We report on a new method for anonymously measuring shared and divergent museum visitor reactions to specific content of exhibits, going beyond more general standardized evaluations of overall experience. In a small pilot study, six visitors reported three things that had most struck them about their visit, and they later rated the extent to which they agreed with other visitors’ anonymized reports. The method reveals which objects generate more and less attention and interpretive consensus and the extent to which visitors understand museum content as curators hope. It also allows assessment of which museum materials (display text, audio, video, tour script) contribute to visitors’ commentary and how differently different kinds of visitors experience the museum. Expanded versions of this method could inform iterative exhibit development, and interactive representations of data sets like that collected here could allow exhibit designers and curators to gain insight into visitor experience from alternate perspectives.
AdamsM.FalkJ. H.DierkingL. D. (2003). Things change: Museums, learning and research. In XanthoudakiM.TickleL.SekulesV. (Eds.), Researching visual arts education in museums and galleries (pp. 15–32). Kluwer Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0043-7_2
2.
BridaJ. G.DisegnaM.VachkovaT. (2013). Visitor satisfaction at the museum: Italian versus foreign visitors. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 61(2), 167–186. https://hrcak.srce.hr/106866
3.
CaldwellN. (2002). (Rethinking) the measurement of service quality in museums and galleries. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.176
DamalaA.SchuchertT.RodriguezI.MoraguesJ.GilleadeK.StojanovicN. (2013). Exploring the affective museum visiting experience: Adaptive augmented reality (A2R) and cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 2(1), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1260/2047-4970.2.1.117
6.
Dufresne-TasséC.LefèbvreA. (1994). The museum in adult education: A psychological study of visitor reactions. International Review of Education, 40(6), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01102824
HaanstraF. (2003). Visitors’ learning experiences in Dutch museums. In XanthoudakiM.TickleL.SekulesV. (Eds.), Researching visual arts education in museums and galleries (pp. 33–48). Kluwer Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0043-7_3
11.
LucasA. M.McManusP.ThomasG. (1986). Investigating learning from informal sources: Listening to conversations and observing play in science museums. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080401
12.
MilehamM.A.JohnsonE.NelsonK.R. (2023). Museum social impact toolkit. Utah Division of Arts and Museums. https://museumsocialimpact.org
13.
PackerJ. (2008). Beyond learning: Exploring visitors’ perceptions of the value and benefits of museum experiences. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51(1), 33–54. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2008.tb00293.x
SchoberM. F.SpiroN. (2016). Listeners’ and performers’ shared understanding of jazz improvisations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01629
17.
SerrellB. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions. American Association of Museums.
SpiroN.SchoberM. F. (2021). Discrepancies and disagreements in classical chamber musicians’ characterisations of a performance. Music & Science, 4, https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043211011091
20.
ThomsonL. J.ChatterjeeH. J. (2022). Heritage, creativity, and wellbeing: Approaches for evaluating the impact of cultural participation using the UCL museum wellbeing measures. In EverellP.BurnellK. (Eds.), Archaeology, heritage, and wellbeing: Authentic, powerful, and therapeutic engagement with the past (pp. 61–87). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003182184
