Abstract
AbstractMost research on warnings assumes a direct flow of information from the source directly to receivers. Reading a manufacturer's product label or manual are examples of directly received warnings. Some communications, however, involve one or more intervening entities (e.g., another person or organization) that serve to convey warning information to the ultimate receiver. With indirect warnings the information does not come directly from the source manufacturer but comes from another entity. The present research examined whether indirectly received warnings benefit compliance in the absence of directly relayed warnings. Participants performed a computer‐memory installation task, in which compliance to three (subtask) behaviors given in the complete instructions/warnings was measured. The effectiveness of indirect warnings was evident. Indirect warning compliance was nearly as high as (but not significantly different from) the direct warning. Implications for the design of hazard communication systems and for warnings in forensic investigations are discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
