This series began as a set of research notes prompted by a question: Why does the atmosphere vary so much from one store to another—mainly supermarkets, other retailers, and restaurants?
I ended up with far more to say about warning signs in the previous article than expected, so I split that material off into this supplementary installment.
There is nothing unusual about a store putting up signs and notices.
Signs showing where to find the sales floor or restrooms are necessary. Some information, such as evacuation routes and accident-prevention warnings, must be displayed for safety. Stores also need temporary notices about changes in opening hours, broken equipment, and other current information.
What concerns me is not that kind of guidance, but warning notices aimed at less-than-considerate users: “Do not...,” “Please refrain from...,” and “We ask for your cooperation....”
A few do not bother me. But when they are everywhere—at the entrance, registers, restrooms, and trash cans—I start reading far too much into them.
“Has something serious enough to require this many notices been happening here?”
Why do signs intended to preserve order end up making us imagine the negative side of a place instead?
Warning Signs Make Us Imagine “Past Trouble”
Some warnings are prepared in advance to prevent a problem before it occurs. The same notice may be displayed at every location, or one may be added temporarily for seasonal or safety reasons.
The presence of a warning alone therefore does not prove that trouble occurred there in the past.
Even so, when I see a notice that looks handmade or as though it was created in Word specifically for that spot, it becomes easier to imagine that some incident really did occur.
“Do not dispose of household waste here” makes me imagine someone bringing their garbage from home. “Please refrain from staying for extended periods” makes me imagine someone lingering there for hours. “Do not take store supplies home” brings to mind someone concealing them in a pocket and walking away.
Each notice feels like a history of past trouble, compressing and recording one of the store’s minor headaches. I do not know whether the imagined incident actually occurred or how often it may have happened. But something in those short sentences stimulates the imagination.
Warnings Also Tell Us “What Is Normal Here”
A warning tells people what they must not do.
Depending on how it is worded, however, it may communicate not only the prohibition but also the information that people who do that come here.
Research on social norms distinguishes descriptive norms—what many people actually do—from injunctive norms—what people believe should or should not be done.[1]
“Theft is a crime” communicates what must not be done. “Theft is rampant here,” on the other hand, communicates both the prohibition and the idea that theft is not unusual in this place.
At Petrified Forest National Park in the United States, a message emphasizing that many visitors were taking pieces of petrified wood actually increased the undesirable behavior. A straightforward message conveying disapproval of taking the wood instead reduced it.[2]
This was an experiment in a park, not a direct study of warning signs in stores, so we do not know whether the same result would occur in a retail setting. Still, it is useful in showing how the wording of a warning can communicate not only “the rule to follow,” but also “what the people around you are doing.”
Perhaps a store full of warning signs makes us think, “Oh, so this is that kind of place,” because beyond each prohibition, we imagine behavior that has happened repeatedly.
Many Signs Do Not Necessarily Mean the Store Is Failing to Respond
I wondered whether stores with more warning signs were less successful at dealing with trouble. But we cannot judge that from the number of signs alone. Perhaps signs were the only workable option left after an understaffed store had done everything it could. Discussions and improvements that customers never see may have taken place many times.
Warning someone directly carries a risk of confrontation or complaints. Someone might pull a knife in response to even a gentle request. Nor can a store assign a person to watch every location at all times. Communicating the rules on paper first is a practical method of reducing the burden on staff and delivering the same message to many people.
Signs begin to feel unsettling when their physical presence is all we can see, while we have no idea how their rules are actually being put into practice.
There are notice after notice listing prohibited behavior, but no one speaks to a customer who needs help. A sign warns about cleanliness, but the place is always dirty. That combination creates the impression that the rules exist, but are not functioning here and now.
Wayfinding signs can help people move and change how crowded a space feels.[3] But paper can only display predetermined information. Changing the message to suit what is happening in front of us, and distinguishing between someone who needs help and someone causing a nuisance, cannot be left to paper alone.
A Warning May Never Reach Its Intended Audience
A sign does not fulfill its purpose simply by being put on the wall.
People must first notice it, decide that it is something they should read, understand the message, accept it as trustworthy information, and then act on it. If the process stops anywhere along the way, the message never translates into action.[4]
Experiments using product warning labels have shown that differences in a warning’s prominence and wording can affect actual compliance.[5] Store notices do not operate under identical conditions, but this offers a clue for considering alternatives when making the lettering larger or adding more signs does not work.
The tricky part is the people who already read signs.
When a sign is present, they notice it. They read it because it might apply to them. Then they confirm that they are not the people being addressed.
Meanwhile, the intended message never reaches those who do not notice the paper, are too rushed to read it, or decide it has nothing to do with them.
Sometimes the message reaches the intended audience and works as intended. But people differ in what they notice, so a mismatch can occur: the warning misses the people it is meant for, while only those who are already considerate absorb the sense of restriction.
Conclusion
Does a store with many signs have more trouble? There is no clear relationship. The signs may instead be the result of many detailed measures taken in an effort to maintain the store.
Some people infer past problems from the notices. People who are already considerate may feel constrained, while the absence of any visible human response behind the paper can leave an impression that management is always playing catch-up. Depending on its wording, a notice may even communicate that undesirable behavior is common there.
The appropriate content, placement, and size vary enormously with the audience and situation.[6] Showing the necessary information, in the necessary place, in a way the people who need it can understand is difficult.
You might think we would have come up with better measures or ideas than warning signs by now. But once cost and all the other practical constraints are considered, paper is probably still the most realistic option. A future in which robots and sensors patrol stores and respond firmly to each situation may not be very far away. Still, countermeasures alone will not solve the root problem. The basic person-to-person dynamic seems unlikely to change anytime soon.
In an age when shopping itself can be done online, going to a “physical store” maintained by people who must deal with all these messy human complications may one day become a luxury experience.
▶ Continue with the main series
In This Series
#01 | Where Does a Store's Atmosphere Come From?
#02 | Why Locations of the Same Chain Can Feel So Different
#02.5 | Why Do Stores with Too Many Warning Signs Feel So Disorderly? ← You are here
#03 | How Much of a Store's Atmosphere Can Be Designed?
#04 | Society Assumes People Can “Read the Room”
#05 | Choosing to Keep Your Distance
#06 | How Quiet People Survive
Notes
- Back to text
Robert B. Cialdini, Raymond R. Reno, Carl A. Kallgren, “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1990, pp. 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
- Back to text
Robert B. Cialdini, Linda J. Demaine, Brad J. Sagarin, Daniel W. Barrett, Kelton Rhoads, Patricia L. Winter, “Managing Social Norms for Persuasive Impact,” Social Influence, 1(1), 2006, pp. 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459
- Back to text
Richard E. Wener, Robert D. Kaminoff, “Improving Environmental Information: Effects of Signs on Perceived Crowding and Behavior,” Environment and Behavior, 15(1), 1983, pp. 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916583151001
- Back to text
Michael S. Wogalter, Kenneth R. Laughery, “Warnings and Hazard Communications,” in Gavriel Salvendy (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3rd ed., 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470048204.ch32
- Back to text
Michael S. Wogalter, Stephen L. Young, “The Effect of Alternative Product-Label Design on Warning Compliance,” Applied Ergonomics, 25(1), 1994, pp. 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(94)90032-990032-9)
- Back to text
Kenneth R. Laughery, Michael S. Wogalter, “Designing Effective Warnings,” Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2(1), 2006, pp. 241–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557234X0600200109
DID YOU ENJOY THIS ARTICLE?
制作活動を支援する / Support my work
文章、アート、デザイン、個人開発を続けるための支援を、コーヒー一杯分から受け付けています。 / Help me keep making essays, art, design, and independent software.

Information
