Advertisement

Compliance with Static vs. Dynamic Warnings in Workplaces such as Warehouses: A Study Using Virtual Reality

  • Ana Almeida
  • Francisco Rebelo
  • Paulo Noriega
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10920)

Abstract

The static nature of traditional warnings cannot always capture the user’s attention. The effectiveness of a warning refers to the way in which it prompts the user to engage in safe behavior. It is known that behavioral compliance is the “golden measure” for evaluating the effectiveness of a warning. Several studies have shown that traditional warnings are not effective in an emergency. Several researches indicate that dynamic safety warnings are more effective than static ones. However, these studies are mostly in critical situations such as emergency evacuations. Literature is not clear about the existence of research on warnings in warehouse operating environments. However, it is known that warehouses are environments where employees often work under pressure and are often involved in accidents. This study objective was to compare the effectiveness of static safety warnings with dynamic ones. This kind of study in real-life is a difficult issue. So, we used an immersive virtual environment for this purpose. Virtual Reality (VR) can be assumed as the most adequate methodology to use in this context, as it overcomes methodological, financial and ethical limitations. Fourteen volunteers participated in the experience. Main results confirmed that dynamic warnings produce greater behavioral compliance even in less dynamic situations such as workplaces such warehouses .

Keywords

Warnings Virtual reality Warehouse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants BEX 0660-13/2 to Ana Almeida from CAPES Foundation Ministry of Education of Brazil and CIAUD Research Center from School of Architecture from Universidade de Lisboa through Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology (FCT).

References

  1. 1.
    Ayres, T.J.: Evaluation of warning effectiveness. In: Karwowski, W. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2nd edn, pp. 1094–1097. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schall, D.L., Doll, D., Mohnen, A.: Caution! warnings as a useless countermeasure to reduce overconfidence? An experimental evaluation in light of enhanced and dynamic warning designs. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 30(2), 347–358 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wogalter, M.S., Laughery, K.R., Mayhorn, C.: Warnings and hazard communications. In: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4th edn, pp. 868–894 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., Teles, J., Wogalter, M.S.: A personalized speech warning facilitates compliance in an immersive virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 2045–2049 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wogalter, M.S.: Technology will revolutionize warnings. In: Proceedings of the Solutions in Safety through Technology Symposium (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vilar, E.B.P.: Using virtual reality to study the influence of environmental variables to enhance wayfinding within complex buildings. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., Teles, J., Wogalter, M.S.: Behavioral compliance for dynamic versus static signs in an immersive virtual environment. Appl. Ergon. 45(5), 1367–1375 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langner, N., Kray, C.: Assessing the impact of dynamic public signage on mass evacuation. In: Proceeding of the International Symposium on Pervasive Displays - PerDis 2014, pp. 136–141 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coutinho, C.F.G.: Identificação de perigos e avaliação de riscos num armazém. Escola Superior de Tecnologia do Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, 22 October 2014Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matos, J.: 5 Most Overlooked Warehouse Hazards. http://www.reliableplant.com/Articles/Print/29933. Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  11. 11.
    G. of Ontario: Fact Sheet: Warehouse HazardsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OSHA: OSHA Pocket Guide - Worker Safety Series Warehousing - Supply Chain 24/7 Paper. http://www.supplychain247.com/paper/osha_pocket_guide_worker_safety_series_warehousing/osha. Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  13. 13.
    Portal Empresarial da Maia: Riscos e perigos comuns em armazéns — Portal Empresarial da Maia. http://negocios.maiadigital.pt/hst/sector_actividade/armazenagem/riscos_armazenagem/riscos_armazenagens. Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  14. 14.
    Segurança Online: Segurança Online. http://www.segurancaonline.com/gca/?id=1045. Accessed 07 Jan 2016
  15. 15.
    Adams, A.S.: Warning design. In: Karwowski, W. (ed.) EdInternational Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, vol. 3, 2nd edn, pp. 1517–1520. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., Teixeira, L.: Warnings research methods: where are we now and where are we headed? In: Proceeding of the 5th UNIDCOM/IADE International Conference - “40 IADE 40, from 1969 to 2049”, 1–3 october 2009, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 414–422 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wogalter, M.S., Laughery, K.R.: Warnings. In: Karwowski, W. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2nd edn, pp. 1367–1373. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gutiérrez, M.A.A., Vexo, F., Thalmann, D.: Stepping into Virtual Reality. Springer, London (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-117-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rebelo, M., Duarte, F., Noriega, E., Soares, P.: Virtual reality in consumer product design: methods and applications. In: Karwowski, N., Soares, W., Stanton, M. (eds.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Product Design: Methods and Techniques, pp. 381–402. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burdea, G., Coiffet, P.: Virtual Reality Technology. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 12(6), 663–664 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American National Standards Institute: American National Standard for Environmental and Facility Safety Signs. ANSI Z535.2: 2011. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duarte, E.M.C.: Using Virtual Reality to Assess Behavioral Compliance with Warnings. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wogalter, M.S., Conzola, V.C.: Using technology to facilitate the design and delivery of warnings. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 33(6), 461–466 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wogalter, M.S., Racicot, B.M., Kalsher, M.J., Noel Simpson, S.: Personalization of warning signs: the role of perceived relevance on behavioral compliance. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 14(3), 233–242 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wogalter, M.S., Kalsher, M.J., Racicot, B.M.: Behavioral compliance with warnings: effects of voice, context, and location. Saf. Sci. 16(5), 637–654 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laughery, K.R., Wogalter, M.S.: Designing Effective Warnings. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 2(1), 241–271 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Almeida
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Francisco Rebelo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paulo Noriega
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculdade de Arquitetura, Centro de Investigação em Arquitetura, Urbanismo e DesignUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Laboratório de ErgonomiaUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of BrazilBrasília – DFBrazil

Personalised recommendations