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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Human factors 2023-11, Vol.65 (7), p.1361-1380
Main Authors: Hendricks, Joseph W., Peres, S. Camille, Dumlao, Stefan V., Armstrong, Cara A., Neville, Timothy J.
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 &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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