Next Article in Journal
Numerical Dolly Rollover Evaluation Using a Damping-Harmonic System with a Low Back Booster to Reduce Injuries in a Six-Year-Old Child
Previous Article in Journal
Proposed Changes to the Inspection Strategy for Fire Alarm Systems: Empirical Analysis of Weak Points and Technical Influencing Factors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Students’ and Teachers’ Insights on School-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Safety: A Case Study of Western Morava Basin, Serbia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Safety
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/safety10020052
safety-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Perception of Warning Labels: Insights from Color, Signal Words, and Symbol Evaluation

by
Miskeen Ali Gopang
1,*,
Tauha Hussain Ali
2 and
Shakeel Ahmed Shaikh
1
1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Safety 2024, 10(2), 52; https://doi.org/10.3390/safety10020052
Submission received: 3 May 2024 / Revised: 7 June 2024 / Accepted: 11 June 2024 / Published: 14 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Risk Assessment—Health and Safety)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Protecting people from the risks associated with products is a critical concern in today’s economy. Pakistan, being the world’s fifth most populous country, lacks the framework of warning labels and therefore faces a significant gap in product warning labels. Pakistan is a representative of a number of countries that export a variety of products to Pakistan; however, warning labels on these goods are typically in English, which might mislead people of Pakistan in perceiving the hazard level. It is therefore imperative to conduct research into the non-textual and cross-cultural understanding of labels from the perspective of Pakistan. This study examined the applicability of ANSI Z535.4 in the context of Pakistan. A total of 66 (34 male and 32 female) undergraduate students with a mean age of 20.5 participated in this study. A meticulous experiment was designed using a nine-point rating scale with anchors on both sides, where one represented ‘not at all hazardous’ and nine represented ‘extremely hazardous’. Participants rated each component of warning labels, i.e., color, symbol, signal words, and their complex configurations. The results showed alignment with the ANSI Z535.4 standards for some components (i.e., colors, symbols, and signal words) and complex configurations, whereas no significant difference was found in perceived hazard levels between green (M = 3.167), blue (M = 3.591, and yellow (M = 3.652) colors, with a p-value greater than 0.05. Participants did not differentiate significantly between signal words, i.e., caution (M = 5.182) and warning (M = 5.879). Participants also did not differentiate significantly between complex configurations, i.e., safety alert–caution–yellow (M = 5.076) and safety alert–warning–orange (M = 5.197), with p-values greater than 0.05. These results state that discrepancies in the perception of warning labels exist. This study is the first of its kind conducted in the context of Pakistan, which will help policy makers to consider the findings before implementing a policy. In fact, differences in perception could result in failure to take appropriate precautions. Nonetheless, these nuances can be overcome with proper awareness through training for the people.

1. Introduction

Consumer safety is a top priority in today’s economy, with policies in place to protect consumers from potential risks associated with the products they use daily. This includes lowering the possibility that the products’ usage will lead to illness, injury, fatalities, or adverse outcomes for individuals. As we embark on the path to achieving sustainable development goals, which prioritize good health and well-being for all, it becomes clear that consumer protection is critical [1]. Henceforth, consumer awareness and perception must be taken as primary considerations for designing sustainable strategies [2]. The United Nations further emphasizes the importance of conveying critical safety information using universally understandable symbols [3].
Every year, millions of people are injured while using and/or improperly using products at home [4]. This is because of the hazards associated with the products, which have the potential to harm the user [5]. Risk communication has become more important as trade between developed and developing countries has increased [6]. The use of warning labels can help to reduce injuries, illness, and property damage [7,8]. Thus, the use of warning labels has a positive impact on the purchasing behavior of consumers as they are more concerned about safety [9].
Visual signs or product labels typically serve as the medium for conveying warnings [7]. According to [10], some of the most important goals of warnings include communicating information to assist users in making high-quality decisions, reminding and cueing people of their existing safety knowledge, influencing or persuading people to perform safe behaviors, and ultimately reducing accidents, injuries, and property or equipment damage to benefit health and safety. These warnings also serve important functions, such as providing individuals with the necessary information to make informed decisions [11], encouraging safe behaviors to reduce injuries and health issues, and serving as reminders of potential hazards [12].

1.1. ANSI Standards for Product Warning Labels

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has developed product warning label standards known as ANSI Z535.4, which are in harmonization with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) set guidelines for product hazards, namely ISO 3864.2 [13]. These standards establish directions for conveying different levels of hazards associated with a product or its use via warning labels.
ANSI recommends a specific combination of signal words and colors to denote varying levels of danger [14]. For example, red, along with the signal word ‘danger’, signifies the highest level of danger, highlighting situations that could lead to fatal injuries if not avoided. Orange, when combined with the signal word ‘warning’, denotes a medium hazard level, indicating situations that, if ignored, could result in serious yet non-fatal injuries. Yellow, when combined with the signal word ‘caution’, declares the lowest hazard level, indicating situations that may result in minor or moderate injuries if not avoided [15]. Furthermore, ANSI recommends the pair of signal word ‘notice’ and a blue background to symbolize circumstances related to property damage [13]. In addition, it recommends the use of ‘safety instructions’ or other related words with a green background to inform people about safety guidelines [16]. In terms of symbols, ANSI mentions the use of the safety alert symbol along with signal words to support the effectiveness of signal words [17]. These three traits, i.e., color, signal word, and symbol, are vital design attributes to attract the attention of users [18].

1.2. Discrepancy in the Perception of Components and Complex Configuration of Warning Labels

A warning system must have an impact on user cognition and actions [19]. Warning plays a crucial role as a communication tool aimed at urging users to adapt their behavior, a concept well-documented in preceding research [20]. Individuals must perceive, comprehend, and follow safety warning labels for them to be effective [19]. Individuals’ responses to warnings are determined by their perceptions when taking protective actions [21]. Interestingly, studies conducted by numerous researchers have revealed disparities in the perceived hazard levels of warning labels when compared to their intended meanings. Some studies found agreement with ANSI recommendations, while others found discrepancies. For example, studies in [22,23,24] discovered that participants rated the level of hazard for different colors, namely yellow, orange, and red, as increasing, which followed ANSI recommendations. Likewise, participants perceived yellow as more prominent than blue [25].
Other studies, however, found varying responses. For example, participants rated yellow with a higher hazard level than orange [26]. Another study discovered that participants had a response inconsistent with ANSI, that orange conveyed a higher level of hazard than red [27]. Moreover, student participants rated black higher than red, whereas industrial workers rated red higher than black [28]. These findings suggest that people from different cultures perceive colors differently and that as a result, certain color distinctions on product warning labels may not be as effective in addressing hazard levels.
In addition, signal words produced mixed results across studies. ‘Warning’ implied a higher hazard than ‘caution’, which is consistent with ANSI [26]. Others [22,27] found inconsistency with ANSI, indicating that ‘caution’ communicated greater hazard than ‘warning’. Numerous studies found no statistically significant differences between ‘warning’ and ‘caution’ [6,26,28,29,30].
Regarding symbols, safety alert symbols did not significantly change the hazard level conveyed by the accompanying signal words [31,32]. Based on this hypothesis, the skull and crossbones symbol consistently communicated higher hazard ratings than other symbols [26,27]. Furthermore, the perceived level of hazard associated with the skull and crossbones symbol was found to be higher than that of all the other symbols examined. Similarly, a skull with crossbones was rated higher than the safety alert symbol [33].
As far as complex configurations are concerned, different combinations of warning components can convey the same level of perceived hazard in complex configuration studies [34], whereas different formats for presenting the same signal word can result in differences in the perceived hazard level [26]. In contrast, one study [27] discovered consistency in perceived hazards associated with complex configurations of warning labels among participants from China and the United States.
The findings of these studies indicate that there is a disparity across cultures in the perceived hazard levels suggested by warning label components and complex configurations. Furthermore, it is clear that safety symbols are not universally recognized across cultures [35]. Similar questions arise in Pakistan, necessitating the need for this study to collect evidence specific to Pakistan’s cultural context.
Pakistan, being the world’s fifth most populous country [36], faces a significant gap in product warning labels. Previous studies highlighted the numerous exceptions and discrepancies. Such discrepancies make it imperative to gain an understanding of the Pakistani people’s perceptions regarding warning labels, as the use of standards and guidelines may not always result in effective warnings [37]. In fact, testing the effectiveness of warning labels on the intended audience before implementing them is emphasized [12,38]. As Pakistan is one of several countries where goods are imported and warning labels are typically in English, research into non-textual and cross-cultural label understanding is critical. This study was therefore conducted to investigate whether the people of Pakistan perceive warning labels as intended by ANSI.
The following section, i.e., Materials and Methods, describes the design details of the experiment. Next is the Results section, which starts with the demographics of the participants followed by the perception of participants regarding the components of the warning labels, i.e., colors, signal words, and symbols, in separate subsections. In addition, the results for pairwise comparisons of all the above components are also presented immediately after the within-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA). Following this, the perceptions of the participants related to warning labels (complex configurations) and pair comparison are presented. Next, the impact of symbols on the perception of the level of hazard is presented. Afterwards, the Discussion section provides the comparison of the outcomes of this study with the ANSI recommendations and other studies in order to validate them. The last section provides the conclusion, limitations, policy implications, recommendations, and future research work directions.

2. Materials and Methods

To achieve the objective of the study, an experiment was designed in accordance with the guidelines established by Lesch et al., 2009 [27].
A within-subject study was carried out using the Google Forms website as a data collection platform. The experiment included six colors (black, blue, green, orange, red, and, yellow), six signal words (beware, caution, danger, deadly, notice, and warning) as shown in Table 1, and three symbols (safety alert, skull with crossbones, and cracked skull with crutches) as shown in Figure 1a, Figure 1b, and Figure 1c, respectively. Moreover, twelve complex configurations are presented in Figure 2.
The experiment consisted of three distinct segments. In the first section. participants were asked to provide information on various socioeconomic factors, such as gender, age, residence, education level, and mother tongue. In the second section, participants were asked to rate the perceived hazard levels of individual warning label components, i.e., colors, signal words, and symbols, with separate evaluations for each. In the third section, participants were asked to rate the complex configurations based on the ANSI Z535.4 recommendations as well as those proposed by other researchers, as shown in Figure 2.
Non-ANSI symbols, such as the cracked skull with crutches symbol (Figure 1c) proposed in the study of Barnett and Wambaja (2000) [39], were included for comparison as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, complex configurations, such as ‘deadly’ paired with a skull with crossbones icon, proposed in study [26], were included in the experiment as shown in Table 1.
The colors were displayed in a rectangular area approximately 2.56 inches long and 0.6 inches high. Symbols were displayed at a size of about 1 by 1 inch. The signal words were displayed in 34-point Arial Bold font. The complex warning label configurations were also depicted within solid rectangles approximately 2.56 inches long and 0.6 inches tall by placing a symbol on the left as shown in Figure 2.
Following a thorough briefing with all participants, who provided informed consent for participation, data were collected on personal computers in a computer lab. After providing demographic information, participants completed tasks that required them to rate the perceived hazard levels of warning label components and their complex configurations. A nine-point scale was used, with one representing ‘not at all hazardous’ and nine representing ‘extremely hazardous’.
A sample of 66 undergraduate students was used. This number is greater than that used in other similar studies, such as that of Borade et al., 2008 [6], which used a sample size of 50 to present the perspective of India, the world’s most populous country. Lesch et al., 2009 [27], took 43 undergraduate students from China (the second most populated country) and 40 from the United States (the third most populous country) to illustrate the cultural differences between the two countries. Following these precedents, a sample of 66 undergraduate students was chosen to present Pakistan’s perspective on the perception of hazard level related to warning labels.
SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 22 was used to analyze the data. To begin, descriptive statistics were computed to summarize the data, such as frequency, percentage, and mean. Following that, analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was used to investigate the mean differences within subjects. Furthermore, the Bonferroni correction was applied to investigate multiple comparisons.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

A total 66 (34 male and 32 female) undergraduate students participated in this study. The mean age was 20.5 years, and all had an undergraduate level of education. Among the participants, 31 reported that they grew up in rural areas, and 35 participants reported that they grew up in the urban areas of the country. Data are summarized in Table 2.

3.2. Perceived Hazard Level for Colors

The ANOVA on participants’ perceived hazard ratings within subjects with color as the variable (including blue, green, yellow, orange, black, and red) indicated a significant effect of color, denoted by F(5,325) = 76.051, p < 0.001. In terms of numbers, green had the lowest mean rating (M = 3.167) of any color. On the other hand, red received the highest mean rating (M = 7.758). The order of perceived hazard rating, ranked from low to high, was as follows: green, blue, yellow, orange, black, and red, as shown in Figure 3.
The American National Standard Institute (ANSI), specifically ANSI Z535.4, recommends using green for safety instructions, and blue to indicate equipment/machinery damage. In addition, yellow, orange, and red are recommended in ascending order to indicate increasing levels of hazards related to injury. Surprisingly, the chronological order of colors perceived by participants corresponds to the recommendations of ANSI Z535.4. However, as shown in Table 3, there were no significant differences between a few of these colors.
Notably, green received the lowest average rating (M = 3.167) of all the colors, but it did not statistically differ from blue or yellow in terms of ratings. In contrast, red (with an average rating of 7.758) received significantly higher average ratings than all the other colors, except for black, with which it did not show a statistically significant difference. Similarly, blue received a lower perceived hazard mean rating than all the other colors except green, but it did not significantly differ from yellow, with a p-value less than 0.05.
In addition to this, yellow received a lower mean rating (3.652) in terms of perceived hazard than orange, red, and black, and this difference was statistically significant with a p-value less than 0.05.
Specifically, orange, with a mean rating of 4.818, showed a significant difference from all other colors. With a p-value less than 0.05, it was clearly perceived as less hazardous than red and black but more hazardous than green, blue, and yellow. Likewise, red differed significantly from all the other colors. Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived hazard levels between red (M = 7.758) and black (M = 7.136), with a p-value equal to 0.365.
Remarkably, the perceived hazard levels of yellow, orange, and red differed significantly, aligning with the ANSI recommendation of using an ascending order to reflect the hazard level related to injury.

3.3. Perceived Hazard Level for Symbols

With the symbol as the variable (including safety alert, skull with crossbones, and cracked skull with crutches), the ANOVA within subjects revealed a significant main effect of the symbol, denoted by F(2,130) = 27.088, p < 0.001. In terms of numbers, ‘safety alert’ had the lowest average rating (M = 6.076) of any symbol. ‘Skull with crossbones’, on the other hand, received the highest ratings (M = 7.758). The order of perceived hazard, ranked from low to high, was as follows: safety alert, cracked skull with crutches, and skull with crossbones, as shown in Figure 4.
The American National Standard Institute (ANSI), specifically ANSI Z535.4, recommends simply using a safety alert symbol in combination with signal words to support the effectiveness of signal words. Nonetheless, the skull with crossbones (with a mean rating of 7.758) received significantly higher ratings than the safety alert (with a mean rating of 6.076) and the cracked skull with crutches (with a mean rating of 6.667). Moreover, there were no significant differences between the safety alert and cracked skull with crutches among participants, as shown in Table 4.

3.4. Perceived Hazard Level for Signal Words

The ANOVA regarding the participants’ perceived hazard level ratings with the signal word as the variable (including beware, caution, danger, deadly, notice, and warning) revealed a significant main effect of the signal word, denoted by F(5,325) = 36.981, p < 0.001. In terms of numbers, ‘notice’ had the lowest average rating (M = 4.136) of any signal word. ‘Deadly’, on the other hand, received the highest ratings (M = 7.545). The order of perceived hazard rating, ranked from low to high, was as follows: notice, caution, beware, warning, danger, and deadly, as shown in Figure 5.
The American National Standard Institute (ANSI), specifically ANSI Z535.4, recommends using ‘notice’ for property damage, and ‘caution’, ‘warning’, and ‘danger’ in ascending order to indicate increasing levels of hazard related to injury. Remarkably, the chronological order of signal words perceived by participants corresponded to the recommendations of ANSI Z535.4. However, as shown in Table 5, there were no significant differences between a few of these signal words.
‘Notice’ received the lowest perceived hazard rating of any signal word, with a mean value of 4.136, and it exhibited a statistically significant difference, with a p-value less than 0.05, when compared to all the other signal words.
Furthermore, ‘caution’ (with a mean rating of 5.182) received lower perceived hazard ratings than ‘beware’ (with a mean rating of 5.348), ‘warning’ (with a mean rating of 5.879), ‘danger’ (with a mean rating of 7.424), and ‘deadly’ (with a mean rating of 7.545), but participants did not differentiate ‘caution’ from ‘beware’ and ‘warning’. On the other hand, participants significantly differentiated ‘caution’ from ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’.
Similarly, ‘beware’ received a lower mean rating (M = 5.348) than ‘warning’, ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’, but participants did not significantly differentiate between ‘beware’ and ‘warning’. However, similar to ‘caution’, participants significantly distinguished ‘beware’ from ‘danger’ and deadly. Like ‘beware’ and ‘caution‘, the signal word ‘warning’ received lower mean ratings than ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’, and it also significantly differed from both signal words.
Furthermore, among all the signal words, ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’ received the highest perceived hazard ratings. Despite the absence of a significant difference between the two signal words, participants demonstrated a significant difference when comparing these two to all of the other signal words.

3.5. Perceived Hazard Level for Complex Configurations

The ANOVA conducted on participants’ perceived hazard level ratings within subjects with the complex configuration as the variable revealed a significant main effect of complex configurations, denoted by F(5,325) = 63.555, and p < 0.001. In terms of numbers, ‘notice-blue‘ configuration had the lowest mean rating (M = 3.682) among all complex configurations. On the other hand, ‘skull with crossbones–deadly–black’ configuration received the highest mean rating (M = 7.682). The ranking order of perceived hazard in terms of complex configurations, from low to high, was ‘notice–blue’, ‘beware–green’, ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’, ‘safety alert–warning–orange’, ‘safety alert–danger–red’, and ‘skull with crossbones–deadly–black’ as shown in Figure 6.
The American National Standard Institute (ANSI), specifically ANSI Z535.4, recommends using ‘notice’ with a blue background to indicate hazardous situations not related to injury but rather to equipment/machinery/property damage. In addition, it recommends the use of ‘safety instructions’ or related words with a green background to inform about safety guidelines. Additionally, related to injury, ANSI recommends three levels of complex configurations in ascending order for increasing danger level. For the first level, it suggests ‘caution’ with a yellow background and a safety alert symbol on the left to indicate a potential hazardous situation that could lead to minor or moderate injury. At the second level, it recommends ‘warning’ with an orange background and a safety alert symbol on the left to declare a potentially hazardous situation that could lead to serious injury. On the third stage, it recommends ‘danger’ with a red background and a safety alert symbol on the left to indicate an imminently hazardous situation that could result in death or serious injury.
This ranking order of complex warning label configuration followed the ANSI recommendations. However, as shown in Table 6, no significant differences were found among some of these complex configurations. For example, ‘beware–green’ (with an average rating of 4.5) received lower perceived hazard ratings than all except ‘notice–blue’. Nonetheless, participants did not distinguish it significantly from ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’, with a mean value of 5.076, or ‘safety alert–warning–orange’, with a mean value of 5.197. The p-values for these comparisons were 0.871 and 0.139, respectively.
Similarly, ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’ received a lower mean rating (M = 5.076) than ‘safety alert–warning–orange’ (M = 5.197), but participants did not differentiate significantly between them. This is a major variation from the ASNI recommendations. Additionally, ‘skull with crossbones–deadly–black’ received the highest mean hazard rating of all; however, participants did not significantly distinguish it from the others. In contrast, ‘notice–blue’ received the lowest mean hazard rating of any other configuration and was significantly different from them all.

3.6. Impact of Symbol on the Perception of Perceived Hazard Level for Complex Configurations

From a descriptive standpoint, the inclusion of a symbol has a higher mean value in the pair. For example, ‘safety alert–notice–blue’ received a higher mean in the pair; nevertheless, it did not significantly increase the perceived hazard level when compared to ‘notice–blue’, with a t-value of (65) = −0.470 and p-value of 0.640. In contrast to this, ‘safety alert–beware–green’ not only received a higher mean in the pair, but it also passed the significance criterion of increasing the perceived hazard level when compared to its counterpart ‘beware–green’, with a t-value of (65) = −2.014 and p-value of 0.048, as shown in Table 7.
Furthermore, the replacement of the safety alert symbol with either a skull with crossbones or a cracked skull with crutches had a higher mean in the pairs, though some comparisons were not significant. For example, from a descriptive standpoint, ‘cracked skull with crutches–caution–yellow’ had a higher mean in the pair; however, it did not significantly increase the perceived hazard level when compared to ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’, with a p-value of 0.144. Similarly, the latter configuration had a higher mean in the pair ‘safety alert–warning–orange’ vs. ‘cracked skull with crutches–warning–orange’. However, with a t-value of (65) = −1.807 and a p-value of 0.075, it also just missed meeting the significance criterion. Likewise, ‘skull with crossbones–deadly–black’ had a higher mean than ‘safety alert–deadly–black’ in the pair but did not pass the significance criterion, with t(65) = −1.271 and p = 0.208.
In contrast, the pair ‘safety alert–danger–red’ and ‘skull with crossbones–danger–red’ displayed not only descriptive but also statistical significance. The paired sampled t-test revealed that substituting the skull with crossbones symbol for the safety alert symbol in the context of ‘danger–red’ significantly increased the perceived hazard for the participants, with a t-value of (65) = −3.270 and a p-value of 0.002.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to understand the perceived hazard level suggested by warning labels and their components in the culture of Pakistan. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has suggested specific warning labels and components to communicate different levels of hazards [40]. Although the results of this study regarding the single components as well as complex configuration were numerically consistent with the recommendations of ANSI, the participants did not significantly differ with respect to some pairs.
The findings of this study shed light on Pakistani consumers’ perceptions of product warning labels and their components. The analyses of color, symbol, signal word, and complex configuration as variables yielded several notable results.
The study found a significant main effect of color on participants’ perceived hazard ratings when color was examined as a variable. The low to high order of perceived hazard levels closely matched the recommendations of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in Z535.4, which advocates the use of yellow, orange, and red in ascending sequence to indicate increasing levels of hazard.
However, while the overall color ranking matched the ANSI recommendations, there were no significant differences between some color pairs. Green, for instance, had the lowest perceived hazard rating, which is the same as the Indian participants perceived in the study of Borade et al. (2008) [6]. Such a ranking differs from the results reported in a study [27] where US participants perceived green as the second least hazardous. Notwithstanding, participants did not statistically differentiate green from blue and yellow. Like the outcomes of this study, the US participants could not significantly distinguish between green, blue, and yellow. However, the results are similar to the outcomes reported in a study [25] where participants perceived blue as less prominent than yellow. Likewise, participants did not significantly differentiate between blue and green. The same is reported in another study [15].
Moreover, participants significantly perceived yellow as less hazardous than orange. These findings agree with the results reported in the study in [27] and are in line with the results of the studies in [6,23]. However, in contrast to the findings of the studies in [15,26], yellow received higher ratings than orange. Furthermore, the color red was consistently rated as the most dangerous by participants. These findings are consistent with previous research, which has consistently identified and perceived red as the most dangerous color [6,15,26,27,41,42,43]. French participants perceived red as the most dangerous color, similar to the findings of this study [43]. This is in contrast to a study [27] in which Chinese participants perceived orange as the most dangerous.
Participants rated black as the second highest hazardous to red but did not distinguish between them, similar to that reported in [27] for Chinese participants, whereas US participants did significantly distinguish between them. In contrast, German people rated black more dangerous than red [44]. However, Indian people perceived black as lower than red and orange [6].
Interestingly, the participants of this study significantly distinguished between yellow, orange, and red for increasing levels of hazards. Such significant differences and orders are consistent with the ANSI Z535.4 recommendations for the use of colors to connote increasing hazard level. Like in the study in [27], US participants rated yellow, orange, and red consistently according to the recommendations by ANSI (Z535.4) and significantly differed in the communication of hazard levels. Though, in the same study, Chinese participants significantly distinguished between yellow, orange, and red but their order was not consistent with the order suggested by ANSI (Z535.4). The fact that participants did not significantly differentiate between some color pairs, such as green, blue, and yellow, suggests that these colors may be interchangeable in certain contexts for conveying lower levels of hazard. For higher levels of hazard, however, distinct colors such as red and black should be used to ensure clarity.
A significant difference in hazard level perception for colors is supposed to be due to the familiarity of participants with the use of these colors used for traffic signs. Yellow and red are used for different actions and follow each other for the action to be executed. In this study, the red color was perceived as the most hazardous color of all. A similar effect of familiarity was observed with familiar frames in the study in [45], where participants perceived the triangle shape as more hazardous than the less familiar octagon shape.
For symbols, the analysis revealed that symbols had a significant main effect on perceived hazard levels. When compared to ‘safety alert’ and ‘cracked skull with crutches’, the symbol ‘skull with crossbones’ received significantly higher hazard ratings. These findings are consistent with previous research on symbol perception by various scholars [20,27,33,45]. This suggests that the symbol used can influence hazard perception, with ‘skull with crossbones’ effectively conveying a higher level of danger.
Several interesting findings emerged from the study on participants’ perceptions of signal words in the context of hazard ratings. The signal word ‘notice’ clearly received the lowest perceived hazard rating of all the signal words tested. This is similar to the results reported in other studies [34,46]. In addition, ‘caution’ and ‘warning’ fell just short of meeting the established criterion for hazard perception. It is worth noting, however, that ‘warning’ received higher mean ratings than ‘caution’, similar to other studies [23,32,34,46,47]. Interestingly, ‘beware’ received higher mean ratings than ‘caution’ but lower than ‘warning’, even though participants did not distinguish it from ‘caution’ and ‘warning’. A similar pattern was reported in the study in [47]. Additionally, ‘warning’ had a lower mean rating than ‘deadly’ and ‘danger’, and it was significantly distinguished from both signal words. Such significance is consistent with both Chinese and US participants [27].
The signal word ‘deadly’ had the highest perceived hazard rating of any signal word, which is consistent with the findings of the study in [47]. Despite rating ‘deadly’ numerically higher, participants did not show a significant difference between the words ‘deadly’ and ‘danger’. This finding is consistent with the outcomes reported in the study in [27]. These findings have implications for the selection of signal words in warning labels and suggest that users’ perceptions of these words in the context of safety communication should be carefully considered.
In summary, ‘notice’ was consistently rated as significantly less dangerous than all the other signal words, with the greatest difference being observed with ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’, both of which had a mean difference of more than −3. The high hazard perception of these two signal words, ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’, was similar, but they did not differ significantly. When compared to each other, ‘beware’, ‘caution’, and ‘warning’ showed smaller and less significant differences in perceived hazard levels, whereas ‘danger’ and ‘deadly’ stood out as the most hazard-evoking signal words.
The ANSI-recommended ranking order of perceived hazard associated with complex configurations, from low to high, was followed. This conformity to ANSI guidelines suggests that the participants’ perceptions of hazard levels in response to these complex configurations were consistent with the established standards.
However, despite their distinct elements, no significant differences were found among some of these complex configurations. For example, ‘beware–green’ received the lowest mean rating besides ‘notice–blue’, but participants could not tell it apart from ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’ and ‘safety alert–warning–orange’. More importantly, participants failed to distinguish between ‘yellow–caution–safety alert’ and ‘orange–warning–safety alert’, similar to that reported in the study in [27].
Participants also failed to distinguish between ‘safety alert–danger–red’ and ‘skull with crossbones–deadly–black’, even though ‘skull with crossbones–deadly–black’ received the highest perceived hazard ratings of all the configurations, similar to the rating reported in [27]. These findings suggest that participants did not perceive significant differences in hazard levels between these specific configurations, highlighting the complexities of their perceptions.
For complex configurations, the inclusion of symbols increased the perceived hazard levels. Furthermore, replacing the safety alert symbol with alternative symbols, namely the ‘skull with crossbones’ and the ‘cracked skull with crutches’, resulted in an increase in perceived hazard levels. Participants’ perceptions of hazard levels differed significantly for certain warning label configurations but not for others, consistent with the results of the paired samples test reported in the study in [27]. ‘Skull with crossbones–danger–red’ was deemed significantly more dangerous than ‘safety alert–danger–red’, emphasizing the ‘skull with crossbones’ symbol’s potential effectiveness in conveying the highest level of danger, similar to that reported in the study in [28]. The participants, on the other hand, were unable to distinguish between ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’ and ‘safety alert–warning–orange’. Such findings contrast with those reported in the study in [27].
A recommendation can be made regarding the use of a skull with crossbones to communicate a higher level of hazard. That is, replacing the safety alert symbol with recommended alternatives can enhance the hazard level and effectiveness of communicating it. This trend of ranking alternative symbols higher than the safety alert symbol persisted in isolated symbol ratings, mirroring the patterns seen in the complex configuration ratings. These findings have the potential to improve hazard perception and safety awareness through the design of warning labels. Substituting alternative symbols for the safety alert symbol, for example, has the potential to increase the perceived hazard level and improve overall effectiveness.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to the growing body of research on the effective warning labels for products in order to make the consumer safer. Our goal was to learn more about how people perceive product warning labels and their individual components in Pakistan. This study provides valuable insights into Pakistani consumers’ perceptions of product warning labels and their components.
As for colors, the chronological order of hazard rating followed the recommendations of ANSI. Notwithstanding, participants did not differentiate significantly between blue, green, and yellow. This indicates variation from the ANSI recommendations. Regarding symbols, people perceived a skull with crossbones as significantly hazardous compared to the others. In contrast, the safety alert was rated the least hazardous of the three. Moreover, participants did not significantly differentiate between a safety alert and a cracked skull with crutches. This suggests that the skull with crossbones symbol can be used to enhance the hazardousness of the warning label.
Like colors, the chronological order of the hazard rating for signal words followed the recommendation of ANSI; however, participants did not significantly differentiate between ‘caution’ and ‘warning’. This result is a major variation from the ANSI recommendations. Furthermore, regarding complex configurations, participants did not significantly differentiate between ‘safety alert–caution–yellow’ and ‘safety alert–warning–orange’. This finding also reflects a major deviation from the ANSI recommendations. Moreover, the inclusion of symbols increased the perception of hazard level. In fact, a skull with crossbones significantly increased the hazard level perception.
These findings indicate that participants’ hazard perception generally did not align with the ANSI recommendations in terms of color, signal words, and complex configurations, because there are some instances where participants failed to distinguish between certain elements, indicating potential areas for improvement in warning label design and communication. These findings illustrate the differences that are consistent with studies conducted previously in other developed and developing countries. In order to fully harmonize warning labels, the differences that have emerged in different countries should be addressed.
This study further emphasizes the importance of considering cultural and contextual factors when creating effective warning labels. While the ANSI recommendations provide a useful framework, warning label fine-tuning and localization may be required to ensure optimal hazard perception and user safety. These findings lay the groundwork for future research and the creation of culturally sensitive warning label design strategies.
These findings imply that people perceive warning labels in the same chronological order as per the recommendations of ANSI, but there are certain nuances where they do not perceive significant differences. These findings give birth to the need to include the translation of warning labels into the national language to explore the perception of warning labels so that more effective warning labels can be designed.
This study will help policy makers to consider the findings of this study before implementing a policy, as differences in perception could result in failure to take appropriate precautions. These nuances can be overcome through awareness training for the people. These could be consequences of a lack of exposure to warning labels.

Limitations and Future Directions

Certainly, this study provides useful insights into the perception of product warning labels. However, certain limitations must be acknowledged. Increasing the sample size can improve the statistical power and representativeness of the study. The survey sample in this paper is comparable to other published work (e.g., the study of Indian perceptions used a sample of n = 50 [6]. Nonetheless, a large and more diverse sample can provide more reliable results and a more complete picture of the population’s perception. The participants in this study were exclusively undergraduate students with an average age of 20.5 years. To obtain more robust results, the participation pool should be expanded to include people from various educational backgrounds and age groups. Furthermore, a sizable portion of Pakistan’s population is illiterate, so it is critical to consider their perspectives. Involving illiterate members of the community in future research can provide valuable insights into how these demographics interpret warning labels.
In addition to this, the experiment’s instructions were composed in English, so it might be worthwhile to contemplate conducting research in the national language, Urdu. This approach could offer a more profound exploration of the influence of culture and language on hazard perception. Furthermore, the English language is a tertiary language for all the participants (literate) of this study. The mother tongue may not influence the perception and is therefore not considered in the analysis. However, this variable may be considered for analysis when translating the signal words into the national language (Urdu).
Incorporating these recommendations into future research efforts can significantly contribute to the development of culturally relevant and effective product warning labels, ultimately improving consumer safety and comprehension in Pakistan and beyond.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.G., T.H.A. and S.A.S.; methodology, M.A.G.; validation, M.A.G.; formal analysis, M.A.G.; investigation, M.A.G.; resources, M.A.G., T.H.A. and S.A.S.; data curation, M.A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.G.; writing—review and editing, T.H.A. and S.A.S.; visualization, M.A.G.; supervision, T.H.A. and S.A.S.; funding acquisition, M.A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan has supported this study through Research grant/fund (MUET/RFC/33/23-12-2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted under the approval of the Advanced Studies and Research Board (ASRB) in 173rd meeting held on 1 June 2021, vide resolution number 173.29, and notified by directorate Postgraduate Studies (PGS) via letter No. MUET/PGS/49, dated: 10 June 2021. Moreover, the authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to our respondents who gave precious data and time on a critical topic that has shaped the entire article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. UNCTAD. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals through Consumer Protection; UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Thukral, S.; Shree, D.; Singhal, S. Consumer Behaviour towards Storage, Disposal and Recycling of e-Waste: Systematic Review and Future Research Prospects. Benchmarking 2023, 30, 1021–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. UNCTAD. Trade and Development Board Consumer Product Safety United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gopang, M.A.; Ali, T.H.; Shaikh, S.A. Assessing Hazard Level Perception of Colors: A Comparative Study with ANSI Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australian International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Melbourne, Australia, 14 November 2023; IEOM Society International: Southfield, MI, USA, 2023; pp. 714–723. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wogalter, M.S. Consumer Product Warnings: Research and Recommendations. In Handbook of Warnings; Wogalter, M.S., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 159–168. [Google Scholar]
  6. Borade, A.B.; Bansod, S.V.; Gandhewar, V.R. Hazard Perception Based on Safety Words and Colors: An Indian Perspective. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2008, 14, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mayhorn, C.B.; Wogalter, M.S. Preface to the Special Issue: Considering the Warning Context—New Research Methodologies and Advances. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2010, 20, 481–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Szopa, A.; Soares, M.M. Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Human Factors and Ergonomics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pandey, J.; Hassan, Y. Effect of Board- and Firm-Level Characteristics on the Product Responsibility Ratings of Firms from Emerging Markets. Benchmarking 2020, 27, 1433–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wogalter, M.S.; Feng, E. Indirect Warnings and Instructions Produce Behavioral Compliance. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2010, 20, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lenorovitz, D.R.; Karnes, E.W.; Leonard, S.D. Mitigating Product Hazards via User Warnings Alone: When/Why “Warnings-Only” Approaches Are Likely to Fail. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2014, 24, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Laughery, K.R.; Wogalter, M.S. Designing Effective Warnings. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 2006, 2, 241–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lesch, M.F.; Rau, P.L.P.; Choi, Y.S. Effects of Culture (China vs. US) and Task on Perceived Hazard: Evidence from Product Ratings, Label Ratings, and Product to Label Matching. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 52, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gungor, C. Safety Sign Comprehension of Fiberboard Industry Employees. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zielinska, O.A.; Mayhorn, C.B.; Wogalter, M.S. Connoted Hazard and Perceived Importance of Fluorescent, Neon, and Standard Safety Colors. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 65, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hall, S.M.; Isaacson, J.J.; Burhans, C.G.; Frantz, J.P.; Rhoades, T.P.; Shah, R.J.; Young, S.L. New Editions of ANSI Standards for Warnings. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering, ISPCE 2012—Proceedings, Portland, OR, USA, 5–7 November 2012; pp. 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  17. Peckham, G. Choosing the Right Product Safety Label Formats: A Critical Decision for Product Safety Engineers. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering Proceedings, Boston, MA, USA, 18–20 October 2010; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  18. Laughery, K.R.; Wogalter, M.S. A Three-Stage Model Summarizes Product Warning and Environmental Sign Research. Saf. Sci. 2014, 61, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wogalter, M.S. Hazard Analysis and Hazard-Control Hierarchy. In Forensic Human Factors and Ergonomics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 17–32. [Google Scholar]
  20. Andrews, J.C.; Netemeyer, R.G.; Kees, J.; Burton, S. How Graphic Visual Health Warnings Affect Young Smokers’ Thoughts of Quitting. J. Mark. Res. 2014, 51, 165–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mileti, D.S.; Peek, L. The Social Psychology of Public Response to Warnings of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident. J. Hazard. Mater. 2000, 75, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Braun, C.C.; Silver, N.C. Interaction of Signal Word and Colour on Warning Labels: Differences in Perceived Hazard and Behavioural Compliance. Ergonomics 1995, 38, 2207–2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chapanis, A. Hazards Associated with Three Signal Words and Four Colours on Warning Signs. Ergonomics 1994, 37, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. David Leonard, S. Does Color of Warnings Affect Risk Perception? Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1999, 23, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yuan, J.; Song, Z.; Hu, Y.; Fu, H.; Liu, X.; Bian, J. Electrophysiological Correlates of Processing Warning Signs With Different Background Colors: An Event-Related Potentials Investigation. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 648871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wogalter, M.S.; Kalsher, M.J.; Frederick, L.J.; Magurno, A.B.; Brewster, B.M. Hazard Level Perceptions of Warning Components and Configurations. Cogn. Ergon. 1998, 2, 123–143. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lesch, M.F.; Rau, P.-L.P.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, C. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Perceived Hazard in Response to Warning Components and Configurations: US vs. China. Appl. Ergon. 2009, 40, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Young, S.L. Connotation of Hazard for Signal Words and Their Associated Panels. Appl. Ergon. 1998, 29, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Silver, N.C.; Wogalter, M.S. Broadening the Range of Signal Words. Proc. Hum. Factors Soc. Annu. Meet. 1989, 33, 555–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hellier, E.; Edworthy, J. SIGNAL WORDS. In Handbook of Warnings; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 437–448. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wogalter, M.S.; Silver, N.C. Warning Signal Words: Connoted Strength and Understandability by Children, Elders, and Non-Native English Speakers. Ergonomics 1995, 38, 2188–2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wogalter, M.S.; Jarrard, S.W.; Simpson, S.N. Influence of Warning Label Signal Words on Perceived Hazard Level. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 1994, 36, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Erdinc, O. Comprehension and Hazard Communication of Three Pictorial Symbols Designed for Flight Manual Warnings. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Braun, C.C.; Sansing, L.; Kennedy, R.S.; Silver, N.C. Signal Word and Color Specifications for Product Warnings: An Isoperformance Application. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 1994, 38, 1104–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Smith-Jackson, T.L.; Essuman-Johnson, A. Cultural Ergonomics in Ghana, West Africa: A Descriptive Survey of Industry and Trade Workers’ Interpretations of Safety Symbols. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2002, 8, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ali, I.; Ali, S. Why May COVID-19 Overwhelm Low-Income Countries Like Pakistan? Disaster. Med. Public Health Prep. 2022, 16, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wogalter, M.S.; Mayhorn, C.B.; Laughery, K.R. Warnings and Hazard Communications. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wu, J.; Du, X.; Tong, M.; Guo, Q.; Shao, J.; Chabebe, A.; Xue, C. Neural Mechanisms behind Semantic Congruity of Construction Safety Signs: An EEG Investigation on Construction Workers. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2023, 33, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barnett, R.L.; Wambaja, R. International Safety Alert Symbol. In Safety Brief; Triodyne Inc.: Niles, IL, USA, 2000; Volume 16, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  40. ANSI. American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels; ANSI: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  41. Griffith, L.J.; Leonard, S.D. Association of Colors with Warning Signal Words. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1997, 20, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luximon, A.; Chung, L.W.; Goonetilleke, R.S. Safety Signal Words and Color Codes: The Perception of Implied Hazard by Chinese People. In Proceedings of the 5th Pan-Pacific Conference on Occupational Ergonomics, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan, 21–24 July 1998; pp. 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  43. Pravossoudovitch, K.; Cury, F.; Young, S.G.; Elliot, A.J. Is Red the Colour of Danger? Testing an Implicit Red-Danger Association. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Buchmüller, K.; Bearth, A.; Siegrist, M. The Influence of Packaging on Consumers’ Risk Perception of Chemical Household Products. Appl. Ergon. 2022, 100, 103676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chen, C.F.; Liu, T.; Huang, K.C. Characteristics of Warning Labels for Drug Containers and Their Effects on Perceived Hazardousness. Saf. Sci. 2015, 78, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wogalter, M.S.; Silver, N.C. Arousal Strength of Signal Words. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: London, UK, 1990; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yu, R.F.; Chan, A.H.S.; Salvendy, G. Chinese Perceptions of Implied Hazard for Signal Words and Surround Shapes. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2004, 14, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Safety 10 00052 g001
Figure 1. Warning symbol: (a) Safety alert, (b) Skull with crossbones, and (c) Cracked skull with crutches.
Figure 1. Warning symbol: (a) Safety alert, (b) Skull with crossbones, and (c) Cracked skull with crutches.
Safety 10 00052 g001
Safety 10 00052 g002
Figure 2. Warning labels (complex configurations). Source: Lesch et al., 2016 [13].
Figure 2. Warning labels (complex configurations). Source: Lesch et al., 2016 [13].
Safety 10 00052 g002
Safety 10 00052 g003
Figure 3. Perception of hazard level in response to colors.
Figure 3. Perception of hazard level in response to colors.
Safety 10 00052 g003
Safety 10 00052 g004
Figure 4. Perception of hazard level in response to symbols.
Figure 4. Perception of hazard level in response to symbols.
Safety 10 00052 g004
Safety 10 00052 g005
Figure 5. Perception of hazard level in response to signal words.
Figure 5. Perception of hazard level in response to signal words.
Safety 10 00052 g005
Safety 10 00052 g006
Figure 6. Perception of hazard level in response to complex configurations.
Figure 6. Perception of hazard level in response to complex configurations.
Safety 10 00052 g006
Table 1. Colors, signal words, symbols, and complex configurations.
Table 1. Colors, signal words, symbols, and complex configurations.
ColorsBlackBlueGreenOrangeRedYellow
Signal Wordsbewarecautiondangerdeadlynoticewarning
SymbolsSafety AlertSkull with CrossbonesCracked Skull with Crutches
Complex ConfigurationsS/NOSymbolSignal WordColor in Background
1 NoticeBlue
2 BewareGreen
3Safety AlertNoticeBlue
4Safety AlertBewareGreen
5Safety AlertCautionYellow
6Skull with CrutchesCautionYellow
7Safety AlertWarningOrange
8Skull with CrutchesWarningOrange
9Safety AlertDangerRed
10Skull with CrossbonesDangerRed
11Safety AlertDeadlyBlack
12Skull with CrossbonesDeadlyBlack
Table 2. Demographics of participants.
Table 2. Demographics of participants.
Age (years)Mean (20.5)
GenderMale (34)Female (32)
EducationUndergraduate (66)
Grew-up placeRural (31)Urban (35)
Table 3. Comparison of colors in pairs.
Table 3. Comparison of colors in pairs.
(I) Color(J) ColorMeanMean Difference (I−J)Sig.
Green
Mean = 3.167		Blue3.591−0.4241.000
Yellow3.652−0.4851.000
Orange4.818−1.652 *0.000
Red7.758−4.591 *0.000
Black7.136−3.970 *0.000
Blue
Mean = 3.591		Yellow3.652−0.0611.000
Orange4.818−1.227 *0.002
Red7.758−4.167 *0.000
Black7.136−3.545 *0.000
Yellow
Mean = 3.652		Orange4.818−1.167 *0.001
Red7.758−4.106 *0.000
Black7.136−3.485 *0.000
Orange
Mean = 4.818		Red7.758−2.939 *0.000
Black7.136−2.318 *0.000
Red
Mean = 7.758		Black7.1360.6210.365
* The difference in means is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 4. Comparison of symbols in pairs.
Table 4. Comparison of symbols in pairs.
(I) Symbol(J) SymbolMeanMean Difference (I-J)Sig.
Safety Alert
Mean = 6.076		Skull with Crossbones7.758−1.682 *0.000
Cracked Skull with Crutches6.667−0.5910.085
Skull with Crossbones
Mean = 7.758		Cracked Skull with Crutches6.6671.091 *0.000
* The difference in means is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 5. Comparison of signal words in pairs.
Table 5. Comparison of signal words in pairs.
(I) Signal Word(J) Signal WordMeanMean Difference (I-J)Sig.
Notice
Mean = 4.136		Beware5.348−1.212 *0.000
Caution5.182−1.045 *0.011
Warning5.879−1.742 *0.000
Danger7.424−3.288 *0.000
Deadly7.545−3.409 *0.000
Beware
Mean = 5.348		Caution5.1820.1671.000
Warning5.879−0.5301.000
Danger7.424−2.076 *0.000
Deadly7.545−2.197 *0.000
Caution
Mean = 5.182		Warning5.879−0.6970.150
Danger7.424−2.242 *0.000
Deadly7.545−2.364 *0.000
Warning
Mean = 5.879		Danger7.424−1.545 *0.000
Deadly7.545−1.667 *0.000
Danger
Mean = 7.424		Deadly7.545−0.1211.000
* The difference in means is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 6. Comparison of complex configurations in pairs.
Table 6. Comparison of complex configurations in pairs.
(I) Complex
Configuration		(J) Complex
Configuration		MeanMean Difference (I−J)Sig.
Beware–Green
Mean = 4.5		Notice–Blue3.6820.818 *0.012
Safety Alert–Caution–Yellow5.076−0.5760.871
Safety Alert–Warning–Orange5.197−0.6970.139
Safety Alert–Danger–Red7.545−3.045 *0.000
Skull with Crossbones–Deadly–Black7.682−3.182 *0.000
Notice–Blue
Mean = 3.682		Safety Alert–Caution–Yellow5.076−1.394 *0.000
Safety Alert–Warning–Orange5.197−1.515 *0.000
Safety Alert–Danger–Red7.545−3.864 *0.000
Skull with Crossbones–Deadly–Black7.682−4.000 *0.000
Safety Alert–Caution–Yellow
Mean = 5.076		Safety Alert–Warning–Orange5.197−0.1211.000
Safety Alert–Danger–Red7.545−2.470 *0.000
Skull with Crossbones–Deadly–Black7.682−2.606 *0.000
Safety Alert–Warning–Orange
Mean = 5.197		Safety Alert–Danger–Red7.545−2.348 *0.000
Skull with Crossbones–Deadly–Black7.682−2.485 *0.000
Safety Alert–Danger–Red
Mean = 7.545		Skull with Crossbones–Deadly–Black7.682−0.1361.000
* The difference in means is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 7. Difference in the perception of hazard level in complex configuration due to symbol.
Table 7. Difference in the perception of hazard level in complex configuration due to symbol.
PairPair with Alternate SymbolMeandftp-Value
1Notice–Blue3.68265−0.4700.640
Safety Alert–Notice-Blue4.121
2Beware–Green4.50065−2.014 *0.048
Safety Alert–Beware–Green4.621
3Safety Alert–Caution–Yellow5.07665−1.4790.144
Cracked Skull with Crutches–Caution–Yellow5.439
4Safety alert–Warning–Orange5.19765−1.8070.075
Cracked Skull with Crutches–Warning–Orange5.606
5Safety Alert–Danger–Red7.54565−3.270 *0.002
Skull with Crossbones–Danger–Red8.061
6Safety Alert–Deadly–Black7.43965−1.2710.208
Skull with Crossbones–Deadly–Black7.682
* The difference in means is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gopang, M.A.; Ali, T.H.; Shaikh, S.A. Exploring Perception of Warning Labels: Insights from Color, Signal Words, and Symbol Evaluation. Safety 2024, 10, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety10020052

AMA Style

Gopang MA, Ali TH, Shaikh SA. Exploring Perception of Warning Labels: Insights from Color, Signal Words, and Symbol Evaluation. Safety. 2024; 10(2):52. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety10020052

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gopang, Miskeen Ali, Tauha Hussain Ali, and Shakeel Ahmed Shaikh. 2024. "Exploring Perception of Warning Labels: Insights from Color, Signal Words, and Symbol Evaluation" Safety 10, no. 2: 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety10020052

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop