## Abstract Three experiments are reported which explore the relationship between semantic, acoustic and phonetic variables in the judgement of eight warning signal words. Experiment 1 shows that listeners can distinguish very clearly between urgent and nonβurgent versions of the words when spoken
Discrimination among sign and label warning signal words
β Scribed by Kelly L. Drake; Vincent C. Conzola; Michael S. Wogalter
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 56 KB
- Volume
- 8
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1090-8471
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Signal words are commonly used in warnings to quickly communicate potential hazards. Current standards and guidelines define the terms DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION, and NOTICE as denoting decreasing hazard levels, respectively. This study examined whether definitions assigned to these words coincide with people's understanding of them. Seventy-two participants attempted to match published definitions to the terms. Additionally, they rated the terms on various dimensions (e.g., hazardousness, understandability). The results showed that people differentiate DANGER and NOTICE but less clearly discriminate between WARNING and CAUTION. The term DEADLY, a proposed higher level signal word, was perceived as connoting the greatest hazard. Implications for warning design are discussed.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
This study attempts to identify some of the signs of ineffective religious involvement in coping. Drawing from a process/integration model of efficacious coping, three broad types of religious warning signs were defined and 11 subscales were developed. These subscales were administered to a group of
## Abstract This study attempts to identify some of the signs of ineffective religious involvement in coping. Drawing from a process/integration model of efficacious coping, three broad types of religious warning signs were defined and 11 subscales were developed. These subscales were administered