{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014035087719298246, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010526315789473684, 'mean_word_length': 4.783783783783784, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Risk Perception and Use of Warnings

The purpose of the studies was to develop information about how the general public perceives the degree of danger represented by signal words in warnings. Although many organizations have guidelines for the determination of what signal words are to be used with specific hazards, these are usually unknown to the public. For 15 items that had been rated for the seriousness of risk, 288 subjects were asked to indicate which signal word they would use to inform others of the hazard. Signal words that had been found to rate high in seriousness by Leonard, Karnes, and Schneider (1988) tended to be used more with items rated as higher risks. Differences were found among age groups with older subjects using signal words that carried more serious connotations. The possible warnings that might be used were discussed.