Loading…
The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards
Objective The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation. Background Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with proc...
Saved in:
Published in: | Human factors 2023-11, Vol.65 (7), p.1361-1380 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13 |
container_end_page | 1380 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1361 |
container_title | Human factors |
container_volume | 65 |
creator | Hendricks, Joseph W. Peres, S. Camille Dumlao, Stefan V. Armstrong, Cara A. Neville, Timothy J. |
description | Objective
The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation.
Background
Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures.
Method
Two experimental studies—(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation—manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants’ adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs.
Results
The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence.
Conclusion
These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings.
Application
The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/00187208211050137 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2608127142</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_00187208211050137</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2886248257</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVpods0P6A3QS-9ONHIliX3Vrb5gkALTc5mLI23Cl5pK8mB9tfHzhYKLT0NwzzvMwPD2DsQZwBanwsBRkthJIBQAmr9gm1ANboyYOAl26zzagVeszc5Pwgh2q5WG_Z49534zf6AtvA48mv8hcnxbwUL7SkU_pmy3wV-MT23mfvAv6Zoyc2J8ke-jXMolHwosy_-kfilD86HXeYY3OqdvMXiY8h8jGn1BrcsyG_ZqxGnTKe_6wm7v7y4215Xt1-ubrafbitbN6pUHciWHGilAeXglGlHwsFq0gjQoVI1jgNaEhIdOmPrmrAjR41W3SAGqE_Yh6P3kOKPmXLp9z5bmiYMFOfcy1YYkBoauaDv_0If4pzCcl0vjWllY6TSCwVHyqaYc6KxPyS_x_SzB9Gvn-j_-cSSOTtmMu7oj_X_gSe5QInW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2886248257</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards</title><source>Sage Journals Online</source><creator>Hendricks, Joseph W. ; Peres, S. Camille ; Dumlao, Stefan V. ; Armstrong, Cara A. ; Neville, Timothy J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hendricks, Joseph W. ; Peres, S. Camille ; Dumlao, Stefan V. ; Armstrong, Cara A. ; Neville, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation.
Background
Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures.
Method
Two experimental studies—(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation—manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants’ adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs.
Results
The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence.
Conclusion
These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings.
Application
The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0018-7208</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1547-8181</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/00187208211050137</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Consumer products ; Design ; Guidelines ; Hazard mitigation</subject><ispartof>Human factors, 2023-11, Vol.65 (7), p.1361-1380</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2021, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9639-2771 ; 0000-0002-4214-426X ; 0000-0002-3679-9171</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,79364</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hendricks, Joseph W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peres, S. Camille</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dumlao, Stefan V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armstrong, Cara A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neville, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><title>The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards</title><title>Human factors</title><description>Objective
The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation.
Background
Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures.
Method
Two experimental studies—(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation—manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants’ adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs.
Results
The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence.
Conclusion
These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings.
Application
The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures.</description><subject>Consumer products</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Hazard mitigation</subject><issn>0018-7208</issn><issn>1547-8181</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVpods0P6A3QS-9ONHIliX3Vrb5gkALTc5mLI23Cl5pK8mB9tfHzhYKLT0NwzzvMwPD2DsQZwBanwsBRkthJIBQAmr9gm1ANboyYOAl26zzagVeszc5Pwgh2q5WG_Z49534zf6AtvA48mv8hcnxbwUL7SkU_pmy3wV-MT23mfvAv6Zoyc2J8ke-jXMolHwosy_-kfilD86HXeYY3OqdvMXiY8h8jGn1BrcsyG_ZqxGnTKe_6wm7v7y4215Xt1-ubrafbitbN6pUHciWHGilAeXglGlHwsFq0gjQoVI1jgNaEhIdOmPrmrAjR41W3SAGqE_Yh6P3kOKPmXLp9z5bmiYMFOfcy1YYkBoauaDv_0If4pzCcl0vjWllY6TSCwVHyqaYc6KxPyS_x_SzB9Gvn-j_-cSSOTtmMu7oj_X_gSe5QInW</recordid><startdate>202311</startdate><enddate>202311</enddate><creator>Hendricks, Joseph W.</creator><creator>Peres, S. Camille</creator><creator>Dumlao, Stefan V.</creator><creator>Armstrong, Cara A.</creator><creator>Neville, Timothy J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9639-2771</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4214-426X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-9171</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202311</creationdate><title>The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards</title><author>Hendricks, Joseph W. ; Peres, S. Camille ; Dumlao, Stefan V. ; Armstrong, Cara A. ; Neville, Timothy J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Consumer products</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Hazard mitigation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hendricks, Joseph W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peres, S. Camille</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dumlao, Stefan V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armstrong, Cara A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neville, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Human factors</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hendricks, Joseph W.</au><au>Peres, S. Camille</au><au>Dumlao, Stefan V.</au><au>Armstrong, Cara A.</au><au>Neville, Timothy J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards</atitle><jtitle>Human factors</jtitle><date>2023-11</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1361</spage><epage>1380</epage><pages>1361-1380</pages><issn>0018-7208</issn><eissn>1547-8181</eissn><abstract>Objective
The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation.
Background
Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures.
Method
Two experimental studies—(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation—manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants’ adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs.
Results
The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence.
Conclusion
These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings.
Application
The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/00187208211050137</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9639-2771</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4214-426X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-9171</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0018-7208 |
ispartof | Human factors, 2023-11, Vol.65 (7), p.1361-1380 |
issn | 0018-7208 1547-8181 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2608127142 |
source | Sage Journals Online |
subjects | Consumer products Design Guidelines Hazard mitigation |
title | The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T02%3A15%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Impact%20of%20Hazard%20Statement%20Design%20Elements%20in%20Procedures:%20Counterintuitive%20Findings%20and%20Implications%20for%20Standards&rft.jtitle=Human%20factors&rft.au=Hendricks,%20Joseph%20W.&rft.date=2023-11&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1361&rft.epage=1380&rft.pages=1361-1380&rft.issn=0018-7208&rft.eissn=1547-8181&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/00187208211050137&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2886248257%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-9126ed17571a2bd586feabc7e7a119a553afbace02adad8c33ea9ede4759b0b13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2886248257&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_00187208211050137&rfr_iscdi=true |