Cited by 91Safety Warnings and SignageOccupational Health and Safety ResearchRisk Perception and Management

A Communication—Human Information Processing (C–HIP) approach to warning effectiveness in the workplace

Conzola, Vincent C., Wogalter, Michael S.·2001·Journal of Risk Research

Abstract

Warnings are one of several hazard control methods used to protect employees and property against danger and loss. This article surveys a set of factors known to influence the effectiveness of workplace warnings. The description of empirical research is organized around a communication–human information processing (C–HIP) model. The model begins with a source entity attempting to relay a warning message through one or more media/sensory channels to one or more receivers. At the receiver, processing begins when attention is switched to the warning message and then maintained while information is extracted. Processing continues through the successive stages of comprehension, beliefs and attitudes, motivation, and ends with compliance behaviour. Any of these stages can be a bottleneck that causes processing to stop, diminishing the effectiveness of the warning. The factors that are influential at each stage are described. The C–HIP model provides a structure to systematically examine factors that can cause risk communication to fail and for finding ways to improve risk communication in the workplace.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13669870110062712

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Participants recognized the visually impressive TCCs, but just being salient on the screen was not enough for some participants to change their choice behavior.

    “It was obvious that the participants recognized these visually impressive TCCs; however, the results suggested that just being salient on the screen was not enough for some of the participants to change their choice behavior [31, 40].”

    From Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration (2020) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conzola, V. C., & Wogalter, M. S.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Risk Research
Published
2001-10
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
309-322
ISSN
  • 1366-9877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-4461
OpenAlex
W2160303144
Cited by
91
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Risk Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Safety Warnings and Signage
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Occupational Health and Safety Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
warning effectiveness, risk communication, hazard control, attention, message comprehension, motivation, compliance behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review