Mindful Visitors - Heritage and Tourism (Moscardo 1996)

Annalsof Tourism Research, Pergamon Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 376397, 1996 CopyrIght 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britam. All rights reserved 0160-7383/96 $15.00+0.00 0160-7383(95)00068-2 MINDFUL VISITORS Heritage and Tourism Gianna Moscardo James Cook University, Australia Abstract: This paper begins with the premise that interpretation is the key to ensuring the quality of the tourism experience and argues that successful interpretation is critical both for the effective management and conservation of built heritage sites and for sustainable tourism. The paper introduces the concept of mindfulness and outlines its use in developing a model for designing effective interpretation at built heritage sites. A supporting set of principles for this design is provided. It is argued that mindfulness is an integrating concept that can be used to enhance the quality of visitor experiences and create a sustainable link between tourism and built heritage. Keywords: interpretation, heritage management, mindfulness, sustainable tourism. R&umC: Visiteurs attentifs: patrimoine et tourisme. L’article commence en partant du principe que I’interprttation est la cl6 pour assurer la qualit de I’expCrience touristique. L’article soutient qu’une interprCtation rCussie est ntcessaire pour la gestion efficace, la conservation du patrimoine construite et le tourisme soutenable en gtnCra1. On prtsente le concept de I’esprit attention& et propose one faGon d’appliquer ce concept pour ilaborer one interprCtation e&ace aux sites patrimoniaux construits. L’article prCsente on ensemble de principes pour I’Claboration de ce genre d’interprttation. On soutient que I’esprit intentionm? reprtsente un concept unifiant qu’on peut utiliser pur rehausser la qualit de I’expCrience touristique et c&r on lien sootenable entre le tourisme et le patrimoine construit. Motscl&: interprCtation, gestion du patrimoine, esprit attention”& tourisme sootenable. INTRODUCTION How can we get from extensive to intensive travel, From devouring miles to lingering, From ticking off items in the travel guide to stopping and thinking, From rush to leisure, From aggressive and destructive to creative communication, From camera-wearing idiots to people with the third eye? I believe these are the important and burning issues. For we are all looking for meaning and humanity (Krippendorf 1987:141). With this poem Krippendorf begins the final section of his 1987 book, The Holidaymakers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. In this section he expands upon a new approach to tourism, variously referred to as healthy travel or human tourism. In his discussion of this human tourism, Krippendorf touches upon many of the principles Gianna Moscardo is a Senior Research Officer with the Department of Tourism at James Cook University (Townsville QLD 4811, Australia. email [email protected]), working in the Rainforest and Reef Tourism Programs as part of the Cooperative Research Centers for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management and for the Ecologically Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef. 376 377 GIANNA MOSCARDO that are recognized as underlying sustainable tourism. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of learning, self-discovery and exploration as motives for, and activities in, tourism, and he argues strongly that animation should have a central role in tourism. He defines animation as: . ..giving a person the courage to come out of his shell; laying free what is buried; providing information, ideas and stimuli; creating favurable preconditions and setting an example; liberate freedom in people, namely the freedom to become active oneself. Animation should help remove barriers, it should encourage the exploratory spirit and openness for new contacts, thus making it possible to escape from isolation. Animation is help towards self-help, stimulation of self-creativity and self-participation (Krippendorf 1987:142). In a similar spirit and words Tilden (1977) described and outlined the core elements of interpretation. Tilden describes interpretation as “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships”, as “an art”, and as “revelation based upon information”, and suggests that its aim is “not instruction but provocation” (19773-9). T’ld 1 en also asserts that interpretation must connect its topic or place “to something within the personality or experience of the visitors” (1977:9). It is easy to see that Tilden and Krippendorf are describing the same activity, and that both believe this to be an important one for the quality of heritage conservation. It is the core argument of this paper that effective interpretation can play a central and critical role in sustainable tourism in general and more specifically in the effective management of visitors to built heritage sites. The paper proposes an integrating framework for ensuring the development of successful interpretation at sites such as museums, art galleries, historic buildings and precincts. Interpretation Lane tourism and Ecologically (1991) defined that provides: Sustainable ecologically Tourism sustainable tourism (EST) as . ..satisfying jobs without dominating the local economy. It must not abuse the natural environment, and should be architecturally respectable. . . . The benefits of tourism should be diffused through many communities, not concentrated on a narrow coastal strip or scenic valley (1991:2). He also is critical. suggests that the quality of the Specifically, he states that: experience for the tourist the visitor will gain an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the area, its landscapes and peoples. The tourist will become concerned and, therefore, protective of the host area (1991:2). This theme of the quality of tourism experiences and the need for effective interpretation of the host regions’ environment and culture Pigram 1990). The Australian Government’s Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group Report for Tourism (1991) sets out eight key characteristics of EST. economy and environment of the host area. Hall and McArthur offer two to enhance the visitor experience and core goals of interpretation: consequently ensure public support for heritage conservation. and the set also includes the idea that EST is tourism that allows the guest to gain an understanding of the region visited and which encourages guests to be concerned about and protective of the host community and environment. It could be argued. He has been left out of all discussion on the subject. This reflects a more general tendency in discussions of EST to focus on biological and biophysical rather than social and cultural aspects of tourism and its impacts (Pearce 1993. The first of these is that EST is tourism that is concerned with the quality of experience. informing them of the consequences of their actions. But they should certainly be made aware of the situation! (1987:43). In support of this argument. They are therefore carefree and ignorant rather than devious. Visser and Njugana (1992) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1992) and is included as a requirement in many tourism industry codes of practice. and most authors pay only lip service to the ideas of educating and enhancing tourism experiences. it has been proposed “that the visitor experience should be placed at the center of any heritage management process” and that traditional management that has focused on the heritage resource is “deficient because it generally takes inadequate account of the human element in heritage management and especially the significance of visitors” (Hall and McArthur 1993: 13). and through education to encourage visitors to behave in appropriate . discussions of improving the nature of tourism rarely include any detailed consideration of improving the nature and behavior of tourists. Examples of such codes for New Zealand and Britain are given by Green (1992) and UNEP (1992). . even though he is one of the main protagonists. . enhancing their experience and encouraging them to engage in sustainable behaviors. This paper demonstrates that interpretation can play a critical role in sustainable tourism by educating tourists about the nature of the host region and culture. . however. while the tourist is often cited as the cause of many negative impacts. Interpretation is also included in descriptions and discussions of EST to be found in Gunn (1994). Additionally. Interpretation and Built Heritage Management In the area of heritage management. Krippendorf recognizes this when he states that: The damage tourism causes to the people.378 MINDFUL VISITORS to visitors can be found in many descriptions of ecologically sustainable tourism. especially in the long-term. To lay all blame at their door would be as wrong as denying their responsibility. remains hidden from the tourist. that such inclusions are superficial. In this case. such as touching delicate surfaces. More controversially. littering and vandalism. McNamara 1990. Several authors have noted the lack of theory in museum visitor research. allowing them some understanding of a built heritage site without them having to actually be at the site (von Droste. alter behavior. Interpretation can also relieve pressure on heritage sites through the distribution of visitors at a site (for example. Bitgood (1988a) has conducted a quantitative history of visitor studies based on a comprehensive bibliography of visitor studies published by the International Laboratory for Visitor Studies (ILVS) (1988). The work of Bitgood and his associates represents the most extensive and systematic attempt to review research in the area of visitor behavior and cognition. An example of this function of interpretation could be the direction of visitors at Stonehenge to other archeological sites in the vicinity of the famous 1991). . Additionally. Shettel 1989). Patterson and Bitgood. Benefield and Landers 1986. Effective interpretation can relieve crowding and congestion. there have been few attempts to integrate the results into any coherent framework or to apply theory to understand or explain the results. Uzzell 1989).GIANNA MOSCARDO 379 ways. The key to achieving such goals is to ensure that interpretation is effective. This work is usually referred to as visitor studies. Ensuring Effective Interpretation There is a substantial and growing body of research and literature concerned with understanding what makes effective interpretation in various heritage settings. pressure on heritage sites can be relieved by informing visitors of lesser-known sites or areas. Silk and Rossler 1992). visitor studies and environmental education provides evidence of the increasing body of literature on this topic. crowding and congestion. 1989. or from the inappropriate behavior of visitors. either directly through information or indirectly through fostering visitor appreciation of a site. by allowing access to an historic house only with a guided tour) (McArthur and Hall 1993. This group have attempted to draw together the broader range of research results into what they refer to as “principles” of visitor behavior (Bitgood and Patterson 1987a. it has been stone circle (Pearce suggested that interpretation could act to preserve especially fragile sites through substitution. Even a cursory examination of journals in the fields of museum management. through the development of self-guiding walks at an historic site) or through controlling access to a site (for example. Despite this. which indicated both a steady increase in the publication of visitor studies and that there existed a substantial body of data on visitors that can be examined. Much of the danger to built heritage sites arguably results from destruction for tourism development. with many suggesting that the atheoretical nature of the research has resulted in poor methodology and limited impact on exhibit design (Martin and O’Reilly 1988. interpretation could provide alternative experiences and activities for visitors. Patterson. and can create public support for conservation of built heritage sites through positive visitor experiences. Proximity of Exhibit: The closer visitors can get to exhibits. Sensory Factors: Multisensory exhibits produce longer viewing times. in the past. the longer they stay. although no consistent patterns can be discerned. One place to seek such a framework is in the field of social cognition. When mindless. These principles (Table 1) can be best seen as variables that have been found to be significantly related to visitor attention and learning and. . Patterson and Bitgood (1988). Sensory Competition: Exhibit stimuli compete for visitor attention. or types of. Visitor Participation: Visitor participation is associated with greater attention and better recall. Special Interests: Visitors are more likely to select exhibits related to their interests. Langer’s basic argument is that in any given situation people can be either mindful or mindless.b). The first occurs in familiar and/or repetitive situations.380 MINDFUL VISITORS Table 1. mindlessness. Mindless behavior is behavior that is overdetermined by the past. While such research reviews are valuable. Bitgood 1988). what is clearly necessary is some integrative theoretical framework to guide both future visitor studies and the design of interpretation. one relies on categories and distinctions derived . which is a subdiscipline of psychology concerned with understanding the way in which people think and learn in everyday settings as opposed to laboratory settings (Forgas 1981). and often they are mindless. Object Satiation and Fatigue: Repetition of content or exhibit style is related to decreased attention. Novelty/Rarity: There is an inherent attraction in novel/rare objects. Joss and Howell 1989:140). Demographic Factors: Factors such as age. colors and patterns of exhibit objects are related to visitor attention. when mindless. Mindlessness is single-minded reliance on information without an active awareness of alternative perspectives or alternative uses to which the information could be put. In such situations the . as noted by the authors. “are more empirical than theoretical” (Patterson and Bitgood 1988:40). There are two basic paths to. . educational level and group composition are related to visitor behavior. Motion: Moving elements in an exhibit result in greater attention from visitors. Visibility of Exhibit: Barriers to visibility reduce viewing times. their Source: experiences. Summary of Principles of Visitor Behavior Size: Larger size results in longer viewing times and better recall. Hatem. Aesthetic Factors: Shapes. One major theoretical approach to such social cognition can be found in the work of Langer and her associates (Langer 1989a. which give visitors some control over result in higher levels of visitor attention. Interactive Factors: Interactive exhibits. the individual relies on structures that have been appropriated from another source (Langer. Realism: Naturalistic exhibits provide more memorable experiences. Mindful people actively process information and question what is going on in a setting. but it appears that many of the students were also able to enact the seemingly thoughtful behavior of taking notes in a mindless fashion. walked to the front of the class and began to lecturethe class on various aspects of kinship systems. An example of both these situations can be found in studies of the attention paid to information on AIDS by people who do not consider themselves to be at risk from this disease and who believe that the disease is associated with deviant sexual behavior. Mindfulness allows individuals maximum control over their own behavior and the situations they find . A second path to mindlessness is referred to as premature cognitive commitment. . but in the second semester the venue changed.a state of mind that results from drawing novel distinctions. Approximately 20 minutes into this lecture. the lecturer gathered her notes. But this should not be surprising if one considers that attending lectures and taking notes is a very familiar and repetitive task for students. When we are mindful we recognize that there is not a single optimal perspective. . . and few appeared to realize that anything was amiss. a student in the front row nervously asked the relevance of this material to geology. examining information from new perspectives. Not only was the teacher mindless. A classic example of mindless behavior in routine or repetitive situations is that of a colleague who taught a class in introductory anthropology for an entire academic year. The alternative to mindlessness is mindfulness. What is most compelling about this example is that many of the geology students happily took substantial notes on anthropology. In this instance people can be mindless either because they have decided that the available information is irrelevant or unimportant to them or because they accept or borrow unquestioningly a definition or stereotype from elsewhere. . and being sensitive to context.. In these studies such individuals were found to be unlikely to remember very much information from public health brochures even when specifically asked to consider them and that what they did claim to remember as information was often distorted to be consistent with the stereotypes of AIDS sufferers that they brought with them to the study (Echabe and Rovira 1989). rushed to the hall that had housed the lectures in the first semester. The lectures for this class were held at the same times in both semesters. The lecturer had mindlessly enacted the routine of the previous semester and failed to process the available information that this was not her class.GIANNA MOSCARDO 381 individual either knows the routine because it is familiar (such as driving to work on the same route everyday) or because the situation offers a simple repetitive formula where it is easy to learn a routine quickly (such as in a traditional museum with room after room of static glass cabinet displays). At the scheduled time for the first lecture in the second semester. Langer defines mindfulness as: . but many possible perspectives on the same situation (Langer 1993:44). signs. which can be seen as an indicator of mindlessness. environmental design (Fuhrer 1989) and organizational management (Gioia and Manz 1985). motivation for the visit and companions. consumer education (de Turck and Goldhaber 1989). The concepts of mindfulness and mindlessness have been used successfully in the fields of education (Salomon and Globerson 1987). visitors who are active.382 MINDFUL VISITORS themselves in (Langer and Piper 1988). interested. control. learning and creativity and effective management (Langer 1989a. when control is taken away from people. brochures and walks.activity. on the other hand. guidebooks. novelty or surprise in a situation. novelty and personal interest-have all been found in previous research to be related to more effective interpretation. interaction. express satisfaction with their visit. questioning and capable of reassessing the way they view the world. . Repetition. has been found to be related to decreased visitor attention. and/or when there is variety. Langer has provided considerable empirical evidence of direct and significant links between mindfulness and increased self-esteem. Mindful visitors should also be more aware of the consequences of their behavior and more appreciative of the heritage site. A MINDFULNESS MODEL OF INTERPRETATION How then might mindfulness and mindlessness be connected to interpretation at built heritage sites? The most important connection is that of the type of visitor effective interpretation aims to create. The model puts forward two sets of factors that influence visitors at built heritage sites: Setting Factors and Visitor Factors. when they believe the available information is relevant to them. Figure 1 describes a proposed mindfulness model of visitor behavior and cognition at built heritage sites. Further. Mindful visitors will be more tikely than mindless visitors to enjoy their visit. Clearly. Setting Factors include exhibits and displays. Conversely. guided tours. Why pay attention to details and the setting if you have no power to influence what happens? People are most likely to be mindful when they have an opportunity to control and influence a situation. interpretation is trying to produce mindful visitors. The two sets of factors combine to determine whether visitors will be mindful or mindless.b). It is likely that mindfulness and mindlessness are valuable concepts in understanding how visitors respond to interpretation at built heritage sites. the following are seen as likely to induce mindlessness: repetitive and traditional exhibit/signage media and/or tour design (repetition allows visitors to quickly develop and use a mindless script or routine). Visitor Factors include familiarity with the place and with heritage sites in general. maps. they are likely to be mindless. In the case of Setting Factors. exhibit or tour designs that do not allow the visitors to control the information they receive. learn more from their visit and be interested in discovering more about a topic or place. those conditions that Langer proposes should induce mindfulness . Little learning 2. High Interest in Content 2. No control/Interaction 1. Topic/Content Area 8. Static Exhibits 5. Educational Motive 1. Low Satisfaction 3. Poor/No Orientation 6. Visitor control/Interactive Exhibits 5. Entertainment/Social Motive ------------ 3.Media -w ) I I ___) 1. Varied/Multisensory Media 2. Low Interest in Content 2. Dynamic exhibits 6. High satisfaction 3. High levels of Fatigue e 3. Mindfulness Model of Visitor Behavior and Cognition at Built Heritage Sites 4. Use of questions 4. Low levels of fatigue VISITOR FACTORS t h t MINDLESS - ---------- MINDFUL- 7 COGNITIVE STATE 1. Repetitive/Unisensory 2. Physical/Cognitive Orientation 7. Greater understanding CONSEQUENCES Figure 1. Presence of guides ___--------- SETTING FACTORS . More Learning 2. Novelty/Conflict/Surprise 3. Little Understanding ------ 1. Traditional Exhibits 3. No guides present 1. The model includes predictions about the influence of physical orientation systems. There are several reasons put forward for this effectiveness of guides. and. Therefore. This proposal recognizes work in educational. there is an opportunity for the visitor to control the information that they receive (this is most likely in interactive/participatory exhibits or tours). the interpretation content and/or the exhibit media are novel. surprise or conflict. Specifically. Kaplan and Kaplan 1978. It is also argued that when there is too much novelty. there is content perceived by the visitors to be personally relevant. In addition to the Setting Factors. The model also introduces the idea that a structure underlying the content or organization of the exhibits. exhibits are dynamic or animate and exhibits/tours give visitors the opportunity for direct contact with objects/topics. However. . but rather they are derived from research in environmental psychology that indicates that people who have difficulty orienting themselves experience feelings of loss of control and anxiety (Pearce 1988. in general. this factor will interfere with the attention they pay to the exhibits. An important prediction made by the model with regard to interpretation in built heritage sites is that. visitors are more likely to be mindful if they have a high level of interest in the content area and if they are not fatigued. will induce mindfulness and result in learning. Guides can provide physical orientation. through their ability to answer questions. Pearce 1984). vivid or affectively charged. cognitive and environmental psychology that indicates learning is enhanced by the presence of a structure to organize new information (Carey 1986. Research describing guided tours in other settings emphasizes both these points (Fine and Speer 1985. mindfulness will not result in enhanced cognitive performance. conflict or information in a setting. ineffective maps and signage -will be more likely to induce mindlessness in their visitors than those with effective systems. or cognitive orientation system. the use of guides will be conducive to mindful visitors.384 MINDFUL VISITORS inanimate and/or static exhibits. and there is a structure underlying the organization of the interpretive content. These predictions do not come directly from Langer’s work. Hammitt 1984. Further. Pearce and Black 1984). questions are used to create conflict or ambiguity. the model includes several Visitor Factors that can influence the visitors’ cognitive state. Nasar 1989). It seems reasonable to propose that while people may be mindful about their orientation in a situation with poor orientation systems. too little information in the setting is likely to induce mindlessness. they can make the material presented personally relevant for visitors.that is. unexpected or surprising. as much of the active information processing will be directed towards trying to develop some system to deal with the information overload. combined with novelty. mindfulness is more likely when there is a variety of exhibit media including multisensory exhibits and exhibits with extreme physical properties. as visitors can easily create a routine to deal with the setting. the model predicts that built heritage sites with poor physical orientation systems . They roamed the plains in great herds. While visitors bring their own interests and experiences with them to any specific place. however. it seems reasonable to propose that visitors with educational goals will be more likely to be mindful than those with social goals. For example. a visitor with a very high level of interest in a topic may be mindful regardless of the Setting Factors. The chances are that they browsed right where you are standing now. is to develop principles for the design of interpretation at these places. can combine in a number of ways to produce the visitor’s cognitive state. Heritage managers can also consider and influence visitor fatigue through the provision of seating and the programming of tours.” Where you are standing now. . Setting Factors and Visitor Factors. while a visitor who has no interest at all in a topic and who is fatigued may be mindless regardless of the Setting Factors. . The label read: “Prehistoric mammoths were here in Texas just a few thousand years ago. the rest of this paper focuses on these factors only. with a variety of media and the opportunity to interact with exhibits. the discussion has included both Setting and Visitor Factors as the model aims to provide a complete picture of visitor responses to interpretation at built heritage sites. With that statement the mammoths are not far away creatures of time or space but right under your feet (Tilden 1977:13-14). Further. The model includes a variable referred to as familiarity. Before doing so. these do not remain constant throughout their visit. it is important to recognize that there is overlap between the categories set out in Figure 1. The purpose of the present discussion. Familiarity can be seen as operating on two levels: with a specific site and with built heritage sites in general. it can be suggested that familiarity with a specific site should also be conducive to mindfulness because it should increase visitors’ knowledge of both the physical layout of a site and the cognitive structure of the interpretation on offer. Thus far. As Setting Factors are those that are under the most direct control of site managers. however. In this model it is argued that it is possible to generate visitor interest in a topic on-site by making connections to their experiences. A third Visitor Factor is that of the visitors’ specific goals for their visit. as it is likely to reflect an educational motive or specific interests. While Langer’s work does not provide any guidance in this area of motivation. A visitor with low levels of interest may become mindful in a setting where it is easy to find their way around.GIANNA MOSCARDO 385 Visitors who have a low level of interest in the content area and who are fatigued are likely to be mindless. Tilden (1977) p rovides an excellent example of how such connections can be made when he reports on an exhibit label in a museum in Texas. The model proposes that the two sets of factors. This is particularly the case for the variables of visitor interest in a topic or place and visitor fatigue. In both cases it can be argued that familiarity should induce mindfulness. . it is now necessary to examine the evidence available to support the model. “Attracting power” is defined as the proportion of visitors passing an exhibit who are attracted to stop at that exhibit. that research can now be reviewed. Repetition of exhibit media or structure will induce mindlessness. Interactive/participatory exhibits. Any exhibit that differs in some way from traditional museum exhibits (which are static objects in cases with labels or text and/or illustrations). 4. This review was based upon major published bibliographies (International Laboratory for . consequently. Effective physical orientation systems will be more likely to result in mindful visitors and effective interpretation. four sets of indicatorsof mindfulness and interpretation effectiveness can to exhibits or guides as be proposed: (1) increased visitor attention indicated by both “attracting power” and “holding time”. It should be noted that attention is a necessary although not sufficient condition of visitor preference for for mindfulness. derived from the model. The more participation and control that visitors have. 2. for visitor responses to various Setting Factors and. color or sound will all be more likely than traditional exhibits to induce mindfulness. B. while “holding time” refers to the length of time that visitors spend at an exhibit. Guided tours or contact with interpretive staff should be effective interpretive techniques. exploratory games. Cognitive orientation devices. Table 2 sets out predictions. these are predictions about what should result in effective interpretation. Having established what to look for in the existing visitor research. 3. Having outlined this model of interpretation. The model predicts that the greatest difference will lie between traditional/expected exhibits and any change to an exhibit. Predictions VISITORS for Visitor Behavior and Cognition Mindfulness Model of Interpretation Derived from the Variety and control are the most important elements of mindfulness. exhibits that give visitors control over the type and amount of information they receive (this includes the use of exhibit adjuncts such as quiz cards. such as questions and guides. (3) higher levels of interest in the interpretive material.386 MINDFUL Table 1. The next task of this paper then is to examine the existing research data available on visitors in built heritage settings in order to assess the validity of the model’s predictions. 2. But it is necessary to first set out what types of results can be seen as indicators of mindfulness or mindlessness and interpretation effectiveness. and that increasing participation and control will be reflected in increases in these measures. brochures or guides that direct attention and learning) will be likely to induce mindfulness. the more likely it is that visitors will be mindful. For the purposes of this paper. will enhance learning. including multisensory or dynamic exhibits and exhibits with features that are extreme in size. and (4) greater recall of and learning from interpretation. This leads to two fundamental predictions: A. (2) high er levels exhibits/tours and their contents. In both of the previous two survey examples. In all cases the research indicates that improvements in interpretive effectiveness are related to increased opportunities for visitors to participate in and control the interpretation that they receive. General surveys of visitors to built heritage sites also provide evidence to support the Mindfulness Model’s prediction that interaction and control are important for effective interpretation. Interaction and Control One of the most consistent findings in visitor studies is that interactive interpretive techniques are effective at catching and keeping visitor attention and at improving learning and interest. Alt notes that in these surveys the highest levels of interest were given for the Hall of Human Biology. Again the results are clear. Screven 1984) and articles identified from a search of the key journals in the field. Munley and Tymitz 1979). The journals Curator. This table includes studies examining the effectiveness of audio-visuals.that is. expectations and general evaluations of galleries. The International Journal of Museum Management and CuratorshiP. Visitor Behauior and Museum News were all searched for the years subsequent to the ILVS 1988 bibliography. variety of activities was seen as important. The Mindfulness Model is very specific in its prediction that any change away from traditional exhibits will be likely to make visitors mindful. Museums Journal. static and unidimensional . motivation. and that the Corners were different from the usual activities available in the museum (Wolf. for example. reviewed four years of visitor surveys at the British Museum of Natural History which collected data on visitor demographics. multisensory and dynamic interpretive techniques. in contrast to the traditional exhibition techniques used elsewhere in the museum. all these features appear to enhance visitor attention and learning. a study of Discovery Corners in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of History and Technology found the features visitors most liked about the corners were the opportunity to get information relevant to their own personal concerns. Table 3 contains a comprehensive selection of studies conducted at built heritage sites that have compared traditional . Table 4 contains a summary of built heritage visitor studies that have compared traditional interpretive techniques and exhibits to other techniques.exhibits or interpretive techniques to interactive or participatory techniques. the opportunity to touch objects. In a similar vein. ILVS Review. An examination of those studies in Tables 3 and 4 which . which had been recently renovated and included numerous and varied interactive exhibits. This search process was further augmented by a search of current contents. Alt (1980).GIANNA MOSCARDO 387 Visitor Studies 1988. excluding interactive/participatory ones. Koran and Longino (1986) Visitors (13 1) Museum Worts ( 1990) Visitors (265) Art gallery Borun (1977) Visitors (500) Museum Diamond. 4. 7. Smith and Bond (1988) Groups (100) Museum Gillies and Wilson (1982) Children (1423) and visitors (295) Museum Worts (1990) Visitors (265) Art gallery . Eason and Friedman (1979) Children (138) Museum Borun (1977) Visitors (500) Museum DeWaard. 2. 2. 1. 3. Visitors prefer interactive to traditional exhibits/displays. 1. Summary of Selected Studies Comparing Interpretive (Including Interaction) at Built Heritage Sites Conclusion Visitors using interactive exhibits learn more about exhibit content than visitors to traditional static exhibits. 6. Jagmin. 2.388 Table Major MINDFUL VISITORS 3. Smith and Bond (1988) Groups (100) Museum Gillies and Wilson (1982) Children (1423) and visitors (295) Museum Hayward (1988) Visitors (3296) Museum Koran. Studies Authors Sample I. 5. 9. Techniques (Date) (a) Setting Blud ( 1990) Adult-child pairs (72) Museum Eason and Linn (1976) Children (740) Museum Gilles & Wilson (1982) Children (1423) and Visitors (295) Museum Gottesdiener and Boyer (1992) Visitors (943) Art gallery Morrisey (1991) Groups (306) Museum Screven (1974a) Visitors (405) Museum Screven (1974b) Visitors (276) Museum Screven (1975) Visitors (736) Museum Sneider. Maisto and McNamara (1974) Visitors (120) Museum Korn (1988) Visitors (not given) Botanic gardens McManus ( 1985) Groups (29) Museum Screven (1974a) Visitors (405) Museum Screven (197413) Visitors (276) Museum Screven (1975) Visitors (736) Museum Borun (1977) Visitors (500) Museum Diamond. 5. 2. 3. 4. 6. 4. 3. Visitors are attracted more to interactive exhibits and spend longer than at traditional exhibits. 3. 8. 7. 6. 4. Visitors using exhibit guides/ brochures with questionsfquizes learn more than visitors using traditional guides. 5. I. Kearns (1940) Visitors (150) Museum A guide directing people target exhibits generated for those exhibits. Morrison Lehman. Landay and Bridge (1982) Visitors (282) Museum A video display was more effective than a traditional wall display for attracting and holding visitor attention and for visitor learning and preference. to look at more attention to objects compared several different exhibit conditions. Peart (1984) Visitors (280) Museum The addition of a sound track to an exhibit significantly increased visitor attention. Summary of Selected Studies Comparing Interpretive (Excluding Interaction) at Built Heritage Sites Authors (Date) Brooks Vernon Sample Setting and (1956) Children Museum Techniques (n) Conclusions (140) Dynamic/moving exhibits had greater attracting and holding power than static exhibits and visitors preferred moving exhibits. these results are also supported by general visitor surveys. A survey of visitors to the Anniston Museum of Natural History (Alabama) found that the most liked and most memorable exhibits were those that were . In all of these studies any change away from traditional exhibits resulted in the greatest changes on the dependent measures. Koran and Gandara (1984) Visitors (234) Museum Visitors were more attracted that could be touched. Houlding (1989) Visitors (394) Museum Visitors spent more than twice as much time at exhibits where objects could be touched than where the objects were in cases. revealed that there was support for this prediction with most studies in this category concluding that the significant or greatest differences on the dependent measures lay between the control groups and all other groups. and (1988) objects attract attention. Again.GIANNA Table 389 MOSCARDO 4. Cone and Kendall (1978) Groups (26) Museum Large dioramas had greater attracting and holding power and generated more learning than traditional small exhibit cases. with increased scores on the dependent measures usually associated with increased opportunities for visitor participation. Goins and Griffenhagen greatest (1957) Visitors ( 100) Museum Unusual Hirschi Screven Groups (172) Museum Mean label reading time was significantly higher when labels had questions. Koran. In a similar study also conducted with students visiting the Florida State Museum. In most cases the use of questions was effective in increasing visitor attention and learning. the group answering the questions given to them before the exhibit was experienced did best of all three groups. read the information. and that the group who studied the questions before entering the display area had the highest mean score. Shafer and Koran (1983) asked students to study some questions either before or after entering a display area. Guided Tours There is little research evidence to demonstrate that guided tours or contact with interpretive staff can be effective in increasing visitor learning. Koran. and this conclusion is consistent with that drawn by Bitgood (1989) in his review of studies into the effectiveness of questions. The results revealed that both these groups of students had significantly higher mean scores than a group having no questions. read the information available in the exhibit and answer some questions that were given to them. Gennaro (1981) and Gennaro. undergraduate students were given instructions to observe an exhibit carefully.MINDFUL VISITORS 390 different from the other exhibits either in style or size (Bitgood. Patterson and Nichols 1986). Thus. Dierking and Dreblow (1985) and Weiss and Boutourline (1969) all provide evidence of decreasing visitor attention to repetitive exhibits. Melton (1972). Two studies provide direct evidence that questions can act as cognitive orientation devices and thus enhance learning. The use of questions is one way of providing cognitive orientation to interpretation. generate their own questions and answer these. Falk. Cognitive Orientation Several of the studies in Tables 3 and 4 included conditions in which questions were placed in exhibit labels or in associated quiz games or brochures. In a study conducted at the Florida State Museum (Lehman and Lehman 1984). previsit instructions and the organization of exhibit material. particularly if they are that questions presented before an exhibit is experienced. pattern of decreasing attention paid to exhibits. the prediction that repetition will induce mindlessness is also supported by several studies. provided evidence from several studies of school children supporting the value of previsit instructions on how to visit a museum for enhancing learning from a museum. While both groups who answered questions did better on a test on the exhibit content than a control group who did not answer questions. for example. Lehman. others include the use of guided tours. In observation studies repetition consistently results in a. S errell (1977). or to observe the exhibit. Koran. it seems can enhance learning. As would be expected. Stoneberg and Tanck (1984). The observational studies reported by Bitgood (1988b). although there is a widespread belief among interpreters . The two most common “What drew your attention to the answers given to the question . Horn surveyed visitors who had taken either a traditional tour. lecture-like presentation. signs or both and found that all conditions improved visitor orientation. Loomis and Cross (1980) studied students visiting a small museum and found that students had better recall of exhibits if they were exposed to only a subset of exhibits than if they were exposed to all exhibits. Cohen. It is possible that the effectiveness of these various cognitive orientation devices results from their power to reduce the amount of information in a museum setting and give visitors control over their experience. The authors surveyed visitors at the same museum after the installation of maps. positive about the inquiry tour. and results from the latter study indicated that visitors using hand-held maps viewed more exhibits than visitors without maps. Alt. Bitgood and Patterson (198713) and Bitgood and Richardson (1987) also found that visitors preferred to use maps and signs than contact staff. Research conducted of a by Horn (1980) p rovides one of the few published examples study of guided tours in a built heritage setting. In a review of a study of visitor orientation at the British Museum of Natural History (Griggs 1983) it was noted that visitors do use maps and signs to find their way in exhibit halls. This prediction is based on the argument that visitors who have difficulty orienting themselves in a place may be mindful. Boyer-Tarlo and Emonson 1989). and an inquiry tour in which the guide asked visitors questions The visitors were significantly more and encouraged discussion. but this will be directed towards finding their way rather than towards the exhibit contents. There is evidence that visitors were more likely to pay attention to paintings in low density art galleries than in high density ones (Bitgood 1988b). Gosling.GIANNA MOSCARDO 391 that this is the case (McArthur and Hall 1993). While many authors have suggested that built heritage sites need effective physical orientation systems (Guthrie 1984. and 41% had been forced to backtrack at some point in their visit. very little data is available either to support this claim or to suggest what makes for effective physical orientation systems. 71% of visitors were unaware of the existence of entire halls. Lewis and Tout 1982. This study also revealed that visitors preferred to use maps and signs than to approach museum staff. Winkel. Olsen and Wheeler (1977) found that in a museum without orientation devices. The results from observations of and interviews with visitors found a marked increase in the use of the map and preference for it when placed on the floor. Miles. Screven 1986). the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. 86% had no idea what the nearest hall was. Physical Orientation The Mindfulness Model predicts that interpretation effectiveness will be enhanced if visitors can easily find their way around built heritage sites. where the guide gives a standard. A more recent study compared the use of a map installed on a wall of the Royal Ontario Museum with a map set into the floor (Lockett. B arnard. it is likely that they will lose their power to generate visitor mindfulness. which is Principles for Mindful Interpretive Design The previous section has introduced the concepts of mindfulness and mindlessness. the amount of technology involved in the interpretation (for example. Three. as compared to being part of a large theatre audience). writing your own experience of a building on a piece of paper for a visitor experience noticeboard vs. interpretation needs to challenge visitors. and four. Further. While two of these principles (the use of interaction and making personal connections) are standard beliefs in interpretation. One. visitors should be given variety in their experiences. In the first instance a mindfulness perspective highlights the critical role of variety in the experiences available for visitors. particularly through effective orientation systems.b) and the applied research evidence (presented earlier) suggest that there are four key principles that should underlie interpretation at built heritage sites. participating in a dance). Both the theoretical discussions and basic research evidence from social cognition (Langer 1989a. interpretation needs to make connections to the personal experiences of visitors. to question and encourage them to question. generated a model for understanding how visitors respond to interpretation at built heritage sites. and good physical orientation systems). the number of senses used. ‘mindfulness provides a novel theoretical explanation for the success of interactive interpretive techniques based on novelty and visitor control. and reviewed evidence from visitor studies that supported the model. In terms of providing a new and integrative perspective on interpretation. unusual position. and the interpretive media used. listening to a storyteller vs. mindfulness suggests other ways in which visitor control can be maximized. These experiences can be varied along a number of dimensions. Two. If interactive techniques become very common and/or are used in a repetitive way. CONCLUSIONS If interpretation at built heritage sites can be effective and create mindful visitors. visitors should be given control over their experiences (in general control is given to visitors through opportunities to interact with or participate in the interpretation. A mindfulness perspective also predicts that interactives may not always be effective. then the management and conservation of such places can be substantially improved. the mindfulness concept provides both new principles and a new integrative perspective on previous beliefs. Carefully designed interpretive . including the degree of physical activity required (for example. the number of visitors involved in an activity (for example. using an interactive computer to design buildings).392 MINDFUL VISITORS map?” were its bright colors and its predicted by the Mindfulness Model. sitting alone in a prison cell. relieving to some degree congestion and pressure. Loomis... 1987b Orientation and Wayfinding in a Small Museum. Visitor Behavior 1(4):9.. 1990 Social Interaction and Learning Among Family Groups Visiting a Museum. If one sees tourists as playing a central role in the creation of more sustainable tourism. L. Benefield. Borun.. and D. Blud. S. Landers 1986 Understanding Your Visitors: Ten Factors That Influence Their Behavior. S. 0 0 REFERENCES Alt. J. Cross 1980 Assessment of Visual Recall and Recognition Learning in a Museum Environment. and such understanding can provide both support for changing their behaviors on site and for the conservation of the site. Nichols 1986 Report of a Survey of Visitors to the Anniston Museum of Natural History. Bitgood. Washington: Association of Science Technology Centers. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 16:31 l-313. J ac k sonville: The Jacksonville State University. Museum Management and Curatorship 9:43-5 1. 1988b Museum “Fatigue”: Early Studies. Richardson 1987 Wayfinding at the Birmingham Zoo. 8650. 1980 Four Years of Visitor Surveys at the British Museum (Natural History) 1976-79. Museums Iournal 80:10-18. and between different cultures (1992:9). Bitgood. and K. Visitor Behavior 1(4):6. Bitgood. von Droste. Built heritage sites contain much information about the history and culture of a place.. Visitor Behavior 3(3):3. J ac k sonville: The Jacksonville State University Psychology Institute. Mindful visitors will also have a greater appreciation and understanding of a site. Technical Report No. Y . 1989 Deadly Sins Revisited: A Review of the Exhibit Label Literature. and H. Mindful visitors will understand the consequences of their actions and be able to behave in ways that lessen their impacts on a site. M.make people aware of the importance of building bonds between nature and culture. Bitgood. between the past and the future.. Visitor Behavior 3( 1):4-5. 1988a Visitor Studies: Coming of Age. Visitor Behavior 4(3):&l 1. Bitgood. M. Patterson 1987a Principles of Exhibit Design. Barnard. In discussing the importance of interpretation and tourism to the success of World Heritage sites. M. D. and G. Patterson. B. Effective interpretation and the creation of mindful visitors at built heritage sites can have important consequences for tourism at a more general level. then effective interpretation at built heritage sites can make a substantial contribution to the sustainability of tourism in general.. Psychology Institute. W. 1977 Measuring the Immeasurable: A Pilot Study of Museum Effectiveness. S. Patterson. and successful interpretation at such sites can create visitors who not only appreciate the specific site but who have some understanding of the region or nation that the site is a part of. Technical Report No. R. A. A. and A. Visitor Behavior 2( 1):4-6. 86-80.GIANNA MOSCARDO 393 programs can directly influence the distribution of visitors at a site. S. Silk and Rossler believe that the real imperative of management is to: . D. A. S. American Psychologist 41:1123-l 130. Gottesdiener. Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group 1991 Final Report -Tourism. Gennaio. British Journal of Psychology 47:175-182. Gennaro. Goins. B. 1983 Orientating Visitors Within a Thematic Display. and S. A. S. A.. G. D. C. Cohen. Iournal of Research in Science Teaching 18:275-279. and C.. C. 1992 Park Management in New Zealand. 201-205. J. Curator 2 1:245-258. 1981 The Effectiveness of Using Pre-Visit Instructional Materials on Learning From a Museum Field Trip Experience. 1981 Social Cognition. Curator 3 1: 157-166. R. E. Tanck 1984 Chance or the Prepared Mind? In Museum Education Anthology 1973-1983. Echabe. N. Wheeler 1977 Orientation in a Museum: An Experimental Visitor Study. DeWaard. A... Rossler 1992 Tourism. P. H. M. _ . and J.. D. Curator 20:85-87. G. and J. P. Gillies. Bond 1988 California Academy of Sciences Discovery Room. Dierking. S. D. and K. D. and M. Dreblow 1985 Predicting Visitor Behavior. J. Jagmin. S. S. Vernon 1956 A Study of Children’s Interests and Comprehension at a Science Museum. Droste. C. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Gioia. Winkel. Cone. Museologist 64: l-6. Smith and A. E. UNEP Industry and Environment 15:6-g. Nicholls. Stoneberg. 1989 Effects of Prior Knowledge. Washington: Museum Education Roundtable. Rovira 1989 Social Representations and Memory: The Case of AIDS. A. eds. R. E. A. A. ” Diamond. Maisto. H. S. H. . M.. Boyer 1992 Self-Testing Raphael: How a Computer Stimulates Visitors in an Art Exhibition. and L. J. and F. Eason.394 MINDFUL VISITORS Brooks. Manz 1985 Linking Cognition and Behavior: A Script Processing Interpretation of Vicarious Learning. European Journal of Social Psychology 19:543-55 1. von. P. and P. Crowding. and R. Forgas. C. Falk.. J. A. U. H. and C. Griggs. McNamara 1974 Effects of Using Programmed Cards on Learning in a Museum Environment. Annals of Tourism Research 12:73-96. Linn 1976 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Participatory Exhibits. J. L. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship 2:119-134. Griffenhagen 1957 Psychological Studies of Museum Visitors and Exhibits at the US National Museum. Time and Interaction: Visitor Behavior at the Science Museum of Minnesota. L. UNEP Industry and Environment 15:16-21.. A. E. Fine. Curator 19:45-62... ILVS Review 2:165-180. Speer 1985 Tour Guide Performances as Sight Sacrilization. J. and Congruence of Subjects and Others’ Goals on Question Asking in an Unfamiliar Setting. J.. Olsen. Academy of Management Review 10:527-539. Silk. World Heritage and Sustainable Development. Wilson 1982 Participatory Exhibits: Is Fun Educational? Museums Journal 82:131-135.. and M. Journal-of Educational Research 67:457-460. pp.. and D. Curator 28:249-257. and P. S.. P.. 1986 Cognitive Science and Science Education. London: Academic Press Fuhrer. Carey.. D. P. E. Kendall 1978 Space. Koran. Green.. Psychological Reports 64:131-145. Screven 1988 Effects of Questions on Visitor Reading Behavior. Koran.. M. D. Krippendorf. l-19. E. Educational Psychologist 28:43-50. Koran. Bridge 1982 Video vs. Koran. Longino 1986 The Relationship of Age. and R. J. and R. Wallpanel Display: An Experiment in Museum Learning. E. 1984 Circulation: An Examination for Redesign. J. Koran. 1980 A Comparative Study of Two Methods of Conducting Docent Tours in Art Museums. 1989 Pull-Out Drawers Open Windows. J. 1989b Minding Matters: The Consequences Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 22:137-173. 1991 Sustainable Tourism: A New Concept for the Interpreter.. In Exhibition Design as an Education Tool. J. Morrison. H. E. L. G. Hall and S. and L. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing. R. 1987 The Holidav Makers: Understanding the Imuact of Leisure and Travel. Horn. and Holding Power with Two Types of Science Exhibits. Langer. K. and A. International Laboratorv for Visitor Studies 1988 ILVS Bibliography and Abstracts (2nd ed. Shafer. Interpretation Journal 49: l-4. J. S. 1988 Self-Guiding Brochures: An Evaluation. Korn. Lehman. Kearns. and S. Leiden: Reinwardt Academy. Joss. Hatem. C. New York: Taylor and Francis. Kaplan.GIANNA MOSCARDO 395 Gunn. In Heritage Management in New Zealand and Australia. . 1940 Studies of Visitor Behavior at the Peabody Museum of Natural History. M. E. D. E. C. Milwaukee: International Laboratory for Visitor Studies. Howell 1989 Conditional Teaching and Mindful Learning: The Role of Uncertainty in Education. Koran 1983 The Relative Effects of Pre.). Journal of Research in Learning From a “Walk Through” Science Teaching 20:341-364. Jr. pp.and Post-Attention Directing Devices on Museum Exhibit. Creativity Research Journal 2:139-150. B.. Belmont: Duxbury Press. Gandara 1984 Attention and Curiosity in Museums. of Mindlessness-Mindfulness. Houlding. J. J. Applied Social Psychology Annual 8:247-260.. 1984 Cognitive Processes Involved in Environmental Interpretation. Museum News 17( 14):5-8. 1978 Humanscape: Environments for People. and C... M. and M.. J. Guthrie. Curator 31:9-19. L. McArthur 1993 Heritage Management: An Introductory Framework. Langer. Curator 25:41-56. G. ILVS Review 1:76-85. W. Journal of Environmental Education 15:l l-15. L. Curator 29:227-235. M. M. J. L.. L.. Kaplan. J. Hirschi. Lane. M. J. W. C. Curator 23: 105-l 17. 1993 A Mindful Education. eds. McArthur. ILVS Review 1:50-61. Hall. Koran. J. and M. L. R. I London: William Heinemann. Curator 32:275-280. Attention. L. Hayward. and S. A.. 1994 Tourism Planning (3rd ed). J. Landay. Hammitt. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21:357-363. Sex.. Langer. Reinwardt Studies in Museology. J. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989a Mindfulness. Lehman. R. P. J. 1988 Counting Visitors Helps to Evaluate Exhibits: A Case Study of Behavioral Mapping. Piper 1988 Television From a Mindful/Mindless Perspective. Curator 27:220-237. and Behavior. 2). McNamara. and C. New York: Plenum. New York: Springer Verlag.. P. Paper presented at the Global Action to Global Change: A PATA/WTO Human Resources for Tourism Conference.1988: Theory. and J. Peart. Bitgood. Altman and E. Patterson. McArthur. Attitudes.. Jacksonville: Center for Social Design. Gosling. W. Allen & Unwin. McManus. 1990 Trying It Out. pp. In Public Places and Spaces. Hall and S. International Journal of Educational Research 11:623-627.. Museum News 52(5):67-75. D. C. C. October.. Morrissey. 1972 Visitor Behavior in Museums: Some Early Research in Environmental Design. In Public Places and Spaces. M. 1984 Tourist-Guide Interaction. 1991 Visitor Behaviour and Interactive Video. G. eds. and K. Bali. Curator 34:109-l 18. Patterson. Altman and E. 18-39. 19:237-242. 31-56. J. A. Research. and T. Zube. P. Bitgood 1988 Some Evolving Principles of Visitor Behavior. N.. H. M. Black Park Maps: A Psychological Evaluation. S. ILVS Review 1:132-134. Benefield and D. J. M.. B. Cognition and Evaluation of Urban Places. Alt. Melton. 1990 Sustainable Tourism: Policy Considerations.. Jr. Hall 1993 Visitor Management and Interpretation at Heritage Sites. R. Lockett. In Visitor Studies . pp. 173-192.. D. Lewis. Benefield. and A. Pearce. 1993 From Culture Shock to Culture Exchange: The Agenda for Human Resource Development in Cross-Cultural Interaction. H. L. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(2):2-9.. pp. eds. 1984 Impact of Exhibit Type on Knowledge Gain. G. 1984 Dimensions of National Cartography 13(3):189-203. S. 163-167. J. L. 1991 Analysing Tourist Attractions. 197413 The Measurement and Facilitation of Learning in the Museum . and S. I. J. In Heritage Management in New Zealand and Australia. Roper. Globerson 1987 Skill May Not Be Enough: The Role of Mindfulness in Learning and Transfer. and N.. Miles. A. 1974a Learning and Exhibits: Instructional Design. M.. D. Annals of Tourism Research 11:129-146. Indonesia. Screven. A. Zube. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2 I :93 l-935. pp. 1988 The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. T.396 MINDFUL VISITORS Lehman.. 1985 Worksheet-Induced Behaviour in the British Museum (Natural History). New York: Plenum Press. Pearce. Research and Practice. Environment and Behavior 20:387-395. Emonson 1989 Using the Floor for Exhibit Information: A Formative Evaluation for the Ancient Near East Galleries. Bitgood. Jacksonville: Center for Social Design. Pigram. eds. London: George.. pp. P. and A. In Visitor Studies: Theory. McArthur. 41-50. eds. R. B. Journal of Tourism Studies 2( 1):46-55. Tout 1982 The Design of Educational Exhibits. S. L 1989 Perception. J. Lehman 1984 The Relative Effects of Experimenter and Subject Generated Questions on Learning From Museum Case Exhibits. S. C. Nasar. Salomon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. eds. K. I. and J. C. and Practice (vol. Boyer-Tarlo. B. J. Journal of Biological Education. P. O’Reilly 1988 Editors’ Introduction: Contemporary Environment-Behavior Research in Zoological Parks. Martin. 1989 The Emergence of Environment-Behavior Research in Zoological Parks. F. Human Factors 14:393%403. 1986 Exhibitions and Information Centres: Princinles and Annroaches. Eason. and S.. 1975 Thz Effectiveness of Guidance Devices on Visitor Lear&g. and B. ed. I. Turck. Museum News 42f3):23-27. Curator 29:109-137. Munley. The Visitor Experience. Uzzell. M. ed. Psvcholoaical Studies. M. Goldhaber 1989 Effectiveness of Product Warning Labels: Effects of Consumers’ Information Processing Objectives. 2). Curator 27:147-165.. 1984 Educational Evaluation and Research in Museums and Public Exhibits: A Bibliography. Journal of Consumer Affairs 23: 11 l-l 26. 1. and S.. Uzzell. In Heritage Interpretation (vol. 1989 Introduction: The Visitor Experience. D. 1977 Interpreting Our Heritage (3rd ed. Shettel.GIANNA MOSCARDO 397 Environment: An Experimental Analysis. ‘D. \ I Wolf. Weiss. United Nations Environment Programme 1992 Sustainable Tourism Development. Curator 20:48-52. R. Friedman 1979 Summative Evaluation of a Particioatorv Science Exhibit.. S. E. 1989 Evaluation in Museums: A Short History of a Short History. Sneider. Visser. P. N. B. Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Office of Museum Programs. Tilden.). L. Njuguna 1992 Environmental Imoacts of Tourism on the Kenva Coast. C.. Curator 18219-243. M. J. London: Belhaven. A.. L. I. H. 1977 Survey of Visitor Attitudes and Awareness at an Aquarium. l-15. Serrell. and G. pp. L. Tymitz 1979 The Pause That Refreshes: A Study of Visitor Reactions to the Discovery Corners in National Museum of History and Technology Smithsonian Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Department of Institution. UNEP Industrv and Environment 15:42-$2. u 1990 The Computer as Catalyst: Experiences at the Art Gallery of Ontario. de. Science Education 63:25-36.. Uzzell. London: Belhaven. D. In Heritage Interpretation (vol. Submitted 19 December 1994 Resubmitted 29 June 1995 Accepted 10 July 1995 Refereed anonymously . pp. F. Bouterline 1969 The Communication Value of Exhibits. 2). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. UNEP Industry and Environment 15:1-5. Worts. D. ILVS Review 1(2):91-108. Publications in Museum Behavior. L. and A. 129-137.