Interpretation and misinterpretation of warning signage: perceptions of rockfalls in a naturalistic setting

The aim of the present study was to investigate the factors relating to non-adherence to warning signs about falling rocks from coastal cliff faces. Face-to-face interviews (n = 62) in a naturalistic setting (in the vicinity of a high-risk rockfall area) were conducted to investigate attention to and comprehension of warning signs, as well as beliefs relating to non-adherence of the signage. It was found that, while most participants could correctly identify the danger in the area and had noticed the warning signage, less than half of the participants could correctly interpret the signage. The perception of danger did not differ significantly between the participants who had, or had not, entered the high-risk zone. Differences in knowledge and beliefs between local residents and visitors to the area were identified. It was concluded that the warning signs did not provide enough detail for people to make informed decisions about safe behaviours. Comprehension of the signage may have been hampered by a lack of prior-knowledge of the particular risk, a failure to think carefully about the situation (i.e. low-effort processing), and the pictorial representation on the signs misleading the participants as to the true danger.