Processes of attention can provide a conceptual framework for understanding visitor reactions to interpretive labels. In this article, three principles of attention are used to organize what we know about interpretive label design. The first principle, selectivity, suggests that the distinctiveness or salience of a label or object will influence which of many elements will be given attention. The second principle, motivated focusing, states that motivation is enhanced by minimizing the amount of effort, increasing cognitive-emotional arousal and minimizing distractions. The last principle, limited capacity, proposes that the resources of attention have a limited capacity and are depleted over time with effort expended. Findings of research studies and specific principles (e.g., an isolated object receives more attention than an object embedded in dense stimuli) are described within this conceptual framework.
ArndtM., ScrevenC., BenusaD., & BishopT. (1993). Behavior and learning in a zoo environment under different signage conditions. In ThompsonD., BenefieldA., BitgoodS., ShettelH., & WilliamsR. (Eds.), Visitor Studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 5 (pp. 245–251). Jacksonville, AL: Visitor Studies Association.
2.
BallingJ. D., & FalkJ. H. (1980). A perspective on field trips: Environmental effects on learning.Curator, 23 (4), 229–240.
3.
BestJ. (1999). Cognitive psychology, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bitgood, S. (1989). Deadly sins revisited: A review of the exhibit label literature.Visitor Behavior, 4 (3), 4–13.
4.
BitgoodS. (1993). Putting the horse before the cart: A conceptual analysis of educational exhibits. In BicknellS., & FarmeloG. (Eds.), Museum visitor studies in the 90's (pp. 133–139). London: Science Museum.
BitgoodS., BenefieldA., & PattersonD. (1990). The importance of label placement: A neglected factor in exhibit design. In Current trends in audience research, Vol. 4 (pp. 49–52). Chicago: AAM Visitor Research and Evaluation Committee.
7.
BitgoodS., BenefieldA., PattersonD., & LitwakH. (1991). Influencing visitor attention: The effects of life-size silhouettes on visitor behavior. In BitgoodS., BenefieldA., & PattersonD., Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 3 (pp. 221–230). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
8.
BitgoodS., CampbellR., DesmidtE., GunnipK., HawerootM., & JohanessenH. (1992). Formative evaluation of a Pepper's Ghost exhibit device. In Current trends in audience research, Vol. 6 (pp. 15–18). Baltimore: AAM Visitor Research and Evaluation Committee.
9.
BitgoodS., CleghornA., CotaA., CrawfordML, PattersonD., & DanemeyerC. (1996). Enhancing the Confrontation Gallery at the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. In BitgoodS. (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 7 (pp. 48–56). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
10.
BitgoodS., ConroyP., PierceM., PattersonD, & BoydJ. (1989). Evaluation of “Attack and Defense” at the Anniston Museum of Natural History. In Current trends in audience research, Vol. 3 (pp. 1–4). New Orleans, LA: AAMVisitor Evaluation and Research Committee.
11.
BitgoodS., & DavisJ. (1991). Self-guided handouts in museums and zoos: An annotated bibliographyVisitor Behavior, 6 (3), 7–10.
12.
BitgoodS., HinesJ., HambergerW., & FordW. (1992). Visitor circulation through a changing exhibits gallery. In BenefieldA., BitgoodS., & ShettelH., Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 4 (pp. 103–114). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
13.
BitgoodS., & LoomisC. (1993). Introduction: Environmental design and evaluation in museums.Environment and Behavior, 26 (6), 683–697.
14.
BitgoodS., & PattersonD. (1993). The effects of gallery changes on visitor reading and object viewing time.Environment and Behavior, 25 (6), 761–781.
15.
BitgoodS., & ShettelH. (1996). An overview of visitor studies.Journal of Museum Education, 21 (3), 6–10.
16.
BorunM., MasseyC., & LutterT. (1993). Naive knowledge and the design of science exhibits.Curator, 36 (3), 201–219.
17.
EasterbrookJ. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior.Psychological Review, 66, 183–201.
18.
FalkJ. H., & BallingJ. D. (1980). The school field trip: Where you go makes the difference.Science and Children, 17 (6), 6–8.
HamS. (1992). Environmental interpretation.Golden, CO: North American Press.
21.
HirschiK. D., & ScrevenC. G. (1988). Effects of questions on visitor reading behavior.ILVS Review, 1 (1), 50–61.
22.
JamesW. (1890). Principles of psychology.New York: Holt.
23.
JohnsonW. A., & DarkV.J. (1986). Selective attention.Annual review of psychology, 37, 43–75.
24.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
LitwakJ. M.1996). Visitors learn more from labels that ask questions. In Current trends in audience research, Vol. 10 (pp. 40–50). Minneapolis, MN: American Association of Museums Committee on Audience Research and Evaluation.
26.
MeltonA. (1935). Principles of installation in museums of art.New Series No. 14. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
27.
MeltonA. (1972). Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in environmental design.Human Factors, 14 (5), 393–403.
28.
PeartB. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior.Curator, 27 (3), 220–235.
29.
RandJ. (1990). Fish stories that hook readers: Interpretive graphics at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.Technical Report 90–20. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
30.
RandJ. (1993). Building on your ideas. In BicknellS., & FarmeloG. (Eds.), Museum visitor studies in the 90's (pp. 145–149). London: Science Museum.
31.
ReedS. (2000). Cognition: Theory and applications, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
32.
ReisbergD. (1997). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind.New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
33.
RobinsonE. S. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor.New Series No. 5. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
34.
ScrevenC. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during, and after exhibit design.ILVS Review1 (2), 33–66.
SerrellB. (1983). Making exhibit labels: A step-by-step guide.Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History.
37.
SerrellB. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
38.
SerrellB. (1999). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions.Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
39.
ShettelH., ButcherM., CottonT. S., NorthropJ., & SloughD. S. (1968). Strategies for determining exhibit effectiveness.Report No. AIR E95-4/68-FR. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
