A Communication–Human Information Processing (C–HIP) approach to warning effectiveness in the workplace VINCENT C. CONZOLA* and MICHAEL S. WOGALTER Department of Psychology, 640 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7801, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 USA 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 inu- ence 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 compre- hension, beliefs and attitudes, motivation, and ends with compliance behaviour. Any of these stages can be a bottleneck that causes processing to stop, diminishing the effec- tiveness of the warning. The factors that are inuential 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 nding ways to improve risk communication in the work- place. KEY WORDS: warnings; safety; hazard control; risk perception; human information processing 1. Introduction Warnings in the workplace have three main purposes. First and foremost, they are a vehicle for communicating important safety or safety-related information to a target audience of employees, and in some cases, visitors. Second, they attempt to promote safe behaviour and reduce unsafe behaviour. For example, warnings might direct or remind people to use personal protective equipment such as safety glasses and hard hats. Third, warnings are ultimately intended to reduce or prevent health problems, workplace accidents, personal injury, and property damage. Workplaces vary tremendously depending on the nature of the work being performed – from athletic elds to doctor’s ofces to airplane cockpits. In this article, examples are focused on industrial workplace settings where hard goods are manufactured and distrib- uted. Nevertheless, the concepts discussed are pertinent to most types of workplaces. Journal of Risk Research 4 (4), 309–322 (2001) Journal of Risk Research ISSN 1366-9877 print/ISSN 1466–4461 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/1366987011006271 2 *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: conzola@us.ibm.com