Enhancing the Messages Displayed on Dynamic Message Signs

A human factors study was carried out to help enhance ways tocommunicate with highway motorists through dynamic message signs (DMS).Overhead mounted DMSs have been increasingly used by highway authorities inthe United States to present real-time traffic information and travel advice tomotorists. It is critical to post sign messages that can be quickly and clearlyunderstood by motorists, especially in high-volume traffic and construction/repairzones. Properly worded and formatted sign messages could spell the differencebetween comprehension and confusion. Message display factors investigated inthe study include display effects, color schemes, wording, and formats. Twoapproaches were employed in this study. First, a questionnaire survey wasdeveloped to collect motorists’ preferences regarding various message displayfactors. Second, a series of lab driving simulation experiments were set up toassess the effects of these factors and their interactions on motorists’comprehension of DMS messages. Study results suggested that static, one-framedmessages with more specific wording and no abbreviations were preferred.Amber or green or a green-amber combination were the most favored colors.Younger subjects took less response time to the DMS stimuli with higheraccuracy than older subjects. There were no significant gender differences

Typology of violence derived from ratings of severity and provocation

Two exploratory studies examined ratings of the severity of violence of several behaviors. In Study 1, a very consistent ordering of the behaviors by severity was obtained from two groups of participants. The stated justification for the behaviors was manipulated, and both mitigation and aggravation effects were observed. Study 2 found that essentially the same ordering of behaviors could be obtained in a provocation-rating task, and that both the severity ratings and the provocation ratings yielded four interpretable types of violence upon factor analysis: more severe physical (V1), less severe physical (V2), more severe nonphysical (V3), and less severe nonphysical (V4). Individual profiles of severity ratings across these four types yielded two interpretable groupings of participants upon cluster analysis: a violence-sensitive group and a violence-tolerant group. The violence-tolerant group had lower severity ratings for three of the four types of violence. These empirical distinctions help to illuminate what appear to be different meanings of the term violent for different behavior categories and for different individuals. © Perceptual and Motor Skills 2007