ユーザの主観的評価に対する消費者用製品の警告の影響
Contents
1. 32. 60 5
3. 2 9 GLM Git BA
4. i ii iii Ek iv 2 2 1 2 96
5. 09 1 91
6. 1 1 ELT Lichtenstein 5 Otsubo Friedmann Strawbridge Otsubo
7. 91 Slovic D E Young 5 72 Slovic 5 30
8. Lk R 0 373 p 0 05 P 0 001 amp p lt 0 05 p 1 0 4 No 1 12 W AC AEA R m x p lt 0 1 p lt 0 001 ps lt 0 01 p lt 0 2 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 05 p lt 0 1 p lt 0 001 ps lt 0 001 p lt 0 001 p lt O 001 p lt O5 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 05 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 1 p lt 0 5 p lt 0 5 p lt 1 0 p lt 0 01 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 5 p 57 ROT
9. 7 EX S X mR 1 Edworthy J and Adams A 1996 Warning design A research prospective Taylor amp Fran cis pp 26 29 2 Lehto M R and Miller J M 1986 Warnings Volume I Fundamentals design and evaluation methodologies Fuller Tech nical Publications pp 6 9 3 Wogalter M S 1999 Factors influencing the effectiveness of warnings In J G Z Harm B Theo and C M H Henriette Eds Visu al information for everyday use Design and research perspective Taylor amp Francis pp 93 110 4 Lichtenstein S and Slovic P 1973 Response induced reveals of preferences in gambling An extended replication in Las Vegas Journal of Experimental Psychology 101 16 20 5 Otsubo S M 1988 A behavioral study of warning labels for consumer products Perceived danger and use of pictographs In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting Santa Monic
10. 1 B C 1 He we TRE 2 fait 3 KK 4 5 6 KARE TRE 7 8 EAI 9 THE 10 MRS 1 47n BR BR WE 12 54 12 5 No 1 6 9 10 11 7 2 3 1 B 4
11. Faculty of Social Information Science Kure University 52 PL 1980 90 CORR Z CH
12. No 1 4 8 10 11 5 3 p 0 01 p 0 05 p lt 0 05 06 3 5 Nol 4 8 10 11
13. 5 B C p 0 001 p lt 0 05 4 x p 0 05 4 x T
14. 1 2 2 WAT VERA 4
15. 100 0 TADOR GLA BE i EK i
16. sete A 0 976 0 235 0991 _ 0 807 0900 0 078 eure 0977 0 867 4 x 1 12 7 5 5 FORD
17. p 0 07 50 45 ee a aN Ho 5 A NN oe nl eg En ee ans 5 eo 15 10 oe 1 2 3 4x 5 6 7 8x 9 10 11 12 2 p 3 4 SAS GLM 5 No 1 4 8 10 11
18. 36 Wogalter 4 Dh 1 _ 2 4 U
19. 3 3 R N m x AVC p lt 1 0 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 05 p lt 0 5 ps lt 0 001 p lt 0 2 p lt 0 2 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 5 4 Toe or OO PD p lt 0 1 p lt 0 05 ps lt 0 DRE SU BAD aia Dc0 05 p lt 0 05 6 a so aie seas ie RETAILS ATE BY THE p lt 0 05 p lt 0 05 p lt 0 001 ps lt 0 1 Op
20. HS 2o 03 A fa
21. 2 4 RA Friedmann it Otsubo Strawbridge i Ursic Wogalter Barlow Ek Leonard Laughery 5
22. Vol 7 51 61 2001 The effects of different product warnings on users risk perceptions Takahiro Kurikawa Juri Kumura Yusuke Shibutani Hideaki Hirano The present research investigated how users risk perceptions are influenced by product warnings that address a variety of hazard features With respect to the warnings that inform of latent hazards which are not well known by many users 1t seems that users perceive a product to be less hazardous before they read them than after they have read them Moreover it is assumed that users will comply with the warnings for latent hazards less often than for patent haz ards because they are less inclined to believe the warnings in the former case Thus the obviousness of hazards is one of important variables that predict user safety behavior The aims of the research were to examine the effects that the obviousness of hazards has on users ratings for products and warnings and to determine which variables are predominant in predicting whether users are willing to com ply with the warnings To this end 96 subjects were asked to respond to 9 questions on 12 product usage instructions containing warnings in which the hazard obviousness was manipulated The results indicate that the hazar
23. 4 5 5 2 5 3 A B C 3 10 15 12 A
24. GLM 5 gt R 0 324 p 0 05 p 0 01 p 0 001 p 0 001 p 0 01 3 5 A
25. 20 0 19 22 71 25 RFA B C 3 2 2 12 3 4 5 25 1 12 i i iii A L B C
26. A 0 444 0 4777 B C 0 260 0 581 1 A 12 B C 24 6 0 90 0 99 A 0 235 0 807 B C 0 078 0 867 1 6
27. CORR 2 C B Nol 4 8 10 11 P 0 05 7 C B 2 8 a EW B C x 65 6 188 p lt 0 01 2 65 6 533 p lt 03 3 50 0 406 p lt 0 4 4 53 1 28 1 p lt 0 05 5 459 344 p lt 0 6 313 48 p lt 03 7 53 1 43 8 p lt 05 8 813 40 7 p lt 0 01 9 563 53 1 p lt 0 8 10 875 563 p lt 001 11 90 6 25 0 p lt 0 01 12 46 7 25 0 p lt 0 05 p 3 2 9 A B BE SEC
28. amp 2 No 1 4 10 P lt 0 10 No 4 No 1 p lt 0 001 p lt 0 001 p 0 01 p lt 0 05 lt
29. B C 5 GLM df F D 1 5 988 491 0 05 1 1 015 084 05 1 2951 244 02 1 2999 248 02 1 7 039 582 0 05 1 1 323 109 05 1 26255 21 69 0 001 1 37 341 30 85 0 001 1 10228 845 0 01 767 1358 7 R 0 324 08 A B C 0 6 0 8
30. No 1 B BEE COTA B No 1 C 1 90 1 KRETE 3 AR 3 1 B C
31. a CA Human Factors Society pp 536 540 6 Friedmann K 1988 The effect of adding symbols to written warning labels on user behavior and recall Human Factors 30 507 old 7 Strawbridge J A 1986 The influence of position highlighting and imbedding on warning effectiveness In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting Santa Monica CA Human Factors Society pp 716 720 8 Ursic M 1984 The impact of safety warn ings on perception and memory Human Factors 26 677 682 9 Wogalter M S and Barlow T 1990 Injury likelihood and severity in warnings In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting Santa Monica CA Human Factors Society pp 580 583 10 Leonard S D Matthews D and Karnes E W 1986 How does population interpret warning signals In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting Santa Monica CA Human Factors Society pp 116 120 11 Laughery K R Vaubel K P Young S L Brelsford J W And Rowe A L 1993 Explicitness of consequence information in warnings Safety Science 16 597 614 12 NK 2001 WAT 37 Supp 236 237 13 Wogalter M S Dejoy D M and Laug hery K R 1999 Organizing Theoretical Framework A consolidated communication human informa
32. d obviousness had a great effect on accep tance and belief of the warning and intention to comply but that it had no ef fect on the perceived hazardousness or the perceived severity and likelihood of injury Acceptance of the warning was found to be the primary predictor of in tention to comply followed by belief of the warning cost to comply and the likelihood of injury Key Words Product Safety Consumer product warning Risk perception Perceived compliance measure Latent Hazard 1
33. tion processing C HIP model In M S Wogalter D M Dejoy and K R Laughery Eds Warnings and Communica tion Taylor amp Francis pp 15 23 14 Dejoy D M 1999 Attitudes and beliefs In M S Wogalter D M Dejoy and K R Laugh ery Eds Warnings and Communication Taylor amp Francis pp 189 219 15 Roger W A Lamson N and Rousseau G K 2000 Warning research An integrative perspective Human Factors 42 102 139 16 Young S L Wogalter M S and Brels 61 ford J W 1992 Relative contribution of likelihood and severity of injury to risk per of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting Santa ceptions In Proceedings Monica CA Human Factors Society pp 1014 1018 17 Wogalter M S and Desaulniers D R and Brelsfors J W 1987 Consumer products How are the hazards perceived In Procee dings of the Human Factors Society 3lst Annual Meeting Santa Monica CA Human Factors Society pp 615 619 18 Slovic P Fischhoff B and Lichtenstein S 1979 Rating the risks Environment 21 14 20 36 39
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search