Comparing Speech and Nonspeech Warnings

Judy Edworthy; Kathryn Walters; Elizabeth Hellier; Ben Weedon

doi:10.1177/154193120004402265

Comparing Speech and Nonspeech Warnings

Judy Edworthy^*, Kathryn Walters, Elizabeth Hellier, Ben Weedon

^*Corresponding author for this work

School of Psychology

City, University of London

Research output: Contribution to journal › Conference proceedings published in a journal › peer-review

Abstract

Free modulus magnitude estimation was used to assess the perceived urgency of speech and non-speech warnings. Three nonspeech warnings (Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3) and three speech warnings (‘Deadly’, ‘Warning’ and ‘Note’) were selected and three versions of each warning were generated which differed in their level of urgency. The results indicated that there was no significant difference overall between the two modes of warning. A main effect for priority was found, with higher priority warnings being rated as more urgent, and urgency within each warning had an overall significant effect. Priority and mode interacted, showing that the range of urgency ratings given to the nonspeech warnings was higher than for the speech warnings.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	746-749
Number of pages	0
Journal	Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Volume	44
Issue number	22
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004402265
Publication status	Published - Jul 2000

Access to Document

10.1177/154193120004402265

Cite this

@article{bbfcfd7c1bbc4a6290d8b39a3e2cead7,

title = "Comparing Speech and Nonspeech Warnings",

abstract = " Free modulus magnitude estimation was used to assess the perceived urgency of speech and non-speech warnings. Three nonspeech warnings (Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3) and three speech warnings ({\textquoteleft}Deadly{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Warning{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}Note{\textquoteright}) were selected and three versions of each warning were generated which differed in their level of urgency. The results indicated that there was no significant difference overall between the two modes of warning. A main effect for priority was found, with higher priority warnings being rated as more urgent, and urgency within each warning had an overall significant effect. Priority and mode interacted, showing that the range of urgency ratings given to the nonspeech warnings was higher than for the speech warnings. ",

author = "Judy Edworthy and Kathryn Walters and Elizabeth Hellier and Ben Weedon",

year = "2000",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1177/154193120004402265",

language = "English",

volume = "44",

pages = "746--749",

journal = "Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting",

issn = "2169-5067",

number = "22",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Speech and Nonspeech Warnings

AU - Edworthy, Judy

AU - Walters, Kathryn

AU - Hellier, Elizabeth

AU - Weedon, Ben

PY - 2000/7

Y1 - 2000/7

N2 - Free modulus magnitude estimation was used to assess the perceived urgency of speech and non-speech warnings. Three nonspeech warnings (Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3) and three speech warnings (‘Deadly’, ‘Warning’ and ‘Note’) were selected and three versions of each warning were generated which differed in their level of urgency. The results indicated that there was no significant difference overall between the two modes of warning. A main effect for priority was found, with higher priority warnings being rated as more urgent, and urgency within each warning had an overall significant effect. Priority and mode interacted, showing that the range of urgency ratings given to the nonspeech warnings was higher than for the speech warnings.

AB - Free modulus magnitude estimation was used to assess the perceived urgency of speech and non-speech warnings. Three nonspeech warnings (Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3) and three speech warnings (‘Deadly’, ‘Warning’ and ‘Note’) were selected and three versions of each warning were generated which differed in their level of urgency. The results indicated that there was no significant difference overall between the two modes of warning. A main effect for priority was found, with higher priority warnings being rated as more urgent, and urgency within each warning had an overall significant effect. Priority and mode interacted, showing that the range of urgency ratings given to the nonspeech warnings was higher than for the speech warnings.

U2 - 10.1177/154193120004402265

DO - 10.1177/154193120004402265

M3 - Conference proceedings published in a journal

SN - 2169-5067

VL - 44

SP - 746

EP - 749

JO - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

JF - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

IS - 22

ER -