Influence of language style on semantic accessibility of work safety slogans

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.0767

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to maximize the publicity effect of work safety slogans, this paper studied the influence of language style on the semantic accessibility of work safety slogans. Firstly, the cognitive psychological process was analyzed, and the validity indicators (factors) of semantic accessibility such as understanding, acceptance and compliance were determined. The types (levels) of safety slogans were clarified based on the emotional priming effect, and a 3×4 (3-factor and 4-level) questionnaire was designed. Secondly, the variance (ANOVA) method was employed to explore the dimensionality differences of different language styles. Thirdly, the validity of semantic accessibility of work safety slogans with different language styles was calculated by weighting aggregation factor index values. The results show that the work safety slogans can be divided into 4 types according to the language style: serious type, emotional appeal type, humorous type and threatening type. The validity of semantic accessibility is defined as understanding, acceptance and compliance. There is no significant difference in the understanding of work safety slogans in different language styles. The serious and solemn work safety slogans have the highest acceptance, and the threatening and intimidating work safety slogans have the highest compliance. Overall, the threatening and intimidating work safety slogans have the higher validity of semantic accessibility.

Key words: language style, work safety slogan, semantic accessibility, variance analysis (ANOVA), independent weight method

JIN Lianghai, LIU Jia, ZHU Zhongrong, XIA Lu, ZHU Yifan. Influence of language style on semantic accessibility of work safety slogans[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 36-43.

Figures/Tables 9

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

Fig.2

References 23

[1]	AKHMAD S. A. R D. STEPHEN J P. Development of causal model of construction accident causation[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2001, 127(4):337-344. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:4(337)
[2]	HASLAM R A, HIDE S A, GIBB A G F, et al. Contributing factors in construction accidents[J]. Applied Ergonomics, 2005, 36:401-405. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2004.12.002 pmid: 15892935
[3]	王秉, 吴超. 安全标语的文化作用机理研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2016, 12(1): 50-55.
	WANG Bing, WU Chao. Research on construction principles of safety culture[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2016, 12(1): 50-55.
[4]	王秉, 吴超. 安全管理学视阈下的安全标语研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2015, 11(9): 138-143.
	WANG Bing, WU Chao. Research on safety slogan under the guidance of safety management[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(9): 138-143.
[5]	WILLIAM M D. An introduction to social psychology[M]. New York: Dover Publications, 2003: 23-24.
[6]	王秉, 姜威, 吴超. 心理学视阈下的安全标语研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(10): 9-15.
	WANG Bing, JIANG Wei, WU Chao. Research on safety slogan under guidance of psychology[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(10): 9-15.
[7]	廖斌, 冯海芹, 魏欣, 等. 扩散方式对安全标语有效性的影响及作用机制[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(4): 179-185. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.04.028
	LIAO Bin, FENG Haiqin, WEI Xin, et al. Influence and work mechanism of framing strategies on effectiveness of safety slogans[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(4): 179-185. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.04.028
[8]	王秉, 吴超. 安全标语有效性影响因子研究[J]. 广州大学学报:社会科学版, 2017, 16(10): 29-37.
	WANG Bing, WU Chao. Research on factors influencing the validity of safety slogan[J]. Journal of Guangzhou University:Social Science Edition, 2017, 16(10): 29-37.
[9]	李双蓉, 王卫华, 吴超. 安全心理学的核心原理研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(9): 8-13.
	LI Shuangrong, WANG Weihua, WU Chao. Research on core principles of safety psychology[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(9): 8-13.
[10]	祝克懿. 语言风格研究的理论渊源与功能衍化路径[J]. 当代修辞学, 2021(1): 59-71.
	ZHU Keyi. Theoretical origin and functional evolution path of language style research[J]. Contemporary Rhetoric, 2021(1): 59-71.
[11]	张梦, 潘莉, DOGAN G 景区规范类标识牌劝说效果研究:基于语言风格与颜色效价的匹配影响[J]. 旅游学刊, 2016, 31(3): 79-87.
	ZHANG Meng, PAN Li, DOGAN G. Persuasiveness of signboard messages in scenic spots: the impact of linguistic style and color valence[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2016, 31(3): 79-87.
[12]	刁薇, 胥遥山, 李永娟. 恐惧诉求对职业驾驶员安全驾驶态度和行为意向的影响[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(11): 36-41.
	DIAO Wei, XU Yaoshan, LI Yongjuan. Effect of fear appeal on professional drivers' attitude & intention to safe driving behaviors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(11): 36-41.
[13]	CAUBERGHE V, PELSMACKER P D, JANSSENS W, et al. Fear, threat and efficacy in threat appeals: message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2009, 41(2): 276-285. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2008.11.006
[14]	CAMPANELLA F, SHALLICE T. Refractoriness and the healthy brain: a behavioural study on semantic access[J]. Cognition, 2011, 118(3): 417-431. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.005 pmid: 21146162
[15]	ROCHELLE S N. Lexical access across talkers[J]. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2016, 31(6): 709-727. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1136745
[16]	李利, 莫雷, 王瑞明. 熟练中-英双语者三语词汇的语义通达[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(5): 523-530.
	LI Li, MO Lei, WANG Ruiming. Semantic access of proficient chinese-english bilinguals to a third language[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2008, 40(5): 523-530. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00523
[17]	边星, 晋良海, 陈雁高, 等. 施工作业人员佩戴安全帽行为意向研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(11): 43-48.
	BIAN Xing, JIN Lianghai, CHEN Yangao, et al. Research on workers' behavioral intention of wearing safety helmet[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(11): 43-48.
[18]	LIKERT R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes[J]. Archieves of Psychology of New York, 1932, 22(140): 1-55.
[19]	PAWLAK Z. Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data[M]. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992:45-58.
[20]	XU Xiaozhan. A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2004, 156(2):530-532. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00146-2
[21]	MA Jian, HUANG Lihua, FAN Zhiping. Subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1999, 112(2):397-404. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00141-6
[22]	WU Jian, LIANG Chaoyong, LI Wennian. Method to determine attribute weights based on subjective and objective integrated[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2007, 330 (3): 383-387.
[23]	LEE S, GOODALL C, EGBERT N, et al. The moderating role of self-construal in culturally reflected fear appeals[J]. Journal of Health Communication, 2021, 26(2): DOI:10.1080/10810730.2021.1878309. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2021.1878309

语言风格类型	含义	举例
严肃庄重型F₁	庄重严谨,用语规范,表意明确	为了您的生命安全,请佩戴安全帽
情感呼告型F₂	从情感上打动、刺激受众,从而引起安全重视	为了您和家人的幸福,请佩戴安全帽
幽默另类型F₃	语言幽默,但可能会出现“冒犯”现象	如果不想见上帝的话,请务必佩戴安全帽
威胁恐吓型F₄	运用“敲警钟”的方法,刺激受众产生恐惧心理	必须佩戴安全帽,别拿生命开玩笑

材料编码	标语内容
F₁₁	为了您的生命安全,请务必佩戴安全帽
F₁₂	为了我的生命安全,我务必要佩戴安全帽
F₂₁	为了您和家人的幸福,请务必佩戴安全帽
F₂₂	为了我和家人的幸福,我务必要佩戴安全帽
F₃₁	如果不想见上帝的话,请务必佩戴安全帽
F₃₂	如果不想见上帝的话,我务必要佩戴安全帽
F₄₁	别拿生命开玩笑,必须佩戴安全帽
F₄₂	不拿生命开玩笑,我要佩戴安全帽

安全标语编号	F₁ 均值	F₂ 均值	F₃ 均值	F₄ 均值	F	p
F₁₁	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	—	—
F₁₂	0.87	0.07	0.07	0.00	39.667	0.000^**
F₂₁	0.07	0.93	0.00	0.00	93.833	0.000^**
F₂₂	0.07	0.93	0.00	0.00	93.833	0.000^**
F₃₁	0.00	0.00	0.93	0.07	93.833	0.000^**
F₃₂	0.00	0.07	0.93	0.00	93.833	0.000^**
F₄₁	0.27	0.00	0.00	0.73	17.129	0.000^**
F₄₂	0.20	0.07	0.00	0.73	14.844	0.000^**

变量				理解度		接受度		遵从度
问题	选项	人数	占比/%	均值	Sig.	均值	Sig.	均值	Sig.
性别	男	126	59.15	5.69	0.080	4.93	0.672	5.29	0.335
性别	女	87	40.85	5.50	0.080	4.86	0.672	5.44	0.335
年龄/岁	18~30	68	31.92	5.65	0.414	4.85	0.922	5.35	0.624
	30~50	87	40.85	5.53		4.93		5.28
	50以上	58	27.23	5.70		4.92		5.47
文化程度	初中及以下	58	27.23	5.52	0.367	4.81	0.280	5.38	0.587
	高中、中专	77	36.15	5.61		4.91		5.25
	大专、本科	74	34.74	5.65		4.90		5.42
	研究生及以上	4	1.88	6.22		5.97		5.91
婚姻状况	未婚	75	35.21	5.71	0.196	4.80	0.354	5.49	0.199
婚姻状况	已婚	138	64.79	5.56	0.196	4.95	0.354	5.28	0.199
工作经验	参加过生产实践	165	77.46	5.61	0.869	4.89	0.761	5.34	0.713
工作经验	未参加过生产实践	48	22.54	5.63	0.869	4.95	0.761	5.41	0.713

指标	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F	p
E₁	5.67±0.93	5.61±0.86	5.60±0.93	5.57±0.94	0.429	0.732
E₂	5.01±1.24	4.98±1.23	4.74±1.28	4.87±1.29	2.099	0.099
E₃	5.12±1.19	5.01±1.21	5.61±1.19	5.68±1.16	17.366	0.000^**