Connoted strength of signal words by elderly and non-native English speakers

A number of recent studies have examined the connoted strength of signal words used in sign and product label warnings. These words, . such as D.ANGER, W ARNIN.G, and CAUTION, are intended to differentiate various levels of hazard (high to low, respecl1vely). Until recently, most studies have only used college students to evaluate signal words. Other populations who are at least equal to or possess greater risk of injury have not been studied. The main purpose of the present research was to determine whether other populations ~f persons, namely the elderly and non-native Englisb speakers, derive similar meanings (i.e., connoted levels of hazard) from the SIgnal words as have been sbown in previous work for college students, as well as, for a sample of grade- school. chi~dren tested in Silver and Wogalter (1991). A sample of 98 elderly persons and 135 non-native English speakers rated 43 potential.slgnal words on how careful ~ey would be after seeing each term. The results showed that the rank ordering of the words ~ ~ns1Stent a~oss ~th group~ and ~1S order corresponded with the ratings from earlier-studied populations. Moreover, there was a SIgnificant negative linear relationship betw~n the number of words the non·native English speakers left blank and ratings of understandability by college students in previous research. The forensic implications and practical relevance of these results for hazard communication to diverse populations are discussed. IN1RODUCTION Current standards and guidelines on warning design recommend using signal words on signs or labels to connote various degrees of hazard. The standards suggest using DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION to imply highest to lowest levels of hazard, respectively (ANSI, 1991; FMC Corporation, 1985). DANGER is intended to call attention to situations which involve immediate hazards that will result in severe personal injury or death. WARNING is intended to be used for hazards that could result in severe personal injury or death, and CAUTION is intended to signal hazards which could result in minor personal injury or damage (FMC Corporation, 1985). However, research on whether people actually interpret different levels of hazard for these words has been equivocal. Although some studies have found no differences among the commonly used signal words (Leonard, Matthews, and Kames, 1986; Ursie, 1984; Wogalter, Godfrey, Fontenelle, Desaulniers, Rothstein, and Laughery, 1987; Wogalter, Jarrard, and Simpson, in press), other work suggests that DANGER connotes a greater level of hazard than CAUTION or WARNING (Bresnahan and Bryk, 1975; Dunlap, Granda, and Kustas, 1986; Wogalter and Silver, 1990). Yet no study to date has found a significant difference in implied hazard between CAUTION and WARNING (e.g., Dunlap et al., 1986; Leonard, Hill, and Kames, 1989; Leonard, Karnes, and Schneider, 1988; Silver and Wogalter, 1991; Wogalter et al., in press; Wogalter and Silver, 1990). Nevertheless, most of these studies used college students as the population that evaluated the words. If signal words are to be truly useful in communicating different levels of hazard, then other populations at risk must understand the meanings intended. In an examination of one at~risk group, namely children, Silver and Wogalter (1991) had elementary and middle-school students rate 43 signal words that were taken from a study investigating a larger set of potential signal words (Wogalter and Silver, 1990).