The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards.
Academic Article
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
Other
View All
Overview
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.
