An Experimental Investigation of Hazard Statement Compliance in Procedures Using Eye Tracking Technology: Should Task be Included in the C-HIP Model?

OBJECTIVE: Using eye tracking technology, this study sought to determine if differences in hazard statement (HS) compliance based on design elements are attributable to attention maintenance (AM). BACKGROUND: Recent empirical work has demonstrated counter-intuitive findings for HS designs embedded in procedures. Specifically, prevalent HS designs in procedures were associated with lower compliance. METHOD: The current study utilized eye tracking technology to determine whether participants are attending to HSs differently based on the inclusion or absence of visually distinct HS design elements typically used for consumer products. We used two different designs that previously yielded the largest gap in HS compliance. In a fully-crossed design, 33 participants completed four rounds of tasks using four procedures with embedded HSs. To assess AM, eye tracking was used to measure gaze and fixation duration. RESULTS: The results indicated there are differences in AM between the two designs. The HSs that included elements traditionally considered effective in the consumer products literature elicited lower fixation duration times, and were associated with lower compliance. However, AM did not mediate the design effect on compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The study results suggest the design of HSs are impacting individuals as early as the AM stage of the C-HIP model. The absence of HS design-AM-compliance mediation suggests other C-HIP elements more directly explain the HS design-compliance effects. APPLICATION: These results provide more evidence that the communication of Health, Environment, and Safety information in procedures may need to be different from those on consumer products, suggesting design efficacy may be task dependent.

Workers' Acceptance of Digital Procedures: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model.

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONSThere are increasing numbers of organizations that are implementing digital procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures). These efforts are often assumed to be a positive development but can be quite costly-both in terms of money and training for a digital rollout. As a result, organizations and practitioners may find themselves at risk for failure when implementing digital procedures. The results of the current study suggest that if workers perceive digital procedures as useful and easy to use, this perception translates into positive attitudes, which subsequently result in fewer deviations. Since acceptance is relatively easy to assess, practitioners can benefit from using these assessments prior to a digital transition/roll-out to both compare competing hardware and software applications, and to initiate and continuously monitor the development of digital procedures. We consider this approach as advantageous to having management develop a system and fully deploying digital procedures without any consideration of worker acceptance.

Background: There is increasing prevalence of digital procedures being introduced in the process safety industries. Presumably, this increase is due to a desire to take advantage of the technology afforded to workers that otherwise is not inherent to traditional paper-based procedures. A critical question that has not been addressed, though, is to what extent do workers accept this new technology in a new digital procedure rollout? Furthermore, does acceptance lead to procedure-related behavior, such as procedure deviations?Purpose: We used the technology acceptance model (TAM), which includes two dimensions of technology acceptance­perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU)­as the focal antecedent constructs. We hypothesized that these constructs would predict more proximal attitudes toward procedures, which in turn predict procedure deviations.Method: We used path analyses to test six study hypotheses developed from the TAM. Data were collected from 16 workers at a large, international chemical corporation that worked in logistics. Specific measures obtained were from multi-item, Likert-scale measures of the TAM-PU and PEU dimensions, utility and compliance attitudes toward procedures, and procedure deviation frequency.Results: Four of the six study hypotheses were supported. TAM-PU and TAM-PEU both significantly predicted (positively) utility attitudes toward procedures (71% variance explained), whereas only TAM-PU significantly predicted (positively) compliance attitudes toward procedures (63% variance explained). In turn, only compliance attitudes significantly predicted (negatively) how frequently workers deviated from procedures (27% variance explained).Conclusions: These results suggest that workers were generally accepting of the digital procedures and that worker perceptions of perceived usefulness perceptions likely have an indirect effect on procedure deviation frequency. We see this study as a novel contribution to the process safety and procedures research domain. Limitations and future research directions will be discussed.

The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation. BACKGROUND: Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures. METHOD: Two experimental studies-(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation-manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants' adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs. RESULTS: The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings. APPLICATION: The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures.