Reconsideration on theDesign of Warningswith 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*
1School of Management,Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
2Neuromanagement lab,Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
3Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences,Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
4Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (USST), China
5School of Economics and Business, Xinjiang Agricultural University, China
()
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 anddevelopment. 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
- INTRODUCTION
Nowadays in china, workplace injuries occurredfrequently. Heavy casualties, property damage, loss of productivity, worker's compensation and litigation…a series of disquieting troubleswould arise after each accident, which really influences the life of not only employees but also theemployers. 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 physicalcondition in order to attain the more objective and authentic data to analyze, and then applies these physiological and psychological informationinto 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 thataudiences will notice, understand, and comply with them.
Warnings are important parts ofsafety management--they are intended to identify and warn against specific hazards. They also describe safety precautions, advise evasive actionsand provide other directions to reduce hazards.
Overall, most discussions of Warningsemphasize that how they could serve to alert, inform, or remind audiences ofpotential 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 fourcomponents 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 symbolsand so on; (c) comprehending the warnings--the meaning of the safety signsis 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 akey stage forwarnings understanding. Previousresearchers 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 Adamshave 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 inthe 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.
- 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 reasoningwhile the experiential depends largely on intuition.
Similarly, Slovic et al. suggested that risk was perceived and responded toby 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 thischaracterization of a mental shortcut [16].
To date lots of empirical researches support affect heuristic. For example, Alhakami and Slovic foundthat 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 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.
Fig. 1. The relationship of elements of safety signs, affect and risk perception.
- 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 tostress 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 signshave 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 thatthe purpose of warning design is not only to inform individuals about the potential hazard, but to persuade them into actions to avoid risk.
- CONCLUSION
This article advances that affect playsakey 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-IEcould 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, especiallyNeuro-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,”AppliedCognitiveychology,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 forsignal 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.