Literature DB >> 10917149

Warning research: an integrative perspective.

W A Rogers1, N Lamson, G K Rousseau.   

Abstract

We developed an integrative perspective on the empirical evidence supporting the influence of particular variables on the warning process based on a broad review of the warning literature. The warning process is described in terms of the following four components: notice, encode, comprehend, and comply. Relevant variables are classified as person variables (characteristics of the individual interacting with the warning) and warning variables (characteristics of the warning itself or the context in which the warning appears). This integrative perspective yields general principles about the variables that influence the warning process and serves as a resource for warning developers and as a guide to facilitate effective analysis of warnings. We also identify aspects of the warning process that are not well understood, directions for effective methods of intervention, and a research agenda for future efforts. Actual or potential applications of this research include improving the design of warnings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10917149     DOI: 10.1518/001872000779656624

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  9 in total

1.  Comprehension of Warning Symbols by Younger and Older Adults: Effects of Visual Degradation.

Authors:  Daniel J Shorr; Neta Ezer; Arthur D Fisk; Wendy A Rogers
Journal:  Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet       Date:  2009-10-01

2.  It does not occur by chance: a mediation model of the influence of workers' characteristics, work environment factors, and near misses on agricultural machinery-related accidents.

Authors:  Federica Caffaro; Margherita Micheletti Cremasco; Michele Roccato; Eugenio Cavallo
Journal:  Int J Occup Environ Health       Date:  2017-11-18

3.  Hazard levels of warning signal words modulate the inhibition of return effect: evidence from the event-related potential P300.

Authors:  Qian Shang; Yujing Huang; Qingguo Ma
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Health Warning Labels for Smokeless Tobacco: The Impact of Graphic Images on Attention, Recall, and Craving.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Klein; Amanda J Quisenberry; Abigail B Shoben; Sarah Cooper; Amy K Ferketich; Micah Berman; Ellen Peters; Mary Ellen Wewers
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 4.244

5.  Waterpipe Warning Placement and Risk Perceptions: An Eye Tracking Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Klein; Mahmood A Alalwan; Michael L Pennell; David Angeles; Marielle C Brinkman; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Megan E Roberts; Paul Nini; Amy K Ferketich
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2021-01-01

6.  Part-time farmers and accidents with agricultural machinery: a moderated mediated model on the role played by frequency of use and unsafe beliefs.

Authors:  Federica Caffaro; Michele Roccato; Margherita Micheletti Cremasco; Eugenio Cavallo
Journal:  J Occup Health       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.708

7.  The Hazard Perception for the Surrounding Shape of Warning Signs: Evidence From an Event-Related Potentials Study.

Authors:  Qingguo Ma; Xiaoxu Bai; Guanxiong Pei; Zhijiang Xu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Typology of content warnings and trigger warnings: Systematic review.

Authors:  Ashleigh Charles; Laurie Hare-Duke; Hannah Nudds; Donna Franklin; Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley; Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Onni Gust; Fiona Ng; Elizabeth Evans; Emily Knox; Ellen Townsend; Caroline Yeo; Mike Slade
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.752

9.  Eye movements and brain oscillations to symbolic safety signs with different comprehensibility.

Authors:  Yohana Siswandari; Shuping Xiong
Journal:  J Physiol Anthropol       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 2.867

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.