How can Warnings be More Effective? Evidence from Chinese-English Differences in Self-relevance

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230602

Abstract

Abstract:

Warning refers to a notice or suggestion that reminds and warns others to pay attention to safety and to follow the rules. It is essentially a speech act. Many factors affecting the effectiveness of warnings have been investigated. However, no research has yet examined the influence of language and self-relevance on warnings. Thus, this study chose alertness, pleasure, and compliance as indicators, and conducted two experiments with text modal and image-text modal warnings to investigate the influence of language and self-relevance on the effectiveness of warnings.

In Experiment 1, 30 college students were recruited, and text modal warnings were used as stimuli in a 2 (language: Chinese vs. English) × 2 (self-relevance: high vs. low) within-subjects design, with participants’ scores of alertness, pleasure, and compliance of warnings as the dependent variables. E-Prime 2.0 was applied to compile experimental programs and record experimental data. During the experiment, the stimuli were presented on a 25-inch desktop computer with a screen resolution of 1920×1080 pixels. The screen background was black, and the font color of materials was white. Materials were presented in the center of the screen in 48pt Songti. Participants were required to complete a 7-point rating of alertness, pleasure, and compliance to the warnings. The results of the experiment showed that, for warnings with high self-relevance, there were no differences in the alertness, pleasure, and compliance scores of warnings in Chinese or English (alertness: F(1, 29) = 3.13, p > .05; pleasure: F(1, 29) = 2.41, p > .05; compliance: F(1, 29) = 1.47, p > .05), while for the warnings with low self-relevance, the alertness and compliance scores of warnings in Chinese were higher than those of in English (alertness: F(1, 29) = 15.50, p < .01,η_p² = .35; compliance: F(1, 29) = 26.87, p < .01, η_p² = .48), and the score of pleasure is lower than that of in English ( F(1, 29) = 4.51, p < .05, η_p² = .13).

Experiment 2 also recruited 30 college students. Image-text modal warnings were used as stimuli. The graphic signs corresponding to the text modal warnings in experiment 1 were selected. After Photoshop 20.0.2 software processing, the length and width of graphic signs were 634 and 475 pixels respectively. The screen background was black, and the font color of the text modal warnings was white. The text modal warnings were presented .5 cm below the graphic signs in 48pt Songti. The experimental design and experimental procedure were the same as Experiment 1. The results suggested that compared with low self-relevance warnings, warnings with high self-relevance had higher scores for alertness (F(1, 29) = 13.19, p < .01, η_p² = .31) and compliance (F(1, 29) = 5.22, p <.05, η_p² = .15), but not pleasure (F(1, 29) = 1.73, p > .05). In addition, there were no significant differences in alertness, pleasure, and compliance scores for image-text warnings in different language (alertness: F(1, 29) = 3.85, p = .06; pleasure: F(1, 29) = 1.23, p > .05; compliance: F(1, 29) = 3.51, p > .05).

The results of the two experiments indicated that self-relevance influences the cognitive processing of language on the effectiveness of text modal warnings. Moreover, image-text modal warnings are more effective than text modal warning.

Key words: warnings, bilingual, self-relevance, modal

摘要： 分别使用文字模态警示语和图文模态警示语探究语言 (中/英) 和自我相关性对警示语有效性的影响。发现文字模态下,低自我相关性警示语中文表达时的有效性优于英文表达时,高自我相关性警示语中、英表达对其有效性没有影响。图文模态下,无论自我相关性高低,中、英表达对警示语有效性都不存在影响。结果表明：(1)自我相关性影响语言 (中/英) 对文字模态警示语有效性的认知加工;(2)图文模态警示语的有效性加工优于文字模态警示语。

关键词: 警示语, 双语, 自我相关性, 模态

Li Yingxiang, Li Hongping, Chen Jun. How can Warnings be More Effective? Evidence from Chinese-English Differences in Self-relevance[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(6): 1290-1297.

李迎香, 李红苹, 陈俊. 警示如何更有效?来自自我相关性的中-英差异的证据 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(6): 1290-1297.

References

[1] 陈方敏. (2016). 现代汉语警示语研究 (硕士学位论文). 宁夏大学,银川.
[2] 陈俊, 李佳南. (2016). 汉-英双语者的情感启动: 二语熟练程度对非对称性的影响. 外语教学与研究, 48(3), 396-408, 479.
[3] 李勇忠. (2009). 认知语义激活与语言留白美学论——从汽车尾部十大经典警示语谈起. 西安外国语大学学报, 17(4), 10-13, 18.
[4] 刘儒德, 徐娟. (2006). 文本内容和图文顺序对图片理解的影响. 心理科学, 29(5), 1076-1080.
[5] 王晓洁. (2015). 产品手册中警告呈现特征对其加工过程影响的眼动研究 (硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.
[6] 吴雁. (2014). 解读英国警示牌多模态话语意义构建——以Newcastle Upon Tyne市警示牌为例. 江西教育学院学报(社会科学), 35(1), 104-108.
[7] 夏瑛. (2014). 例析常用警示性公示语的英语翻译. 科技视界, 31, 185-208.
[8] 张丽萍, 孙胜难, 周贤. (2016). 对话理论视角下多模态商品警示语的意义建构——烟盒警示语个案分析. 外语与外语教学, 4, 63-69.
[9] 张琪, 邓娜丽, 姜秀敏, 李卫君. (2020). 自我相关性影响情绪词汇加工的时间进程. 心理学报, 52(8), 946-957.
[10] 郑希付. (2004). 不同情绪模式图片的和词语刺激启动的时间效应. 心理学报, 36(5), 545-549.
[11] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. (2009). GB 2894-2008 安全标志及其使用导则. 中国标准出版社..
[12] Bayer M., Ruthmann K., & Schacht A. (2017). The impact of personal relevance on emotion processing: Evidence from event-related potentials and pupillary responses. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(9), 1470-1479.
[13] Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210-223.
[14] Carstens, A. (2002). Speech act theory in support of idealised warning models. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 20(4), 191-200.
[15] Cho Y. J., Thrasher J. F., Yong H. H., Szklo A. S., O'Connor R. J., Bansal-Travers M., & Borland R. (2018). Path analysis of warning label effects on negative emotions and quit attempts: A longitudinal study of smokers in Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the US. Social Science and Medicine, 197, 226-234.
[16] deTurck M. A., Goldhaber G. M., Richetto G. M., & Young M. J. (1992). Effects of fear-arousing warning messages. Journal of Products Liability, 14(2), 217-223.
[17] Erdfelder E., Faul F., & Buchner A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28(1), 1-11.
[18] Evans A. T., Peters E., Shoben A. B., Meilleur L. R., Klein E. G., Tompkins M. K., & Tusler M. (2017). Cigarette graphic warning labels are not created equal: They can increase or decrease smokers'quit intentions relative to text-only warnings. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 19(10), 1155-1162.
[19] Fields, E. C., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). It's all about you: An ERP study of emotion and self-relevance in discourse. NeuroImage, 62(1), 562-574.
[20] Gao S., Luo L. Z., & Gou T. (2020). Criticism in a foreign language hurts less. Cognition and Emotion, 34(4), 822-830.
[21] Harris C. L., Ayçiçeği A., & Gleason J. B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 561-579.
[22] Herbert C., Pauli P., & Herbert B. M. (2011). Self-reference modulates the processing of emotional stimuli in the absence of explicit self-referential appraisal instructions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(5), 653-661.
[23] Jin M. H., Ji L. L., & Peng H. M. (2019). The relationship between cognitive abilities and the decision-making process: The moderating role of self-relevance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1892.
[24] Keysar B., Hayakawa S. L., & An S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661-668.
[25] Kline P. B., Braun C. C., Peterson N., & Silver N. C. (1993). The impact of color on warnings research. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 37(14), 940-944.
[26] Laughery, K. R. (2006). Safety communications: Warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 467-478.
[27] Laughery, K. R., & Wogalter, M. S. (2006). Designing effective warnings. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2(1), 241-271.
[28] Ma, Y. N., & Han, S. H. (2010). Why we respond faster to the self than to others? An implicit positive association theory of self-advantage during implicit face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(3), 619-633.
[29] Magliano J. P., Millis K. K., The RSAT Development Team, Levinstein, I., & Boonthum C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 131-154.
[30] Palmiero M., Di Matteo R., & Belardinelli M. O. (2014). The representation of conceptual knowledge: Visual, auditory, and olfactory imagery compared with semantic processing. Cognitive Processing, 15(2), 143-157.
[31] Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405-428.
[32] Peters E., Evans A. T., Hemmerich N., & Berman M. (2016). Emotion in the law and the lab: The case of graphic cigarette warnings. Tobacco Regulatory Science, 2(4), 404-413.
[33] Popova L., Owusu D., Jenson D., & Neilands T. B. (2018). Factual text and emotional pictures: Overcoming a false dichotomy of cigarette warning labels. Tobacco Control, 27(3), 250-253.
[34] Powell T. E., Boomgaarden H. G., De Swert K., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 997-1017.
[35] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
[36] Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
[37] Stolte M., Humphreys G., Yankouskaya A., & Sui J. (2017). Dissociating biases towards the self and positive emotion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(6), 1011-1022.
[38] Sui, J., & Han, S. H. (2007). Self-construal priming modulates neural substrates of self-awareness. Psychological Science, 18(10), 861-866.
[39] Turk D. J., van Bussel K., Brebner J. L., Toma A. S., Krigolson O., & Handy T. C. (2011). When "it" becomes "mine": Attentional biases triggered by object ownership. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 3725-3733.
[40] Wogalter M. S., Conzola V. C., & Smith-Jackson T. L. (2002). Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 219-230.
[41] Wogalter, M. S., & Laughery, K. R. (1996). WARNING! Sign and label effectiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(2), 33-37.
[42] Wogalter M. S., & Vigilante W. J., Jr. (2003). Effects of label format on knowledge acquisition and perceived readability by younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 46(4), 327-344.
[43] Young, S. L., & Wogalter, M. S. (1990). Comprehension and memory of instruction manual warnings: Conspicuous print and pictorial icons. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 32(6), 637-649.