Why do people ignore warnings

Your Journey Frontline Professionals. Get Involved Become a Fundraiser. Get Involved Awareness Events. Get Involved Share Your Story.

Get Involved Partner with Us. Advocacy Advocate for Change. Advocacy Policy Priorities. Advocacy Policy Platform. Advocacy Crisis Intervention. Advocacy State Fact Sheets. Advocacy Public Policy Reports. Warning Signs and Symptoms. Know the warning signs Learn the common signs of mental illness in adults and adolescents.

Mental health conditions Learn more about common mental health conditions that affect millions. Second thoughts entered my mind but my overriding thought was that of getting to my son, so I gunned it and powered through like I had seen others in front of me do. I had a scary moment as a truck, coming the other way, kicked up a wake and I felt my car lift and shift sideways.

I successfully negotiated several other flooded sections before I got to school and found my little drowned rat! We just had to wait it out…… After a couple of hours we heard on the radio that someone had drowned after trying to drive across a flooded road — it was at the very same spot that I had first driven through at the start of my journey!

Within minutes there were 4 more drownings reported, again cars crossing flooded roads and also less than 10 minutes from where I live! It was alleged, but not yet proven, that the roads had been closed and warning signs had been posted.

We got home 6 hours later, I jumped online to get an update. So why do people ignore warnings, disregard warning signs and act in a way that some may consider stupid? I am a big proponent of Risk Homeostasis Theory.

This theory was proposed by Gerald Wilde in If they subjectively perceive that risks are lower than their target risk then they will take additional risks in order to reap the benefits and rewards from doing so. If the subjective perceptions of risk are higher than their target risk then they will behave more safely in order to avoid any subsequent losses.

Most of these judgements and risk perceptions take place unconsciously. Wilde says that warning signage can only make people behave more cautiously if they agree that their behaviour would probably be more risky if they had not seen the warning sign. Similarly, a warning sign can increase danger when it overstates the danger — meaning we take less precautions if our experience and subjective perception is that the danger is usually less than stated on the sign.

If there are other benefits of ignoring the sign like getting to home, school or work quicker and if we have seen others ignore them without consequence cross the flooded road — then guess what happens? Take a look at the sign in the photo on the left — what else but this behaviour would you expect?

We have all seen and been frustrated by road works signs that warn us to slow down but then we see no actual work taking place — what happens next time we see such a sign? However, the difference is important for understanding viewer perception. The viewer then must take both hazard and risk into account when making the cost-benefit analysis. Conversely, perception of small danger means low benefit and compliance will decrease. Finally, decision-making factors affect compliance.

Two people could make the same cost-benefit analysis, but one might ignore the warning and the other doesn't. People accept different danger levels, have different attitudes about their ability to control danger and are differentially affected by social and cultural norms. In sum, people who view a warnings use a mental model to perform a cost-benefit analysis. The three main process components are 1 cost of compliance, 2 perception of danger level and 3 personal and social and cultural decision-making factors.

All elements of the cost-benefit analysis are psychological. It is perceived risk, perceived hazard, perceived control and perceived norms that matter, not actual ones. This may be obvious, but is worth saying explicitly since many of the people who design warnings are engineers.

They are not so likely to consider mental models or psychological concepts. That's one reason that much of the warning research is so concerned with physical factors such as warning color, shape, etc and less with goals and motivation. What's Ahead Another page Warnings and Warning Labels discusses warnings from an information processing viewpoint, this article takes a higher-level look at how warnings affect behavior.

The remainder of this article discusses each of the three components. In the next section, I discuss factors affecting cost of compliance while the subsequent section examines perceived danger levels. First, some disclaimers.

The article will not discuss many important issues, such as warning conspicuity and comprehension. Obviously, people won't comply with a warning that they don't see and are less likely to comply with a warning that they don't fully understand. These issues are discussed in another article. Instead, this article focuses on compliance failures for warnings which are seen and understood but ignored. Factors Affecting Compliance 1.

Cost of Compliance Many studies have found that warning signs are more likely to be ineffective if the cost of compliance is high. Reducing compliance costs is a very effective way to increase safety, but it is necessary to understand where the viewer's costs arise. Recall that the viewer has a goal in mind when using a device or navigating an environment.

The costs relate to the ability to achieve the goal as quickly and as easily as possible. Compliance with a warning could cost viewer's goal attainment in several ways. First, the viewer's route to the goal is completely blocked. For example, the rate of diving accidents for in-ground pools is very high and "No Diving" signs are frequently ignored.

One reason is that the viewer is blocked from the goal of diving. With in-ground pools, there is usually a deep-end for diving, so at worst, the viewer need only walk around to the other end of the pool to achieve the goal.

If a sign says "No smoking" and there is no designated smoking area, then the viewer must decide whether to ignore the warning or to give up the smoking goal. If the goal is important, then there will be little compliance.

In this case, the warning strategy is to provide a substitute method for achieving the goal or a substitute goal. If someone with a peanut allergy wants to eat a candy bar with the warning that it contains nuts, then suggest another sweet that doesn't. Second, the viewer may have to spend mental effort to find an alternate strategy for reaching the goal. A "No trespassing" sign requires the viewer to plan a new route.

In this case, detour signs or maps of alternate routes will increase compliance by reducing mental time and effort required to find a new path. A designated smoking area will increase compliance with a "No Smoking" warning, but the area should be easily located by maps or signs.

Third, the new strategy may increase the effort needed to achieve the goal. Reducing this extra effort is undoubtedly a powerful method for gaining compliance.

For example, one study found that viewers were far more likely to comply with a warning to use safety gloves when the gloves were attached to the product. The cost finding a proper pair of gloves was drastically reduced, so the cost-benefit analysis swung toward compliance. No smoking compliance will be reduced if the designated area is far away or means passing through locked or secure doors and will be even smaller if it is located outside in the snow.

Lastly, merely reading and interpreting the warning increases the cost. Too much information may create an overload, causing the viewer to decide that it is easier just to ignore the warning. In some cases, warnings are buried deep within instructions or other information that would require extensive reading. Another growing trend, application of multiple warnings, also contributes to the overload.

The viewer must turn the bottle completely around to read all the warnings, which are irregularly affixed at different angles, with different colors and written in different fonts. It is a major task to read all the warnings and difficult to be sure that one hasn't been missed any amid the clutter. Small print, by itself, can significantly increase effort making reading more difficult and by causing eyestrain.

Each of the bottle's warning labels is the same size, but one contains only five words while another fits 16 words into the same space. This is especially annoying to baby boomers, who have suddenly found themselves forced to take glasses on and off for near and far vision.