Encuadres

Film

▷ key ideas ◁

• Value as a ratio of utility divided by cost has many applications, includ-ing choice of video or film embedded within exhibitions.

• to demonstrate that both utility (quality of film) and cost (film duration or run time) influence choice, a film festival scenario offered film choices that varied in both quality and duration.

• When given a choice between a higher-quality, longer-duration film and a lower-quality, shorter-duration film, individuals are sensitive to a combination of quality and duration.

• When films are relatively short (5 to 20 minutes), higher-quality, longer films are chosen more often; however, when film choices are long (more than 40 minutes), people choose the shorter, lower-quality film.

• Value is not fixed, as evidenced by the fact that selection of high quality (utility) depends on the time invested (film duration).

• the available-alternative theorem is supported by the findings: choice depends on the alternatives available at any moment.

Introduction

My attention-value model (Bitgood, 2010, 2011a;

Chapter 5) suggests that en- gaged or deeply involved attention to something in the environment depends upon at least three conditions:

1. An individual’s attention to an object must be captured and narrowly focused while attention to other objects is inhibited.

2. The object receiving attention must have a large perceived value to the individual, as measured by a ratio of utility divided by costs. Utility

Value as a Combination of Quality and Duration ◁ 77

78 ▷ Chapter 6

Attention and Value: Keys to Understanding Museum Visitors by Stephen Bitgood, 77–82.

©2013 Left Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

77

involves perceiving some level of satisfaction, benefit, or reward associ- ated with the choice. Cost includes time, effort, or money required. Lon- ger viewing time and more effort to “get the message”

will decrease value and result in lower levels of attention.

3. The available-alternatives theorem. As described in Chapter 5, the alternative choices competing for attention at any moment must have a lower or equal perceived value ratio compared with the alternative actu- ally chosen. In other words, the value of a choice must be considered rela- tive to versus low-quality object, then the medium-quality one will be selected.

More on the Available-Alternatives theorem

To understand how attention is distributed to exhibit elements in an exhibi- tion, we must consider further the alternatives available at any moment. In the early days of television, viewers were pleased to have two or three choices of shows to watch and often had no programming at all. Today, with hundreds of channels available on cable, satellite, and streaming video, hyperchoice is a serious problem. Channel surfing is symptomatic of decision-making behavior under multialternative conditions. A television show that was eagerly viewed 50 years ago may have less appeal today because there are so many alternatives available, many of which are targeted to special-interest audiences. More rel- evant to the current study, viewers will sit through a two-hour movie at the cinema, but will typically view a film imbedded within a museum exhibition for less than two or three minutes (e.g., Serrell, 2002). It is unlikely that this paradox is exclusively due to film quality. The availability of

alternative attrac- tions to view in the museum is undoubtedly a powerful factor.

the Film Festival Scenario and Video Viewing in Museums

Making choices among various alternatives available at any moment is com- mon in our everyday life. At a three-day film festival, I found myself choosing a series of short films at one venue rather than a full-length film at a second venue. The short films offered lower costs (time) per film, and an expectation that at least one or two of the films would deliver high quality and would bet- ter address my personal interests; the long film, on the other hand, was a gam- ble in terms of quality and/or interest, and had a high cost in terms of viewing time. (See probability discounting for a similar pattern of choice [Greene & Myerson, 2004].)

Value as a Combination of Quality and

Duration ◁ 79

Reflecting on the movie paradox of willingness to sit through a two-hour film at the cinema, but not view a film within an exhibition for more than a couple of minutes, there may be several factors that play a role:

1. The potential quality of the film (the “utility” or numerator in the value ratio). A film perceived as having higher quality would have greater value. One might assume that films in movie theaters are generally per- ceived as having higher interest and quality than those in museums.

2. The duration of the film (the “cost” or the denominator in the value ratio). According to the value ratio, increasing cost will decrease value.

Since the film duration represents a cost to the viewer, longer films would have a lower value than shorter ones, all other factors being equal.

3. The relative attractiveness or perceived value of alternative choices (the available-alternatives theorem). The attention-value model predicts that choice depends upon the value of each available alternative.

4. Commitment (paying the ticket price and budgeting the time to sit in the theater reduces the chance of leaving the movie theater early). Museum visitors walking through a museum exhibition rarely commit themselves to view an entire video/film because of the competing exhibit elements around them. (See Rachlin & Green [1972] for a discussion of the “soft” versus “hard” commitment and laboratory studies demonstrat- ing commitment.) 5. A phenomenon similar to “commitment” called

“sunk costs” is also likely to be a factor (e.g., Arkes & Blumer, 1985). Once they have paid the entrance fee and settle in a comfortable seat, people are committed to stay and reluctant to leave a movie in a theater even if it is perceived as poor because they “want to get their money’s worth.”

Only the first three of the above factors were tested in our study. Com- mitment and sunk costs will be examined in future studies. This study assessed the

80 ▷ Chapter 6

impact of simultaneously varying the film quality (high, medium, or low) and length (from 5 to 80 minutes).

Each pair of choices contrasts a shorter, lower-quality film with a longer, higher-quality film.

In addition to examining quality and duration variables, this study exam- ined the available-alternatives theorem. If value is fixed, then participants would choose a high-quality film whether it has a low- or medium-quality alternative and whether the workload was high or low. We predicted that a high-quality, longer film will be chosen over a lower-quality film when the film is shorter (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes), but not when it is longer (40 to 80 minutes). The theorem predicts that the value (and consequently the choice) changes depending on both the quality and duration of the alternative. The

study used a methodology similar to those used in studies of temporal dis- counting (Critchfield & Kollins, 2001) and consumer loyalty programs (e.g., Kivetz, 2003).

Method