Not optimized for Internet Explorer. If you experience problems, please try another browser.
Views
2 years ago

Banana Cone White Paper (BANAWP1803)

  • Text
  • Fall
  • Products
  • Sign
  • Cone
  • Effectiveness
  • Cone
  • Warnings
  • Caution
  • Banana
In this study, researchers tested the most common warnings used to prevent slips, trips and falls.

Figure 1: C-HIP Model

Figure 1: C-HIP Model Analysis: The critical design components that make up a warning are shape, color, size and wording. The use of common and uncommon shapes aid the brain with “pre-existing knowledge”, ultimately improving the ability to understand and comprehend a warning 1 . Noted in the Communication – Human Information Processing (C-HIP) Model 6 to the right, if the warning is not comprehended, then behavior will not change, or highly unlikely to change; resulting in a failed warning 5 . In the case of this study, the “Floor Sign” only caught the attention of 2% of participants. Since not everyone is guaranteed to actually change their behavior after seeing the warning, one could derive from the CHIP Model that this particular product has a success rate of no greater than 2%. Bhalla and Lastovicka, 1984 7 proved that when only changing the shape, there was a small positive impact on gaining attention for warning messages. In this study, the triangular floor sign outperformed the rectangular floor sign and tall safety cone by 2x which coincides with previous research. However, the Banana Cone significantly outperformed the others by up to 22x. This is far more than Bhalla and Lastovicka found in their analysis. If changing the shape from a rectangle to a triangle increased by 2x, then why did a banana peel shape cause a 22x increase? Dr. Wogalter reports that the most effective way for a brain to remember something is by the use of pre-existing knowledge aiding in the message delivery. (e.g., Young and Wogalter, 1990) 2 In this case, the pre-existing knowledge to accurately and efficiently deliver the intended warning is the global banana peel slip, which has been around since the early 1800’s. Originally gaining popularity in the United States by Carl B. Frank, lack of sanitation and little regulations resulted in an abundance in trash on the streets. It didn’t take long for bananas to rot, turning the sidewalks into slime-covered booby traps. Now a popular comedy gag worldwide, the banana peel slip is recognized by both children and adults. Conclusion: Gaining attention is best achieved by using a creative solution. Attention is a prerequisite to message processing, and thus avoidance action. In the study referenced above, when surveyed, 88% of participants noticed the “Banana Cone”, versus 7% noticing the “Floor Sign”. These statistics imply that the individuals are perceiving and processing the message, and thus are more likely to use caution. While there is a presumed correlation between cognition of caution and fall avoidance, this proves to be difficult to measure. Beyond design creation, gaining attention, and changing behavior, getting the right warning in front of audiences is not an easy task. Laughery and Wogalter (1997) show in Fig. 2 the ecosystem between a manufacturer, distributor, employer, and end-user. 8 Distributors are the Figure 2: Ecosystem and Communication Model bridge between manufactures and employers and it is their duty to utilize the most effective warnings for the safety of the target population. It is the manufacturers responsibility to produce quality products at a sustainable and reasonable price. This study concludes that changing the shape and increasing the size had a positive impact on perception and when added to the shape being a banana, leveraging their preexisting knowledge, results were even more positive. The banana peel slip dates back to the early 1800’s and is recognized by billions of people around the world. The Banana Cone significantly outperforms all of the other products examined because the preexisting knowledge of the banana peel slip works with the shape of the cone do deliver a clear, precise, and humorous message. References: 1. Wogalter, M.S (2004). 249 Wogalter, In. Warning! Sign and Label Effectiveness: Brazil Dr. Michael S. Wogalter 2. Young, S. L. and Wogalter, M. S. (1990). Comprehension and memory of instruction manual warnings: conspicuous print and pictorial icons. Human Factors, 32, 637-649. 3. National Safety Council (2011) NSC Injury Facts; Slip, Trips, & Falls: www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Advocacy/Fact%20Sheets/Slips-Trips-and-Falls 4. ISSA/Sanitary Maintenance, Sanitary Supply Distributor Sales (2010): Results of a joint research study conducted by Sanitary Maintenance Magazine and ISSA 5. Wogalter, M.S. and Leonard, S.D. (1999). Attention capture and maintenance, in M. S. Wogalter, D. M. DeJoy and K.R. Laughery (eds.), Warnings and Risk Communication, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 123-148. 6. Wogalter, Smith Jackson (2001): Methods and Procedures in Warning Research, Communication Human Information Processing (C-HIP) Model 7. Bhalla, G., & Lastovicka, J. L. (1984). The impact of changing cigarette warning message content and format. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 305-310. 8. Laughery, K.R., Wogalter, M.S., 1997. Warnings and risk perception. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd Edition. Wiley, New York, pp. 1175–1197. AND DeJoy, D.M., 1999. Attitudes and beliefs. In: Wogalter, M.S., et al. (Ed.), Warnings and Risk Communications. Philadelphia, PA, Taylor and Francis, pp. 189–219. Patricia G. Jortberg, Ph.D | 2015 Research Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Caution Signs and Cones impact-products.com BANAWP1803

Literature