Gareth Davey
Abstract Research in the 1920s and 1930s revealed that museum visitor interest towards exhibits decreased as visits progressed, and this concept was coined “Museum Fatigue”. Since then, studies have shown that several behavioural changes characterise fatigued visitors, but the literature has not drawn them together. Further, the causes of museum fatigue remain speculative, and have not been evaluated in detail. This article reviews recent research about museum fatigue, and discusses its causes. Visitor attributes, the museum setting, and interaction between them, seem to underpin fatigue, and their relative importance differs according to the behavioural changes under investigation. An updated definition of museum fatigue is provided, along with suggestions for museum professionals to investigate fatigue within their museums. Further research is needed, particularly with cognitive psychologists, in order to unravel visitors’ cognitive mechanisms that play a role in interest towards exhibits.
The earliest visitor studies were remain speculative, and have not been resign himself to seeing practically conducted by Benjamin Gilman in evaluated in detail. Understanding everything imperfectly and by a passing the 1910s, Edward Robinson in the museum fatigue is important because glance”. In a later study, Robinson 1920s, and Arthur Melton in the 1930s visitor interest is correlated with (1928) showed that museum fatigue (Gilman, 1916; Robinson, 1928; effective communication of exhibit generalised across four museums Melton, 1933, 1935; 1936). They messages, and visitor learning (Falk, with varying characteristics. Melton noticed that some visitor behaviour was 1983; Serrell, 1997; Hein, 1998; (1935) provided further evidence for consistent across different museums, Bitgood, 2002; Falk and Dierking, the concept; he varied the number of and these patterns are now considered 2002; Falk and Storksdieck, 2005). To paintings in a museum gallery and to be rules of thumb within the Visitor address these issues, this article reviews observed decreased visitor interest as Studies field. One example is “Museum and analyses the literature about the number of displays increased. Fatigue”, a term that characterises museum fatigue, presents an updated decreased visitor interest towards More recently, Falk, Koran, Dierking definition, and provides an entry point and Dreblow (1985) investigated exhibits as visits progress (Gilman, for museum professionals to research, 1916; Robinson, 1928; Melton, 1935; museum fatigue at the Florida State and counteract, museum fatigue in their Falk et al., 1985). Since these early Museum of Natural History. Visitors institutions. studies, research has shown that other were observed, during their entire behavioural changes characterise visits, for the occurrence of behaviours fatigued visitors. For example, it has A review of museum fatigue indicative of either interest in museum been shown that visitor interest also exhibits, interest in other aspects of the decreases across a small number of Gilman (1916) was the first to describe museum setting, attention towards other exhibits, and fatigued visitors tend to museum fatigue and his definition people, or self-interest. They found that cruise around galleries with increased focused on the effort required to people’s interest initially reached a high selectivity towards exhibits (Falk et al., observe displays. He noticed that plateau, then remained constant for 1985). Museum fatigue is comprised of some exhibits at the Boston Museum about 30 minutes, and later decreased different phenomena but the literature of Fine Arts demanded more effort to to a lower level. Visitors’ orientation does not draw them together, and the view because of the way they were changed from initial slow movement concept remains ambiguous. Further, presented. He found that “after a brief around the exhibits, to cruising around explanations for museum fatigue initial exertion he [the visitor] will halls, and more selective stopping
2005 Volume 8 Issue 3 Visitor Studies Today 17 What is Museum Fatigue? behaviour (indicative of diminished The research summarised above (termed the “Visitor Attributes interest towards exhibits). shows there are several scenarios of Hypothesis), whereas the second how visitor interest decreases during explanation emphasises environmental Beverly Serrell has conducted a large museum visits. The behavioural factors (“The Environmental Attributes amount of work on the duration and changes could be grouped together Hypothesis”). Each hypothesis will allocation of visitors’ time in museums. under the umbrella definition of now be evaluated using the literature In a study at over 100 exhibitions “museum fatigue” because they all reviewed above. (Serrell 1997; 1998), she found that denote decreases in visitor interest visitors typically spent less than 20 during visits. The following conclusions 1. The Visitor Attributes Hypothesis minutes in exhibitions regardless of may be drawn from this literature: This hypothesis posits that factors topic and size. Her research supports associated with visitors are responsible the notion that visitors have a limited 1. The traditional view of museum fatigue is that visitor interest for decreases in visitor interest. For time frame after which their interest example, one attribute (put forward towards exhibits diminishes. decreases as visits progress. For example, it has been shown that by Melton, 1935) is “physical Museum fatigue has also been observed interest reaches a high plateau for fatigue”, whereby visitors become in zoos. For example, Bitgood, the first 30 minutes of a visit, and physically tired as their visits progress. Patterson and Benefeld (1986) found decreases thereafter. Indeed, Melton (1935) compared a museum visit with a hike. However, that visitors in Birmingham Zoo’s 2. A second pattern, whereby visitor this explanation is limited. Visitors reptile house viewed the first reptile interest decreases within smaller areas (such as a succession of sometimes display fatigue after only a exhibit for longer than subsequent few minutes, or across a small number exhibits, and this pattern was upheld displays), has also been reported. 3. The behavioural changes that of exhibits: “truly an exceedingly short when visitor flow was reversed. time for the production of pronounced Similarly, Marcellini and Jenssen categorise fatigued visitors include cruising through galleries, relatively physical fatigue” (Melton, 1935). (1988) tracked visitors as they travelled Can physical fatigue really explain through a reptile house and observed rapid rates of viewing without rest periods, and increased selectivity decreased interest across a few exhibits similar behaviour. This pattern also towards exhibits. in succession? existed when traffic flow was reversed. 4. Patterns of fatigue are generally They state “In normal flow, exhibits Cognitive processing has also been constant and predictable within proposed as a determinant of fatigue A–E were more attractive and held an institution and, further, the visitors significantly longer than areas (Melton, 1935; Bitgood, 2002), concept generalises across different although this suggestion is difficult D–F….However, reversing the traffic museums. flow dramatically reversed the situation. to evaluate because of the lack Areas D–F became more attractive and of integration between cognitive held visitors significantly longer than Causes of museum fatigue psychology and visitor studies. Some researchers have argued that cognitive A–E”. In another approach, Mitchell The reasons previously put forward processes such as attention capacity et al. (1990) found that an exhibit near to explain museum fatigue will now (attention span) play a role; the amount a zoo entrance received significantly be reviewed. It is generally regarded of processing capacity that people more visitors than an exhibit further that the manner in which people possess is limited (the cognitive away. A third exhibit, even further from interact with the museum environment resource decreases with time and the main path, received less visitors. All is determined by people’s individual effort), and people tend to focus on cages were almost identical in form, attributes, factors associated with the one thing at a time (Kahneman, 1973; and the location effects persisted when museum environment, and interaction Hampson and Morris, 1996; Bitgood, animal inhabitants were swapped. A between them (Melton, 1935; Falk 2002). According to this explanation, possible explanation for this result is et al., 1985; Bitgood, 2002). These limited attention capabilities underpin visitor fatigue because fatigued visitors explanations have never been explicitly museum fatigue because there is are more selective, and therefore likely stated as hypotheses before, and are insufficient capacity for attention to skip exhibits (Robinson, 1931; Falk therefore discussed here. The first towards exhibits during later stages of et al., 1985). explanation focuses on visitor attributes visits (due to the mental effort exerted
18 Visitor Studies Today Volume 8 Issue 3 2005 during initial stages of a visit; Melton, who state, “this view suggests that the Patterson, & Litwak, 1991; Bitgood, 1935; Bitgood, 2002). Support for best way to predict visitor behaviour 2002). Most studies have focused on this argument comes from the fact is to know more about the visitors as the influence of one or two variables. that decrements in visitor interest are individuals. Thus, X% of the visitors A more comprehensive approach came relatively predictable; for example, would be most attracted to exhibit A, from Johnston (1998) who conducted the study by Falk et al. (1985) showed while Y% would not show interest an extensive investigation into the that visitor interest remained at a high in A”. This view is supported by influence of many factors (initially 50 plateau for the first 30–45 minutes, studies that have reported behavioural variables). He found that structural before museum fatigue set in. This differences between different aspects of exhibit appearance had the predictable change in visitor interest is demographic groups (Diamond, 1994). most significant effects on visitors’ consistent with the view that attention The generality of museum fatigue viewing time. Environmental attributes capacities deplete, and reach a level suggests, however, that visitor attributes help explain why visitor interest varies of saturation, until a critical point. are not important determinants; between exhibits but they present Another area of cognitive psychology fatigued visitors seem to display similar difficulty for explaining museum that could play a role in museum and predictable patterns despite wide fatigue during entire visits. As Falk fatigue is the “mere-exposure effect”. variations in their demographics and et al. (1985) argue, visitor interest Repeated exposure to a stimulus may other characteristics (Falk et al., 1985). should resemble consistent peaks and initially increases likeness towards it, Further, museum fatigue may generalise troughs, rather than gradual decreases, but over-exposure may result in “wear across countries and, therefore, culture if exhibit factors are the most important out” (that is, an observer’s response is - my research, for example, found determinant of behaviour. no longer positive; Kail and Freeman decrements in visitor interest amongst 1973; Van den Burgh and Vrana, Chinese visitors (Davey, 2005). It seems that there is support for both 1998; Nordhielm, 2000). Research has hypotheses. Is one set of factors more shown that the mere-exposure effect 2. The Environmental Attributes salient? Museum fatigue consists is a determinant in preference for Hypothesis of several phenomena, and it seems likely that the causes of fatigue, and works of art (Leder 2001). This is a Research over many years has shown viable explanation for museum fatigue that the museum environment (the their importance, differ according to because exhibits may share similarities arrangement of displays and exhibit the scenario. For example, physical (such as similar theme or size), and architecture) affects visitor interest. exhaustion seems a likely candidate repeated viewing of them during a visit Steve Bitgood has done a large during a long museum visit, whereas could lead to “wear out”. However, amount of work on this topic and environmental factors probably provide further research is needed to investigate his recent review (Bitgood, 2002) a more convincing explanation for the possible role that the mere exposure is a good point of entry into the decreased interest over a small number effect, and attention capacity, play in literature. Exhibit design factors of successive exhibits. Considering museum fatigue. include isolation, size, contrast with visitor and environmental factors as setting background, sensory features independent causes may be too simple. There are other visitor attributes that (sound, smell, or touch), lighting, An integrationist view, in which both could explain museum fatigue. It is and line-of-sight placement (Melton, groups of factors are believed to well documented that some exhibits 1935; Screven, 1974; Bitgood, 1989; interconnect to shape museum fatigue, could appeal to specific gender groups Bitgood and Patterson, 1993; Ogden, may provide a better explanation. This or to people with certain personality Lindburg and Maple, 1993; Bitgood, idea is perhaps best illustrated using factors. Visitors differ widely in 2002). In zoos, animal variables such research from cognitive psychology that their past experiences, interests, visit as presence, activity, size, colour centres on the cognitive determinants agenda, intellectual capabilities and and visibility also influence visitor of object attractiveness. Several design their familiarity and comfort; all of behaviour (Bitgood et al., 1988; variables are known to influence these factors influence how people Johnson, 1998). People’s traffic flow cognitive processing and, therefore, interact with museums (Falk et al., is influenced by the attraction of a object attractiveness (Clore, 1992; 1985; Diamond, 1994; Falk and salient object, distraction of an open Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Dierking, 2000). This suggestion is door, and arrangement of displays Thus, there is interplay between visitor nicely summed up by Falk et al. (1985) (Melton, 1935; Bitgood, Benefield, attributes (cognitive processing) and
2005 Volume 8 Issue 3 Visitor Studies Today 19 What is Museum Fatigue? environmental factors (exhibit design). engage with exhibits, and may and opportunities for interaction Indeed several design variables (such as affect learning because viewing time (Robinson, 1928; Screven, 1992; the presence of vertical and horizontal correlates with the amount of learning Peart, 1984; Bitgood, 2002). patterns, amount of information, that takes place (Falk, 1983; Serrell, • Minimise distractions such as symmetry, and figure-ground contrast) 1997; Hein, 1998; Falk and Dierking, sounds, competition from other are believed to influence aesthetic 2002; Falk and Storksdieck, 2005). exhibit elements and novelty in the preference because of their ability to However, finding a solution to fatigue surroundings. facilitate cognitive processing (Reber may not be straightforward because • Provide opportunities for visitors to et al., 2004), and some research has of the complexity of the concept, take breaks (because they will help been conducted using works of art and and lack of knowledge about why it to replenish attention capacities). paintings as stimuli (Nicki Lee, & Moss occurs. Fortunately, a large amount of 1981; Leder 2001; Reber et al. 2004). research has probed the relationship It is important to note that not all However similar research has not between viewing time, visitor learning, researchers interpret visitor behaviour been conducted in museums, or with enjoyment, and exhibit design. in the same way. For example, Rounds visitors, and there is certainly a role to This research is easily accessible to (2004) argues that selective use of be played by cognitive psychologists in museum professionals. The work of exhibits enables visitors to focus only understanding how cognitive processes Steve Bitgood and Beverly Serrell on exhibit elements that interest them, interact with the museum environment. provides a good starting point. For thereby minimising time and effort. He example, Serrell (1997; 1998) provided states that “partial use of exhibitions This review shows that the traditional a method for measuring how visitors is an intelligent and effective strategy view of fatigue offered by early use exhibits and provided examples for the visitor whose goal is to have museum workers (that is, decrements of good exhibit design that engages curiosity piqued and satisfied” (Rounds, in visitor interest during visits) is in visitors. Serrell believes that developing 2004, p.389). This is an interesting need of updating. On the basis of the appropriate communication objectives interpretation but it has not been literature discussed in this review, is essential for good exhibit design evaluated using visitor studies. museum fatigue can be considered to and recommends that every exhibit denote area contains attractive elements and Summary “a collection of phenomena carefully designed labels. Designers that represent predictable should seek ways to capture visitor Museum fatigue is a complex and decreases in visitor interest and attention. As Bitgood (2002) points important concept that influences selectivity either during entire out, in order to hold visitors’ attention, the amount of time visitors spend in visits, within smaller areas it is first necessary to attract it. His entire museums, galleries, and at a (such as exhibit galleries), or suggestions include: small number of exhibits. There are across a few successive exhibits. • Increase exhibit distinctiveness likely to be various explanations for These changes are likely to be (such as size, contrast with museum fatigue, including visitor attributed to a combination of setting background, line-of-sight attributes, environmental factors, visitor factors (such as cognitive placement, etc), and locate exhibits and interaction between them. More processing, physical fatigue, in relation to traffic flow (landmark research is needed, particularly in and individual characteristics), objects, hotspots of visitor attention, collaboration with cognitive psychology factors in the environment (such inertia, and the right-turn bias; researchers. It is recommended that as exhibit architecture and the Melton, 1935; Bitgood et al., 1991; museum professionals investigate the museum setting), and interaction Bitgood, 2002). characteristics of viewing time and between them”. • Reduce mental effort required to fatigue in their institutions, and then understand exhibits by considering develop strategies to counteract fatigue. Practical implications for how information is presented. museums • Motivate visitors to engage with References exhibits by asking questions, Museum fatigue has wide-ranging correcting misconceptions, Bitgood, S. (1989). Deadly sins revisited: significance for museums. Fatigue interesting content, mental A review of the exhibit label literature. influences the extent to which visitors imagery, handouts, 3–D objects Visitor Behavior, 4(3), 4–13.
20 Visitor Studies Today Volume 8 Issue 3 2005 Bitgood, S. (2002). Environmental Falk, J., Koran, J., Dierking, L., & Dreblow, Nordhielm, C. (2000). A dual-process psychology in museums, zoos, and L. (1985). Predicting Visitor Behaviour, model of advertising repetition effects. other exhibition centers. In R. Bechtel Curator, 28(4), 249–257. Doctoral thesis, Graduate School of & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using Management, Northwestern University. environmental psychology (pp. 461– the contextual model of learning to Ogden, J., Lindburg, D., & Maple, T. 480). John Wiley & Sons. understand visitor learning from a (1993). The effects of ecologically- Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., science center exhibition, Science relevant sounds on zoo visitors. Curator, & Litwak, (1991). Influencing visitor Education, 89(5), p744–778. 36(2), 147–156. attention: The effects of life-size Gilman, B. (1916). Museum Fatigue. Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on silhouettes on visitor behavior. In Visitor Scientific Monthly, 12, 67–74. knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior. studies: theory, research, and practice, Hampson, P., & Morris, P. (1996). Curator, 27(3), 220–235. Vol. 3 (pp. 221–230). Jacksonville, AL: Understanding Cognition. Blackwell Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (2001). The hot Center for Social Design. Publishers. fringes of consciousness: Perceptual Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. (1993). The Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the museum. fluency and affect. Consciousness and effects of gallery changes on visitor London. Routledge. Emotion, 2, 223–231. behavior. Environment and Behavior, Johnston, R. (1998). Exogenous factors and Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. 25(6), 761–781. visitor behaviour: A regression analysis (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefeld, A. of exhibit viewing time. Environment processing experience? Personality and (1986). Understanding your visitors: Ten and Behaviour, 30(3), 322–347. Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. factors that influence visitor behaviour. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Robinson, E. (1928). The behaviour of American Association of Zoological New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Kail, R. V., & Freeman, H. R. (1973). the museum visitor. New Series No. 5. Parks and Aquaria. Annual Conference Washington, DC: American Association Proceedings, 726–743. Sequence redundancy, rating dimensions and the exposure effect. Memory & of Museums. Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, Cognition, 1, 454–458. Robinson, E. (1931). Exit the typical visitor. A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor Leder, H. (2001). Determinants of Journal of Adult Education, 3(4), 418–423. behaviour: Empirical relationships. preference. When do we like what we Rounds, J. (2004). Strategies for the Environment and Behaviour, 20(4), know? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, curiosity-driven museum visitor. 474–491. 201–211. Curator, 47(4), 389–410. Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive Marcellini, D., & Jenssen, T. (1988). Visitor Screven, C. (1974). The measurement and phenomenology: Feelings and the behaviour in the National Zoo’s Reptile facilitation of learning in the museum construction of judgment. In L. House. Zoo Biology, 7, 329–338. environment: An experimental analysis. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The Melton, A. (1933). Some behaviour Smithsonian Institution Press. construction of social judgments (pp. characteristics of museum visitors, Serrell, B. (1997). Paying attention: The 133–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Psychological Bulletin, 14(3), 6–8. duration and allocation of visitors’ time Davey, G. (2005). The influence of Melton, A. (1935). Problems of installation in museum exhibitions, 40, 108–125. demographic, behavioural, socio- in Museums of Art. New Series, No 14. Serrell, B. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors economic, and environmental design American Association of Museums. and museum exhibitions. Washington, factors on visitor behaviour in Britain Melton, A. (1936). Distribution of attention DC: American Association of Museums. and China. Unpublished PhD thesis, in galleries in a museum of science and Van den Bergh, O., & Vrana, S. R. (1998). University of Bolton, UK. industry. Museum News, 14(3), 6–8. Repetition and boredom in a perceptual Diamond, J. (1994). Sex differences in Mitchell, G., Herring, F., Obradovich, S., fluency/attributional model of affective Science Museums: A review. Curator, Trombergy, C., Dowd, B., Neville, L., judgments. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 37, 17–24. & Field, L. (1990). Effects of visitors 533–553. Falk, J. (1983). Time and Behaviour and cage changes on the behaviours of The Author as Predictors of Learning. Science Mangabeys. Zoo Biology, 10, 417–423. Education, 67(2), 267–276. Nicki, R. M., Lee, P. L., & Moss, V. (1981). Dr Gareth Davey is a research associate Falk, J., & Dierking, (2002). Lessons Ambiguity, cubist works of art, and at the University of Chester (Britain) without limit. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta preference. Acta Psychologica, 49, and conducts visitor studies in museums Mira. 27–41. and zoos.
2005 Volume 8 Issue 3 Visitor Studies Today 21