在人們日常生活中，藉由圖像符號替代語言或文字來傳遞訊息，已是普遍的溝通工具之一。如何使得「圖像」能發揮更好的效用，始終是研究者關注的議題。然而過去大多數的研究，多針對單一且獨立的單位圖像探討，卻忽略了現實生活中，警告圖像經常以多個數量的方式呈現。因此在同時判讀的條件下，對於識認效用會產生什麼差異與影響，仍尚待釐清，更是值得重視的研究課題。
本研究之目的，即在探討警告圖像在多量設置的條件下，人們普遍的識認能力，以及影響判讀效用的因素。進而藉此為基礎，討論較合宜設置數量下，圖像之間的組態模式以及圖像自身的「圖像格式」與「背景訊息」，對識認效用的影響，並綜合提出多量警告圖像識認效用的設置建議。
本研究分為三個階段，各藉由「正確率」、「判讀時間」以及「難易程度」來評估多量警告圖像在不同條件下的識認表現。在研究一中，以12個電扶梯警告圖像為刺激物，針對熟悉程度「高」「低」兩組進行量測，比較受測者差異與識認程度。研究二則探討多量圖像之間的組態模式，實驗以4個電扶梯警告訊息，制定「並置」、「組合」及「合併」3款刺激物，亦針對熟悉程度「高」「低」兩組受測者進行量測，比較變項之差異。而研究三為評估多量圖像本身在圖像格式與背景訊息對識認的影響，實驗以4個電扶梯警告訊息為基礎，依據ISO與Extend等兩種格式，分別制定「完整」、「部分」及「無」等三個背景訊息程度，共計6款刺激物，分析變項之交互作用及比較其差異。
綜合上述各階段研究之實驗結果，彙整結論如下：
1.人們同時判讀多量警告圖像時，會降低正確率的表現，因此，警告圖像最好以個別呈現較佳。若設置條件受到限制，需要以多個圖像呈現時，建議設置數量約在4個左右，較為合宜。
2.熟悉程度會影響多量警告圖像識認的有效性。在過量或合宜的設置數量下，高熟悉者的「正確率」表現均優於低熟悉者，同時在「難易程度」的心理感受上，高熟悉者均較低熟悉者為容易。在「判讀時間」的績效表現上，合宜的設置數量下，高熟悉者亦較低熟悉者「判讀時間」較快，唯當過量設置時，過多的資訊負荷會導致兩組的差異並不明顯。
3.在合宜的設置數量下，訊息複合的組態模式（例如「合併」），相較普遍使用的「並置」方式，有可能達成更高的識認正確率，同時因資訊量較低，使得判讀所需時間較短，具有更好的識認效率。
4.複合訊息的組態模式，提供多量警告圖像設置值得參考的方式，但同時也潛藏著訊息遺漏或誤解的可能，設計上需要更為謹慎地考量合適性與可行性，確實掌握結合訊息語意間的關係，避免訊息間的混淆及干擾。
5.當受測者已知警告標示設置環境時，圖像之背景訊息提供程度，對於識認正確率的影響較不明顯。然而標示中圖像之間，背景訊息程度的一致性相當重要，否則容易造成判讀的困擾，導致識認效用降低。
6.實驗結果顯示，ISO格式使用環繞形狀與色彩，會使得受測者無法立即瞭解，導致識認效用不佳；相較Extend格式使用紅色「圈」「叉」標示重點行為，使得識認效用提昇。整體而言，Extend格式較ISO格式的正確率較高，判讀時間較短，且難易程度的內心感受較為容易，值得多量警告圖像設置的參考。

In daily life, graphic symbols used as an alternative to language or text in the conveyance of messages have become common communication tools. How to enable “graphic symbols” to achieve better efficiency has always been the issue of concern for researchers. However, most studies of graphic warning symbols explored single and independent units, and overlooked the fact that graphic warning symbols are presented in multiples in real life. Hence, under the condition that identifications are made at the simultaneous, what differences and impacts they may have on recognition efficiency are yet to be clarified, thus making the topic a noteworthy research issue.
The purpose of this study is to explore general recognition ability under the condition of multiple graphic warning symbol-setting and the factors contributing to identification efficiency. This shall serve as the basis for discussing the impact of the configuration mode between graphic symbols and the graphic symbols’ own “symbol format” and “context” on recognition efficiency under an appropriate quantity setting. In the process, design recommendations will be set for multiple graphic warning symbol recognition efficiency.
This study is conducted in three phases. The performance of the multiple graphic warning symbols under different conditions was assessed through an “accuracy ratio”, “identification time” and “difficulty level.” In the first study, a total of 12 escalator warning symbols were adopted as the stimulants. The two groups of “high” and “low” degree of familiarity were measured to compare the participants’ differences and degrees of recognition. In the second study, the configuration modes among the multiple graphic symbols were explored. In the experiment, 4 escalator warning symbols were adopted and 3 stimulants, namely, “no-combined”, “low-combined”, and “high-combined” were set. In addition, the two groups of “high” and “low” degree of familiarity were measured to compare the differences of the variables. In the third study, the impact of the multiple graphic symbols’ own graphic symbol format and context on recognition was assessed. In the experiment, 4 escalator warning messages were adopted as the basis. Based on the two formats of ISO and Extend, three context levels, i.e., “full”, “partial”, and “no” were set. A total of 6 stimulants were used to analyze the interactions among the variables and compare the differences.
In view of the experimental results from the above-mentioned phases of the study, the conclusions drawn are discussed as follows:
1.When people identified multiple graphic warning symbols at the same time, the performance of accuracy ratios were diminished. Therefore, the graphic warning symbols were best presented individually. In case of limitations in the setting conditions and when there is a need to present multiple graphic symbols, it is suggested that setting approximately 4 symbols might be better.
2.The degree of familiarity affects recognition of multiple graphic warning symbol samples. With excessive or appropriate numbers set, those with a high degree of familiarity performed better in the “accuracy ratio” compared to those with a low degree of familiarity. At the simultaneous, in terms of the psychological perceptions of “difficulty level”, those with a high degree of familiarity found it easier than those with a low degree of familiarity. As for the performance of “identification time”, under the appropriate numbers set, those with a high degree of familiarity had faster “identification time” compared to those with a low degree of familiarity. However, when excessive numbers were set, the information could be overloaded that resulted in the differences between the two groups was not obvious.
3.Under the appropriate numbers set, the configuration mode of the combined information was more likely to achieve higher recognition accuracy ratios when compared to the more commonly used “no-combined” method. Simultaneous, as the information load is lower, the time required for identification is shorter as well, thus the better recognition efficiency.
4.The combined message configuration mode provides ways to set multiple graphic warning symbols with a referential value. However, there is also the potential possibility of message omissions or misunderstandings. Therefore the appropriateness and feasibility should be more carefully considered during design process in order to properly grasp the relationship between the combined message semantics and to avoid confusion and interferences between messages.
5.When the participants knew about the warning symbol set-up environment, the degree in which the context of the graphic symbols are provided had a less obvious impact on the accuracy ratio of recognition. However, it is important to achieve consistency in terms of the degree of context between the labeled graphic symbols, or it is likely to cause distress during identification, which leads to reduced recognition efficiency.
6.The experimental results show that the ISO format that used surround shapes and colors disabled the participants from immediately understanding it, thus the undesirable recognition efficiency. Comparatively, the Extend format used red “circles” and “xs” to mark pointers, which enhanced the recognition efficiency. Overall, the Extend format had a higher accuracy ratio than the ISO format, and the identification time was relatively shorter. On top of it, the degree of difficulty was more easily perceived, thus making it a noteworthy reference when setting up multiple graphic warning symbols.

王受之（2000），世界平面設計，台北：藝術家。
林榮泰（1991），從圖像語意探討人機介面圖像的設計。技術學刊，6（2），195-202。
林榮泰、莊明振（1991），從圖像語意探討人機介面圖像的設計。工業設計，20 (2)，85-91。
邱炯友（2000），數位化時代的出版：文字與圖形檔案格式探析。研考雙月刊，24（3），13-24。
松田行正（2007），ZERRO－世界記號大全（黃碧君譯），台北：大雁。（原作2003年出版）
孫全文、陳其彭（1989），建築與記號。台北市：明文書局。
郭明堂（2004），營建業勞工對安全標示之認知研究（嘉南藥理科技大學專題研究計畫成果報告，CNIS92-05）。台南：嘉南藥理科技大學。
許子凡、林品章（2008），認知風格對不同資訊量的判讀效率與模式特徵：以AIGA圖形符號為例。設計學研究，11(2)，87-105。
許子凡（2010），圖形符號的資訊負載及其判讀績效研究，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所博士論文，台北。
陳建雄（2006），互動設計：跨越人－電腦互動，台北：全華。
張一岑（2004），人因工程學。台北：揚智。
葉懿心、李淙柏（2004），1936~2004年奧運運動圖像符號之風格研究。商業設計學報，8，313-330。
羅凱、楊小青、林品章（2010），市售商品包裝警告圖像之識認性調查與分析。設計學研究，13（2），19-40。
Abdullah, R., & Hubner, R. (2006), Pictograms, Icons & Signs. New York: Thames & Hudson.
ANSI (1991a). Environmental and Facility Safety Signs. Z535.2. Washington, DC: NEMA
ANSI (1991b). Produce Safety Signs and Labels. Z535.4. Washington, 6 DC: NEMA
ANSI (1991c). Z535.1-5, Accredited Standard on Safety Colors, Signs, Symbols, Labels, and Tags. Washington, 6 DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
ANSI (1998). Z535.1-5 (revised), Accredited Standard on Safety Colors, Signs, Symbols, Labels, and Tags. Washington, 6 DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
ANSI (2002). Standard for criteria for safety symbol. ANSI Z535.3:2002(E) New York: America National Standards Institute.
ANSI (2004). Standard for product safety signs and symbols. ANSI Z535.4:2004(E) New York: America National Standards Institute.
ASME. (2010). A17.1-2010/CSA B44-2010. Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Bengtsson, K., & Nystrom, M. (2003), Symbol Support. Institutionen for Designvetenskaper. Lunds Universitet.
Biggs, S. F., Bedard, J. C., Gaber, B. G., & Linsmeier, T. J. (1985). The effects of task size and similarity on the decision behavior of bank loan offices. Management Science, 31: 970-987.
Brugger, C. (1999). Public information symbols: A comparison of ISO testing procedures. In H. J. G. Zwaga, T. Boersema, H.C.M. Hoonhout(Eds.), Visual information for everyday use: Design and research perspectives (pp.305-313). London: Taylor & Francis.
Burnett, T. J., Purswelj, J. L., Purswell, J. P., & Krenek, R. F (1998). Hot water burn hazards: Warning label influence on user temperature adjustment. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2, 145—157.
Cairney, P., & Sless, D. (1982). Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13(2): 91-97.
Chan, A. H., Han, S. H., Ng, A. WY., & Park, W. (2009). "Hong Kong Chinese and Korean comprehension of American security safety symbols. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 39(5), 835-850.
Cahill, M. C. (1975). Interpretability of graphic symbols as function of context and experience factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 376-380.
Collins, B. L., Lerner, N. D., & Pierman, B. C. (1982). Symbols for industrial safety (Technical Report NBSIE 82-2485). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (1), 87-114.
Deppa, S. W. (2006). “U.S. and international standards for safety symbols” The Handbook of Warning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. 477-486.
Dewar, R. E.(1999). Design and evaluation of public information symbols. In: Zwaga, H.J.G., Boersma, T., Hoonhout, H.C.M.(Eds.), Visual Information for Everyday Use: Design and Research Perspectives. Taylor and Francis, London, 111–117.
Dreyfuss, H. (1984), Symbol Sourcebook. Canada: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Duffy, R. R., Kalsher, M. J., & Wogalter, M. S. (1993). The effectiveness of an interactive warning in a realistic product-use situation. In Proceeding of Human Factor Society 37th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, pp.935-939.
Duffy, R. R., Kalsher, M. J., & Wogalter, M. S. (1995). Increased effectiveness of interactive warning in realistic incidental product-use situation. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 159-166.
Earth Language. (2008). “Earth Language in Brief”, Retrieved June 25, 2008, from: http://earthlanguage.org/english/ehome.htm
Eastman, J. R. (1985). Cognitive Models and Cartographic Design Research, Cartographic Journal, 22(2):95-101.
Easterby, R. S., & Hakiel, S. R. (1977). Safety labeling and consumer products: Field studies of sign recognition. (AP Report 76). Birmingham, England: Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston.
Easterby, R. S., & Hakiel, S. R. (1981). Field testing of consumer safety sign: The comprehension of pictorially presented messages. Applied Ergonomics, 12(3), 143-152.
Easterby, R. S., & Zwaga, H. J. G. (1981). Evaluation of public information symbols, ISO test: 1975 Series. AP report No. 60, March.
FMC Corporation (1985). Product safety sign and label system. Santa Clara, CA: Author.
FOMS. (2009). いのちを守るデザイン　コミュニケーションデザイン(1)，東京：遊子館。
Foster, J. J. (1990). Standardizing Public Information Symbols: Proposals for a Simpler Procedure. Information Design Journal, 6(2), 161-168.
Foster, J. J. (1991). Proposed revised method for testing public information symbols, ISO TC145/SCI Document N 220.
Frantz, J. P., Rhoades, T. P., & Lehto, M. R. (1999). “Practical considerations regarding the design and evaluation of product warnings.” Warning and risk communication. Landon: Taylor & Francis. 291-311.
Godfrey, S. S., Allender, L., Laughery, K. R., & Smith, V. L. (1983). Warning messages: Will the consumer bother to look? In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 950—954). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Godfrey, S. S., & Laughery, K. R. (1993). The biasing effects of product familiarity on consumers’ awareness of hazard. In Human Factors perspectives on warnings. Santa Monica, CA: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58-61.
Green, P., (1979). Development of pictograph symbols for vehicle controls and displays. SAE 790383, Warrendale; PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Haynes, R. M. (1980). Geographical Images and Mental Maps, Macmillan Education.
Horton, W. K. (1994). The icon book: visual symbols for computer systems and documentation. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ins.
Hsu, T. F., & Lin, P. C. (2010). A study on the recognition performances of graphic symbols based on information load and combination mode. Visual Communication Journal. 46(2), pp.5-14.
ISO (1984). Development and principles for application of public information symbols ISO/TR 7239:1984 (E). International Organizations for Standardization
ISO (1988). General Principle for the Creation of Graphic Symbols. ISO3461-1 (E). International Organizations for Standardization
ISO (1990). Public Information Symbols 7001 (TC 145/SC 1). International Organizations for Standardization
ISO (2002). Graphic Symbols – Safety colours and signs – Part 1: Design principles for safety signs in workplaces and public areas. 3864-1:2002(E). International Organizations for Standardization.
ISO (2003a). Graphical symbols – Safety Colours and Safety Signs. International Standard. 3864-2003 (E). International Organizations for Standardization.
ISO (2003b). Graphical symbols – Safety Colours and Safety Signs – Safety Signs Used in Workplaces and Public Area.7010-2003(E). International Organizations for Standardization.
ISO (2004a). Graphic Symbols – Safety colours and signs – Part 2: Design principles for safety labels. 3864-2:2004(E). International Organizations for Standardization.
ISO (2004b). Graphic Symbols – Safety colours and signs – Part 2: Design principles for safety labels. 3864-3:2004(E). International Organizations for Standardization.
ISO (2007). Graphic Symbols – Test methods – Part 1: Methods for testing comprehensibility. 9186-1:2007(E). International Organizations for Standardization.
Jaynes, L. S., & Boles, D. B. (1990). The effect of symbols on warning compliance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 984-978
Karnes, E. W. Leonard, S.D.. & Rachwal, G. (1986). Effects of benign experiences on the perception of risk, in Proceeding of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting (pp. 121—125), Santa Monica. CA: 1-luman Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Katov, M., N. Nomura & Ito, K. (2003). The visual information load as a parameter for designing pleasurable environment, International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces on Pittsburgh, PA.
Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in courseware design. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988; 401-434.
Krampen, M. (1983). Icons of the road. Semiotica, 43(1&2), 1–204.
Laughery, K. R. (2006). Safety communications: Warnings. Applied Ergonomics. 37, 467–478.
Leonard, S. D. (1994). How well are warning symbols recognized? In Proceeding of the 12th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 4. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Human Factors Association of Canada, pp. 349-350.
Lerner, N. D., & Collins, B. L. (1980). The assessment of safety symbol understandability by different testing methods. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.
Lovvoll, D. R., Otani, H., Wogalter, M. S. (1999). “Comprehension and Memory.” Warning and risk communication. Landon: Taylor & Francis. 149-187.
Lesch, M. F. (2003). Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: Age-related differences and impact of training. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 495– 505.
Lesch, M. F., Rau, P. L. P., Zhao, Z., & Liu, C. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived hazard in response to warning components and configurations: US vs. China. Applied Ergonomics. 40(5), 953-961.
Lesch, M. F. (2008). A comparison of two training methods for improving warning symbol comprehension. Applied Ergonomics, 39:135-143.
Lin, T. J., & Biggs, M. A. R. (2006), “A preliminary study of learnable pictogram languages”, Design Research Society. International Conference in Lisbon. IADE.
Lin, P. C., Chen, C. H., & Lo, K. (2013). Effects of user’s simultaneous recognition and identification of multiple graphic warning symbols. The Science of design. 60(2), 57-66.
Liu, Y. (2007). Ost trifft west. Germany: Schmidt Hermann Verlag.
Luck, S.J., & Vogel, E.K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390: 279–281.
Marcus, A. (2003). “Icons, Symbols, and Signs: Visible Languages to Facilitate Communication”, Interaction, 10 (3), 37-43.
Meggs, P. B. (2006). A History of Graphic Design (4th ed). Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, Plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, DC.
Modley, R. (1976). Handbook of Pictorial Symbols. New York: Dover Publication, Inc.
Neurath, M. (1974). “ISOTYPE”, Instructural Science 3, 127-150.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. United Kingdom edition publish by Academic press-LTD, 26、224.
Ota, Y. (1993). Pictogram Design. Japan: Kashiwa Bijutsu Shuppan.
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 (pp. 536—540). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Pangaea. (2008). “What is Pangaea”, Retrieved June 15, 2008, from: http://www.pangaean.org/web/english/general/generaltop_en.html
Pass, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4):429-434.
Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6:51-71.
Purswell, J.L., Krenek, R.F., & Dorris, A. (1987). Warning effectiveness: what do we know? In Proceeding of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1116-1120.
Rathgeb, M. (2006), Otl Aicher. New York: Phaidon Press Limited.
Rieber, L. P. (1995). “A historical review of visualization in human cognition.” Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D), 43(1), 45-56.
Roberts, K.M., Lareau, E. W. & Welch, D. (1977). Perceptual Factors and Meaning of Symbolic Information Elements, 2. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, Technical Report No.FHWA-RD-77-65.
Roger, W. A., Lamson, N. & Rousseau, G. K. (2000). Warning research; An integrative perspective. Human Factors, 42(1):102-139.
Rudin, K. (2001). “The Practical Application of Pictogram”, Swedish: Swedish Institute for Special Needs Education.
Salasoo, A. (1990). Towards usable icon sets: A case study from telecommunications engineering, In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 203-207.
Saunders, A. C. (1994). “Graphics and how they communicate.” In: Dwyer FM, Moore DM (eds) Visual literacy: a spectrum of visual learning. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 183–192.
Silver, N. C., Wogalter, M. S., Brewster, B., Glover, B. L., Murray, L. A., Tillotson, C. A., & Temple, T. L. (1995). Comprehension and perceived quality of warning pictorials. In Proceeding of the Human Factor and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1057-1061.
Simon, H. A.(1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482-488.
Sjoqvist, D. (2000). The creation of symbols for road vehicles, especially for heavy trucks. In Ergonomics, work station, and driver issues (Society of Automotive Engineers, (Publication No. SP-1570, pp.65-73). Hitchin, Herfordshire, UK American Technological Publishers.
Smith-Jackson, T. L. & Wogalter, M. S. (2006). “Methods and procedures in warning research.” The Handbook of Warnings. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 23-33.
Smitshuijzen, E. (2007). Signage Design Manual. Switzerland: Lars Muller Publishers.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4: 295-312.
The Elephants Memory. (2008). “The Elephants Memory”, Retrieved June 25, 2008, from: http://www.intellectbooks.com/iconic/ELE_MEM/memory.htm
Tso, T. Y., Lu, F.L., Tzeng, S.C., Wu, H.M., Chen, M.J., & Tan, N.C. (2011). Impact of reducing task complexity by segmentation on experts’ and comprehension of novices’ reading geometric proof problems. Educational Psychology, 43(special issue on reading):291-314.
Vogel, E. K. & Machizawa, M. G. (2004). Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature, 428:784-751.
Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27:92-114.
Webb, J. M., Sorenson, P. F., and Lyons, N. P. (1989). An empirical approach to the evaluation of icons, SIGCHI Bulletin, 21(1): 87-90.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation. (1981). Westinghouse product safety label handbook. Trafford, PA: Author.
Weyman, A. K. (2006). “An overview of the principal U.K. systems for safety warnings and signage.” The Handbook of Warning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. 565-580.
Wikipedia (2008). “ASCII art”, Retrieved June 25, 2008, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_art
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (2006). Comparing Sign Language and Speech Reveals a Universal Limit on Short-Term Memory Capacity. Psychological Science, 17(8):682-683.
Wogalter, M. S., Barlow, T., & Murphy, S. A. (1995). Compliance to owner’s manual warnings: Influence of familiarity and the placement of a supplemental directive. Ergonomic, 38, 1081—1091.
Wogalter, M. S., Brelsford, J. W., Desaulniers, D. R., & Laughery, K. R. (1991). Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception. Journal of Safety Research, 22(2): 71-82.
Wogalter, M. S., Conzola, V. C., & Smith-Jackson. (2002). Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33:219-230.
Wogalter, M.S., Dejoy, D.M., & Laughery, K.R. (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. Taylor & Francis, London.
Wogalter, M. S., Kalsher, M. J., Frederick, L. J., Magurno, A. B., & Brewster, B. M. (1998). Hazard level perception of warning components and configurations. International Journal of cognitive ergonomics. 2(1-2) 123-143.
Wogalter, M. S., Racicot, B. M., Kalsher, M. J., & Simpson, S. N. (1993). Behavioral compliance to personalized warning signs and the role of perceived relevance. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 37th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, pp.950-954.
Wogalter M. S. & Silver, N. C. (1995). Warning signal words: Connoted strength and understandability by children, elders, and non-native English speakers. Ergonomics, 38, 2188-2206.
Wogalter, M. S., Silver, N. C., Leonard, S. D., & Zaikina, H. (2006). “Warning Symbols.” The Handbook of Warning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. 159-176.
Wogalter, M. S., & Young, S. L. (1994). Enhancing warning compliance through alternative product labels design. Applied Ergonomics, 25, 53-57.
Wolff, J. S., & Wogalter, M. S. (1993). Test and development of pharmaceutical pictorials. In Proceedings of Interface ’93 ( pp. 187 – 192). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Wolff, J. S., & Wogalter, M. S. (1998). Comprehension of pictorial symbols: Effects of context and test method. Human Factors, 40, 173-186.
Young, S. L. & Lovvoll, D. R. (1999). “Intermediate processing stages: methodological considerations for research on warnings.” Warning and risk communication. Landon: Taylor & Francis. 27-52.
Young, S. L. & Wogalter, M. S. (1990). Comprehension and Memory of Instruction Manual Warnings: Conspicuous Print and Pictorial Icons. Human Factors, 32(6), 637-649.
Zwaga, H. J. G., & Easterby, R. S. (1984). Developing effective symbols for public information. Information Design (pp.277-297). New York: John Wiley and sons.
Zwaga, H. J., & Boersema, T. (1983). Evaluation of a set of graphic symbols. Applied Ergonomics, 14, 43-54.
Zwaga, H. J. (1989). Comprehensibility estimates of public information symbols: Their validity and use. In Proceeding of Human Factors Society 33rd Ann