Decreases in visitor attention across time in museums have often been called “museum fatigue” despite variations in conditions and outcomes involved in the situation. Edward Robinson (and his student Arthur Melton) recognized the complexity of the problem and designed studies to sort out some of the issues. As a result of these studies, it became apparent that not all decreases in visitor attention are likely to be caused by physical fatigue.
Study 1: “Museum Fatigue”
In his monograph, Robinson (1928) compared visitor attention across visita- tions in four different art museums of varying size and location. In addition
to the observations in the four museums, Robinson conducted a laboratory study with students who were exposed to 100 art prints to examine while seated at a table. The students controlled how long they looked at each print, but since they were seated, did not experience the physical fatigue of visitors who walked through the museums. See Table 2.1 for a comparison of number of paintings, size of museum, and average view time.
Since the number of artworks actually viewed by individuals varied con- siderably both within each museum and among the four museums, Robinson divided the total number of artworks that each visitor viewed into successive tenths. Thus, if a visitor only viewed 10 paintings, each painting counted one- tenth.
If a visitor viewed 100 artworks, then each 10 paintings were included in each tenth. Using this method, Robinson was able to compare visitor behavior across different portions of their museum visit even though visitors viewed a different number of pictures.
In Robinson’s study, individuals varied in how many artworks they viewed. This variation points to an important factor Robinson did not explicitly dis- cuss. In the museum, individuals chose to view or not to view seconds per painting over successive tenths of viewing.
The laboratory participants, although they viewed each artwork lon- ger than the museum visitors, still showed a decline in attention despite the lack of physical exertion. In all groups, visitors who viewed a larger number of artworks did not show any difference in the rate of decline when compared with visitors who viewed a smaller number. Thus, rate of decline (difference from highest to lowest average viewing time over successive artwork) was not a function of the total number of pictures viewed.
Robinson recognized that there is no one simple explanation for these results, and that comparing the museum visitors and laboratory participants is fraught with methodological difficulties. Despite the difficulties, it seems rea- sonable to conclude that decreases in viewing time across visitation is not due to physical
“fatigue” or exhaustion because: (1) visitors at the small museums showed the same decreased attention over time than those at the large museum;
(2) visitors who viewed a smaller number of artworks showed the same rate of decreased attention than those who viewed a larger number; and (3) the labo- ratory subjects showed a similar rate of decreased attention than the actual museum visitors despite the lack of physical exertion from sitting at a table.
It is difficult to assess what impact the choice of viewing each artwork had on Robinson’s findings. The actual museum visitors could choose whether or
table 2.1: Viewing Time During Each Tenth of Viewing Art (From Robinson 1928) Lab Ss Museum 1 Museum 2 Museum 3 Museum 4
Paintings 100 s 1,000 s 150 s 140 s 154–256 s
Galleries — 40 s 6 s 6 s nD
Average — 25 min 17 min 17 min 15 min
View Time for each Tenth, seconds
First 26.0 10.8 15.0 14.8 7.1
Second 27.9 9.7 11.3 12.9 7.5
Third 28.1 10.1 10.8 17.0 8.5
Fourth 26.0 9.2 10.9 16.1 8.7
Fifth 25.7 9.0 9.9 18.3 7.8
Sixth 25.3 9.4 11.4 14.3 8.5
Seventh 25.7 8.0 11.8 12.9 7.8
Eighth 22.9 8.5 12.6 11.7 7.0
Ninth 22.2 9.7 10.4 11.0 8.9
Tenth 19.3 9.9 12.2 14.5 6.9
Ss indicates participants, nD, no data.
not to attend to each piece of artwork, while the laboratory subjects could not. This might account for some of the differences between the laboratory subjects and the museum visitors.
Study 2: Object Competition
Robinson’s next study was an experimental examination of how object com- petition (“isolation” in his words) influences attention to artworks in a labo- ratory study.
Robinson presented either one, two, or ten art prints at a time to participants who were seated at a table. The procedure was similar to the laboratory study in the first study. All participants viewed a total of 100 black-and-white prints. The participants were instructed to examine each print for as long as they desired. In the
two-at-a-time scenario, a total of 50 trials were given;
for the ten-at-a-time scenario, ten trials were given.
results. The average viewing time per artwork (Table 2.2) was longer when one print was presented at a time than for presentation of either two or ten
prints at a time. The rate of decrement of viewing time across successive tenths was about the same no matter how many prints were presented each time. Finally, a warm-up effect was observed for all groups: the longest viewing time occurred on the third or fourth interval.
It is not clear if the longer viewing time for a single print than for two or ten prints is due to distraction or
Study 3: Variety of Artwork types
Robinson’s next study addressed the possibility that the variety of picture con- tent was important in producing
“museum fatigue.” He presented a total of 25 prints, five at a time. The samples included five prints of each of the following types: landscapes, Madonnas, portraits,
“marines” (as Robinson called them), and animals.
Study Conditions
Five prints of the first type were presented in the first trial; five prints of the second type were presented in the second trial; etc.
1. Two types of content were presented in each trial.
2. Three types of content were presented in each trial.
3. Four types of content were presented in each trial.
4. Five types of content were presented in each trial.
results. As shown in Table 2.3, an increase from 15 to 20 seconds occurred from the first to the fourth condition.
However, condition 5 showed a decrease in viewing time.
What are the implications of this study? Variety animals). In the fifth condition (five types per card), variety was all within tri- als since each card had one of each type. Thus, similar objects presented close together appears to result in decreased attention rather than variety itself. If this is the case, decreased attention in the one-type-per-card condition seemed to result in object satiation (repetitive homogenous stimulation presented over a short time period) compared with the conditions that included three or four types per card. It is not clear why the five-types-per-card condition resulted in decreased attention. Perhaps too much variety introduces another factor: perceptual distraction.
table 2.3: Viewing Time per Art Print for Each Condition (from Robinson, 1928) Condition Average Viewing Time, seconds than physical fatigue or exhaustion, Robinson attempted to find a way to maintain attention over the entire visit. He com- pared the use of a pamphlet (visitor
guide) to no pamphlet in Small Museum 2 to assess its impact on “museum fatigue” or the decreased attention over time. The pamphlet focused on 20 of the artworks that were installed in the museum. The location, title, and a brief description of these artworks were provided.
More than 60 percent (55 of 86) used the pamphlet effectively. Of those who did not use it, 24 carried it but did not look at it, four looked at it as they left the museum, and two initially looked at it but did not use it.
results. Those who used the pamphlet spent more time in the museum (28 versus 17 minutes). In addition, they viewed a larger percentage of artworks (46 versus 30 percent). Those who did not use the pamphlet showed the usual decreased attention (viewing time) as they proceeded through the museum. Those who used the pamphlets actually showed an increased in average viewing time across successive tenths of the visit. The pamphlet appeared to counteract the “fatigue” effect usually observed with visitors. As indicated by other studies (see Chapter 11), visitor guides or handouts do help increase or maintain visitor attention to exhibits.