Reconsideration on the Design of Warnings with Neuro-IE
---from the View of Risk Perception and Decision Making
Qing-guo Ma1,2, Wen-jing Ji1, 2, Wei-peng Lai2,3, Ya-wen Yu2,5, Fu-yuan Xu4,
Jun Bian1,2*
1
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Neuromanagement lab, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
3
Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
4
Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (USST), China
5
School of Economics and Business, Xinjiang Agricultural University, China
(bjbianjun@gmail.com)
2
Abstract - As more and more industrial accidents
happened in our country over the years, safety in production
has become a key issue which influences our social stability
and development. Warnings, as a significant means for
safety management, have plays an important role in
industrial production and behavior operation. This article
analyses the design of safety signs from the view of risk
perception and decision making, finding that affect is very
important in the relationship between the elements of safety
signs and audiences’ risk perception, a conclusion that could
be helpful to the design of safety signs.
Keywords - Warnings, Risk Perception, Affect Heuristic,
Neuro-IE, Neuro-Design
I.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays in china, workplace injuries occurred
frequently. Heavy casualties, property damage, loss of
productivity, worker's compensation and litigation… a
series of disquieting troubles would arise after each
accident, which really influences the life of not only
employees but also the employers. In that case, it
becomes more and more necessary and important to
identify the hazards associated with the equipment and
the environment so as to prevent some accidents.
Neuro-Industrial Engineering (Neuro-IE) is firstly
put forward by Ma et al. (2006) [1], which tries to use
advanced neuroscience ways and biofeedback technology
to measure the indexes of human brain and physical
condition in order to attain the more objective and
authentic data to analyze, and then applies these
physiological and psychological information into the
production management as new factors, so as to make the
working plans meet the real working condition and satisfy
the workers’ needs. Safety Production is a key component
of Neuro-IE, which accentuates the real-time monitoring
and warnings of workers’ misses and errors during the
operation from the brain level as well as workers’
experiences.
When hazards presented in the workplace, effectual
steps should be taken to change the work environment to
avoid or minimize the hazards. Firstly, attempts should be
made to clear the hazard out of the jobs, equipment, tools
and environment. Unfortunately, it may not be available
or practical to remove all hazards. So the second method
of reducing hazards is to use guards that prevent people
from coming into contact with the hazard. That is to say,
hazards should be guarded against physically or
procedurally. When a hazard cannot be adequately
guarded against, then, as a third method, people should be
warned about the hazard. Managers should take steps to
ascertain that Warnings (safety signs) are designed to
maximize the likelihood that audiences will notice,
understand, and comply with them.
Warnings are important parts of safety
management--they are intended to identify and warn
against specific hazards. They also describe safety
precautions, advise evasive actions and provide other
directions to reduce hazards.
Overall, most discussions of Warnings emphasize
that how they could serve to alert, inform, or remind
audiences of potential risk and consequences [2-4], but few
studies discuss the hidden mechanism behind the
relationship between the design of safety signs and
people’s perception of risk. This article will provide
insight into this topic with new thought of Neuro-IE (or
Neuro-Design).
II. PERCEPTION OF RISK
Rogers et al. once reviewed four components of the
warning process [4], which are (a) noticing the
warnings--attention is directed to the warning; (b)
encoding the warnings--external information is translated
into some inner representation through reading words,
processing symbols and so on; (c) comprehending the
warnings--the meaning of the safety signs is understood;
and (d) complying with the warnings—behavior or
operation is performed according with warnings.
Risk perception, which is associated with
individual’s evaluation of the probability and the severity
of negative consequence, is a key stage for warnings
understanding. Previous researchers have discussed the
relationship between various elements of the warning (e.g.
signal word, color, and shape) and their influence on the
perception of risk [5-8].
Just taking signal word and color for example.
Research have indicated that the presence of signal word
increases the warnings effectiveness [9-10], and also have
revealed a strong and reliable relationship between the
different kinds of signal words and the different levels of
perceived hazard [2-3]. When it comes to the color of
warnings, Edworthy and Adams have showed that various
colors are associated with different levels of risk [5].
Indeed, color-coding systems have consistently associated
colors with particular levels of hazard (see ANSI Z535.4
1998). For example, red is used to imply the highest level
of risk, orange to identify a hazard, and yellow to signify
caution [11].
These studies suggest that changes in the elements of
warnings influence the perceived level of risk, but why
there is such an influence is rarely discussed. The
following part of this article tries to provide an insight
into this question We would see that affective processes
are certain to play a role in determining the strength and
direction of such influence.
the conclusion that exogenous elements of warnings such
as signal word and color influence the individual’s
perception of risk, we suppose chances are that some
elements of warnings per se don’t influence the
individual’s perception of risk directly, but they elicit
different strength of affect firstly, which in turn influence
the individual’s perception of risk. That is to say, different
designs of signal word or color may elicit different
strength of affect, which further have different degrees of
influence on the individual’s perception of risk. The
stronger affect warnings elicit, the higher hazard level
people will perceive, and the more probability people will
respond in accordance to safety signs. To test this
hypothesis, further studies are needed to gain empirical
evidence.
III. AFFECT HEURISTIC
For many years, people were portrayed as
“economists”, rationally weighing the risks informed
from Warnings against the benefits when deciding
whether to act in a safe manner.
Current theories on dual processes of cognition
provide us a different perspective. These theories suggest
that judgments could reflect two systems of thought [12][13]
referred to as experiential and analytic [14]. The major
distinction between the systems is that the analytic system
requires conscious effort and works in an explicit
step-by-step manner, whereas the experiential system is
covert and relies on rapidly processed feelings or
emotions that a person may not be able to specify. In
simple terms, the analytic system involves reasoning
while the experiential depends largely on intuition.
Similarly, Slovic et al. suggested that risk was
perceived and responded to by two fundamental ways [15]:
firstly, by feelings, which generate instinctive and
intuitive reactions to danger; second, by analysis, which
requires logic, reasoning, and scientific deliberation.
Affect often serves as a cue for important judgments.
It’s easier and more efficient to retreat relevant examples
from memory by an overall, readily available affective
impression than weighing the pros and cons deliberately,
especially when the required judgment or decision is
complex and mental resources are limited. Slovic used the
term “affect heuristic” to signify this characterization of a
mental shortcut [16].
To date lots of empirical researches support affect
heuristic. For example, Alhakami and Slovic found that
the inverse relationship between perceived risk and
perceived benefit of an activity (e.g., using pesticides)
was linked to the strength of positive or negative affect
associated with that activity as measured by rating the
activity on bipolar scales such as good/bad, nice/awful,
and so forth [17]. This finding implies that people judge a
risk not only by what they think about it but also by how
they feel about it. If their feel pleased toward an activity,
they tend to judge the risks as low and the benefits as high,
and vice versa [18].
Drawn from the review, the affect elicited by safety
signs might influence the perception of risk. Combining
Element
Signal word
Affect
Risk Perception
Elicit strong
Perceive as
negative affect
high risk
Elicit weak
Perceive as
negative affect
low risk
Color
Shape
…
Fig. 1. The relationship of elements of safety signs, affect and risk
perception.
IV. ON THE DESIGN OF WARNINGS
Now that we understand the complex relationship
between the variations in the way of warning design, i.e.
the affect elicited by safety signs and the risk perception
which has the potential to shape future behavior, the
challenge for us is to think creatively about what this
point can inform the design and relative protective
behavior.
Noyes et al. noted that the information safety signs
provided was very limited and might not be sufficient for
people to take risk into account and make rational
decision [19]. Papastavrou and Lehto claimed that one
consequence was that false alarms may occur, which
could result in a warning being ignored and render it
ineffective. Warnings could be made more effective if
they are designed to convey more information, in
particular, the likelihood of occurrence [20]. In this
situation, risk analysis may not function well, so we
should take advantage of affect heuristic into the Warning
designs. From this perspective, safety signs should be
designed affectively salient to elicit strong emotion.
As outlined above, different signal words and colors
may elicit different level of strength of affects (though
empirical research are desperately needed), and in turn
influence people’s perception of risk that potentially
shapes behavior. Thus we have to stress affective
attributes (like signal words, shapes and colors) to ensure
the individual’s compliance with the safety signs. Yet, we
have to bear in mind that strong affect elicited may lead to
counterproductive behavior. The question arises as what
degree of affect elicited by safety signs is appropriate for
the individual to comply, which is an issue meriting
further research.
Designing affectively salient safety signs may
conflict with the ideas [2][5][6] that the hazard level
communicated by safety signs have to match the hazard
level associated with the referent, since the accurately
hazard-communicating design may not be an affectively
salient design. It’s noteworthy that the purpose of warning
design is not only to inform individuals about the
potential hazard, but to persuade them into actions to
avoid risk.
V. CONCLUSION
This article advances that affect plays a key role in
the relationship between the elements of Warnings and
people’s perception of risk. Precisely speaking, some
elements of Warnings per se don’t directly influence the
audiences’ perception of risk. They elicit different
strength of affect first, which then influences the
individual’s perception of risk. This new perspective on
Warnings with new thought of Neuro-IE could assist
managers to design appropriate safety signs for safety
management.
However, in order to validate the conclusion above,
a more in-depth investigation into the affect elicited by
safety signs, and its contribution to people’s perception of
risk is needed. Neuroscience is believed to be a promising
way to investigate this question, especially Neuro-VA
(Neuro-Value Analysis), which could let the brain and
body tell us their secrets. It would really be an exciting try
in Warning Design.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by grant No.70772048,
90924304 from the National Natural Science
Foundation, No.09JZD0006 from the State Education
Ministry of China as a key project. This work has also
obtained the financial support from 211 projects from
the State Education Ministry and Scholarship Award
for Excellent Doctoral Student granted by Ministry of
Education and SRTP Program of Zhejiang University
in 2011. We thank Qian Shang, Xianwei Tang, Jia Jin,
Jing Jin and Huijian Fu for assistances. We also thank
the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
suggestions concerning earlier versions of the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1]Q.G. Ma and X.Y. Wang, “Cognitive neuroscience 、
neuroeconomics and neuromanagement,” Management Word,
Oct, 2006.
[2] E. Hellier, D. B. Wright, J. Edworthy, and S. Newstead, “On
the stability of the arousal strength of warning signal
words,” Applied Cognitive ychology, pp.577–592, 14(6),
2000.
[3] M. S. Wogalter, S. W. Jarrard, S. N. Simpson, “Effects of
warning signal words on consumer–product hazard
perceptions,” In the 36th Annual Meeting Proceedings of the
Human Factors Society (Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors
Society), pp. 935–939, 1992.
[4] W. A. Rogers, N. Lamson, G. K. Rousseau, “Warning
research: an integrative perspective,” Human Factors, 42, pp.
102–139, 2000.
[5] J. Edworthy, A. Adams, Warning Design: “An Integrative
Approach to Warnings Research” (London: Taylor and
Francis), 1996.
[6] M. S. Wogalter, N. C. Silver, “Arousal strength of signal
words.” Forensic Reports. 3, pp. 407–420, 1990.
[7] S. D. Leonard, “Does color of warnings affect risk
perception?” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.
23(5–6), 1999, pp. 499–504.
[8] R. F. Yu, A. H. S. Chan, G. Salvendy, “Chinese perceptions
of implied hazard for signal words and surround shapes,”
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing. 14(1),
2004, pp. 69–80.
[9] S. L. Young, M. S. Wogalter, K. R. Laughery, A. Magurno,
and D. Lovvoll, Relative order and space allocation of
message components in hazard warning signs. In
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
39th Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society). 1995, pp. 969–973.
[10]Ma, QG., Jin, J., Wang, L.*, “The neural process of hazard
perception and evaluation for warning signal words:
evidence from event-related potentials.”Neuroscience
Letters, 2010, 483, 206-210.
[11] M. R. Lehto, “Designing warning signs and warning labels:
Part II—Scientific basis for initial guidelines，” International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics， 1992b, 10(1–2), pp.
115–138.
[12] S. Chaiken, Y. Trope, Dual-process theories in social
psychology. Guilford Press, New York. 1999.
[13] D. Kahneman, S. Frederick, Representativeness revisited:
attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: T. Gilovich,
D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, Editors, Heuristics and
biases, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2002.
[14] S. Epstein, “Integration of the cognitive and the
psychodynamic unconscious.”American Psychologist, 1994,
49, 709–724.
[15] P. Slovic, M. I. Finucane, E. Peters, D. G. MacGregor,
“Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about
affect, reason, risk, and rationality,” Risk Analysis, 2004, 24,
311–322.
[16] P. Slovic, E. Peters, M. L. Finucane, G. Donald, “Affect,
risk and decision making,” Health Psychol. 2005, 24:
S35–S40.
[17] A. S. Alhakami, P. Slovic, “A psychological study of the
inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived
benefit.” Risk Analysis. 1994, 14, 1085–1096.
[18] M. L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, S. M. Johnson,
“The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits，”
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2000, 13, 1–17.
[19] J. Noyes, “Designing for Humans” (Hove, UK: Psychology
Press Ltd). 2001.
[20] J. D. Papastavrou, M. R. Lehto, “A distributed signal
detection theory model: implications for the design of
warnings，” International Journal of Occupational Safety
and Ergonomics.，1995, 1(3), pp. 215–234.