1 / 34

Project presentation

Project presentation. The study of human factor in industrial safety – response to risk and hazard communication. By Joseph Wong. Content. Introduction Methodology Result Expected finding. DANGER. DANGER. DANGER. CAUTION. CAUTION. CAUTION. WARNING. WARNING. NOTICE. BEWARE.

camila
Download Presentation

Project presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project presentation The study of human factor in industrial safety – response to risk and hazard communication By Joseph Wong

  2. Content Introduction Methodology Result Expected finding

  3. DANGER DANGER DANGER CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION WARNING WARNING NOTICE BEWARE Introduction Which of the following would bring the most hazardous feeling to you???

  4. ! WARNING Component of a warning sign Boarder *Background/Colour *Symbol/Shape Element *Text label/Signal word Remark: *Our research would focus on the hazardous perception of these sort of matters

  5. Colour/ Word Colour/ Shape Shape/Word Colour Word Shape The schematic diagram for the research design 1st Level 2nd Level

  6. Methodology Study Population Study Method Study Material

  7. Study population 70 Higher Form student (Form 4) from a government secondary school in Hong Kong Student profile: 40 female and 30 male Average age range: 14.5-15 years old

  8. Study Method -By mean of experiment -A seven-point scale was provided to rate the the seriousness of hazardous that they would associate with: -Each colour, word, shape and -The combination of colour/word, colour/shape and shape/word

  9. Square Triangle Pentagon Hexagon Circle Details of matter under testFor level 1 of experiment Colour: Red, Yellow, Orange, Green, Blue Signal word: Danger, Warning, Caution, Notice, Beware Sign shape:

  10. Square Triangle Pentagon Hexagon Circle Details of matter under testFor level 2 of experiment Colour/word Red, Yellow, Orange, Green, Blue Danger, Warning, Caution, Notice, Beware Colour/shape Word/shape

  11. Study Material A notebook computer A set of power-point slides An overhead projector A white screen for display And a preprinted rating sheet with 7-point scale for each elements under test

  12. Result Hazardous perception on colour Mean rating for each colour

  13. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (General) The ranking order (highest to lowest) is: Red, Yellow, Green Orange and Blue Mean rating: Red (4.5), Yellow (3.84), Green (3.49), Orange (3.01), Blue (2.26) Result consistent with Griffith and Leonard, 1988 with exception of orange

  14. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (General) - Consistent with Braun and Silver, 1995; Griffith, 1995; Woglater et al, 1997a, 1998 that red colour connotes highest hazard, i.e not different between people with Western cultures. - Similar to the ranking order (with expectation of orange) as Rodriguez (1991) and Dunlap et al (1986). i.e Red, Yellow, Green, Blue.

  15. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (General) can differentiate between yellow and orange colour as pointed out by Chapins, 1994; Griffith, 1995; Woglater et al, 1998. Showed that the different between the people in Western culture and Eastern culture.

  16. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (Gender Group)

  17. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (Gender Group) -Ranking order is the same between gender group, i.e. Red, Yellow, Green, Orange, Blue -Male group has an average rating higher than Female group. -Higher different was occurred at Blue colour as Male (2.93), Female (2.26); 0.67 different. -Further study is required.

  18. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (Compare with other research)

  19. Result Perception of hazardous on colour (Compare with other research) -With exception of orange colour, ranking order is same as Leonard, 1997 as Red, Yellow, Green, Blue. -Have a closer mean rating in colour yellow and Blue -Blue and Green were seen to be the least hazardous perception among population in different cultural background

  20. Result Perception of hazardous on Signal Words (General)

  21. Result Perception of hazardous on Signal Words (General) -Ranking order (Highest to lowest): DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION, BEWARE. -Highest rating for DANGER compare with WARNING and CAUTION corroborates the findings of Bresnahan and Bryk, 1975; Dunlap et al, 1986; Wogalter and Silver, 1990. -In line with the findings reported by Marhefka and Dorris, 1990. DANGER >WARNING or CAUTION and WARNING always >CAUTION.

  22. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (General) -Similar to the result worked by Wogalter and Silver, 1990: College student gave DANGER and WARNING significantly higher than CAUTION, but DANGER and WARNING did not different from each other. 5.46 (DANGER) and 5.16 (WARNING) respectively.

  23. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (General) -Significant differences in connoted hazard between individual pairs of terms, such as DANGER (5.46) and CAUTION (4.03). (Bresnahan and Bryk, 1975 and Dunlap et al, 1986). Thus no major different across study population - No differentiation problem between WARNING and CAUTION compare with result obtained from the other research

  24. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (General) -Findings on differentiation between WARNING and CAUTION provide support to Wogalter and Silver, 1995 with the ASU college student.

  25. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (Gender)

  26. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (Gender) -Provide same ranking order Mean rating between DANGER (5.27/Male) (5.6/Female) and WARNING (5.03/Male) (5.25/Female) is so close between group On average female have a higher rating than male Both male and female give a close rating to the signal word ‘CAUTION’ as 4.03 and 4.02 respectively

  27. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (Gender) -Female have a higher hazardous perception on signal words than male.

  28. ResultPerception of hazardous on Signal Words (Compare with other research)

  29. ResultPerception of hazardous level on Signal word (compare with other research) -With exception of the danger, all rating for others signal words in current study is higher than others -Demographic factors: Gender, Age and Personality (Wogalter et al, 1999) -Female may more sensitive to take appropriate action in response to warning

  30. ResultPerception of hazardous level on Signal word (compare with other research) -Influence in age significantly influence the result Middle school student generally assign higher rating than college did (Wogalter et al, 1994) -Ranking order was consistent across different group

  31. Result for others like shape and the combination of colour, shape and word are in progress!!!!

  32. Expected finding -Different in hazardous perception in Colour, Words and sign shape between people in Western culture and Eastern Culture -Different in hazardous perception between gender group -Report the hazardous perception for the subject in colour, word and sign shape

  33. The end!! Thank You!!!

More Related