The main aim of the present study was to explore the impact of three stimulus-related variables—that is, ordinal position of viewing, relative size of exhibit objects, and proximity to larger sized objects—on visitor attention and interest in exhibitions. A field experiment that utilized timing and tracking through unobtrusive observation, as well as a questionnaire, was conducted with 120 participants in one control and three experimental conditions. The results suggest that (a) visitor attention declines across ordinal position, being interrupted in the experimental conditions by the presence of a larger object; (b) larger exhibit objects attract and hold more attention than smaller ones, especially those adjacent to (and appear before rather than after) the larger object; and (c) while larger objects attract more attention on an individual comparison, they seem to have a suppressing effect on the overall level of attention to the exhibition compared with the control condition.
ArnheimR. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
BitgoodS. (1992). The anatomy of an exhibit. Visitor Behavior, 7(4), 4-14.
3.
BitgoodS. (2002). Environmental psychology in museums, zoos, and other exhibition centers. In BechtelR. B.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 461-480). New York, NY: John Wiley.
4.
BitgoodS. (2006). An analysis of visitor circulation: Movement patterns and the general value principle. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49, 463-475.
5.
BitgoodS. (2009a). Museum fatigue: A critical review. Visitor Studies Journal, 12, 93-111.
6.
BitgoodS. (2009b). Museum fatigue: A new look at an old problem. Informal Learning Review, 97(July-August Issue), 18-22.
7.
BitgoodS. (2009c). When is “museum fatigue” not fatigue?Curator: The Museum Journal, 52, 193-202.
BitgoodS. (2013). Attention and value: Keys to understanding museum visitors. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
10.
BitgoodS. (2014). Exhibition design that provides high value and engages visitor attention. Exhibitionist, 33, 6-11.
11.
BitgoodS. (2015). “Museum fatigue” and related phenomena. JVA InterpNews, 4(6), 25-29.
12.
BitgoodS.McKercharT. L.DukesS. (2013). Looking back at Melton: Gallery density and visitor attention. Visitor Studies, 16, 217-225.
13.
BitgoodS.PattersonD. (1987). Principles of exhibit design. Visitor Behavior, 2, 4-6.
14.
BitgoodS.PattersonD.BenefieldA. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20, 474-491. doi:10.1177/0013916588204006
15.
BitgoodS.PattersonD.BenefieldA.LandersA. (1986). Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence visitor behavior (Technical Report No. 86-60). Jacksonville, AL: Psychology Institute, Jacksonville State University.
16.
BurnhamW. H. (1908). Attention and interest. American Journal of Psychology, 19, 14-18. doi:10.2307/1412821
17.
DonaldJ. G. (1991). The measurement of learning in the museum. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’education, 16, 371-382.
18.
FalkJ.KoranJ.DierkingL.DreblowL. (1985). Predicting visitor behavior. Curator: The Museum Journal, 28, 249-257.
ImamoğluÇYılmazsoyA. C. (2009). Gender and locality-related differences in circulation behavior in a museum setting. Museum Management and Curatorship, 24, 123-138.
21.
JohnstonR. (1998). Exogenous factors and visitor behavior: A regression analysis of exhibit viewing time. Environment and Behavior, 30, 322-347. doi:10.1177/001391659803000304
22.
KaynarI. (2005). Visibility, movement paths and preferences in open plan museums: An observational and descriptive study of the Ann Arbor Hands-on Museum. In Van NesA. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th international space syntax symposium (Vol. II). Delft, The Netherlands: Techne Press. Retrieved from http://kaynar-rohloff.com/papers/kaynar_SpaceSyntax05.pdf
23.
KoranJ. J.MorrisonL.LehmanJ. R.KoranM. L.GandaraL. (1984). Attention and curiosity in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 357-363.
24.
MarcelliniD.JenssenT. (1988). Visitor behavior in the National Zoo’s reptile house. Zoo Biology, 7, 329-338.
25.
McDougallW. (1949). An outline of psychology. London, England: Methuen.
26.
MeltonA. W. (1935). Problems of installation in museums of art. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
27.
MeltonA. W. (1972). Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in environmental design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 14, 393-403.
28.
PeartB. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior. Curator: The Museum Journal, 27, 220-237.
29.
RobinsonE. S. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
30.
RohloffI. K.PsarraS.WinemanJ. (2009). Experiencing museum gallery layouts through local and global visibility properties in morphology: An inquiry on the YCBA, the MoMA and the HMA. In KochD.MarcusL.SteenJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international space syntax symposium (pp. 094:1-14). Stockholm, Sweden: KTH. Retrieved from http://kaynar-rohloff.com/papers/Rohloff_Psarra_Wineman_SpaceSyntax09.pdf
31.
ScrevenC. (1986). Exhibitions and information centers: Some principles and approaches. Curator: The Museum Journal, 29, 109-137.
32.
SerrellB. (1997). Time is indeed of the essence. Curator: The Museum Journal, 40, 253-255. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.1997.tb01310.x
33.
SerrellB. (2002). Are they watching? Visitors and videos in exhibitions. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45, 50-64. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.2002.tb00049.x
vom LehnD. (2010). Examining “response”: Video-based studies in museums and galleries. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 33-43.
36.
vom LehnD.HeathC.HindmarshJ. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 189-216.
37.
WinemanJ. D.PeponisJ. (2010). Constructing spatial meaning: Spatial affordances in museum design. Environment and Behavior, 42, 86-109. doi:10.1177/0013916509335534
