Comprehensibility of Newly Introduced Water-sport Prohibitive Signs in Korea by Koreans and Westerners Kim, Woojoo; Siswandari, Yohana; Xiong, Shuping;
Objective: The goal of this study is to evaluate the comprehensibility of the newly introduced water-sport prohibitive signs by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE, later merged into the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy) among Koreans and westerners, and to check whether the comprehensibility is affected by cultural differences. Background: The Ministry of Knowledge Economy had newly introduced fourteen water-sport prohibitive signs at the end of 2011 to alert people to potentially dangerous situations. However, no studies had been found so far to review or assess their comprehensibility. Method: Comprehensibility tests of fourteen water-sport prohibitive signs were conducted with forty Koreans and forty Westerners in two sequential sessions. In session I, participants were asked to guess the meaning of each sign verbally in an open-ended test. In session II, participants were encouraged to provide feedback for each sign after its intended meaning was given. Results: Only two out of fourteen signs satisfied the comprehension rate (67%) recommended by ISO standard for both groups (Koreans and Westerners). Cultural difference between Koreans and westerners significantly affect the comprehension rates of the investigated signs, and Westerners exhibit better overall comprehension than Koreans. Five poorly comprehended signs for both Korean and Western groups were identified. Conclusion: The recently introduced water-sport prohibitive warning signs by MKE still need a lot of improvements in order to be implemented nationally or internationally. There were significant differences in the signs` comprehensibility between Koreans and westerners. Application: The findings may serve as a useful input for researchers and watersport sign designers in creating easy-to-comprehend safety signs.
Al-Madani, H. and Al-Jahani, A.R., Assessment of drivers' comprehension of traffic signs based on their traffic, personal and social characteristics. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5(1), 63-76, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00006-2
Ben-Bassat, T. and Shinar, D., Ergonomics guidelines for traffic sign design increase sign comprehension. Human Factors, 48(1), 182-195, 2006. doi: 10.1518/001872006776412298
Cairney, P. and Sless, D., Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13, 91-96, 1982. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(82)90185-5
Dewar, R.E., Design and evaluation of graphic symbols. In Proceedings of Public Graphics. Utrecht, Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Department of Psychonomics, 1994.
Falk, C.F., Heine, S.J., Yuki, M. and Takemura, K., Why do Westerners self-enhance more than East Asians? European Journal of Personality, 23, 183-209, 2009. doi: 10.1002/per.715
Galdo, E.D., Internationalization and translation: some guidelines for the design of human-computer interfaces. In: Nielsen, J. (Ed.), Designing User Interfaces for International Use (pp. 1-10). New York: Elsevier, 1990.
Hancock, H.E., Rogers, W.A., Schroeder, D. and Fisk, A.D., Safety symbol comprehension: Effects of symbol type, familiarity, and age. Human Factors, 46(2), 183-195, 2004. doi: 10.1518/hfes.184.108.40.206344
ISO 9186-1., Graphical symbols-test methods- part 1: methods for testing comprehensibility. Geneva: International Standards Organization (ISO), 2007.
Kim, A.E., Global migration and South Korea: foreign workers, foreign brides and making of a multicultural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 70-92, 2009. doi: 10.1080/01419870802044197
Kim, D.H., Lee, J.W., Park, Y.W. and Lim, H.K., A questionnaire survey on utilization and improvement guides for safety signs in industrial fields. Journal of the KOSOS, 21(4), 119-126, 2006.
Lee, S., Dazkir, S.S., Paik, H.S. and Coskun, A., Comprehensibility of universal healthcare symbols for wayfinding in healthcare facilities. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 878-885, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.11.003
Lesch, M.F., Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: Age-related differences and impact of training. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 495-505, 2003. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.05.003
Liu, Y.C. and Ho, C.H., The effects of age on symbol comprehension in central rail hubs in Taiwan. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 1016-1025, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.02.004
Millar, P.R., Serbun, S.J., Vadalia, A. and Gutchess, A.H., Cross-cultural differences in memory specificity. Culture and Brain, 1(2-4), 138-157, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s40167-013-0011-3
Ng, A.W. and Chan, A.H., The guessability of traffic signs: effects of prospective-user factors and sign design features. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(6), 1245-1257, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.03.018
Ou, Y.K. and Yung, C.L., Effects of sign design features and training on comprehension of traffic signs in Taiwanese and Vietnamese user groups. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42, 1-7, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.009
Rogers, W.A., Lamson, N. and Rousseau, G.K., Warning research: An integrative perspective. Human Factors, 42(1), 102-139, 2000. doi: 10.1518/001872000779656624
Savani, K., Markus, H.R. and Conner, A.L., Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 861-876, 2008.
Shieh, K. and Huang, S., Factors affecting preference ratings of prohibitive symbols. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 581-587, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00078-4
Shinar, D., Dewar, R., Summala, H. and Zakowska, L., Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Ergonomics, 46 (15), 1549-1565, 2003. doi: 10.1080/0014013032000121615
Sims, B., Water safety signs and beach safety flags. The handbook of drowning, 204-214, 2006.
Wolff, J.S. and Wogalter, M.S., Comprehension of pictorial symbol: effects of context and test method. Human Factors, 40, 173- 186, 1998. doi: 10.1518/001872098779480433
Wu, S. and Keysar, B., Cultural effects on perspective taking. Psychological Science, 18, 600-606, 2007.