Two studies were designed to investigate the role of immersing design techniques in determining museum visitors' experience. Study 1 observed visitor behavior in a museum hall at the Denver Museum of Natural History (DMNH) in Denver, Colorado, before and after renovation. The study found that after the design changes, visitors attended more to the exhibits. Study 2, a post hoc survey analysis complementing Study 1, discriminated which particular design features were responsible for eliciting a high degree of sensory contact from visitors. The survey was administered to visitors at the DMNH after they had been exposed to a specific exhibit space. The survey measured visitors' sense of immersion, psychological flow, and the perceived presence and strength of different design features. Analyses revealed that interactive components, multisensory stimulation, and dynamic displays influenced flow and immersion. Results are discussed in terms of exhibit attributes that optimize the visitor experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bechtel, R. B. (1977). Enclosing behavior. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
2.
Bitgood, S. (1990). The role of simulated immersion in exhibition (Report No. 90-20). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
3.
Bitgood, S. (1994). Designing effective exhibits: Criteria for success, exhibit design approaches, and research strategies. Vsitor Behavior, 9, 4-11.
4.
Bitgood, S. , Nichols, G., England, R., Tatum, R., Carnes, J., Hahn, C., Patterson, D., & Pierce, M. (1986). Lighting up: wsitorreactions to illumination level in a cave exhibit. (Report No. 86-15). Jacksonville, AL: Psychology Institute.
5.
Bitgood, S. , Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment & Behavior, 20, 474-491.
6.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon.
7.
Broadbent, D. E. (1963). Differences and interactions between stresses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 205-211.
8.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
9.
Cronbach, L. J. , & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
10.
Csikszentnihalyi, M. (1978). Attention and the holistic approach to behavior. In K. S. Pope & J. L. Singer (Eds.), The streamr of consciousness: Scientific investigations into the flow of human experience. New York: Plenum.
11.
Csikszentnihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies inflow of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
12.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. , & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Introduction to part IV. In M. Csikszentrnihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies inflow of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
13.
Davidson, B. (1991). New dimensions for traditional dioramas: Multisensory additions for access, interest, and learning. Boston: Museum of Science.
14.
Gehan, E. A. (1965). A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika, 52, 203-223.
15.
Harvey, M. L. , Bijulin, A. A., & Loomis, R. J. (1994). A virtual reality and human factors analysis of a renovated diorama hall. In D. R. Thompson, A. Benefield, & S. Bitgood (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice, Volume 6. Jacksonville: Center for Social Design.
16.
Holden, L. E (1989). The lighting process in a museum context. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.
17.
Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Loomis, R. J. (1987). Museum visitor evaluation: New tool for management. Nashville, TN: Arnerican Association for State and Local History.
19.
Mayers, P. (1978). Flow in adolescence and its relation to the school experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
20.
Melton, A. W. (1935). Problems of installation in museums of art (Monograph No. 14; New Series). Washington DC: American Association of Museums.
21.
Moscardo, G. , & Pearce, P. L. (1986). Visitor centers and environmental interpretation: An exploration of the relationships among visitor enjoyment, understanding and mindfulness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 89-108.
22.
Robinson, E. S. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor (Monograph No. 5; New Series). Washington DC: American Association of Museums.
23.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statisticsforthe social sciences. Hillsdale, Ni: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Thompson, D. R. (1993). Considering the museum visitor: An interactional approach to environmental design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee.
25.
Thomson, G. (1986). The museum environment (2nd ed.). Stoneham, MA: Butterworth.
26.
Weick, K. E. (1985). Systematic observational methods. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 567-634). New York: Randorn House.
27.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Virtual reality and education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Institute of Aviation Research Laboratory, Savoy.
