs indicate little agreement.

7. Part 4: Associations attached to the signal words

7.1. Procedure
The three signs with white backgrounds were now presented to the subject, one at a
time, in the same order as in Part 1, and subjects were instructed:
Good. Now I want you to tell me in your own words what you think each of these
signs means. For example, how much of a hazard does this sign warn against? Or,
how likely are you to be injured by this equipment? Or, how seriously could you
be injured by this equipment? Just tell me in your own words what it means to
you.
The experimenter wrote down the subject's response, presented the second card and
said: 'Fine. And now this sign'; and after recording that response, 'And now this sign.'

7.2. Results
The results in table 4 are copied exactly from the experimenter's protocols, which, in
a few instances are cryptic. The general impression one gets from these responses is
that people clearly associate the word DANGER with the highest hazard level. There
is, however, some ambiguity about CAUTION and WARNING. Subject 2, for
example, did not regard WARNING as much different from CAUTION, and Subject
1 I regarded WARNING as less serious than CAUTION. Subject 16 commented on
the possibility of damaging equipment and getting into difficulty with authorities,
but not about personal injury, a response that might, however, have been
conditioned by the message on these cards.

8. Part 5: Rating the signal words

8.1. Procedure
Finally, the two rating scales in figure 2 (I 25 mm wide in their original forms) were
presented to the subject with the instructions:
Now here's the last thing I want you to do. Mark on each of these scales where you
think each of these words belongs.
At this point the experimenter spoke the words 'caution', 'warning', and 'danger' in
the same order as the cards had been presented in Part 1.
 Table 4. Meanings associated with the three signal words.
Subject Caution
'May damage the equipment'
'Seek advice, instructions; probably
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016
damage equipment o r selflothers [if large
equipment]'
'Be careful'
'Would probably ignore it-not serious'
'Slight chance of being hurt; pay
attention-a slip-up could be harmful'
'Somebody'll gel mad if they catch you
using the equipment if you haven't been
t r a i n e d 4 a n g e r to machinery'
'Stay away from my stuff
'Watch out, might hurt machine'
'Watch out'
'Be careful-might try it'
'More important than warning-may
cause bodily damage'
'Shouldn't use it'
'Be careful-minor thing to watch out for'
'Might be hurt-no grave chance'
'Make sure you know what you're
doing-be careful'
'Might hurt somebody if you don't know
what you're doing'
'Not very dangerous'
'Like changing lanes with road
construction; no bodily harm'
h,
4
Warning Danger 3.t
'Damage to equipment and perhaps self 'Don't d o anything without reading
instructions; personal danger'
'Just about the same as caution' 'Stop me from using it if tempted; same
"message" as others, but stronger'
'Watch out; stuff is dangerous' 'Real hazard'
'Would try to get instructions, but 'Wouldn't use without
probably figure it out by self and try instructions-"scary" '
anyway if no one around to help'
'Be real careful' 'This is dangerous equipment; slay away'
'Some risk in using machine-could get 'Need lots of training; really potentially
hurt if you don't know anything about it.' life-threatening to use improperly' a
n
'Better not touch it unless you don't care 'This is serious-real dangerous' S
n
you might get hurt' 's
U
'Careful-dangerous situation' 'Don't even go near it' 3
'Shouldn't-somebody else's' 'Really serious-death o r near death' C-
'Could hurt yourself; probably wouldn't try 'You could kill yourselc don't go near it'
it'
'Not life threatening-yellow isn't 'Hazardous to touch the equipment-life
threatening; possibility of being hurt, o r death'
learning a lesson'
'Watch what you're doing before' 'Wouldn't touch at all'
'Greater than caution-being warned' 'Serious injury possible'
'More than likely will be hurt' 'Probably definitely would get hurt'
'This might hurt you' 'Don't use it. very hazardous'
'Might damage equipment-get into 'Serious risk of getting badly hurt'
trouble with authorities'
'Pretty serious' 'Very dangerous'
'Pay attention to it, close to danger sign' 'Most serious-red important; really
serious injury, bodily harm'
 Hazards and warning signs

lgnoring t h e sign will result in

Ignoring the sign will result 'in

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

Figure 2. Rating scales with the locations (vertical lines)of the median ratings for the Caution
(C), Warning (W), and Danger (D) signal words. The thin horizontal lines show ranges of
ratings by all subjects; the heavier horizontal lines the ranges of ratings by the middle ten
subjects.

8.2. Resulls
For scoring, both scales were marked off into 14 equally spaced intervals and
numbered from 0 (on the left) to 14 (on the right). Each subject's rating was recorded
to the nearest whole integer. The two sets of ratings were not entirely independent.
Coefficients of correlation between them for the CAUTION, WARNING, and
+ +
DANGER signal words, respectively, are 0-64, 0.53, and +0.43.
Figure 2 shows the median ratings for each signal word, the range of ratings for all
subjects, and the range of ratings made by the middle ten subjects. Analyses of
variance showed that the differences among the mean values on both scales were
highly significant. (F(2,34) = 4 1.49 for the seriousness scale and F(2,34) = 53.41 for
the probability of injury scale; p < 0.001 in both instances). Post hoc analyses showed
that on both scales the difference between CAUTION and WARNING was not
significant by the Scheffk test, but was significant at approximately the 5% level with
the Newman-Keuls test. Differences between the ratings for DANGER and either of
the other two words were highly significant ( p < 0.001) by both statistical tests.
The data in figure 2 agree with what was found earlier about the degree of hazard
associated with the three signal words. The median ratings for CAUTION and
WARNING are well below the midpoints of both scales, and they are much closer to
each other than to the median rating for DANGER. In addition, the ranges of ratings
for CAUTION and WARNING overlap almost completely. Four subjects rated
WARNING lower than CAUTION on both scales. This cannot be explained by the
order in which the words were presented to the subjects, because for two of the four
subjects the word CAUTION preceded the word WARNING. One other subject gave
the same rating to CAUTION and WARNING on both scales, and another rated
WARNING lower than CAUTION on the seriousness scale, but not on the
probability scale.
 274 A. Chapanis

.9. Discussion
This study has at least three important limitations. First is the small number of
subjects tested. Second, the five parts of the study were done serially and findings in
the later parts were undoubtedly affected by what subjects had already done in earlier
parts. Third, this study measured only how people say they interpret hazard levels
associated with signal words and colours in a laboratory situation. It does not address
the critical issue of whether people would behave differently when confronted with
warning signs so labelled.
Nonetheless, the findings in the five parts of this study are consistent with each
other and with the findings of several othe: studies that were conducted in different
ways and with different procedures. Despite the small number of subjects tested,
average results in this study are highly significant from a purely statistical standpoint.
However, the only really strong finding is that of all the combinations tested
DANGER on a red background is associated with the greatest amount of hazard.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

Perceptions about the levels of hazard represented by CAUTION and WARNING

are much less consistent. Some people associate CAUTION with the least amount of
hazard, others think WARNING occupies that position and, on the average, people
perceive CAUTION and WARNING as closer to each other than either is to
DANGER. These findings agree closely with those reported by Dunlap et al. (1 986),
~eonar'det al. (1988) and Silver and Wogalter (1989). Although the subjects in this
study are not a true random sample of the general population, they were at least
selected from that population and so lend support to the findings obtained with
college students.
Perceptions about the colours that should be combined with CAUTION and
WARNING are so mixed that no clear-cut recommendation can be made about
them. In general, however, any colour seems to be better than white.
Our perceptions are undoubtedly strongly influenced by the signs and labels we
see around us, and the world gives us highly mixed signals. In the USA there are
CAUTION, WARNING, and DANGER signs and labels with black lettering on
white backgrounds, CAUTION and WARNING signs with black lettering on yellow
and orange backgrounds, and CAUTION signs with black lettering on red
backgrounds. If one were to take into consideration signal words printed in colours
other than black, the number of combinations increases. There is clearly no
uniformity in the way signs and labels are made, despite ANSI standards.
Nor is there consistency in the degree of hazard indicated by signal words. For
example, some exterior high voltage cabinets bear signs with the signal words
CAUTION, WARNING, and DANGER, and underground telephone cables are
identified either with CAUTION or WARNING signs. Conversely, one can find signs
with the signal word WARNING when there is no obvious physical hazard (e.g.,
'WARNING 2h Customer Parking').
ANSI standards say that WARNING occupies an intermediate position between
CAUTION and DANGER, and that appears to be true on the average. Two
important qualifications, however, are that (1) not all subjects agree on that ordering;
and (2) CAUTION and WARNING were perceived as much closer to each other
than either is to DANGER. On the other hand, every subject rated DANGER higher
than CAUTION and WARNING in Part 1 of this study and on both scales in Part 5.
With the exception of the study by Dunlap el al. (1986), all the research on this
topic has been done in the USA with American subjects. We clearly need to have
similar studies done with other national groups if we are to' develop international
 Hazards and warning signs 275

standards for warning signs. In view of the ambiguity that seems to be attached to
signal words and colours, it would also be useful to have more research on alternative
modes of warning, such as symbolic or iconic coding.

9.1. Design implications

The cumulative evidence of the several studies that have been done on this problem
lead to several design implications. One is that products now labelled with the signal
word WARNING should be re-evaluated and perhaps upgraded in some cases to
DANGER. Another is that some of the other words found in the study by Silver and
Wogalter ( I 989) should perhaps be adopted to indicate various degrees of hazard in a
more meaningful way. Perhaps the most important design implication, however, is
that whatever is done, should be done consistently.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 08:39 24 May 2016

Acknowledgement
The data for this study were collected in 1983 in my Communications Research
Laboratory with private financing. I am indebted to Kristine A. Haig for scheduling
and testing the subjects in this study.

References
BRESNW, T. F. and BRYK,J. 1975, The hazard association values of accident-prevention
signs, Professional Safity, 20 (I), 17-25.
DUNLAP, G . L., GRANDA,R. E. and KUSTAS,M. S. 1986, Observer Perceptions oj'lmplied Hazard:
Safety Signal Words and CoIor Words (Technical Report TR 00.3428, IBM,
Poughkeepsie, NY).
HARDY, L. H., RAND, G. and R~TLER, M. C. 1957, A 0 H-R-R Pseudoisochromatic Plates, 2nd
edn (American Optical Company, Stockbridge, MA).
LEHTO,M. R. and MI=, J. M. 1986, Warnings. Volume I: Fundamentals, Design and
Evaluation Methodofogies (Fuller Technical Publications, Ann Arbor, MI).
LEONARD, S. D., HILL, G. W., IV,and LRMS, E. W. 1989, Risk perception and use of warnings,
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rdAnnwl Meeting (Human Factors Society,
Santa Monica, CA), 550-554.
LEONARD, S. D., KARNES,E. W. and SCHNEIDER, T. 1988, Scale values for warning symbols and
words, in F. Aghazadeh (ed.) Trends in Ergonomics/Human Facrors V (Elsevier,
Amsterdam), 669-674.
LEONARD, S. D., MATIHEWS,D. and KAFNES,E. W. 1986, How does the population interpret
warning signals? Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting
(Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA), 116-120.
SILVER,N. C. and WOOALTER, M. S. 1989, Broadening the range of signal words, Proceedings o j
the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (Human Factors Society, Santa
Monica, CA), 555-559.
URSIC,M. 1984, The impact of safety warnings on perception and memory, Human Factors, 26,
677-682.
WOGALTER, M. S., GODFREY, S. S., FONTENELLE, G. A., DESAULMERS, D. R., ROTHERSTW, P. R.
and LUGHERY, K. R. 1987, Effectiveness of warnings, Human Factors, 29, 599-612.
WOGAL~FR, M. S. and SILVER,N. C. 1990, Arousal strength of signal words, Forensic Reports, 3,
407-420.

Accepted 24 December 199 1.