Content uploaded by Stephen Bitgood
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Bitgood on Aug 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Interpretation Research, Vol. 5. No. 2. Pp. 31-45.
The Role of Attention in Designing Effective Interpretive labels
Stephen Bitgood
Jacksonville State University
Jacksonville, AL
Everyone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in
clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects
or trains of thought … it implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal
effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused,
dazed, scatterbrained state which … is called distraction.
[William James, 1890, p. 403]
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Despite some cynicism among interpretive professionals, visitors will read well-
designed interpretive labels. However, how the labels are designed is critical. The
purpose of this article is to suggest a psychological approach using the concept of
attention as the basis for designing effective interpretive labels. In addition to previous
work (e.g., Bitgood, 1993; 1996), the conceptual framework proposed here incorporates a
rapidly growing visitor studies literature including the excellent work of Judy Rand
(1990), Chan Screven (1992), Beverly Serrell (1983;1996) and many others. Several
useful guides are available for designing labels (see Rand, 1990; 1993; Screven, 1992;
Serrell, 1996; Tilden, 1977). In addition, a number of research studies have examined the
numerous variables that play a role in the design of interpretive labels (for summaries,
see Screven, 1992; Shettel, 1968; Serrell, 1996). One can also find a substantial amount
of speculation based on research extracted from textbook typography or on the personal
experience of interpretive professionals.
The current article offers a psychological framework based on the processes of
attention to integrate the visitor literature on labels for any interpretive setting — be it
exhibits, way-side signs, trail signs, etc. In addition to providing a framework for label
design, this article reviews research studies that support the framework.
Interpretive labels: What are they and what is their role?
For purposes of this article, the term “interpretive label” is used to refer to titles,
orientation/introductory labels, section or group labels (Serrell, 1996). However, much
of what will be said about attention applies to noninterpretive labels as well
(identification labels, wayfinding and orientation, etc.). The current analysis is most
concerned with the major condition necessary for delivering the interpretive message,
i.e., focused attention on the objects and labels. It is assumed that the principles of
attention described below apply to objects as well as labels of all types. Thus,
interpretive labels are a special case of objects in terms of the processes of attention.
The limitations of attention prevent visitors from simultaneously attending to both
label and objects. When given a choice, visitors look at objects rather than read labels.
Since the focus of visitor attention is primarily on three-dimensional visual experiences,
this is where interpretation should start. Rarely do visitors start their viewing experience
by reading text. In study after study, graphic panels not associated with some three-
dimensional objects receive very little attention. Label reading cannot (and should not
try to) compete with the visual experience. It follows that labels are most effective when
Interpretive Labels - 2
they complement the objects. They complement by focusing attention on important
characteristics, or explaining phenomenon, or serving some other such function. Visitors
generally want to know what they should look for, how to focus their attention, etc. How
do you design for this complementary role of labels? Here are a few suggestions to
provide visual reference to the label.
• Focus attention on important ideas or relevant features associated with the exhibit object.
• Create a symbolic dialogue between the label and the object.
• Answer the visitors’ questions first, then try to tell them what you think they should know.
• Use labels to ask what is most notable or important about the object(s).
Importance of evaluation
The only way to determine if interpretive labels are truly effective is through
objective evaluation. Given the complexity of most interpretive, measuring the impact of
interpretation on the audience is essential. Evaluation can be conducted during all phases
of interpretive development (e.g., Bitgood & Loomis, 1993: Bitgood & Shettel, 1993;
Screven, 1990). During the planning stage, a front-end evaluation attempts to assess the
audience’s preknowledge, misconceptions, attitudes, preferences, interests, etc. During
the preparation stage, ideas and media can be tested (formative evaluation) and modified
to make them more effective. After installation, interpretation can be “fine-tuned” with
remedial evaluation.
What is success and how do you measure it?
What are the criteria of label success? It is important to make a distinction between
the success of overall interpretation (“The Big Picture”) and success of individual
interpretive labels. The “big picture” message (“a sentence or statement — of what the
exhibition is about) is of critical importance (Serrell, 1996), but should not be confused
with the success of an individual label. Some individual labels may fail to deliver their
message, but the “big picture” message may still be successful. The current article deals
primarily with the design and ultimate success of individual labels. See Serrell (1996)
for a discussion of “Big Picture” considerations.
How do you measure success? The outcome measures generally include the
percentage of visitors who stop at a label (often called “attracting power”), the reading
time (related to “holding power”), collateral behaviors (e.g., social interaction, pointing),
and measure(s) of knowledge gain, memory, reasoning, and/or attitudes
(“communication power”). (For further discussion of these measures see Screven, 1990;
Serrell, 1996; and Shettel, 1968.)
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The basic assumption underlying this framework is that the processes of attention
play a vital role in the design of interpretive labels. All major textbooks in cognitive
psychology include a chapter on attention (e.g., Best, 1999; Reed, 2000; Reisberg, 1997;
Solso, 1998). While there is considerable disagreement on what these processes of
attention are, there seems to be general agreement on at least three of its characteristics.
First, attention is selective – when we focus attention on one thing, we tend to ignore
others. Think of attention as a spotlight that selectively focuses on one thing at a time
(Johnson & Dark, 1986). In some cases we can divide attention, but it is difficult except
under very specific conditions. Second, attention has focusing power. If highly
motivated, we can focus our attention on something with considerable concentration.
The degree of concentration is related to the level of motivation (Easterbrook, 1959).
Interpretive Labels - 3
Third, the capacity of attention is limited (Kahneman (1973). There is only so much of
this cognitive resource available and it dissipates with time and effort. The more time
passed and effort expended, the less attention available.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SELECTIVITY
Attention is selective in the sense that some things capture our attention while others
do not, and in the sense that we can attend (generally) to only one thing at a time. The
question for label design is: What factors in the interpretive setting are involved in the
process of selective attention? If we can attend to only one thing at a time, what will it
be? Capturing visitor attention is the first step in the interpretive process. Visitors must
first pay attention to a label before it has any chance of delivering an interpretive
message.
Two obvious factors in capturing attention are the salience or distinctiveness of the
label and the traffic flow patterns in the environment. The more salient the label, the
more likely it will be noticed. Traffic flow also influences whether a label will be
detected: labels in locations along the pathway taken by visitors have a higher chance of
being seen than those not in the path.
Stimulus salience (distinctiveness)
Below are some of the major factors that influence visitor attention in terms of
detecting labels. Note that all of these factors are related to the distinctiveness of the
label.
• Isolation. An object and its interpretive label isolated from other objects is likely to get the
undivided attention of visitors (e.g., Melton, 1935; 1972). The greater the number of stimuli
surrounding a label, the less likely it will be noticed, especially if the label lacks other salient
factors.
• Size (point size and label background size). Larger point size and label background increase
the attention-getting power of an interpretive label (Bitgood & Patterson, 1993). Of course,
this is true only up to a point. Appropriate scaling must be considered.
• Contrast with setting background. An interpretive label that blends into the backgound may
be ignored because it lacks attention-getting power. In the parlance of signal detection
theory, background “noise” makes it more difficult to detect a stimulus.
• Multi-sensory characteristics. Adding sound, or smell, or touch to an interpretive label may
attract a higher level of attention. However, a nonvisual stimulus could also compete with the
label if not carefully designed to be complementary.
• Lighting
. The overall level of lighting is, of course, important in determining whether or not a
label will be noticed. In addition, the contrast in lighting between a label and its surrounding
produced by spot lighting is another way to make a label more detectable. (Lighting contrast
could be considered a special case of “contrast with setting background” discussed above.)
• Line-of-sight placement. A label that falls easily within a viewer’s line of sight is easier to
detect. One consideration is the distance from the floor — labels placed more than six or
seven feet above the floor often go unnoticed because people tend not to look up (Bitgood,
Benefield, & Patterson, 1990; Bitgood, Conroy, Pierce, Patterson, & Boyd, 1989). Another
consideration is where visitor attention usually is focused — on the object. If the label is not
close to the object it describes, it is unlikely to be noticed (Bitgood, et al, 1990).
Circulation/traffic flow
Many labels are missed because of the traffic flow. If visitors do not pass by a
labelthey will obviously not give it attention. Consequently, understanding how visitors
move through interpretive spaces is important. Several circulation factors (assumed to be
Interpretive Labels - 4
in the order of importance in the list below) seem to determine whether or not visitors
will pass by the labels, giving them at least a chance of receiving attention...
• Attraction of a salient object. A large object (such as an exhibit display) will influence the
traffic flow by creating a tendency for visitors to move toward or approach after entering the
environment (Bitgood, et al, 1991). Landmark objects influence pathway which in turn
influences whether or not other objects receive attention. For example, visitors are likely to
bypass and consequently ignore a less salient object in order to approach and view a more
salient one.
• Attraction (or distraction) of an open door. Melton (1935) reported that there was a strong
tendency for visitors entering a gallery to move along the right-hand wall and exit by the first
open door. When the door was closed so that visitors had to exit by the same door as they
entered, visitors circulated more completely through the gallery giving attention to more
objects on exhibit.
• Arrangement of objects/displays
. The arrangement of objects within the environment
determine how people will move through the environment (e.g., Bitgood, Hines, Hamberger,
& Ford, 1992). In every exhibit space, there are “hot” and “cold” spots of visitor attention
which are at least partially influenced by the circulation patterns of visitors. A myriad of
exhibit islands creates a chaotic traffic flow in which some displays receive a high level of
attention, and others receive a low level. When the flow is chaotic, visitors are more likely to
miss a display unintentionally. If there is a clear pathway or order of viewing displays, each
object is more likely to get attention.
• Inertia. Visitors tend to continue along a straight-line path unless some force (e.g., landmark
exhibit object) pulls them away. Melton’s (1935) proposed “exit gradient” is a special case.
Melton defined “exit gradient” as the tendency to take the shortest distance between the
entrance and exit when moving through a gallery.
• Right-turn bias. In the absence of other forces (see above), visitors have a tendency to turn
right when entering an interpretive space (e.g., Melton, 1935).
MOTIVATED FOCUSING
The second principle of attention is that focused attention requires motivation.
Motivating visitors to focus on labels and objects is the most challenging task in
interpretation. Rand (1990) has suggested some intriguing ideas on how to “hook”
readers with the use of language. Screven (1992) has identified many of the variables
that seem to increase visitors’ motivation to read labels. Motivating interest results in
focused visitor attention on the interpretation.
There appears to be three general factors involved in motivating visitors to focus their
attention on labels: (1) minimize the perceived effort to read; (2) increase cognitive-
emotional arousal (provoke interest in the subject matter if it is not already there); and (3)
minimize distracting factors.
Minimize perceived effort
In terms of the processes of attention, mental effort may do two things: (1) it
decreases motivation to attention; and (2) it depletes the “power supply” or capacity to
attend over time. The first of these will be discussed here, and the latter (depletion of the
“power supply”) will be discussed later. By reducing mental effort, more cognitive
resources for attending to interpretation are available and presumably, will increase
motivation to focus.
• Number of words per chunk. Bitgood and Patterson (1993) demonstrated that breaking down
a long label into three smaller ones (chunks), resulted in increased reading.
Interpretive Labels - 5
• Proximity of label to object. The least amount of effort in label reading occurs when a visitor
can look at the exhibit object and read a label at the same time. Thus, placing a label on a
railing in front of the object viewed is more effective than on the side of the exhibit or away
from the exhibit (e.g., Bitgood, Benefield, & Patterson, 1990). Placement closer to the
exhibit object is apparently important in a recessed exhibit display as well (Bitgood,
Campbell, Desmidt, Gunnip, Hawerott, & Johanessen, 1992).
There is a common approach to interpretation (especially in natural history museum and
naturalistic zoo exhibits) that places interpretive labels away from the naturalistic exhibits.
The assumption is that the immersion experience will be compromised by the presence of text
which is unnatural to the setting. Instead, interpretative labels are often placed in a central
area away from the exhibit. Evaluations of such exhibits suggest that this is a mistake if one
wants to motivate visitors to read labels.
• Ease of cognitive processing
. Visitor are more likely to read if information is arranged in a
manner that minimized effort. One way to accomplish this is to bullet a list of items rather
than embedding them in a paragraph format. Another way to decrease cognitive processing is
to provide small chunks of text close to a visual image on a diagram/illustration/graphic.
• Figure-ground contrast
. Figure is the form that must be distinguished from the background.
The greater the contast, the easier the perceptual effort. Not only is it easier to attract
attention with high figure-ground contrast, but it is easier to read text when the letters and the
background have high contrast (Bitgood, 1989).
• Sensory overload (density of labels/objects)
. The greater the number of labels in an area, the
less attention any one label is likely to receive. While this relates to attention, it may also
relate to perceived effort. That is, an overabundance of text in any form (number of words
per label or number of labels) may be perceived as too much work.
Increase cognitive-emotional arousal (by provoking interest, thought, etc.)
One of the more difficult tasks that interpretive labels attempt to accomplish is provoke
interest and/or thought in the visitor. Once stimulated, visitors become more “mindful” and are
more willing to read and think about the exhibit content. Thus, increasing cognitive-emotional
arousal motivates focusing on interpretive objects. Provoking interest may also be a way to
renew the resources of attention (see principle #3, capacity of attention).
Below are brief descriptions of and the evidence for many of the variables that seem to
motivate label reading.
• Asking questions
. Among others, Rand (1990) has suggested that labels should ask questions
rather than just tell the facts (e.g., “Which jaws could crush a crab?”). Several studies
suggest that labels that ask questions can be effective at provoking label reading (Hirshi &
Screven, 1988; Litwak, 1996). The content of the question is likely to be critical. If the
question raises issues/information that are not interesting to visitors, it is not likely to be
motivating.
• Confront and correct misconceptions
. Once a misconception about a subject has been
identified by a visitor study during the planning stage (front-end survey), directly confronting
this misconception may provoke greater interest. Rand (1990) provides an example:
“They may look empty, but mudflats crawl with life ”
At present there does not appear to be any studies that have examined the effectivenss of
addressing misconceptions explicitly, although Borun and her colleagues (Borun, Massey, &
Lutter, 1993) have documented the difficulty in overcoming misconceptions about gravity in
a series of exhibits at the Franklin Institute of Science.
• Challenge the reader
. Another difficult task is to stimulate visitors to problem solve.
“Not all fishes need a buoyancy regulator; when a wolf-eel or sculpin swims, it doesn’t go
too far from the bottom. But what do you suppose happens when a wolf-eel stops
swimming?” (Rand, 1990)
Interpretive Labels - 6
There is a danger in taking this approach. If the question is too difficult, the reader may lose
interest and is unlikely to try additional challenges. It is also important to provide the correct
answer once visitors’ interest has been stimulated.
• Writing style
. Rand (1990) has listed a number of label objectives that translate to good
writing style. These include:
- Draw analogies (“Flatfishes are quick-change artists.”)
- Use a reader-relevant approach to explain things (“Orca clans take care of their own.”)
- Communicate in a conversational tone that is approachable, familiar, often humorous, but
not flippant or formal (“See the rock with ruffles? That’s the hornmouth, one of the more
ornamental snails”).
- Address the reader directly (“The tentacles you see are sensitive to touch and help locate
dirfting algae.”)
• Identify high interest content. A survey during the planning stage can often identify
information that is of interest to visitors (and it’s not always what the museum staff thinks
visitors are interested in).
• Mental imagery. The use of mental imagery (Attack & Defense evaluation?). Screven (1992)
described this as “encouraging visitors to fantasize or project themselves into an exhibit
situation.”
• Handouts
. Robinson (1928) used a handout giving more detailed descriptions of selected
paintings than found on wall labels. Those who used this handout showed decreased
“museum fatigue” (i.e., increased total amount of time in museum and attention to art work).
• Presence of 3-D objects
. Two-dimensional labels by themselves attract less attention than
labels associated with three dimensional objects (e.g., Peart, 1984).
• Format of label. Labels can be designed using several formats (graphic panel with blocks of
text, flip labels that can be raised to reveal an answer to a question or additional information,
auditory labels either self-activated or visitor activated, etc.).
• Instructions on what to look for or what to do
. Assuming visitors are at all curious about the
objects they are seeing, they generally welcome information that tells them what they should
look for or do.
• Hands-on flips
. Arndt, Screven, Benusa, and Bishop (1993), in a zoo study at a lion exhibit,
found that flip labels increased the percentage of visitors who stopped, viewing time, and
learning. Flip labels, when carefully designed, are capable of sparking considerable curiosity.
• Clarifying the message
. Written text can help to clarify the message. Bitgood, Cleghorn,
Cota, Crawford, Patterson, and Danemeyer (1996) found a dramatic increase in attention and
total time in the gallery when text was placed on life-size photos. The text clarified both
what was being said and who said it in recorded voices conducted over speakers.
• Social interaction
. Interpretive experiences are primarily social in nature. Design should
consider how to motivate visitors to share information and ideas. Parents often read labels to
children, and it is not uncommon for one adult to read to other adults in a group. Labels are
likely to encourage social interaction if they are interesting, challenging, prompt parents to
ask questions of their children, etc.
Interpretive Labels - 7
Minimize distractions
Sensory distractions such as sounds from outside the interpretive area can take
attention away from labels. In one of the first studies of label reading at a zoo, my
colleagues and I observed that each time the zoo train blew its whistle as it passed,
visitors would stop reading labels. Once interrupted, visitors did not go back to complete
reading of a label. They moved on to the next exhibit. This phenomenon was observed
for almost every visitor!
• Sounds. Sounds of all types can distract visitors from reading. Sound bleed from other
exhibits is a common distracter in museums, zoos, and science centers.
• Competition from other exhibit elements
. Frequently, two elements of the same exhibit
compete with one another for attention. An object may compete with a label, a label with
another label, etc.
• Novelty of the surroundings
. The work of John Falk and his colleagues (e.g., Balling & Falk,
1982; Falk & Balling, 1980) suggests that, at least for school groups, a novel setting distracts
students from the programmed interpretation. To some extent, this may also apply to all
visitors in interpretation settings. Visitors may be concerned with where to go next, etc.
Good orientation (visitor guides, direction signs, etc.) will minimize the distractions.
THE PRINCIPLE OF LIMITED CAPACITY
The third principle of attention states that the resources of attention have a limited
capacity and are depleted over time with effort expended. The reserves are renewed
slowly over time (e.g., with rest periods). The reserves of attention may also be more
quickly renewed, by cognitive-emotional arousal such as a change to more interesting
objects. Consequently, three factors are of critical importance to this principle of
attention: the size of the reserve, the rate of depletion, and the rate of renewal.
Evidence for the depletion effect is provided by several studies of “museum fatigue”
(Falk, Koran, Dierking, & Dreblow, 1985; Melton, 1935; Robinson, 1928; Serrell, 1998).
For example, Robinson (1928) compared decreases in attention across time during visits
to four museums that differed in size as well as other characteristics. He found similar
decrements in attention (as measured by average viewing time per painting) at all
museums. An even greater decrement in attention across viewing was found in a
laboratory study in which subjects, seated at a table, were asked to view 100 prints of
paintings. Subjects were allowed to view each print as long as they wanted. Dividing the
viewing session into tenths, Robinson found that there was a systematic decrement from
the first to the last tenth of the prints. Clearly, the decreased viewing time across art
prints in this study could not be due to physical fatigue! Some type of mental satiation
seems to be taking place.
Size of reserve
The total capacity of the attention reserve is assumed to be limited; the total capacity
based on the physical energy available to the individual, condition of health, mental
attitude, and so forth. Obviously, the capacity would vary for different individuals and
for each individual from one time to another.
Serrell (1998) reported total viewing time measures for 110 exhibitions from
museums that differed in terms of size, topic, and geographical location For 80% of the
exhibitions, the average total time of visitors was less than 20 minutes despite size of
exhibition or type of museum. The mean total time for all exhibitions was 11 minutes
and the median was 8 minutes (time distributions were skewed toward shorter times with
few visitors spending a long time). Median stops for these exhibitions was 34% with
Interpretive Labels - 8
very few visitors stopping at more than 50% of the exhibit elements. Serrell’s data may
suggest that the capacity of attention for a single, non-extraordinary exhibition is abut 20
minutes.
Falk et al (1985) described a decrement in visitor attention to exhibitions across time
in a study at the Florida State Museum of Natural History. These investigators monitored
visitors’ attention to exhibits, to the setting, to self, and to other people throughout the
visit. They found that visitors’ attention to exhibits dropped rapidly after 30-45 minutes
in the museum. According to the authors, “The primary change in visitor behavior during
the observations was a change form moving slowly from exhibit to exhibit and reading
labels to ‘cruising’ through the halls, stopping occasionally and only very selectively” (p.
254). Since this study did not divide the visit into exhibit galleries, it is not known if
there were attention decrements within each exhibition. However, in terms of the total
visit, the reserves of attention appeared to have been depleted within 30 to 45 minutes for
this museum.
Rate of depletion and renewal
While decrements in attention are well-documented, it is not entirely clear what
mechanisms may be necessary to explain the process associated with a decrement in
attention across time. At least two possibilities come to mind. First, the resources for
attention could be depleted with mental and physical effort. A second possibility is that
the capacity of attention remains relatively high, but some inhibitory mechanism prevents
attending. For the moment, the latter explanation will be explored.
How quickly the reserves of attention are depleted is likely to be influenced by the
amount of mental effort, by the number and strength of distractions (both setting and
social), information overload, by physical fatigue, by time pressures, and by the rate of
pacing through the exhibition (e.g., rest periods allow renewal).
Several design factors may help reduce this inevitable attention decrement:
• Design heterogeneous exhibits with varied displays rather than monotonous repetitions of
similar objects laid out in a row. Displays of similar objects or animals all in a row create a
rapid decrement in attention. By varying the displays in terms of content and appearance,
greater interest is maintained.
• Minimize mental effort every way possible. As noted above, there are many ways to decrease
the amount of mental effort required by visitors.
• Increase interest level with methods described above under “increase cognitive-emotional
arousal.” Provoking interest by the methods described above should also help to hold off
object satiation.
Renewal rate refers to how fast the reserves of attention are replenished. It is
assumed that a recovery period will renew these resources. Thus, taking a break to have
a snack or eat lunch will rejuvenate the resources of attention. Increasing cognitive-
emotional arousal (stimulating interest) also acts to renew the reserves. Thus, entering a
new museum gallery on a new topic (especially one that is interesting) generally results
in increased attention to exhibits.
Interpretive labels come in many forms and, in the form of hand-held guides, may be
used to slow down the rate of depletion of attention. Robinson (1928) reported a study
(study #4) in which pamphlets were handed out as a visitor guide to art work in a small
museum. Those who used the guide spent more time in the museum (28 versus 17
minutes); viewed a larger number of art works (46 versus 30), and viewed a larger
percentage of the art works (25 versus 17). Those who did not use the guide showed the
Interpretive Labels - 9
usual decrement in viewing time across their visitation. Thus, the hand-held guide
appeared to counteract the “fatigue” effect usually observed.
SOME IMPLICATIONS AND RELATED CONCEPTS
Re-distribution of attention
Any change to the interpretive setting creates a change in the pattern of visitor
attention to the whole milieu. According to the attention framework suggested here, this
redistribution is the result of a combination of moment-to-moment selectivity, motivated
focusing, and depletion of the reserves of attention. In an interpretive environment dense
with stimulation, the capacity of attention is likely to be depleted before all elements
have received an adequate level of attention. Also, in a densely stimulating environment,
only the most distinctive elements are likely to receive attention because of the selectivity
principle.
Given the limitations of attention, designers are wise to plan the interpretive
experiences carefully so that visitors distribute their attention to focus on important
messages and objects. This is a difficult task. In addition to considering the moment-by-
moment distribution of attention, the designer must, throughout the interpretive area,
attempt to minimize mental demands that sap visitors of their resources for attending.
Re-distribution of attention was demonstrated in a study by Melton (1935; 1972) in
which the number of art works in a museum gallery were systematically varied.
Melton
found a decrement in attention (as measured by average viewing time per painting) when the
number of paintings in a gallery was systematically increased from 6 to 36 in increments of six.
As the number of paintings in the gallery increased, the time per painting decreased. Total time
in the gallery increased to a point and then stayed constant as if there was only so much time
visitors were going to spend no matter how many paintings were displayed.
A more detailed
analysis of the distribution of attention can be found in a study by Bitgood and Patterson (1993).
Their study, conducted over a two-year period, systematically varied label characteristics and
locations. The study was conducted in a small Egyptian mummy gallery at the Anniston Museum
of Natural History. Labels were systematically changed and a bronze bust added to the gallery
during the course of the study. Each change in the gallery resulted in a re-distribution of visitor
attention to all objects in the gallery. For example, when more labels were added, the percentages
of stops at labels increased, but the total reading time decreased. In addition, when the
percentage of label readers increased by label changes, average total time in the gallery for label
readers declined suggesting that the new label readers produced by making the labels more
attractive didn’t influence the overall time in the gallery of these new readers. However, when a
three-dimensional object (bronze bust of a mummy) was added to the gallery, the total gallery
time as well as time viewing other objects in the gallery increased.
Communicating educational messages
Focused attention is necessary, but not sufficient for the interpretive messages to be
communicated. Once visitors attend to the label and are motivated to read, the final task
is to ensure that the interpretive message in communicated. The critical factor here is
difficulty of comprehension. Anything that makes comprehension more difficult, is
going to increase mental effort, deplete the “power supply” of attention, and
consequently decrease the chances of delivering interpretive messages. Note that many of
the variables associated with interpretive labels seem to influence both motivation and
communication. Text that is difficult to understand impedes visitor motivation to read.
Here are a few suggestions from the literature that may help to keep attention focused
and facilitate the delivery of the interpretive message:
Interpretive Labels - 10
• Minimize syntactic complexity. Screven (1992) described a group of variables he termed
“syntactic complexity.” They include sentence length and number of sentences with phrases
that lack any new information (e.g., in summary). As Rand (1990) points out: “every word
counts.” It is easier to understand if short, simple sentences are used.
• Reduce semantic complexity. According to Screven, semantic complexity includes: “number
and level of propositions, causal structures, vague, abstract language, concept density (ratio
of concrete to abstract concepts).”
• Keep vocabulary simple
. Difficult-to-understand vocabulary has been frequently been noted
as a problem in communicating interpretive messages (Bitgood, 1989; Screven, 1992; Serrell,
1983; 1996). The best advice is to keep it simple and test any questionable words/phrases on
the target audience.
• Practice a good writing style. Clarity, conciseness, and simplicity is assumed to facilitate
understanding of the interpretive message. In addition, Rand suggests using an active voice,
vivid language, and addressing the reader directly.
• Apply appropriate literary techniques. Rand (1990) has suggested drawing analogies and
using a conversational tone to “hook” readers. Serrell (1996) suggests that labels tell stories.
Both of these techniques, when used intelligently, are likely to increase label effectiveness.
• Eliminate conflicting messages. At times what visitors see and what they read are in conflict.
If a sign at a zoo exhibit implores visitors not to feed the bears, it is inconsistent for a keeper
to throw an apple to the bear when the bear begs.
Visitors can more readily attend to the educational messages if the labels are designed
to minimize mental effort, increase interest level, and help visitors focus their attention
on easy-to-understand information.
A FINAL WORD
The cognitive processes of attention are among the most important factors in
successful interpretive design. To be most effective, labels need to be designed with an
understanding of these processes. Three principles of attention can go a long way in
predicting success in interpretation. Although these principles (selectivity, motivated
focusing, and limited capacity) provide limiting parameters to interpretation, they need
not doom us to interpretive failure. By understanding how the processes of attention
work, more effective interpretive experiences can be designed. This article has attempted
to identify factors that are likely to produce attention, hold and focus attention, and
ultimately communicate the interpretive messages. It is hoped that this will help the
interpretive designer improve the effectiveness of labels.
REFERENCES
Arndt, M., Screven, C., Benusa, D., & Bishop, T. (1993). Behavior and learning in a
zoo enviornment under different signage conditions. Visitor Studies: Theory, research,
and practice, Volume 5. Jacksonville, AL: Visitor Studies Association. Pp. 245-251.
Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1980). A perspective on field trips: Environmental
effects on learning. Curator, 23(4), 229-240.
Best, J. (1999). Cognitive psychology, fifth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bitgood, S. (1989). Deadly sins revisited: A review of the exhibit label literature.
Visitor Behavior, 4(3), 4-13.
Bitgood, S. (1990). Visitor evaluation: A Workshop Manual. Jacksonville, Al:
Center for Social Design.
Bitgood, S. (1993). Putting the horse before the cart: a conceptual analysis of
educational exhibits.
Interpretive Labels - 11
Bitgood, S. (1996). Practical guidelines for developing interpretive labels. Visitor
Behavior,
Bitgood, S. Benefield, A., & Patterson, D. (1990). The importance of label
placement: A neglected factor in exhibit design. In Current trends in audience research,
Vol. 4. Chicago, IL: AAM Visitor Research and Evaluation Committee. Pp. 49-52.
Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., & Litwak, (1991). Influencing visitor
attention: The effects of life-size silhouettes on visitor behavior. In Visitor studies:
theory, research, and practice, Vol. 3. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design. Pp.
221-230.
Bitgood, S., Campbell, R., Desmidt, E., Gunnip, K., Haweroot, M., & Johanessen, H.
(1992). Formative evaluation of a Pepper’s Ghost exhibit device. In Current trends in
audience research, Vol. 6. Baltimore, MD: AAM Visitor Research and Evaluation
Committee. Pp. 15-18.
Bitgood, Cleghorn, Cota, Crawford, Patterson, & Danemeyer (1996). Enhancing the
Confrontation Gallery at the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. In Bitgood, et al (eds.),
Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Volume 7. Center for Social Design:
Jacksonville, AL. Pp. 48-56.
Bitgood, S., Conroy, P., Pierce, M., Patterson, D., 7 Boyd, J. (1989). Evaluation of
“Attack and Defense”at the Anniston Museum of Natural History. In Current trends in
audience research, Vol. 3. New Orleans, LA: AAM Visitor Evaluation and Research
Committee. Pp. 1-4.
Bitgood, S., Hines, J., Hamberger, W., & Ford, W. (1992). Visitor circulation
through a changing exhibits gallery. In Benefield, A., Bitgood, S., & Shettel, H., Visitor
studies: Theory, research, and practice, volume 4. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social
Design. Pp. 103-114.
Bitgood, S., & Loomis, C. (1993). Introduction: Environmental design and
evaluation in museums. Environment and Behavior, 26(6), 683-697.
Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. (1993). The effects of gallery changes on visitor reading
and object viewing time. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 761-781.
Bitgood, S., & Shettel, H. (1996). An overview of visitor studies. Journal of
Museum Education, 21(3), 6-10.
Borun, M., & Miller, M. (1980). What’s in a name? A study of the effectiveness of
explanatory labels in a science museum. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Science
Museum.
Borun, M., Massey, C., & Lutter (1993). Naïve knowledge and the design of science
exhibits. Curator, 36(3), 201-219.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the
organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.
Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (1980). The school field trip: Where you go makes the
difference. Science and Children, 17(6), 6-8.
Falk, J. H., Koran, J., J., Dierking, L. D., & Dreblow, L. (1985). Predicting visitor
behavior. Curator, 28(4), 249-257.
Hirschi, K. D., & Screven, C. G. (1988). Effects of questions on visitor reading
behavior. ILVS Review, 1(1), 50-61.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt
Johnson, W. A., & Dark, V. J. (1986). Selective attention. Annual review of
psychology, 37, 43-75.
Interpretive Labels - 12
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Litwak, J. M. 1996). Visitors learn more from labels that ask questions. In Current
trends in audience research, Vol. ??. American Association of Museums Committee on
Audience Research and Evaluation.
McManus, P. (1989). Oh, yes, they do: How museum visitors read labels and interact
with exhibit text. Curator, 32(3), 174-189.
Melton, A. (1935). Principles of installation in museums of art. New Series No. 14.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Melton, A. (1972). Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in
environmental design. Human Factors, 14(5), 393-403.
Norman, D. A., & Babrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited
processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44-65.
Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior.
Curator, 27(3), 220-235.
Rand, J. (1990). Fish stories that hook readers: Interpretive graphics at the
Monterey Bay Aquarium. Technical Report 90-20. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social
Design.
Rand, J. (1993). Building on your ideas. In S. Bicknell, & G. Farmelo (eds),
Museum visitor studies in the 90’s. London, England: Science Museum. Pp. 145-149.
Reed, S. (1999). Cognition: Theory and applicatios, fifth edition. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson.
Reisberg, D. (1997). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind. New York: W.
w. Norton & Co.
Robinson, E. S. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor. New Series No. 5.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Screven, C. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during, and after exhibit design. ILVS
Review: A Journal of Visitor Behavior, 1(2), 33-66.
Screven (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels. ILVS Review, 2(2), 183-221.
Serrell, B. (1983). Making exhibit labels: A step-by-step guide. Nashville: American
Association for State and Local History.
Serrell, B. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions. Washington,
DC: American Association of Museums.
Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA:
Altimura Press.
Shettel, H., Butcher, M., Cotton, T. S., Northrop, J. & Slough, D. S. (1968).
Strategies for determining exhibit effectiveness. Report No. AIR E95-4/68-FR.
Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Solso, R. (1998). Cognitive psychology, fifth edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon
Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage, Third Edition. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
