«it: 1: .J.
l x

yr.

.93;

.iLn
.55....
x. x. a

x
a. .
5.13%
J..... i:
.1

.r 1.

. 3;..E

.1 .8.

2...}...
xi: 3
a 5!.
I5!

~

2....

l 3 Sq;
3.... 3.5:.
57"..321.

Pgivli
2. .1 «nut... p.

3:59;?
. E. i... 1.:
t.......... H»?

s: a

I):
.5}!- afluum.
501.“... I. ..
5.... fiat:
.—.nnvl.\..hflwfl.l.kr.flu....
ha. «turd, i:

3.515 ‘
14,1...r2hatxnoo

:a .535...
23.1... lit-1.1.3.4
«it‘s. 1. .lt)... .1! :1... ,
1.1.1.2... .8.2.fris\...

 

 

IHlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllillllllllllllllllll

3 1293 02106 187

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

An Attention Model for Museum Exhibits:
A Study of Motivation to Pay Attention by Free-Choice
Learners in Informal Learning Environments

presented by

John William Lightner
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph .D . degree in Educational Psychology

Ma r r
Date MM

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 c/CIRCJDatoDmpes-p.“

 

An Attention Model for Museum Exhibits:
A Study of Motivation to Pay Attention by Free-Choice
Learners in Informal Learning Environments

By

John William Lightner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology
and Special Education

2000

 

 

ABSTRACT
An Attention Model for Museum Exhibits:
A Study of Motivation to Pay Attention by F rec-Choice
Learners in Informal Learning Environments

By

John William Lightner

Human attention and its motivational prerequisites receive a great deal of
scrutiny in formal education but have not been the subject of comprehensive
research in informal learning settings, such as museums. Even researchers who
study formal settings use terms such as attention, interest, and curiosity
interchangeably, or at least imprecisely. Based on research in varied fields such as
attention, interest, relevance, and reading, I formed a theoretical model for use in
informal learning settings which I call, The Attention Model for Museum Exhibits.

The purpose of this study was to identify those factors that motivate free-
choice learners acting in informal learning environments to pay attention. These
factors comprise an Attention Model for Museum Exhibits. A further purpose
was to substantiate that the attention model was applicable to visitors across
multiple exhibits.

I observed and interviewed forty-six groups of museum visitors to test the
theoretical model. These visitors came from two studies that I conducted, one in

1998 and the other in 1999. They visited one of four exhibits from one of three

institutions: The Henry Ford Museum in Dearbom, Michigan; The Detroit
Institute of Arts in Detroit, Michigan; and the Michigan State University Museum
in East Lansing. I used theoretical (or purposive) sampling in order to generalize
to theory and selected groups to the point of redundancy to ensure saturation.

The findings from this pair of studies support the choice of Interest and
Relevance as categories for the factors that describe the dynamics of attention on
the part of free-choice learners. The factors within each category, i.e., Enduring
Personal Interest, Situation-Specific Interest, Curiosity, Personal History, and
Group Influence, were able to describe the dynamics of the motivation to attend
for the visitors who participated in this study. Further, the findings show that the
attention model applied to visiting groups across the four exhibits and three
institutions that were included in this study.

The Attention Model as proposed and refined by this study may be a viable
theoretical tool in describing motivation in informal settings. The Attention

Model has potential for guiding practice as well as further inquiry.

Copyright by
John William Lightner

2000

To my mother, Phyllis Lightner,
for her love and support.
And, posthumously, to my father,
George Lightner, who
was anxious to see the completion

of my graduate work, but never did.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Every study is the cumulative effort of many individuals who have made a

variety of contributions. I would like to thank the following people:

My committee chairperson and doctoral advisor, Steve Yelon, for his
continued support throughout my graduate studies at MSU—first a second
Master’s and now the Doctorate. This study would not be a reality without
him.

My committee, Jere Brophy, Doug Campbell, and Kris Morrissey, for their
input and support.

The staff at Henry Ford Museum—especially Bob Casey, Curator of
Transportation—who went out of their way to accommodate this study.

The staff at the Detroit Institute of Arts—Tara Robinson, Curator of
Exhibitions; Matthew Sikora, Associate Educator; and Jennifer
Czajkowski, Associate Educator—for their willingness to grant access and
for their support.

The staff at the Michigan State University Museum—Kris Morrissey,
Curator of Interpretation and Judy Smyth, Visitor Programs
Coordinator—for their support and their flexibility.

The visitors to the Henry Ford Museum, the Detroit Institute of Arts, and
the Michigan State University Museum who participated in this study, for
taking time from their visit to help advance our knowledge about
motivation and attention in informal learning settings.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... xiv
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .................................. 1
CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................... 15
CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY ............................................... 41
CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS .......................................... 75
CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ............................... 153
NOTES ....................................................... 191
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Original Interview Questions ...................................... 195
APPENDIX B

Revised Interview Guide .......................................... 198
APPENDIX C

Informed Consent Information ..................................... 201

vii

 

oatw
.‘u ‘

15""

A v
,flfl'fi 1";
‘. A~,,i\

.i»-‘i

APPENDIX D

Informed Consent Letter .......................................... 204
APPENDIX E
Complementary Bookmark (HFM—Locomotive) ....................... 206
APPENDIX F
Node Names .................................................... 208
APPENDIX G
C & O #1601 Images ............................................ 212
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................... 217

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Definition of the Interest and Relevance Characteristics of the Attention

Model in Figure 3 ........................................... 34-35
Table 2:

Representative Audience Characteristics ......................... 47-48
Table 3:

Groups Interviewed (HF M—Locomotive) ........................ 49-50
Table 4:

Inventory—Luminist Gallery, Detroit Institute of Arts .................. 54
Table 5:

Groups Interviewed (DIA) ....................................... 56
Table 6:

Groups Interviewed (HF M—Aircraft) ............................... 59
Table 7:

Groups Interviewed (MSUM) .................................... 62
Table 8:

Primary Connections .......................................... 118
Table 9:

All Connections .............................................. 1 19
Table 10:

Listing of Hypotheses ..................................... 160-162

ix

a
. _‘_.A.\ .-
v

“3,; .3:
‘1“ n l on“

.‘ J\
.u.

' l
t “7’; ‘
54.5 .

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1:

Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson Motivation Model .................. 21
Figure 2:

Motivational Roles of Interest and Relevance ........................ 31
Figure 3:

Attention Model for Museum Exhibits ............................. 33
Figure 4:

Allegheny Exhibit Area ......................................... 46
Figure 5:

DIA—Luminist Gallery .......................................... 52
Figure 6:

Luminist Gallery, Gallery Label .................................. 52
Figure 7:

HFM—Aircrafi Exhibit .......................................... 58
Figure 8:

MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit ........................... 61
Figure 9:

Legend for Individual Path Figures ................................ 81

Figure 10:
HF M—Locomotive, Groups 1 & 3 ................................. 82

Figure 11:
HFM—Locomotive, Group 11 .................................... 84

Figure 12:
HFM—Locomotive, Group 8 & 10 ................................. 85

7e..1'
. v
..;.,C U

HEAE‘II

li:“~ C.

M (j;

”Hf,"

P's. ‘
. - '.. <
.‘II~

v ._ ~

7,,

“ti

1., M}

Figure 13:

HF M—Locomotive, Groups 6 & 12 ................................ 87
Figure 14:

HFM—Locomotive, Groups 13 & 14 ............................... 88
Figure 15:

HFM-Locomotive, Group 2 ..................................... 89
Figure 16:

HF M-Locomotive, Group 4 ..................................... 90
Figure 17:

HFM—Locomotive, Group 5 ..................................... 91
Figure 18:

HFM—Locomotive, Group 7 ..................................... 92
Figure 19:

HFM—Locomotive, Group 9 ..................................... 93
Figure 20:

DIA—Groups 1 & 4 ............................................. 96
Figure 21:

DIA—Groups 3, 7, 8, & 9 ........................................ 97
Figure 22:

DIA—Groups 2 & 5 ............................................. 99
Figure 23:

DIA—Group 6 ................................................ 100
Figure 24:

DIA—Group 10 ............................................... 101
Figure 25:

HFM—Aviation, Groups 4 & 6 ................................... 102

xi

. \'_
fr”
.'.-M‘"
I.

Hill-m

\
‘ ,..IA
5

'E.\1.—;\\

.- 1',
.J't’f -

.‘mh 0"

Fill—M

:' ~11; ‘Q’

0‘ ‘

V'WJ '

. I‘m-h :- .
-

'Jl'l
AU .‘l-.‘\\

H
. T ‘11 ‘ ‘
.my ,-

.1
rs... “
. \“
~s‘.\ -
~ -.

.,
mg, \-
1 9
A..-“ \\
y -D.

b.
. ‘~
1' -‘ ‘

\

5“‘ I

l

 

Figure 26:

HF M—Aviation, Groups 5, 11, & 12 .............................. 103
Figure 27:

HFM—Aviation, Groups 8 & 10 .................................. 104
Figure 28:

HFM—Aviation, Groups 3 & 7 ................................... 105
Figure 29:

HFM—Aviation, Group 1 ....................................... 106
Figure 30:

HF M—Aviation, Group 2 ....................................... 107
Figure 31:

HFM—Aviation, Group 9 ....................................... 108
Figure 32:

MSUM, Groups 4 & 6 ......................................... 109
Figure 33:

MSUM, Groups 2, 7, & 10 ..................................... 110
Figure 34:

MSUM, Groups 1 & 5 ......................................... 111
Figure 35:

MSUM, Groups 3 & 9 ......................................... 112
Figure 36:

MSUM, Group 8 ............................................. 113
Figure 37:

Largest Number of Groups for a Single Path Pattern ................. 115
Figure 38:

Pattern for 6 Groups in Three out of Four Exhibits ................... 116

xii

PM“ ‘71'
. ,
n “‘

1 ,..v:

,m

.v:~;,'l‘
‘ KM.

_.4a

,1

‘Xflyfl. '3:
, .ifiuu\n .

1.._,,..i t."- |

.mb.m\ .l 4

 

 

 

Figure 39:

Pattern for 6 Groups in Three out of Four Exhibits ................... 116
Figure 40:

Pattern for 3 Groups in Three out of Four Exhibits ................... 117
Figure 4]:

Attention Model for Museum Exhibits ............................ 121
Figure 42:

Attention Model for Museum Exhibits with References to Hypotheses . . . 164

xiii

List of Abbreviations

 

 

DIA
EPI

GI

GV

HF M
MSUM

PH
S-SI

Abbreviations
Curiosity
Detroit Institute of Arts
Enduring Personal Interest
Group Influence
Greenfield Village
Henry Ford Musuem

Michigan State University
Museum

Personal History

Situation-Specific Interest

 

xiv

 

vL.‘ ‘L .111"

.. J...‘ 'ut n.
b

.441

i\\\ 4"")?

thwu .Lm..\.,\

his Bin

15‘

a.

4.4:.

, I
' .
"Ml. ‘) 'v'
H.\

 

.§

ll"

‘55,,"17‘ \l
"d.

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

ATTENTION

Learning is a natural activity that begins at birth, or before, and continues
throughout life. Educators depend on this natural human propensity in order to
assist learners in achieving learning goals that are considered important to our
society. But whether learning occurs in formal institutions, such as schools; in
less formal settings, such as museums; or just as a part of daily life, learners must
expend some level of psychic resources on the objects of learning. One sort of
expenditure of psychic resources is called attention and is considered a
prerequisite for learning.

Paying attention comes at a cost, however, since attentional resources are
limited. A learner must conserve these limited attentional resources and will,
therefore, choose to pay attention to stimuli that he or she considers meaningful.
Educators are concerned about how a learner chooses to pay attention. They seek
to better understand which conditions in the environment and which processes
within the individual result in attention.

Both psychologists and educators agree that motivation influences

attention. Motivation may be motivated either extrinsically or intrinsically.

\

" T\"\' t'"
tilted“ ‘ **
is???” Ollie!
.uh’l""':

‘ 4*?) ~
at“ :~“~

n
,v

. ‘h
. «I‘In‘
Lhasa)“

l

E4.“ ‘2‘
but“.

{.535 7.36 l

>t~'-,‘ w a ,’
Mums. *_\ 4.5
. ‘

0-40... 0‘
-.n..nu\' \ \i
..|. a

      

‘H'p- n
' a, J?‘ ‘
“U-whm.‘

H~|H ”f
.I ‘
NkflfiJm

it
.u“

 

fitmg'kw.

“m. ‘ '
c ~Ul
?. '
d :w.
‘Ms; 5

 

Educators often rely on rewards to motivate an individual to pay attention to
learning outcomes that are considered important to society. These rewards may be
extrinsic rewards, such as a good score on a test, or intrinsic rewards, such as
allowing a student to freely choose to study a topic of interest to themselves.
Educators work in two types of learning environments: formal or informal.
The formal environment, best represented by the school, is considered more
controllable. Attendance is mandatory, graduation is necessary for many jobs, and
schools have the mandate of society to assist students to achieve minimum
learning goals. The informal environment, which may be represented by
institutions such as museums, does not enjoy the level of control over learners that
is characteristic of the formal institution. An individual may choose to visit the
museum, but is not required to do so, and does not earn a degree. The museum
carries no formal mandate from society to produce minimum learning outcomes
for every member of society. The informal institution depends upon the
motivation of individual learners who freely choose to visit and, ultimately, attain

some of the institution’s learning goals.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Educators know a great deal about motivation in the formal learning
setting; but much less is known about the motivational factors affecting attention

in the informal setting. Museum professionals, including curators and educators,

2

‘ .
‘-' 95-31
”‘7‘ {.51

155-6 com

2.11.375 If S

\l‘.

2'4"?" In
b.\..n.“ .A
1 V ‘

7-07.19. 'f‘
. ‘ .
Built». ‘ ...

‘7', 2.4'
\i 1“ I:
{v8 9"
~“‘\u Hg

~'..I‘
s .‘ ‘
"“ ‘1 i l
W «4.;
h ~. I
‘5}C‘é?‘w

‘5‘1
F's

hold personal opinions concerning motivation and attention in a particular exhibit
within their institution; however, they have done little systematic research to
verify these “hunches.” Even less evidence exists that permits these phenomena
to be connected to theory. The question they need to answer is, exactly which
factors result in potential learners choosing to pay attention to the exhibit?
Museum educators must identify the motivational factors leading to
attention if they are to design exhibits that attract attention. Without this
knowledge of the environmental and psychological factors affecting visitor
attention, even the most carefully constructed and adequately financed exhibits
may fail to achieve the learning goals envisioned for them. Thus, a first step is to

identify and verify the motivational factors leading to visitor attention.

PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to identify those factors that motivate free-
choice learners acting in an informal learning environment to pay attention and to
construct an Attention Model for Museum Exhibits that incorporates those factors.
A secondary purpose was to substantiate that the attention model was applicable
to visitors across multiple exhibits of varying types. I drew from the literature in
the fields of interest research, instructional design, cognitive psychology, reading
research, and motivation in order to develop a model to guide the research. I

refined the model based on the information obtained during the course of the

3

.l§,.

at'i’t‘dl 51W"
two “

{conduc

mermDe

firfr\htd\

“l 'l': " I"
.}\-.mu.\\- :-

, 'Y“
.141...“ x - '-
..l_\ll...ll.n§. l t

Al the t!
mfntion bei n

‘v‘ I.
“if" 'l'w .
" “1.) ll\ --v

\ \

 

 

empirical studies.

I conducted two studies that were identical methodologically. I conducted
a study in 1998 (fieldwork in 1997) in the transportation section of the Henry Ford
Museum in Dearbom, Michigan. I observed and interviewed fourteen groups
afier they had visited the Chesapeake and Ohio #1601, a large super-power steam
locomotive. In 1999, I observed and interviewed visitors at exhibits in three
institutions. These were: The Luminist Gallery of American landscape painters at
the Detroit Institute of Arts, a portion of the Aviation exhibit at the Henry Ford
Museum, and a wildlife exhibit called “Our World: Diversity and Evolution” at
the Michigan State University Museum in East Lansing. The 1999 study added
thirty-two group interviews to the fourteen from the 1998 work. These
observations and qualitative interviews formed the basis for determining the
factors affecting the dynamics of attention, for verification and refinement of the
Attention Model, and they provided the evidence for the model’s application to

diverse exhibits.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
At the outset of the study I asked this question: Which factors result in
attention being expended on the exhibit? The specific questions which arose

from this overarching question were:

X1- 5 ‘.“_"u"" i

I‘ granfilii k I‘

‘ ls
")9; ‘-v\" .
“is 5.15. Ur .‘(ln‘

.I

.... .

‘ )vo ‘fi_,n0,j~r
Ham. u.t\..t.- a

. L L‘
if ‘W ’. .- s
h..r.‘."\ dig it.“

5..
fl-‘u‘. ‘A
“X :Lfi) \l‘ .'.
--¢..

9. 7'

,‘1

l .,‘- » ‘

‘MLHSE3 ‘Ur l ..
A ‘ l£\

‘j . 'I‘! ~
*v—«EC l0 fl:
v elf

‘-
h l‘
“m.

3~?10guit

 

1. What are the dynamics of motivation amongst free-choice learners in an
exhibit-based, informal learning environment? Specifically, what are
the elements of a psychological/social-psychological attention model for
free-choice learners in an exhibit-based, informal learning environment
that describes the dynamics of attention for these learners?

2. Can the attention model be substantiated across varying exhibits?

These questions, along with the review of the literature, guided my
development of a qualitative study using theoretical, or purposive, sampling
(Diers, 1979; Morse, 1986) to accomplish a deductive test of the theory. Visitors
were first observed, then interviewed (see Chapter III), to discover the dynamics
of their attention and then to see how those results fit the theoretical model and, if
not, how the model needed to change in order to accommodate what was

discovered in the field.

RATIONALE AND SIGNIFICANCE
This study was designed to make contributions to the fields of lifelong
learning, educational psychology, and museum education. Practitioners in each of
these areas share an interest in motivation leading to paying attention and the
readiness for learning that attention signifies. The findings of this study will
contribute to these fields by providing a refined Attention Model for Museum

Exhibits to guide current practice and future research.

t‘ ‘.-.
,4 #1.)? ,3.)
.2le h ‘6“:

...' n )I" §
,1.th ‘1'} ‘
NJ, - ,1" A!
gwbmuk.
,l.- 9'\ ‘ \'
511'}: 1L lth

.., -
qq‘nkr’v V1
Vk¢iuu URL .1.)

7".
5856'

til SCREWW

1.5.

l. ..
'3‘ inn-9.x?“

‘5' ~1;.L.ln\wn
5

b. ,..
an mi

-~->~ uni .
LAW-SJ. .g\\c(1

’ "‘2.
3
.

“Hula
a“ J. y“ _
“k >°v\n.l\,,:'\r

T1

In]: (LII

31.? ' ‘ .
1&1: Ah“

H.-

«if

 

Scholars in the fields just mentioned are all interested in human learning
and the requisite conditions that make such learning possible. To date, there has
not been any systematic research conducted in informal learning environments,
such as museums, to validate the prerequisites of attention and move such findings
closer to a connection with theory. This study launches a program that will make
contributions to the practice of museum education and connections to theory.

These studies were conducted in four unique environments. These
environments contained objects that are fascinating, historical, beautiful, exotic,
and significant. However, the Attention Model may be adaptable to all museum
exhibits and, I would suggest, to informal learning in general. The model
encompasses the motivational dynamics of most human encounters with objects

and phenomena.

STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS
The context for this study was three museums with varying collections and
audiences. The 1998 study was conducted in a museum of American history and
technology. I chose a specific exhibit, the Chesapeake and Ohio locomotive
#1601, at which to conduct the study (See Appendix G, Photo 1, and Drawing 1).
This locomotive is a part of the larger railroad exhibit within the transportation
section of Henry Ford Museum in Dearbom, MI. The Ford Museum is in turn a

part of the larger Edison Institute that also includes Greenfield Village, an outdoor

6

. r"
' hf...
.0"

.. 0‘
Tn" ‘1‘;
5430"

a
‘ .
5‘ .‘Avl
‘ .
M‘Q I
t- .
t.b d n
l

} ..-

su. .

"“ 5...

‘3'!
t

"V:

 

 

 

museum that includes many historic homes and buildings that have been moved to
the site.

The #1601 is located within the Great Hall of the museum. There are 12
acres of exhibit space in this Hall. Other display areas in the Hall are:
Communication, Lighting, Agriculture, Home Arts, as well as major exhibits such
as “Made in America” and “Henry’s Story.” There is also an “Innovation Station”
and a hands-on area. The transportation section in which the locomotive is
located also includes carriages, trucks, Presidential vehicles, and a major exhibit
called “Automobile in American Life.” Attached to the Great Hall is the front of
the museum, the facade of which is a copy of Independence Hall, but much larger.
In this area are exhibits on silver and pewter, clocks, jewelry, ceramics, and
glassware. There is also a major exhibit called “The Motown Sound: The Music
and the Story.” The remaining public spaces within the museum are a theater,
museum store, and cafe.

The participants in this portion of the study were fourteen groups who
visited the C&O #1601 on the days that I spent on the floor of the exhibit during
the month of March, 1997. I first observed these groups as they worked their way
through the exhibit to see if they displayed any behaviors that would indicate their
expenditure of attention on the locomotive. After I observed them displaying

behaviors indicative of attention, I approached them to explain what I was doing

‘1

fulfil-Ill 'L-

:tifii. it.

3' ‘n‘sr
“huh: . tNi .
I

~-¢ul l ‘L I\

‘14:).

Pk

and ask their permission to engage in a short conversation about their visit to the
Iocomotive.
The 1999 study added three additional exhibits to the study, where I

employed identical methods. One of these was in the same institution as the 1998
study, the Henry Ford Museum. This exhibit was a portion of the larger Aviation
exhibit. The aircraft included were a 1931 Pitcarin Autogiro, the 1939 Sikorsky
hel icopter, and the 1928 Ford Tri-motor that Admiral Byrd navigated over the
S outh Pole. The participants in this portion of the study were twelve groups who
v i sited these aircraft on the days I spent on the floor of the exhibit during the
r“Florith of August, 1999.

The two additional sites that I used were located at institutions that
displayed and interpreted different objects. The first of these was the Detroit
Ir‘Stitute of Arts. I chose one of the galleries in the American art section that
displayed paintings from a school of American landscape artists called the
I“‘Ilrl'linists. The participants in this portion of the study were ten groups who
v isited the gallery on the days that I spent on the floor of the exhibit during the

I110nth of July, 1999.

The final site was a wildlife exhibit at the Michigan State University

1\’I‘-lseum. I chose an exhibit called “Our World: Diversity and Evolution.” This

e)‘ihibit displayed birds, animals, and reptiles from a variety of habitats around the

il-
“1.)...
.~~~"

”Ht

.sJKM‘P

M [5:55
I'; \c“'
QR . L
isl.\
J
It
1' ‘
L“; ‘V
‘ 5‘.

"“5“. “

I

world and which represented many topics related to diversity and evolution. The
participants in this portion of the study were ten groups who visited the exhibit on
the days that I spent on the floor of the exhibit during the month of August, 1999.

A total of forty-six groups, or 119 individual visitors, participated in this

study across the four sites. These visitors were encountered during two visiting

seasons: winter (1998) and summer (1999).

The data collection and analysis methods for this study are drawn from the
q‘ualitative tradition. Field notes and conversations with subjects are the data. The

researcher was the instrument used for data collection and analysis.

ANALYSIS

I used the components of the theoretical Attention Model as a preliminary

Set Of coding categories. Other categories were sought during the analysis
I3r0<=ess Management of the data during the analysis phase was facilitated by the
use of the QSR NUD"‘IST®l qualitative data analysis software.

I extracted patterns and trends as well as connections to the Attention
1\’Iodel from the coding and analysis. I report research findings according to the
nFlzlj 01' themes that emerged from the analysis and their connections to the
Attention Model; I refined the Model on the basis of the analysis. I provide a

mole detailed description of the methods in Chapter III, “Methodology.”

ur-

a.”

My.

 

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The scope and limitations of this study result from the choice of method,

settin g, and participants. There are at least four limitations, three from choice of
method and one based on setting and participants: 1) The sample was not
randomly chosen. Instead, groups exhibiting attention-like behaviors were asked
to consent to a conversation about their visit. The results of the study cannot be
generalized to a population, only to theory. 2) I relied on one contact with the
participants. I did not ask them to provide me with their names and contact
in formation, negating my opportunity for follow-up on areas that might benefit
from clarification after the fact. 3) I spent a very short period of time talking with
each group of people. These participants had paid admission to the museum (in
a1 1 but the MSUM) and were there to get their money’s worth. I spent from 5 to
1 0 minutes with each group, on average. 4) The interviews were conducted while
the Visitors were still in the exhibit or gallery. There was the temptation for them
to Want to continue with their visit and there were the distractions of other visitors
moving past during the interview. Each of these limitations—method, setting, and

lDal'ticipants-will be briefly discussed in turn.

Limitations from Method
Qualitative studies, like their quantitative counterparts, have strengths and

Weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is the inability to generalize to a population

10

 

.‘.t ”v

C!” I‘
\ -
“5...;

using sampling and probability theory. But I chose the method based on the
question, which called for theory building and chose to go one step further by not
using random sampling at all. This loss of the ability to generalize is offset by the
theory building power derived from theoretical, or purposive sampling (Diers,
1 97 9; Yin, 1993). I selected cases (groups) at each site until I reached redundancy
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985), thus ensuring that I had reached saturation (Morse,
l 994). I wanted to generalize to theory and use theory to make predictions and
c: on firm those predictions.

I made the choice to forego sampling because the thrust of this study was to
determine what people who were demonstrating attention-like behaviors were
th inking and what motivational dynamics might be at work. It was, therefore,
eSSential to choose people who were paying attention (topical relevance; Yin,

1 993) in order to investigate those factors. Although the sample could have been
ra‘rldomly selected from groups paying attention, I thought there seemed to be
lFl()thing to be gained by doing so.

A further limitation was the inability to follow-up after the initial
Q01'lVersation. It is most useful in a study such as this one to be able to contact the
participants during the analysis phase to clarify a point or to verify the researcher’s
errlerging conclusions. Questions arise afier the fact that can only be adequately

atlSWered by querying the participants themselves. I purposely chose not to make

11

 

provisions for follow-up. I thought visitors would feel more free to talk if they
were assured anonymity and that it was unnecessary to follow-up due to the
preliminary nature of this study.

The final limitation of method was the short time spent with each group. I
spent varied times with each group. I gauged the time spent with the groups based
on the clues I perceived during the interview concerning the group’s apparent

desire, or not, to move along to the next exhibit. Additional insight may have

come from extended conversation, but the information they shared seemed

adequate.

Limitations from Setting and Participants
I chose to conduct the interviews at the point where I encountered the
group—as they left the exhibit—recognizing that this choice had the potential to
impose limitations. All interviews were conducted in the exhibit or gallery, on the
IT1l18eum floor. The strength of this approach is that groups had just experienced
t1'leir visit when our conversation began and they were still within the exhibit
e1"I‘lironment, allowing them to glance back at the exhibit and providing them with
a Sense that they could continue their visit to the other exhibits in the museum by
IlFleli'ely stepping away from the interview.
There was also the possible temptation for the group to want to step away

prematurely. The ease of stepping away from the conversation to move along to

12

 

.,
u

.a on

" L415

.1
.Q‘M
r

a... .. ‘3

..J ‘9
_‘\ _\..a\

 

r.
b._

’37

.
“‘._,‘\
' ~

the next exhibit may well explain the shortness of a few of the conversations.
Another weakness was the overall noise level and activity of other visitors. These
temptations had the potential to interfere with participants’ concentration as they
provided their information.
The reader may refer to Chapter IV, “The Participants and Setting” for

additional information that may assist in determining strengths and limitations of

the study. The foregoing is provided as a preview.

SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Attention is one way in which learners willfully direct their psychic
res(Durces. Attention is only discemable to an observer when visitors engage in
behaviors indicative of their sensory orientation. These behaviors may include
l()OICing, touching, pointing, circling, approaching, or stopping. Informal
e11"ironments, such as those found in museums, allow learners to freely choose to
engage in these behaviors.

I posed the question, “Which factors result in attention being expended on

the exhibit?” This question represents the gap in our knowledge about motivation
ar‘d attention in museum exhibits. I introduced the research questions, rationale

for and significance of the study , study context and methods, and scope and

l ‘ - .
ll'nltatlons.

13

 

In Chapter II, I present a “Review of the Literature” in order to establish
the origins for the research questions. Chapter II will also describe the
construction of the Attention Model for Museum Exhibits that I built from the
literature to provide the theoretical basis for this study.

In Chapter III, “Methodology,” I discuss the methods used in this study. I
also present a brief description of the research sites and participants as well as
more information on data collection procedures.

In Chapter IV, “Research Findings,” I explain the patterns and trends
extracted from the information provided by the conversations with the
participants. This is presented in two parts: 1) A description of the emerging
themes from each group and, 2) The flow through the Attention Model exhibited
by each group.

In Chapter V, I present “Conclusions and Discussion” and include a review
of the major conclusions and hypotheses based on my interpretation of the data.
These conclusions and hypotheses may become the basis for future research and

discussion.

14

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to identify those factors that motivate free-
choice learners acting in an informal learning environment to pay attention. These
factors comprise an Attention Model for Museum Exhibits. A further purpose
was to substantiate that the attention model was applicable to visitors across
multiple exhibits. I reviewed literature from the areas of attention, interest, and
relevance to integrate what is known about attention. It is from this literature that
I developed the attention model that forms the basis for the field study and I
refined the model on the basis of the analysis of the data from the field study.

Schunk (1996), Gagné (1985), and Keele (1973) consider attention to be a
prerequisite for learning. Information processing theorists in particular focus on
how people attend to environmental events and are concerned with the sequence
and execution of the cognitive events related to attention. This study looked at the
events that precede a visitor’s attending behaviors in the museum context. From
these events we may infer motivators to pay attention.

Many writers use the term attention and some of its prerequisites, such as

interest, somewhat loosely and interchangeably. This review developed clear

15

 

..

3

'fi 1?
um“

I

*4

, . ,1 l
“1&8-

c P ' ‘C ‘1
. ‘ l
h.‘\.‘.\\

2"”?‘31

mm...

"1’"

a....nu

7'J'h

mum...‘

 

distinctions between these terms by calling for their strict use. I built the attention

model based upon these distinctions.

ATTENTION TO MUSEUM EXHIBITS

Attention is a critical prerequisite for learning whether in the formal
classroom or in the informal museum exhibit. Koran and Koran (1983) state that
attention is a critical factor in visitor learning and that, to be effective, the exhibit
must “. . . attract visitor attention, maintain that attention, and provide useful
information” (p. 14). My two studies concern themselves with attracting visitor
attention. Attention must, however, be purposeful.

James (1 890/ 1950) contends that attention “. . . is the taking of possession .
. . [of] the mind, in clear and vivid form . . . [by] 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” (p. 403-404). James
elsewhere calls this selective attention selective interest. He describes attention as
a choice on the part of the learner:

Millions of items of the outward order are present to my senses which

never properly enter into my experience. Why? Because they have no

interest to me. My experience is what I agree to attend to. Only those

items which I notice shape my mind--without selective interest experience

is utter chaos . . . It varies in every creature but without it the consciousness

of every creature would be a gray chaotic indiscriminateness, impossible
for us even to conceive [italics in the original] (James, 1890/1950, p. 402).

16

Attention is a limited human resource. Museum professionals need a firm
understanding of the motivational prerequisites to attention if they expect their
visitors to budget scarce attentional resources on a particular exhibit. I envision
the attention model as a psychological tool that will encompass salient factors that

describe the dynamics of attention in museums.

ATTENTION RESEARCH IN MUSEUMS

Research in museums has been predominately quantitative and focused on
exhibit evaluation rather than theory-based research. The study of attention in
museums has historically been approached in terms of the time visitors spend
within an exhibit. Robinson, in a classic study, The Behavior of the Museum
Visitor (1928), coined the term Holding Power. An exhibit having high holding
power was, and still is, considered more successful than one that has low holding
power. One of the most unobtrusive ways of measuring holding power is by
observing the length of time a visitor stays at the exhibit. The exhibit with high
holding power ostensibly has the visitor’s purposeful attention for a longer time
than does the exhibit with low holding power.

Time is an easy and unobtrusive way of measuring attention and learning if
a correlation can be verified between time spent at an exhibit and learning. Falk
(1983) measured time and coded behavior in an attempt to correlate them with

cognitive learning from the exhibit, measured by a pre- to post-test score.

17

Videotapes were used to time the visit and to categorize visitors’ behaviors. Falk
concluded that “. . . the results provide a strong endorsement for developing an
evaluation procedure based upon unobtrusive parameters such as time on task and
observable nonverbal behavior” (p. 274). But are gains on a pencil-and-paper test
the outcomes in which we are interested? Many museum educators may only be
concerned that their exhibits are well “used,” not that a visitor can recall the ten
main points from the exhibit label. If so, the holding power may not be based on
the correct premises.

Beverly Serrell (1997) has compiled data from 108 exhibitions in order to
study allocation and duration of visitors’ time. She posits that the amount of time
and number of stops are systematic measures that can be indicators of engagement
with the exhibit (p. 121). Serrell developed two indices, sweep rate and
percentage of diligent visitors. The first measures the speed at which visitors “do”
the museum, the second determines how effectively the exhibit was used in terms
of visitors who spent significant time there. She concludes, “Visitors who spend
relatively more time usually are the ones who stop at more elements and become
engaged in more of what the exhibition has to offer . . . the pattern seems to be to
spend more time by making more stops” (p. 121). There is, however, still no way
to assess the visitor’s experience by coding behavior and timing stops. We must

ask visitors about their experience and identify any significant psychological

18

outcomes.

These researchers, and the many others who use time as a measure of
success, insist that time spent at an exhibit correlates with learning. These studies
do not, however, always identify the kind of learning that results from time spent
in a museum exhibit with the learning objectives established for that exhibit.
More importantly, related to this study, they do not identify what creates the
holding power. Are we only interested in cognitive outcomes? What about
affective outcomes? Or, are there psychomotor outcomes from some exhibits?
The museum community has not come to consensus on what outcomes indicate an
exhibit’s success or, for that matter, whether social, attitudinal, or psychomotor
outcomes might be the most appropriate indicators of success (of. Laetsch et al.,
1980). Perhaps it is enough that visitors have used the exhibit. But museum
educators and educational psychologists are interested in psychological outcomes
such as motivation and learning. We need to also determine the indicators of
success once these outcomes are identified and agreed upon.

Time spent with an exhibit does not, however, provide any explanation for
the motivations that lie behind attention. Very little has been done since
Robinson’s 1928 study to add to our knowledge of motivation to attend in
museum exhibits. Instead, museum researchers have been seemingly enamored by

this concept of measuring attention with a stopwatch, citing its unobtrusive nature

19

as their rationale. I would like to make an initial contribution toward filling this
gap in our understanding of the motivation that lies behind the psychological

factors of attention in the museum through the results obtained from this study.

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTENTION MODEL
“Hooking” Attention

I began this project when I was in the motivation seminar (CEP 910,
“Current Issues in Motivation and Learning”) at Michigan State University with
Carole Ames and Jere Brophy in 1996. It was about that time that I began to
develop an interest in motivation and learning in informal settings, such as
museums. I chose to study the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi for a project in
my motivation class that required us to “shadow a researcher.” I chose
Csikszentmihalyi because he had been involved in a planning conference, held in
1994, that explored the long-term influence of museums. The conference was
hosted by John Flak and Lyn Dierking and was funded by the National Science
Foundation.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Kim Hermanson, a graduate student of his,
wrote a chapter called, “Intrinsic Motivation in Museums: Why Does One Want to

Learn?” in the book that F alk and Dierking (1995) wrote as a result of the

20

. in
\‘r‘»‘
um“

m) l "u
.u‘ .1

conference. That chapter had a figure, reproduced here as Figure 1, that inspired

me to undertake the pair of studies that are reported here.

 

A. The “Hook”

Interest

(Stimuli that appeal to
prior personal interest--
domain-specific appeal:
astronomy, archaeology,
biology, etc.)

it

 

Curiosity
(Contextual stimuli that attract
attention, i.e., Sounds, colors,
kinetic displays, items with
common cultural or species-
interest.)

B. Opportunities for

Involvement
Sensory Intellectual Emotional
visual rational empathy
aural scientific self-reflection
kinesthetic historical

C. Conditions for Flow
(Intrinsic Rewards)

Challenges = Skills

(Opportunities for actions in
various dimensions of involve-
ment at gradually increasing

(Provisions for develop-
ing skills at gradually
increasing levels of

competence, e. g., “Zones

levels of difficulty.)
1 or proximal development“)

D. Growth of Complexity in Consciousness

(If involvement is intrinsically rewarding, visitors wish to
maintain the flow experience. This requires increasing
challenges to avoid boredom, and increasing skills to avoid
frustration. The consequences of this dynamic involvement is
a growth of sensory, intellectual, and emotional complexity.)

 

 

 

Figure l Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson Motivation Model
(Adapted from Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995)

21

It was the “hook” in their figure that gave birth to my thinking about
attention in museums. The “hook” is the first step in the process of attention; it
describes how the museum exhibit “captures” (Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson,
1995, p. 72) or attracts the visitor’s attention. It is my opinion that
Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson hurried over this portion of the figure in their
haste to discuss levels B, C, and D where they discuss “flow” and some of its
conditions. They describe the process of attracting visitors in terms of the exhibit
“hooking” the visitors’ attention by appealing to their curiosity or propensity to
attend to novel stimuli. They go on to place arousal of prior interest as the next
event which keeps the visitor engaged long enough to permit any possibility of
learning. But it simply is not logical to expect a person with a previous interest
would need some novel stimulus in order to engage his or her attention in
something that is already meaningful to them. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson’s
haste in connecting these two factors can be corroborated by reference to the text
in their chapter, where curiosity and interest are discussed quite thoroughly and
accurately.

The real “hook” also seemed to me to be much more complicated than the
way it was shown. For example, I see curiosity often leading directly to attention
(and, possibly, subsequent learning), while an individual’s prior interest almost

always leads to attention in the objects of interest (also with the possibility of

22

subsequent learning). It was my concern over the inconsistencies between the
Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson “hook” and my observations of people that led

to the attention model and the studies reported in Chapter IV.

Building a New “Hook”

I believe that the curiosity-to-interest pattern of Csikszentmihalyi and
Hermanson must be replaced by a more viable model if we are to understand how
we can capture, or “hook,” visitor’s attention in museum exhibits. I believe a case
can be made for a model that uses Interest and Relevance as its organizing

categories.

ms:

Many researchers consider interest to be a phenomenon that emerges when
individuals interact with their environment. Krapp, Hidi, and Renninger (1992)
divide interest ensuing from person-environment interaction into Individual
Interest and Situational Interest. Individual interest is specific to the individual,
relatively stable, associated with increased knowledge, positive emotions, and
increased reference value (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992, p. 6). For example, a
person with an individual interest in stained glass may not share that interest with
any of her co-workers, continues to have that interest for many years, is always

learning more about stained glass, and even is known to many of her close friends

23

and acquaintances by this interest. Situational interest, on the other hand,
emphasizes the role of the environment and is generated by stimulus
characteristics, is most generally evoked suddenly by an event in the environment,
tends to be short lived, but may have a more permanent effect that could lead to
the emergence of individual interest. For example, a person might encounter an
exhibit on raccoons and pay attention based on characteristics of the exhibit that
he finds intriguing, only to walk away after a few minutes and never give another
thought to raccoons or the issues presented in the display. Csikszentmihalyi and
Hermanson (1995) use Curiosity to refer to situational interest and Interest to refer

to individual interest (See Figure 1).

Enduring Personal Interest (EPI)

Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson maintain that curiosity moves to interest.
They state, “After the individual’s curiosity is aroused, the exhibit must engage
sustained interest in order for learning to take place” (p. 73). But sustained
interest need not necessarily begin with curiosity. The visitor who has an
individual interest in the subject matter of a particular exhibit will be interested in
it without requiring some novel stimuli to generate curiosity. Instead, the
individual with an enduring personal interest will seek out specific exhibits that
correspond to that interest. I will call Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson’s interest

and Hidi’s individual interest Enduring Personal Interest. This enduring personal

24

interest is a viable “hook” for the visitor with a stable personal interest.

Situation-Specific Interest (S-SI)

Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson’s curiosity, as opposed to enduring
personal interest, is a phenomena that could appeal to the individual who has yet
to develop an enduring interest in the subject matter of a particular exhibit.
Curiosity is also what Hidi (1990) calls situational interest. Situational interest
does not refer to individual differences, but refers to commonalities; most
individuals in the population manifest an interest when presented with interesting
objects. Maw and Maw (1968) define curiosity in terms of behavioral indicators.
A person who is curious

Exhibits a need or a desire to know more about himself and/or his

environment . . . scans his surroundings seeking new experiences . . .

persists in examining and exploring stimuli in order to know more about

them (p.462).

This exploratory behavior, then, reflects the human desire to know more about
one’s environment when it is unfamiliar—it reflects the desire to learn about things
and is more of a ‘scientific curiosity.’

I’m choosing to call Csikszentmihalyi’s and Hermanson’s curiosity as well
as Hidi’s situational interest, Situation-Specific Interest. This is because Hidi’s

term comes closer to describing the phenomena and because curiosity has a more

delimited definition in the literature. This situation-specific interest is a viable

25

“hook” for the visitor who encounters something interesting.

Curiosity (C)

The literature on curiosity is best represented by the work of David
Berlyne. Berlyne’s (1963) collative motivation best describes the activity
resulting from a person’s curiosity about objects or events in the environment.
Collative motivation describes the initiation of exploratory or epistemic
exploratory behaviors upon an encounter between an organism and collative
stimulus properties in his or her environment (p. 316),. Berlyne’s collative
stimuli, or variables, include: novelty, surprisingness, change, ambiguity,
incongruity, blurredness, and power to induce uncertainty (p. 290). Thus, paying
attention based on collative variables is a function of the biological drive of
humans to explore and understand their environment when it presents surprisesz.
The variable that elicits the attention under colative motivation is the exhibit
environment where something novel or out of the ordinary is encountered by the
visitor. The visitor is passive until he or she encounters something novel and
incongruous. Curiosity is relatively stable across the population of human beings.
That is, most human beings would exhibit curiosity in response to a unique
stimulus. However, it could also be argued that curiosity is affected by the values
of the society, thus further refining the idea of ‘population’ to those groups that

share a common heritage and, therefore, find similar things curious. I call this

26

interest variable curiosity, as does Berlyne.

Summary—Interest.

Three factors that fall beneath the larger category of interest emerge from
this discussion. First, enduring personal interest—a stable characteristic of the
individual to be interested in particular things. Next, situation-specific interest—a
common attribute of the population to pay attention to things that are perceived to
be interesting. Last, curiosity—that occurs when the individual encounters
surprises or incongruities, resulting in attention. For the purposes of this study,
therefore, I will consider interest to be either enduring personal interest, situation-

specific interest, or curiosity.

Relevance

Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson do not discuss the relevance of the
exhibit to the visitors’ personal backgrounds and immediate setting, but relevance
deserves consideration in a discussion of intrinsic motivation. True, an exhibit is
relevant to the visitor with an enduring personal interest in the subject matter of
that exhibit, but there are additional relevance factors that could work as the
“hook” to draw visitors to a particular exhibit. Keller (1979, 1983, 1987a) defines
relevance as, “. . . sustained motivation [that] requires the learner to perceive that

important personal needs are being met by the learning situation [emphasis in the

27

original]” (Keller, 1983, p. 406). Examples of important personal needs in the
museum may include Maslow’s3 (1954) belonging needs. I interpret the ability to
connect the objects to one’s own personal history and sharing an engagement with
the object with one’s group as being representative of these belonging needs.

The interest-plus-relevance distinction comes from the work of John
Keller. Keller’s ARCS Model (1987b) of instructional design includes the
elements of Attention. Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Keller posits that
any instructional unit must include these elements if motivation to learn is to
occur. The reader will immediately notice that the first two elements of ARCS are
Attention and Relevance, not Interest and Relevance.

In Keller’s earlier work (1983), the model was Interest, Relevance,
Expectancy, and Satisfaction; certainly not as memorable as the ARCS acronym,
but the interest component is in its proper place as a prerequisite for attention. He
equates interest, however, with curiosity, so even here Keller falls victim to the
muddled distinction between attention, as an outcome, and its prerequisites; a
common trap that is so prevalent in the literature.

A visitor’s own personal history would seem to be a potentially powerful
factor in helping the visitor to make a connection to the exhibit. People are
always fascinated to find something that relates to their personal lives. Roberts

(1997) succinctly says, “Visitors’ interest and attention is determined not by an

28

object’s inherent appeal but its relevance to their own framework of knowledge
and experience [emphasis added]” (p. 69). Any object that bears on a visitor’s
personal experience is likely to be judged relevant and result in the visitor paying
attention.

Group influence constitutes another possible relevance factor. Individuals
who are members of a visiting group influence other group members in a variety
of ways. Diamond (1986) talks about reciprocal influence of group members,
where interactions with the exhibit are effected by interactions with other group
members. Sterry (1994) characterizes visitors as active participants who recognize
a connection with their own history through personal experience and recollection,
resulting in a sense of the group’s own history and identity (p. 131). Dierking and
Falk (1994), in a review of family behavior and learning research, give support to
Sterry’s position that visitors—especially adults—attempt to relate information to
their prior knowledge and experience. Dierking and Falk also spend some time
talking about group agendas. They say, “Visitor ‘agendas’ are shaped by a variety
of factors including prior knowledge and experience with the content of the
informal science setting, motivation, and interest and can result in a variety of
expectations. . .” (p. 61). The group, therefore, appears to exert tremendous

influence during museum visits.

29

Summary—Relevance

This discussion leads to the conclusion that two factors fall beneath the
larger category of relevance. First, personal history—a possible connection with
the visitor based on the becoming aware that he or she shares history with the
object. Second, group influence—the power of the group to influence the attention
of individual members. For the purposes of this study, therefore, I will consider
relevance to be either personal history (PH) or group influence (GI). Personal
history and group influence are also viable “hooks” for visitors with affiliation

and social needs, i.e., belonging needs.

Summary—Interest & Relevance

I believe Interest and Relevance are viable replacements for the curiosity-
to-interest description of Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson’s “hook” in Figure 1.
Figure 2 illustrates the motivational roles of interest and relevance as I envision
them from the literature. The individual casually scans the environment for
potentially interesting or relevant stimuli. However, the person does not begin to
pay attention to the exhibit until they have “connected” with the exhibit through
either interest or relevance. From an information processing point of view,
interest and relevance are two motivational mechanisms that help the individual

select among several competing inputs for his or her attention (Schunk, 1996).

30

According to a consensus of theoreticians, interest and relevance appear to
be viable constructs that describe the dynamics at work when a visitor makes
connections to a museum exhibit, resulting in attention. Either of these
connections could result in the visitor directing his or her attention toward the

exhibit. Interest and relevance may also work interactively.

 

 

 

 

 

INTEREST
Q
. ‘9 +EPI
fi°° +s-s1 R
+C ;
//’\\ ° //’—\\
( Exhibit ,7) : W Toward t; Attention ;>
.\ /

 

 

V
gait.
\ RELEVANCE
‘5 +PH
.1 +GI

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 Motivational Roles of Interest and Relevance

THE ATTENTION MODEL FOR MUSEUM EXHIBITS
The proposed Attention Model for Museum Exhibits is shown here as
Figure 3. The museum visitor is represented by the dashed circle in the model.
The psychological attributes of visitor interest and relevance just discussed are

shown inside the dashed circle while the influence of the group is shown outside

31

the circle. Interest is depicted as being Enduring Personal Interest, Situation-
Specific Interest, or Curiosity, while relevance is depicted as Personal History or
Group Influence". Connections to the exhibit are shown by the dashed lines with
arrowheads (paths #1, #2, & #3, in Figure 3). That is, a visitor may connect to the
exhibit through Enduring Personal Interest, Situation-Specific Interest, Personal
History, or Curiosity. The possible psychological interaction between interest and
relevance factors is depicted by the solid lines with arrowheads on both ends
inside the circle.

For the purposes of this study I conceived group influence as being
initiated when one, or more, individual(s) within the group connect(s) to the
exhibit (path #5 in Figure 3) and influence another group member maths #6, #7,
#8, #9, & #10 in Figure 3) to attend to the exhibit. The group member being
influenced by his or her peers might simply be curious about what others find
interesting, be reminded of a shared connection to their personal history, or simply
be directed to look at the exhibit by another group member. It is quite likely that
group interaction through discussion is very powerful in mediating attention. The
possible result is that the influenced individual will be motivated to pay attention

to the exhibit by the activities of the group.

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ ’ at ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ / '5 ’
z / / /
Interest ’ ,x’ ,x // ”5/
Factors ’ ’ ’éA ’ ’ I ’ ’ ,’
/ I ’ I , ’ / / ’ z / z / //
/ a ’ I ’ I / ’ l/
/ Ar , ’ A , ,
l
' it i - ' . .
Endurlng : S uat on Speclfic Cur1051ty
I Personal Interest . Interest
k

 

      

I

\
\

Personal
History

\
Relevance \
Factors

of the Individual
(Psychological)

 

  
   
      
 

EXHlBIT ENVIRONMENT
Characteristics of the Immediate
Environment

Group
Influence

 

 

 

Figure 3 Attention Model for Museum Exhibits

33

 

 

The interest and relevance factors from Figure 3 are further described in

 

 

Table 1:

INTEREST A differential likelihood that an individual will choose to
pay attention to a particular object based on his or her
idiosyncratic interests. These different kinds of interest are
described by the factors of the attention model: enduring
personal interest, situation-specific interest, or curiosity.

Enduring A durable characteristic of the individual to be interested in

Personal Interest

specific objects and, as a result, to pay attention to them.
This factor includes the kinds of interests that friends would
list if they were describing this person, i.e., clocks, painting,
trains, etc.

 

Situation-
Specific Interest

An opportunistic likelihood that an individual will choose to
pay attention to a particular object based on his or her
perception of the object’s interestingness. This factor is
based on the individual’s desire to know more about his or
her environment. This is what most people mean when they
say someone is a curious person. Situation-specific interest
is, however, more like scientific curiosity—the pr0pensity to
probe and discover.

 

Curiosity

 

A characteristic of the individual to choose to pay attention
to objects that are novel or incongruous. This factor is
based on the individual’s desire to reduce uncertainty and to
resolve ambiguity. Curiosity is a general characteristic of
the population, but certain individuals may exercise more or
less curiosity than others.

 

RELEVANCE

 

A differential likelihood that an individual will choose to
pay attention to a particular object based on their
idiosyncratic perceptions of relatedness. These different
kinds of relevance are described by the factors of the
attention model: personal history and group influence.

 

34

 

 

Relation to Refers to the likelihood that an individual will choose to pay
Personal History attention to an object based on a perceived connection
between the object and his or her own past. This factor is
based on the individual’s awareness that the object has some
degree of personal meaning.

 

Group Refers to the likelihood that an individual will choose to pay
Influence attention to an object based on a perceived association
between the object and his or her group. This factor is
based on the individual’s awareness that the object has some
degree of shared meaning amongst group members.

 

 

 

 

Table 1 Definition of the Interest and Relevance Factors of the Attention Model
in Figure 3.

How the Model Might Work

A visitor who became interested in locomotives, landscape art, historic
aircraft, or wildlife through previous experience would come to the museum with
an enduring personal interest in such things. Such a visitor would have decided to
come to a specific museum because of the objects in the collection or, if not, the
visitor would purposely seek out such an exhibit once he or she learned that the
museum had these objects.

Situation-specific interest, on the other hand, is not related to an enduring
interest on the part of the visitor. Instead, situation-specific interest is a more
general interest, a more universal trait in the population that is triggered by
situational factors. In the museum, a visitor who has no enduring personal interest

in the objects may become interested when particularly interesting objects are

35

encountered, or, for that matter, such a visitor may view almost any object in a
museum as interesting. The visitor then pays attention on the basis of the interest
elicited by the encounter.

Curiosity is a response to a novel object or an incongruous placement of
objects. An individual’s curiosity is raised when the objects introduce ambiguity.
Curiosity is elicited when the individual finds himself or herself in an uncertain
situation, surrounded by objects that just “don’t make sense” when considered
from the visitor’s usual flame of reference. Curiosity is a drive that motivates the
individual to gather information in order to reduce or eliminate the uncertainty
created by the environment.

Connections to personal history vary from individual to individual—they are
idiosyncratic. Any given visitor may or may not have personal linkages through
family, family friends, or personal friends who have historical connections to
exhibits or to the historical context that the objects represent. For some visitors
this connection will become known when they encounter the exhibit and will form
the basis for attention; this is a direct connection. For others, connections to their
personal history are mediated by their enduring personal interest, situation-specific
interest, or curiosity in that they chose to pay attention based on one of the three
interest factors and then discover a connection to their past. The connection is an

indirect one, going first from an interest factor, then to relevance.

36

 

An example of direct connection to personal history would be the case of a
visitor to a locomotive exhibit who remembers, as a by-product of the encounter,
that steam locomotives were still running on the tracks through their hometown
when he or she was a child. The visitor might be moved to recall many childhood
memories relating in some way to the trains. One such memory might be the ritual
of going to the depot every aftemoon with a group of friends to see the passenger
train arrive. The visitor might remember seeing the loading and unloading of
baggage, recall mingling with passengers arriving and departing, reminisce that
the station master was their neighbor, etc. This rush of memories might result in
attention being directed toward the locomotive in the exhibit. Another visitor
might have been attracted by situation-specific interest when she saw the
locomotive’s bell, wondering why locomotives had bells. She might then
remember a trip to her sister’s where the trains passed nearby. Only then does she
remember hearing the locomotive bell ring as the train neared the crossing. She
was already paying attention based on her situation-specific interest but the
connection to her personal history caused her to attend longer and probably left a
deeper impression of the exhibit.

Outside the dashed circle that represents the visitor is the visitor’s
immediate environment. This environment is limited, in this study, to the exhibit

and the visitor’s group. The exhibit has characteristics that make it potentially

37

interesting, and it thus may appeal to the visitor’s enduring personal interest,
situation-specific interest, or curiosity. A connection is also possible as a visitor
makes links to their personal history.

Another aspect of the immediate environment for each person are the other
members of their visiting group. Many visitors come to the museum as a member
of a group and may be influenced to pay attention by others in the group. One
person in the group may remember an uncle telling about seeing an Autogiro. He
relates that story to the others in the group and a discussion of such early aircraft
ensues. All group members are now paying attention and engaged with the

exhibit as a result of the attention of one other person.

The Complexities of Group Influence

Group influence may occur in one of four ways (paths #6, #7, #8, #9, &
#10 in Figure 3). First, a member of a visiting group may have their curiosity
aroused directly as he or she makes an attempt to discover what someone else
finds so interesting. Second, someone could explain how he or she finds the
exhibit to be so interesting. Third, someone in the group could express his or her
own enduring personal interest in the artifact. Fourth, someone in the group
might express a connection to personal history that also affects another group
member. And, last, the individual’s attention may be directly focused on an object

if another group member directs them to look at it or describes it. In all cases, it is

38

the activity of the group that results in the non-attender ultimately choosing to pay
attention.

To some extent, the individuals in the group act like members of a single
body, in the same way that hands and feet are both members of the human body.
One member may be attracted to an exhibit by enduring personal interest and,
thus, focus the other member’s attention on the basis of the non-attending
member’s curiosity, situation-specific interest, connections to personal history, or
by focusing attention directly. Take, for example, an attending group member
simply saying, “Look at that!” and pointing to the object. Others in the group will
pay attention on the basis of that direct appeal to look. One individual’s
connection may, therefore, apply to the entire group. The result is attention on the

part of previously non-attending members of the group.

SUMMARY
I have reviewed literature from the areas of attention, interest, and
relevance to integrate what is known about attention. It is from this literature that
I developed the attention model that forms the basis of the field study.
Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson posited a model for museum motivation, but
that model did not explain the way the “hook” operated, and although Keller
offered great promise in proposing Interest and Relevance, he explained interest

as curiosity. Representative interest research from the field of reading5 was

39

brought into play to fill the gaps in the museum literature. I developed the
Attention Model from this eclectic mix of literature to form the basis for a more
complete explanation of the “hook.”

Researchers have undertaken studies in museums primarily to accomplish
formative or summative evaluations of specific exhibits. These studies use time as
a measure of attention but the results do not provide information that will help in
understanding the psychological factors that motivate visitors to pay attention to
exhibits. It appears, therefore, that a gap exists in the museum studies literature
that can only begin to be filled by providing a better understanding of what the
dynamics of attention really are. Specifically, we need to know which factors
motivate free-choice learners acting in an informal learning environment to pay
attention, what kind of an attention model organizes these factors, and whether the

attention model is applicable across multiple exhibits.

40

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The literature on attention in museums is limited to measurement of time
and observation of behaviors. Little is known about the events that precede a
visitor’s decision to pay attention to the exhibit, or about the psychological factors
that motivate that decision. The museum literature also proved inadequate in
assisting with the development of the attention model. I found it necessary to
reach out to the areas of instructional design, reading research, and work in the
field of artificial intelligence in order to amass sufficient theory to develop the
model.

A significant contribution can be made to the field of museum studies by
developing a better understanding of the factors which result in attention to a
museum exhibit. This chapter describes the research sites, samples, procedures

used, and data coding and analysis.

THE RESEARCH SITES
The purpose of this study was to identify those factors that motivate free-

choice learners acting in an informal learning environment to pay attention. These

41

 

factors comprise an attention model for museum exhibits. A further purpose was
to substantiate that the attention model was applicable to visitors across multiple
exhibits. I chose four museum exhibits as representative of informal learning
environments and their visitors as representative of free-choice learners.

This study incorporates field data resulting from two separate studies using
identical methodologies—a 1998 study and a 1999 study. I selected the
Chesapeake and Ohio steam locomotive #1601 located in the transportation
section of the Henry Ford Museum in Dearbom, Michigan for the 1998 study.
The 1999 study used three sites: the Luminist Gallery of American landscape art at
the Detroit Institute of Arts in Detroit, Michigan; three objects from the Aviation
exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum; and a wildlife exhibit called “Our World:
Diversity and Evolution,” at the Michigan State University Museum in East

Lansing.

THE EXHIBITS
1998 Study-Henry Ford Museum (locomotive)
I conducted the first study (1998) entirely within the railroad exhibit at the
Henry Ford Museum, using a single exhibit. The Chesapeake and Ohio
locomotive #1601 is a “modern” steam locomotive. This locomotive was built
late in the steam era and represents the highest level of mechanical engineering to

be realized in the design and construction of steam locomotives. It also represents

42

the scale of motive power needs required by the railroad companies in the 19405.

Locomotive #1601 was built in December, 1941, by the Lima Locomotive
Works in Lima, Ohio, for the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. In the railroad’s
classification system the #1601 was an H-8 or Allegheny6 type. Hence, it is often
referred to as “The Allegheny.” Using a 2-6-6-67 wheel arrangement (See
Appendix G, Drawing 1), the Allegheny is an articulated locomotive, meaning
that the frame, under the rigid boiler, could flex as the locomotive negotiated
curves.

The locomotive weighs in at nearly 600 tons when its tender and boiler are
full. It is 11' 1" wide, 16' 5-1/2” tall, and 125' 8" long. It is, in short, a huge
locomotive and, according to David P. Morgan, editor of Trains, “. . . regarded in
certain circles as the most perfectly engineered articulated ever built, bar none”
(quoted in Huddleston & Dixon, Jr., 1996, p. 13).

Without doubt the Allegheny represents what Leo Marx (1964) had in
mind when he coined the term Technological Sublime. Marx protégée David Nye
recounts the origin of the term:

In nineteenth-century America certain machines began to receive the same

kind of attention [as did objects within the aesthetic theory of the sublime].

Leo Marx has termed this response to displays of new railroads and

steamboats as the “technological sublime,” in which “the awe and

reverence once reserved for the Deity and later bestowed upon the visible

landscape is directed toward technology, or rather the technological
conquest of matter” (1990, p. 59).

43

The Allegheny is a perfect example of this technological conquest of matter. This
is not only so in its construction and great size, but in its ability to move
tremendous quantities of freight,8 conquering time and distance.

The awe, romance, and patriotism, typical of people’s response to sublime
objects, is expressed by Henry B. Comstock in an article in Railroad, as he
compares the Allegheny (2-6-6-6) with the Union Pacific “Big Boys” (4-8-8-4):

‘The last word in articulated power? [referring to the Union Pacific
“Big Boys”]. Not quite.

Turn time ahead a few months from their date of delivery [UP Big
Boys] to December 9th, l941--two days after Pearl Harbor. Out in Lima,
Ohio, an office car has just pulled in from Cleveland. Chesapeake and
Ohio motive-power officials cross the cinder-ballasted nickel Plate yards,
pick up their ‘dog tags’ at the gates of the Lima Locomotive Works, and
cut through the sprawling erecting shop to the open test-track beyond.

Down where the rails curve to the right is another building, fresh
with the smell of paint and dryer. They shove open the door and stop
abruptly. The small builder’s photo which each member of the party
received with his identification card has given no hint of the spectacle
within one hundred and twenty-eight feet of Appalachian tonnage mauler;
a height from tire to smokestack rim of sixteen and one-half feet; twin sand
domes with a combined capacity of eight tons of seashore; six pair of sixty-
seven inch drivers and--that’s right--a six wheel trailing truck. That extra
axle wasn’t put there for ornamentation. It had to be added to keep one
hundred and thirty-five square feet of grate area below the level of the rear
main wheel.

Even the men who have watched this engine take shape from a score
of tracing paper layouts cannot conceal a certain degree of pleased
amazement. They climb into the cab’s green interior; look down the long
barrel, rolled from steel plate that measures an inch and one-eighth in
thickness; drop back to the ground to inspect the tender trucks--one six-
and one eight-wheeled unit, for better absorption of weight.

Nobody doubts the word of D. S. Ellis, chief mechanical officer of
the road, when he casually states that the 1600 will handle 5750 tons
between Clifton Forge, Virginia, and Hinton, West Virginia, unassisted.

44

There is firrther talk of a tractive effort of 110,200 pounds and an
engine weight [without tender and water] of three hundred and forty-eight
tons. But it takes a veteran newspaper man named Joseph Doherty to sum
up the thought that is uppermost in everybody’s mind. Turning to Walter
Jackson, originator of ‘Chessie,’ the cat, he shakes his head and says:

‘When people have the will to build an engine like this, they’re
bound to win a war!’ (quoted in Huddleston & Dixon, Jr., 1996, p. 11-12).

Locomotive #1601 continues to make a lasting impression on the visitors who see
it in the 19903.

The locomotive has a prominent position within the railroad exhibit. This
exhibit is on the far right side of the building as visitors enter by the center
entrance (See Figure 4). Upon arrival, visitors receive a brochure called “Finding
Your Way.” This brochure includes a perspective floor plan with major objects

shown; the Allegheny is shown on this perspective view. The locomotive is also

listed in a section called “Historic Objects You Must See!”

45

 

 

To Museum Store,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Cafe, &
4 Greenfield Vrllage
Wit? I From Main Entrance
069/ 4 and Presidential Vehicles
«0 “ “

”>2 rot
g ' DeWitt Clinton
'51: | Replica w/ 4 (stage)
é [ coaches
é
3 “Rocket”
5: reproduction
O T]
a3 J “The President”
0 1 ‘

 

 

 

i To remainder of
railroad exhibit

 

Figure 4 Allegheny Exhibit Area

As visitors move from the museum’s main entrance to their right, they
encounter the museum’s collection of Presidential Vehicles. At the end of this
display they come face-to-face with the Allegheny. Actually visitors have three
choices at this point: 1) they can turn lefi and enter the railroad exhibit; 2) they can
go straight and visit the carriages, which is not a very clear choice since the

carriages are not visible; and 3) they can turn right to access the Museum Store,

46

 

American Cafe’, or go to Greenfield Village.

Henry Ford Museum-Visitors
Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village operate five program seasons:
Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn, and December. According to a 1990 study by
Hood Associates [Marilyn “Molly” Hood], the visitors do show some variations in
psychographics from season to season. See Table 2 for some examples of

variations that might impact this study (Note: n = 2,095).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Winter Spring Summer Autumn December
F irst-time 23% 42% 47% 37% 16%
visitors to
Museum
Attended on 35% 31% 43% 28% 50%
weekday
Attended on 65% 69% 57% 72% 50%
weekend
Respondents 53% 32% 22% 35% 56%
lived in Detroit
metro area
Respondents 43% 63% 76% 64% 43%
lived outside
Detroit metro
area
Males 55% 56% 50% 55% 50%
Females 43% 44% 49% 45% 50%
Companion on visit to Henry Ford Museum/Greenfield Village on survey date:
Family 58% 52% 64% 55% 57%

 

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends 21% 15% 12% 16% 17%
Family and 4% 8% 6% 7% 12%
friends

Came alone 14% 12% 7% 12% 10%
Organized 2% 14% 10% 10% 4%
group, other

 

 

Table 2 Representative Audience Characteristics (Hood Associates study,
August 1991)

I highlighted the winter column to represent the visiting season in which I
conducted this study. Note that 65% of the winter visitors attend on weekends
and that 58% of the winter visitors are family groups. I conducted my study on
the weekend and encountered predominately family groups. In the autumn,
visitors are even more likely to visit during the weekend (72%) and almost as
likely to be family groups (55%). In fact, visitors to Henry Ford Museum and
Greenfield Village tend to prefer weekend visits, ranging from 57% to 72%
during the standard weather-based seasons (winter, spring, summer, and fall).
Only during the December season is there a 50-50 split between weekdays and
weekends. Family groups dominate the psychographics, being 52% or greater.
The next highest percentage of visitors is the “friends” groups, what I call social
groups. The winter portion is 21%. Between family and social groups, therefore,

the portion of visitors represented is 79%.

48

The Sample-Henry Ford Museum (locomotive)

I observed and interviewed fourteen groups who visited the museum during
the month of March, 1997. See Table 3 for a brief description of the groups. I
selected each group included in this study on the basis of their attending
behaviors. I interviewed these groups on two dates, March 1, and March 29,
1997, both Saturdays. I chose weekends in order to avoid conflicts with school
trips. I visited the museum during days when school trips were being conducted
and I noted that the entire atmosphere of the museum was radically changed by
these large, noisy groups. There seemed to be an energy that made every visitor
more intent on rushing through their visit and, therefore, much less likely to spend
time looking at the locomotive and more prone to cut their conversations with me
quite short. The noise level was also increased remarkably, making transcriptions

of tape recorded interviews more problematic.

 

 

Group Number
Number Description of
People
1 Mechanical engineers from Italy. In town for the SAE 3

(Society of Automotive Engineers) convention, which
just concluded.

2 Older father and mother up from Toledo, OH. Visiting 4
with adult son/daughter and daughter/son in-law.

 

 

3 Mechanical engineers from the US. Visiting as a follow- 3
up to the SAE Convention.

 

 

 

 

 

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Retired husband and wife. Here with family, but family 2
was not with them during the interview.
5 Grandparents and adult granddaughter. 3
6 Grandparents with minor grandson 3
7 Family group. Husband, wife, minor son and daughter. 4
8 Older couple from Canada 2
9 Father and adult son. In museum with additional family. 2
10 Husband and wife. 2
11 Two brothers from Canada. 2
12 Two retired men. 2
13 Father with minor son and daughter. 3
14 Parents with adult son and daughter in-law. 4
Table 3 Groups Interviewed (HFM—Locomotive) 39

 

 

 

I did not randomly select the sample (as noted in Chapter I) for three
reasons. First, this study focused on the dynamics of attention, making any group
paying attention a viable candidate for the sample. Second, I was not relying on
statistical methods that demanded a random sample in order to generalize to a
population. Third, and last, this study was exploratory in nature, seeking to tease
out the traits and attributes that are present in groups and individuals who are
paying attention to the locomotive and to give the attention model its initial test.

It was not necessary, therefore, to work with non-attending groups.

50

1999 Study-Detroit Institute of Arts

The 1999 study was conducted in three different exhibits, in three different
institutions. The first of these was the Luminist Gallery of American landscape
painters, located at the Detroit Institute of Arts, in Detroit. This is a specialized
gallery of landscape art that features paintings by artists who used light to create
paintings with a “timeless” quality.

The gallery contains one dozen paintings that range in size from 37.47 cm
x 31.75 cm (height & width) [Gifford, “Kaaterskill Falls”], to 142.24 cm x 215.9
cm [Church, “Syria by the Sea”]. The paintings are displayed on the four walls of
the almost square room that has two archways and is furnished with a pouffe in
the center. See Figure 5 (the painting numbers refer to the key numbers in Table
4). I also reproduce the gallery label in Figure 6; it gives additional information

concerning the art, artists, and genre:

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Hudson River School”
4 Gallery
- l 4 ’
Ir" 1 \2: ' 3W1
K “I \ fi \ {71/ X
¢ fl 11 Pouffe
: 5 .:--—~>
‘ 9 8 - 1/ ‘ l: 6 ,/!“\.
- f ' "a
v ‘v
9
' From Woodward
entrance

 

 

 

Figure 5 DIA—Luminist Gallery

 

 

This gallery contains works by a group of American landscape painters
known as the Luminists.

The Luminists were especially interested in capturing the quality of light and the
effects of atmosphere. Because of this they painted landscapes with low horizon lines
so they could show large areas of sky.

These painters worked largely on the East Coast, but drew their inspiration from
distant lands, which they saw as exotic. For example, for a largely urban audience the
American West and South America represented vast expanses of untamed and
unspoiled land. Mediterranean scenes offered romantic views of ruins from ancient
Greek and Roman civilizations that evoked a melancholy sense of past glory.

For l9‘h-century American audiences, painting represented the highest level of artistic
achievement, and landscape was considered the most important subject matter. Most
valued were large paintings, such as those seen here, featuring dramatic lighting
effects, awe-inspiring scenery, and the opportunity to glimpse the wonders of faraway
lands.

 

Figure 6. Luminist Gallery, Gallery Label

52

 

The two largest paintings in this gallery are by Frederic Edwin Church.
“Cotopaxi” is 121.92 cm x 215.9 cm and “Syria by the Sea” is 142.24 cm x 215.9
cm [the largest]. Sweeney (1991) says, “America’s leading landscape painters at
midcentruy [19“] were Frederic Edwin Church and his arch-rival Albert
Bierstadt” (p. 158). The DIA did not have any Bierstadt on display during this
study. Sweeney goes on to say, “Church vied for the title ‘monarch of landscape
painting’ with Albert Bierstadt and later Thomas Moran. These artists built their
reputations on theater-sized paintings of western scenery inspired by Church’s
own grandiose expressions of sublimity and nationalism” (1991, p. 158). One
Moran piece was on display, “The Fisherman’s Wedding Party.” Table 4 gives a

list of the paintings in the Luminist Gallery.

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Artist Painting Year Size (in Cm.)
to (All are Oil on Canvas) (H x W)
Fig. 6

5 Frederic Edwin Syria by the Sea 1873 142.24x215.9
Church

8 George Inness Hudson River Valley 1867 60.96x87.63

12 Martin Johnson Sunset c. 43.82x92.39
Heade 1 880

1 Martin Johnson Hummingbirds and 18803 36.2x56.52
Heade Orchids

7 Sanford Kaaterskill Falls 1871 37.47x31 .75

Robinson

Gifford

9 Albert Bierstadt The Wolf River, Kanssa c. 122.56x97.16

1859
4 Thomas Moran The Fisherman’s 1892 60.96x83.82
Wedding Party

3 Louis Remy Lagoon of the 1863 61 .6x96.52

Mignot Guayaquil River,
Ecuador

2 Frederic Edwin Cotopaxi 1862 121.92x215.9
Church

10 Martin Johnson Seascape: Sunset 1861 66.04x111.76
Heade

6 Robert S. Ellen’s Isle 1871 72.39x124.46

Dluncanson
1 1 Stanford Mt. Mansfield nd 76.2x1 5 2.4
Robinson

Gifford

 

 

 

 

 

54

Table 4 Inventory—Luminist Gallery, Detroit Institute of Arts

 

The gallery is one of a maze of rooms that house the museum’s American
art collection. Visitors enter by the Woodward Avenue Entrance, on the west side
of the museum. Upon entering they face three choices. A right turn will take a
visitor to a maze of rooms housing the European Art. A left turn would take a
visitor into one of the American Art rooms; and going straight, and through one
other room, would put them into the Luminist Gallery. Going straight
immediately afier entering and up some steps would take the entering visitor to the
Ford Great Hall that has a high, vaulted, ceiling. This hall contains the museum’s
armor collection providing visitors with three additional chances to find their way
to the Lumist Gallery through doors on the left. See Figure 6 for a simplified

map.

The Sample-Detroit Institute of Arts
I observed and interviewed ten groups who visited the museum during the
month of July, 1999. See Table 5 for a brief description of the groups. I
interviewed these groups on two dates, July 30, and July 31, 1999. This was a
Friday and Saturday. The weekend days appear to see heavier visitor traffic than

do the weekdays.

55

 

Group Number

 

Number Description of
People
1 Young husband, wife, and daughter (perhaps age 8). 3

Visiting to see specific pieces.

 

2 Young man and woman. She was visiting from Dayton, 2
Ohio. Visiting to see the American art.

 

 

 

3 Young man and woman. Stopped on their way to find 2
something to eat.

4 Young husband and wife. This is his favorite section of 2
the museum.

5 Older husband and wife with two granddaughters. Came 4

to show the girls some of their favorite paintings.

 

6 Young husband and wife. They had taken a trip to 2
western New York state and looked for familiar scenes.

 

7 Young man and woman. They were on their way 2
elsewhere but stayed and looked at everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 Young man and woman. Visiting from out of town. 2
Looked at everything.
9 Young man and woman. He likes American landscape 2
art.
10 Young man and woman. Art students from the Center for 2
Creative Studies.
Table 5 Groups Interviewed (DIA) 23

 

 

 

The DIA did not have a comprehensive study of their visitors’
psychographics. It can be deduced from the information in Table 4, however, that
the visitors were mostly young, 40% family groups, 60% social groups. I sampled

in exactly the same way as in the 1998 study.

56

1999 Study-Henry Ford Museum (Aircraft)

The second site in the 1999 study was again, as in the 1998 study, in the
Henry Ford Museum in Dearbom, Michigan. I chose a second technological
exhibit to insure that such a site be considered when summer visitors were present.
The exhibit chosen was three aircraft in the Aviation exhibit.

The three aircraft chosen were The 1931 Pitcarin Autogiro; the 1939
Sikorsky Helicopter, Model VS-300; and the 1928 Ford Tri-motor, Model 4-AT,
the “Floyd Bennett.” These comprise the entire side of one of the multiple
sections of the larger Aviation exhibit. See Figure 7 for a simplified floor plan.
The Aviation exhibit is one of the major exhibits shown on the map that visitors
receive at the door upon entering. The Sikorsky helicopter is shown on the map.
Also shown is the Fokker Tri-motor, the plane that Byrd is reputed to have
navigated over the North Pole, although the Ford Tri-motor is not shown on this
map. Visitors must go to the rear of the museum to find the aircraft. The most
logical path for them to follow, according to the map, is to go through the

“Automobile in American Life” exhibit, where a serpentine path is depicted.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 HF M—Aircraft Exhibit

The Sample-Henry Ford Museum (aircraft)
1 observed and interviewed twelve groups who visited the museum during
the month of August, 1999. Table 6 provides a brief description of these groups.
I interviewed these groups on two dates, August 6, and August 7, 1999. This was
a Friday and Saturday, which corresponds to the days of the week used at the DIA.
Visitor traffic was very heavy on both days and I could have easily interviewed all

of the groups needed to reach saturation on the Friday.

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Number
Number Description of
People

1 Young husband, wife, and daughter (about 8 years old). 3
Spent time with all of the exhibits and even looked at the
DC-3 which sits outside the museum window.

2 Husband, wife, daughter (about 7 years old), daughter 4
(about 12 years old). Spent considerable time with all the
aircraft, especially the Sikorsky helicopter.

3 Middle-aged husband and wife. Conversed as they 2
stopped at each aircraft.

4 Husband and wife, with teenage son, son, and daughter. 5
Stayed together as a family (somewhat out of the ordinary
for a family with teenagers).

5 Older husband and wife. Looked at each aircraft, read 2
the labels, and conversed.

6 Middle-aged husband and wife. Exhaustively read labels. 2

7 Two middle-aged women. Spent considerable time 2
reading labels and discussing what they saw.

8 Older husband and wife. Looked at labels and aircraft 2
with some intensity.

9 Husband and wife with teenage son. They spent 3
considerable time looking and reading.

10 Young man and woman. He did most of the talking 2
while they looked at the aircraft and labels.

1] Husband, wife, daughter (about 7 years old), and son 4
(about 9 years old). Demonstrated a fair amount of
interaction and gesturing.

12 Middle-aged husband and wife. Moving steadily through 2
but did attend to the aircraft and real labels.

Table 6 Groups Interviewed (HFM—Aircraft) 33

59

 

 

The Hood (1991) study applies to this exhibit. Please refer back to Table 2
under the “summer” column. Forty-three percent of the summer visitors attend
during the week and 57% attend on weekends. Sixty-four percent are family
groups, while 12% are friends (social) groups. Ninety-seven percent of the
visitors who participated in this study were family groups, 3% were social groups.

I sampled in exactly the same way as in the 1998 study.

1999 Study-Michigan State University Museum

The third and final exhibit used in the 1999 study was a wildlife exhibit at
the Michigan State University Museum in East Lansing. The exhibit was called
“Our World: Diversity and Evolution." This exhibit area contained cases with
displays on eleven different topics: “What’s Happening in Your Backyard?”;
“Animal Diversity in Our World;” “Island Life;” “Gone Forever;” “The Art of
Camouflageg” “The Art of Advertising;” “Day and Night Shift” “Refined by
Nature;” “Arctic Animals;” “A Diversity of Ducks;” and “Wetland Animals of
Michigan.” There was also a wetlands mural that depicted several of the nearby
animals in their habitat. One case was under construction during the research. It
later became a display featuring Whitetail deer. See Figure 8 for a sketch of the

exhibit.

6O

 

 

 

 

 

But
I l___l L__l
“1 . 1D“ 'I
inOurWodd“ ma Forum“
Gallery
1:: “What’sHapparingf
inYourBackylrd?“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ti
' 5
g.
E

 

 

 

 

'Ihble
“Amenity
WM ofDuoh“
\
“Refined “Dayand "I‘heArtof
byNature“ NightShifl“ Advertimn£__

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit

The Sample-Michigan State University Museum
I observed and interviewed ten groups who visited the museum during the
month of August, 1999. I interviewed these groups on four days, August 19, 21,
22, and 28, 1999. These were a Tuesday, Sunday, Sunday, and Saturday. These
days were at the end of the summer visiting season, just before Labor Day, and it
was, therefore, difficult to find sufficient numbers on a Friday and Saturday as at

the DIA and the HF M.

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Number
Number Description of
People

1 Man and woman. Read labels and talked about the 2
exhibits. She was speaking about the flocks of Cedar
Waxwings that were around her home while growing us
as I approached for an interview.

2 Two men, a grandfather and grandson. Moving steadily 2
through but taking time with several exhibits.

3 Young husband, wife, and daughter (about 10 years old). 3
Took quite a bit of time and even quickly made the circuit
again before heading for the door.

4 Young husband, wife, and daughter (about 7 years old). 3
Spent time reading labels, read several aloud.

5 Husband and wife. Spent considerable time with several 2
exhibits, reading and talking.

6 Young husband and wife. They initially split-up and did 2
a “scan” before coming back together and moving
through the exhibit together, talking and pointing.

7 Middle-aged husband and wife. Sent above average time 2
and talked extensively.

8 Middle-aged woman with teenage son and daughter. I’m 3
guessing that he’s a new MSU student. The group
remained engaged.

9 Young husband, wife, and son (about 6 years old). Spent 3
average time and talked amongst themselves.

10 Young husband and wife. Spent considerable time and 2
conversed at length.

Table 7 Groups Interviewed (MSUM) 24

62

 

 

 

The MSUM did not have a comprehensive study of their visitors’
psychographics. It can be deduced from the information in Table 7, however, that
the visitors were mostly young, 90% family groups, 10% social groups. I sampled

in exactly the same way as in the 1998 study.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
1998 Study-Henry Ford Museum (locomotive)

I observed groups visiting locomotive #1601 to look for behaviors
indicating that they were paying some level of attention to the exhibit. I then
approached groups who I judged were exhibiting behaviors indicative of their
paying attention and requested permission to talk with them about their visit. I
used an interview guide (Appendix B) to direct the conversation. I tape recorded
the conversations and then transcribed them immediately after the day was
concluded. I also maintained field notes containing observations made while the
groups were interacting with the locomotive prior to the interview and thoughts
that occurred to me during the interview. The later were recorded immediately
after the interview.

I visited the museum on two occasions prior to beginning the actual data
collection. I thoroughly inspected the exhibit on the first visit. I observed traffic
patterns through the exhibit, selected a position where I could observe the

behaviors of visiting groups, and located possible points to intercept these groups

63

to ask for and conduct an interview.

I used the second visit prior to actual data collection to pilot the preliminary
interview guide (Appendix A). I interviewed two groups that exhibited attention-
like behaviors. During these interviews I determined that the original interview
questions were not adequate in the following ways: 1) The questions did not
“feel” right. That is, they seemed awkward; and the conversation didn’t seem to
flow well from question to question. 2) Some of the questions seemed to be more
appropriate as follow-ups to other questions. 3) The guide itself was difficult to
use. It was not easy to navigate visually during the interview. And the fact that it
was longer than one page made things awkward when the time came to turn the
page. 4) The actual act of turning pages seemed to send a message to the
interviewees that the interview might take longer than they had originally thought,
making them give more hurried answers for questions on the second page.

I dressed as a 19403 railroader during both the pilot and the actual data
collection. My costume consisted of a dark blue work shirt with long sleeves,
matching dark blue trousers, and work shoes. Dark blue and yellow were the C &
0 colors in the 19403 and the clothing was chosen for that reason. Also, the “C &
O for Progress” logo appeared above my left shirt pocket, as it does on the tender
of the locomotive. My first name, “John,” appeared above my right pocket and

my museum business pass was placed below the C & 0 logo.

64

On both March 1 and 29 I observed the first group that arrived on the scene
in the morning for attending behaviors.9 If they exhibited such behaviors, I
intercepted them at the rear of the locomotive and asked them if they would
consent to participate in an interview. When I concluded the interview, I recorded
brief notes explaining the group’s make-up and my impressions. I then looked for
and observed the next group to begin their visit for attentional behaviors, asked
for their consent, and repeated the sequence.

I informed each group of my identity and the purpose of the study. I asked
about the presence of parents or guardians of minors and if tape recording for
note-taking purposes was acceptable. I informed the participating visitors that
they could refuse to answer any question or terminate the interview at any time;
then I asked for their informed consent. See Appendix C for the Informed
Consent procedure.

Fourteen out of the fifteen groups I approached consented to the
interviews. The sole refilsal was from a woman with five minor children. She
indicated that she had just driven many hours to arrive here and wanted to see as
much of the museum as possible. She apparently arrived around 2:00 PM.

At the conclusion of the interview I thanked the groups for their time and
offered an informed consent letter that they could keep for their records. This

letter is reproduced in Appendix D and contains a written version of the

65

introduction plus a phone number at the University where they could make a
contact, should they wish to do so. No one accepted a copy of the letter.

Also at the conclusion of the interview I offered my participants a
complimentary bookmark as a token of my thanks for their time. This bookmark
was 5-1/2" x 2-3/4" and contained additional information about the #1601; it is
reproduced in Appendix E. All participants accepted the bookmark.

1999 Study-Detroit Institute of Arts/Henry Ford Museum (Aviation)/

Michigan State University Museum

I followed the same procedures for this group of exhibits that I used in the
1998 study in terms of observation, informed consent, interview, and follow-up.
The only difference was that I was dressed “business casual” rather in any kind of
costume that would help me fit into the exhibit. There was really no need to do so
in these exhibits as there was plenty of space and less likelihood of my being
conspicuous. Most visiting groups probably didn’t even notice me or, if they did,
thought I was just another visitor who was studying the objects a bit more
carefully than most. Thirty-two groups out of the 32 groups that I approached for
an interview consented to be interviewed. None of them expressed any interest in
keeping a copy of the informed consent letter.

I modified the interview guide slightly in order to make it appropriate for

each of the exhibits. When at the DIA, I called the exhibit a “gallery,” at the HFM

66

I referred to “aircraft” rather than “locomotive,” etc. I did not, however, change it
in any substantive way.

Each group member was offered a “thank-you” token at the end of the
interview and, as before, they were not told ahead of time they would be getting
anything for their time. I gave visitors at the DIA a nice bookmark that was
provided by the museum (which just happened to have a small image of
“Cotapaxi” on one side) and a copy of the museum’s July/August member’s
magazine. My token gift to each group member at the Henry Ford Museum was a
bookmark that I manufactured. Mr. Bob Casey, Curator of Transportation, at the
HFM loaned me a photograph of the Pitcarin Autogiro. I scanned this image and
used some informational text, also supplied by Mr. Casey, to make an exhibition-
specific bookmark as I had done in the 1998 study for the locomotive. Visitors at
the MSUM received a nice color poster (21 1/2" x 32 1/2") called “Michigan Jack
Pine: A Heritage Worth Understanding” that identifies plants and animals in the
Jack Pine ecosystem. The backside has educational text concerning the ecosystem
and its plants and animals. I also gave the visitors a handout describing upcoming
events at the museum that had a 10% discount coupon for the museum store.

Both items were provided by the museum. The offer of these tokens was very
much appreciated and most of the visitors accepted them. Often, however, not all

people in a group took everything.

67

DATA CODING AND ANALYSIS
Facilitation of Data Access and Manipulation

Data for this study came from two sources: 1) interviews conducted on the
exhibit floor, and 2) field notes written immediately before and after each
interview. I elected to use the QSR NUD*IST software to manage the data that
was generated by the interviews and the notes. I was looking for a software
product that would function as a specialized database that would archive the data,
allow me to categorize data, and generate reports according to these categories. I
decided, therefore, that only a limited number of the many features included in the
NUD*IST software were needed to manage the data from these studies
efficiently. I will describe here only the features actually used to analyze the data.
If interested, the reader may consult the QSR web page for a description of
NUD*IST’s additional and advanced features“). I will also describe the process or
sequence of steps that the actual analysis took.

QSR NUD*IST is a powerful qualitative analysis software program that
places the power of the computer at the researcher’s disposal to analyze the data
generated from a qualitative study. Qualitative Solutions and Research in
Melbourne, Australia, developed the software to meet the unique needs of
qualitative researchers in analyzing the type of data generated by their studies.

The acronym NUD*IST stands for Non-numerical, Unstructured Data,

68

Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing.

Qualitative data is by its nature predominately non-numerical and largely
unstructured. A major activity that qualitative researchers employ in data analysis
is the process of coding, or the assigning of date to categories. This was the major
feature of the software that was used in the analysis of the data collected in these
studies. This coding involves looking for recurring patterns and naming these
patterns. NUD*IST calls these patterns nodes; and each node is assigned a name.
NUD*IST permits the creation of nodes that are free of organization and are thus
called Free Nodes. Nodes can also be linked hierarchically to form an index tree
which is suitable for more complex projects. When linked, they are no longer free
of organization, i.e., no longer free nodes. I did not use linking in these studies
due to the limited number of nodes generated and their relatively simple
relationships; only free nodes were used. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest
beginning with a provisional or “start list” of codes. In this research the start list
came from the theoretical attention model. Additional codes emerged from the
data and were assigned node names as they were encountered. A listing of the
free node names used can be found in Appendix F along with examples of visitor
comments that were so coded.

Before nodes can be assigned, however, the original word processing text

must be prepared for importation into NUD*IST. NUD*IST does not permit the

69

data to typed directly into the program. Instead, the researcher must employ word
processing software to prepare the data for importation into NUD*IST. The text
must also be in an appropriate format in order to be useable for coding. To do this
the researcher must first decide what the text unit should be. The text unit is the
smallest part of the document that can be coded and retrieved once it has been
imported into NUD*IST. For this project the paragraph was chosen as the text
unit and the response of each group member to my questions became the
paragraph. In order to format these responses as the text units, they must be typed
into the word processor without the use of hard returns, i.e., the text must be
allowed to word-wrap. The appearance of hard returns is interpreted by the
NUD*IST software as a demarcation between text units. The final step taken
while still working in the word processor is to save the text in an ASCII or DOS
text format that does not add hard returns. The text for these studies was saved in
46 documents, one for each group interviewed.

Additional coding and searching capabilities are available in NUD*IST
through the use of inserted text units that attach to the primary text units that were
imported into NUD*IST. Inserted text units allow the researcher to make
interpretative comments while analyzing the data and to place the inserted text
next to the document text to which the comments pertain. These inserted text

units can later be coded and searched in the same way as the document text itself.

70

There are other tools, such as the creation of memos, but none of these features
were used to manipulate the data for these studies. The only additional feature
used was the ability to generate reports.

1 generated two kinds of reports from the NUD*IST software after coding
and adding inserted text units . The first was a transcript in text unit format which
includes the document text, the inserted text units, and the associated text unit
numbers that are automatically generated by NUD*IST. The second was a listing
of text units coded according to each of the 18 free nodes listed in Appendix F.
The transcript provided a sense of context within the overall interview while the
clustering of data according to nodes provided the specific evidence necessary to
validate the use of the nodes themselves as viable factors within the attention
model.

The NUD*IST software helped me access both the data and the indexing
associated with that data. This access was my goal. I saved a great deal of time
by having random access to the data and index categories and by avoiding the
awkward data manipulation that is inherent in non-electronic data management
techniques. This flexible access also carried over to the writing of this report by
allowing me easy access to any of the data or indexing as needed and allowing

simple copying and pasting of selected data.

71

The Process of Coding and Analysis
Data coding and analysis was an ongoing process in these studies. This
process began when a group of visitors walked into the exhibit and was not

complete until the final draft of this report. I will divide the process into three

steps for convenience of description.

The first step in the process of coding and analyzing data occurred while I
was still on site. My observations of a group that was paying attention began the
process. I wrote brief field notes documenting their behaviors, speculated about
their motives and even their relationships to each other. This process of
organizing data continued during the actual interview. I noticed mannerisms and

began to connect their comments to possible factors (nodes) and categories. I

thought about the larger study and it began to come into better focus as each
additional question was answered. This first phase of coding and analysis

continued as I wrote a brief summary or, sometimes, just a phrase about the group

j list after the interview concluded.

The second step was the formal analysis phase. I found myself thinking

even more about the data and the study as I transcribed the interviews into the

Word processor. I also found myself becoming more familiar with the data and
beginning to realize the nature of the “big picture.” These preliminary steps took

on forrnal organization as I started inserting text units into NUD*IST, linking

72

various visitor comments, and inserting text units to the nodes. In the process,

new nodes, which I ultimately called sub-factors, came into being. The last step in
this formal analysis step was the generation of the reports by the NUD*IST
software. The reports provide a clear presentation of visitor comments from each

of the exhibits in a single document. This gave me a clear indication of the

viability of the factors (nodes) of the attention model.

The third, and final, step in the coding and analysis phase was the writing
of this report. More than once I found myself remembering a visitor comment that
didn’t get coded under a particular node and taking the time to rethink its place in

the study. The researcher is the primary data analysis instrument in a qualitative

study and it is this process of spending time thinking about and reorganizing the

data that is so important. This need to spend time thinking about the data was

met, in part, by my previous report on the 1998 study (Lightner, 1998). I found

that the thinking that went into that report was far from static. It was still quite

alive and growing as I gave additional thought based on the new data from the

1 999 study.
Thus, the coding and analysis can be conveniently thought about as three

Step8: On-site analysis, formal analysis, and analysis through writing. These are

Ilatural and productive ways of thinking about the rather complex process of data

coding and analysis in a qualitative study.

73

SUMMARY
In this chapter I presented the research design and methodology used in this
study. I included the setting of the research in the context of the museums; the
psychographics of the visitors, where known; the characteristics of the exhibits;
the make-up and size of the groups that I observed and interviewed; and my
coding and analysis of the data, including the three stages into which the process

naturally fell. In Chapter IV, I will present the findings that resulted from this

methodology.

74

 

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to identify those factors that motivate free-
choice learners acting in an informal learning environment to pay attention. These
factors comprise an Attention Model for Museum Exhibits. A further purpose
was to substantiate that the attention model was applicable to visitors across
multiple exhibits. The 1998 study was undertaken to substantiate this model. I
interviewed fourteen visiting groups at the Chesapeake and Ohio steam
locomotive #1601, the Allegheny, at the Henry Ford Museum to learn what
influenced their attention to the exhibit. This 1998 study was followed by an
additional (1999) study of visitors at three new exhibits: the aircraft within the
Aviation exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum, the landscape paintings in the
Luminist gallery of American Landscape painters at the Detroit Institute of Arts,
311d a wildlife exhibit at the Michigan State University Museum called “Our
World: Diversity & Evolution.” I interviewed 32 groups in this 1999 study. The
pul‘pose of this broader study was twofold: 1) to add detail to the 1998 study, if
any, and 2) to substantiate the applicability of the model across varying exhibits.

Will Present the new sub-factors that I’ve added to the theoretical model based on

75

the findings from the combined 1998 and 1999 studies. The findings that I will
present from the 1998 study are patterns, or stories, along with a mapping of each
group’s path through the theoretical model, and evidence from the study to
support these findings. For the 1999 study I take a parallel approach, tracking the

path of each group. Finally, I will compare the results by research site.

FINDINGS FROM THE 1998 STUDY
Iwill organize the findings from the initial 1998 study into two categories:
group patterns and evidence that authenticates the theoretical model. First, the
group patterns will be organized as stories that describe patterns which were
shared by the visiting groups. Second, these group patterns will also be
represented by the path that each group took through the theoretical model; these
will be clustered according to similarities. I will then present evidence from each
group to substantiate the elements of the theoretical model. Last, I will address

th'itmes that emerged from the study which will further develop the theoretical

mOdel.

Group Patterns (Stories)
I observed each of the fourteen groups who visited the C&O #1601, looking
f0? overt evidence of attention. Each group certainly experienced something

uni(Illely different, but four typical ‘stories’ seemed to emerge from the

76

observations of these groups.

Each group entered the exhibit area from the front of the locomotive (see
Figure 4). I observed their behavior from a vantage point located near the small
locomotive called “The President” (see Figure 4). Groups exhibiting behaviors
indicating that they were paying attention to the exhibit became candidates for an
interview. However, 1 did not consider interviewing any groups that just casually
strolled through the exhibit area.

I considered behaviors as indicative of attention when the group was
interacting with the locomotive and others in their group. Attending behaviors
included stopping to read the label, stopping to look at different areas of the

locomotive, discussing something with other group members in a manner that
would lead an observer to conclude that the locomotive was the subject of the
discussion, gesturing toward the locomotive, going back to take a second look at
Something, and similar behaviors. Granted, they could be talking about lunch
While pausing, but behavior was being exhibited that would lead most observers
to conclude that the locomotive was the subject of their attention.
My notes indicate similar patterns of interaction for several of the groups, i.e.,
groups tend to cluster around common ‘stories’ that describe their visit. Each
group within each story exhibited slight variations, of course, but the

COrnrnonalities outweighed the differences. Here are the stories of their visits:

77

 

Story #1 - An Engineering Visit

Both groups of mechanical engineers who were a part of this study were in
town for the Society of Automotive Engineers convention that had just
concluded the day before their visit. Each of these groups consisted of three
unrelated male colleagues who chose to come to the museum in order to
achieve social goals and to look at mechanical engineering technology from
the past. The large locomotive acted as a magnet for these engineers who saw
it as they entered the museum. They immediately became engaged in
conversations about the locomotive, the engineering that went into it, and the
logistics of its construction. They were drawn primarily due to their interest in
mechanism and mechanical transportation.

They were observed congregating in front of one of the locomotive’s
components to discuss functions, frequently pointing to various components
and tracing pipes from point-to-point. Next, one of the group members would
walk a short distance from the group to scrutinize another component, call the
group over, and the process would begin anew. Frequently, they would retrace
their steps to revisit an area where they had already been. They discussed the
engineering, functionality of components, and expressed amazement that such
a machine could be designed, laid-out, and built without the use of computers.

[Groups 1 & 3]

Stog #2 - A Tale of Two Brothers

The Henry Ford Museum does not have a Great Lakes freighter on display.
If there was a lake boat, then the Allegheny would have been a second choice
for two brothers who came over from Canada for the day. As it was, however,
the #1601 was the closest thing to their own particular interests in steam
powered transportation; it consumed their interest, just as a great lakes
freighter might have done.

These men were observed circling the locomotive again and again,
occupied in a discussion of the function of each of its components. At first,
their behavior would lead an observer to think of them as devoted steam
locomotive aficionados. But when they revealed their interest in lake boats
during the interview their behavior regarding the locomotive became clear;
they made many comparisons to the boilers and steam engines aboard boats.
Their passionate interest interfered with their ability to concentrate on my
questions. They constantly asked questions about the locomotive. In fact, it
became obvious that it would not be possible to have our conversation around
the interview questions first and return to their questions at the end of the

78

 

interviews. Therefore, we mingled questions relating to the research with their
questions about the locomotive as our conversation proceeded. [Group 11]

Story #3 - A Docent in the Group

Two of the family groups that were a part of this study had one member, a
male in both cases, who had worked as a locomotive engineer. One gentleman
was currently employed by Conrail and another had operated a locomotive in
an industrial setting, but is now retired. In both of these groups this
knowledgeable group member pointed and explained, assuming the role of a
‘docent.’ This docent member was clearly leading the group during their visit
to the locomotive exhibit. The remaining group member, wives in both cases,
was either relatively passive or a bit more engaged, asking questions and also
interacting. These groups spent close to ten minutes of their visiting time with
the locomotive, which was almost double the average time for most of the

other groups. [Groups 8 & 10]

Story #4 - A Family/ Social Visit

Most of the groups observed attending to the locomotive were in the
museum for a family or social outing. These groups made a decision to visit
the locomotive once inside the museum and, upon arriving at the exhibit, spent
time looking at the locomotive, engaged in conversation amongst themselves,
and seemed to be in no particular hurry to leave the exhibit. The locomotive is
one hundred twenty-five feet from coupler to coupler and these groups
leisurely made their way along its length, engaged with the exhibit.

There was some variability in the group dynamics from group to group but
each group was similar enough to consider their visit to be a social outing.
Only one of the groups was not composed of related family members, this
singular group was comprised of two retired gentlemen, possibly long time
friends. All of the groups in this category interacted with the locomotive in a

Very natural way, integrating it into their social group and conversing very
naturally amongst themselves and talking about it and the place that trains held
in their shared histories. [Groups 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, & 14]

The two groups of mechanical engineers conducted their visit according to

the first story. One group’s visit, which was the most unique pattern that I

79

encountered, is represented by the second story, and two groups by the third story.
Of the fourteen groups studied, therefore, only five were specialized enough to
require a relatively unique story (stories #1, #2, & #3) to describe their behaviors
prior to the interview. Nine of the groups, or 64%, behaved according to the
scenario depicted in story number four—a family/social visit.
Paths Taken Through the Attention Model
in the 1998 Study
Each group, regardless of story, exhibited variations in the way their attention
was motivated. Therefore, each took their own path through the attention model
(shown in Figure 3). The descriptions which follow are grouped according to the
story: “Engineering Visit,” “A Tale of Two Brothers,” “A Docent in the Group,”
and “A Family/Social Visit.” Next, groups within each story are clustered
according to similarities amongst the major path(s) that each group took through
the model.
The models which follow show the variety of paths which were taken by
the various groups which were a part of this study. Each path is identified in the

accompanying text and is shown in the figures according to the Legend shown

here in Figure 9.

80

 

Primary Path

 

—————————— Secondary Path
... ............ Tertiary Path
— ----------- Unordered Path

Figure 9 - Legend for Individual Path Figures.

 

 

 

Group paths are classified along the dimension of similarity. The three
classifications are: Identical, Similar, and No Commonalities. Identical paths are
those which are identical in both paths taken and the order of the paths (primary,
secondary, or tertiary). Similar paths are those which share common elements but
do not share the same order and/or where one or more groups adds an additional
model element to the basic pattern. The unordered path shown in Figure 9 is used
in the models to follow to represent this kind of relationship. No commonalities
classifies those group patterns that are unique enough that they don’t conveniently

fit into the either of the other two patterns.

81

An EngineerimQ/isit

Groups 1 & 3 (similar)

These two groups of engineers followed similar paths through the exhibit.
Each used the elements of Enduring Personal Interest, Situation-Specific
Interest, and Personal History as they interacted with the locomotive and each
other. The primary path through the model was the same for both groups:
Enduring Personal Interest.

Group 1 consisted of three European mechanical engineers who were
drawn by an intersection of their own Enduring Personal Interest in mechanism
[“Since we are engineers, we are interested in mechanism.”]. A connection to
Personal History also came into play when one considers their experiences in
European museums [“Like this kind of locomotive very much from museums in
Europe.”]. Their Situation-Specific Interest seems to have become peaked after
they arrived as they posed all of the mechanical engineering related questions
about its construction and function [“How it works.”].

Group 3 consisted of three American mechanical engineers who were first
attracted also by Enduring Personal Interest [“Mechanical transportation in
general.”], but quickly expressed a secondary attraction based on size (Situation-
Specific Interest)[“What’s the steam pressure?”“How much steam are we talking
about, this seems an outrageously big size!”]. Members of the group also had a
connection to Personal History in having ridden some of the historic railroads in
the western United States [“Ridden some the historic ones they run out in
Colorado.”].

82

 

 
 
 
    
      

Secondary-
Group 1/
Tertiary-
Group 3

   
  

 

 

' / /"\ Tertiary '
Interest . . Group 1/
Factors . _
- *l " - 332$?"
Enduring I Situation-Specific ,
Personal Interest 7: Interest - , '

 

 

.

Relevance
Factors

Personal

 

 

 

Figure 10 HFM—Locomotive, Groups 1 & 3.

 

83

A Tale of Two Brothers

Group 1 1

There was only this one group in this very specialized story. The visit
experienced by these two brothers is truly unique among all of the visits
documented by this study.

For these two brothers, Group Influence played a small, but initial, role in
that one brother brought the other [”I knew it was here, he’s never been here
before.”]. But in terms of their knowledge of and interest in Great Lakes boats, it
was a strong combination of Enduring Personal Interest in steam transportation
[”If you go way back, this country...everything was done since 1830.”],
connections to Personal History [“My young lad works for the Hanjin steamship
lines.”], mechanism, and efficiency [”It’s a fairly inefficient system of using the
steam. The freighters use the steam up to three times.”].

 

Interest 4” ,,-"
Factors , ’ ’ ,z"
I .’
Enduring l .' I \
Personal Interest ! I l
x I

\ ‘ . .
\ \ ' ~. . . / I
\
\\ ' ‘A , z ' ’ I, Group
Relevance \ Personal , ' / Influence

I.
.o'

Factors \ History " ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11 HFM—Locomotive, Group 11

 

84

A Docent in the Group

Groups 8 & 10 (similar)

The two groups in this story took similar paths through the model as they
visited the exhibit. The paths taken had different priorities for each group.
Group 10 added the element of Enduring Personal Interest that wasn’t
expressed by Group 8.

Group 8 was an older couple from Canada who were primarily influenced
by Personal History [”I used to be an engineer in a steel mill in Hamilton,
Ontario.”] and his assuming the “Docent” role (Group Influence). Situation-
Specific Interest played a role when the group entered the museum and saw the
locomotive [”I came in the front door and saw this.”].

Connections to Personal History provides the entre for the husband and
wife in Group 10 in that the gentleman is currently a Conrail locomotive engineer
[”My dad worked for the old Nickel Plate. My grandfather worked before him,
and he had two uncles who worked on the Illinois Central, down South. My
brother for the NS {Norfolk Southern}.”]. I suspect some interplay with
Enduring Personal Interest as he works for the railroad [”I work for Conrail.”].
Group Influence of a specialized kind occurred here in that his experience
allowed the gentleman to play ‘Docent’, explaining some of the locomotive’s
features to his wife. There was some level of Situation-Specific Interest with
regards to the features not understood [”How did they get it in here?”].

85

 

 
 
  
   
  
   
   
 

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary- "
Group 10 . , Secondary-
\’, . r ' ’ . \/ Group 8/
, - ‘ ' ,/ . ‘. Tertiary-
Interest ’ . - ' ’ . r ' '\ Tertrary- ‘\ Group 10
Factors . . ’ . / Grow 8/ \
4" x Quatcmary- K
r Enduring Situation-Specific GTOUP '0 \. \
Personal Interest Interest I ‘.\ Q
— \
\‘ ~ . /
‘\ I" Group
Relevance \ Personal / Influence

Factors ~ History

 

 

 

Figure 12 HFM—Locomotive, Groups 8 & 10

 

86

A Family/Social Visit

Group 6 & 12 (identical)

These two groups shared elements of the model, with Group 12 adding an
element to the shared paths. Also, these two groups demonstrated different
priorities for the shared elements. This is shown by the notations on the paths in
Figure 14.

Group 6 was an extended family group (grandparents and grandson) who
also came to the exhibit based on connections to Personal History [“It’s built in
Lima {Ohio}, which is just north of where we live.”] and Situation-Specific
Interest [“Just the engineering. The plumbing. How they run what pipe to go to
where.”]. But the stimulus was the grandson’s Group Influence effect [“The
grandson brought us over here.”].

Group 12, on the other hand, demonstrated Group Influence as the factor
that brought these two retired gentlemen into the exhibit [“I knew it was here.
He’s from out of town. I knew this was here and I wanted to see it again.”].
Personal History quickly took over, however, as they began to reminisce [“The
train whistles {from the audio label at the front of the locomotive} took me back
to the days when I was growing up. I grew up alongside the railroad.”]. The
other major factor at work was Situation-Specific Interest [“How long did it take
them to build just this one engine?”].

 

I . I '
Factors ’ I ’ A’ . I
: Situation-Specific .’ I'
I 7 Interest 7 I -’ ,
x \ . ° /

I Group
,,,,, ’ Influence

 

      
 

Relevance
Factors

Personal
History

 

 

 

Figure 13 HFM—Locomotive, Groups 6 & 12

87

Groups 13 & 14 (identical)

Groups 13 and 14 both used a combination of Personal History and
Situation-Specific Interest.

The largest influence for the father, minor son, and minor daughter that
constituted Group 13 was their Personal History [“My grandfather {the father’s}
worked for the Grand Trunk; he was a fireman.”] Situation-Specific Interest
was the next most influential [“I was curious how they thought of all this stuff for
it.”].

Group 14 was a railroad family (parents, adult son, and daughter in-law), so
Personal History ran high as the factor that motivated their attention [“I used to
work for the Illinois Central.”]. There was also a large contribution from the
element of Situation-Specific Interest [“1 had two uncles who was engineers.

I’m sure they’re just about as inquisitive about it as I am.”].

T

 

 
    
     

 

  
 
 

 

 
 

Interest
Factors
3 -
Fituation-Specific
Interest
Relevance Personal
Factors History

 
 

 

 

 

Figure 14 HF M—Locomotive, Groups 13 & 14

88

Group 2 (no commonalities)

Situation-Specific Interest was probably the biggest draw for this older
couple [“How much does it weigh?”“How does the track support it?”]. They were
primarily interested in the size of the locomotive but had a geographical
connection in that it was build in Lima, Ohio, not too far from where they lived
(Personal History). The locomotive caught their eye as the browsed the museum,
since it was so different from the automobiles (Curiosity)[“lt caught our eye. . .
the sheer size and strength of it.”].

 

Interest
Factors

Relevance
Factors

 

.-

 
 
    

  

 

 

I Situation-Specific

Interest I Cunosnty l

 

 
 

Personal
History

  

 

 

Figure 15 HFM—Locomotive, Group 2

89

Group 4 (no commonalities)

This retired husband and wife clearly entered into the model through their
Personal History [“My dad worked on the railroad when I was young.”] and
Situation-Specific Interest [“13 it run by coal?”“How fast do these trains go?”].

 

      

 

    
 
 

 

 
 

Interest
Factors
7 I
Situation-Specific
Interest
Relevance Personal
Factors History

 
 

 

 

 

Figure 16 HFM—Locomotive, Group 4

90

Group 5 (no commonalities)

Personal History was a factor for these grandparents and adult
granddaughter [“I grew up around trains.”] as well as their Group Influence
decision to look at trains as a part of their visit [“Looked at the brochure and

 

thought we’d take a look at trains.”].
R

\
\

\
\
Interest ® \\
Factors \
V \
\\ \
\ \
\\ <
Group
Relevance Influence

Factors

 

 

 

 

Figure 17 HF M—Locomotive, Group 5

91

Group 7 (no commonalities)

Here is another example of Group Influence (husband, wife, minor son
and daughter) in that the boy brought them over to the exhibit. There also
appeared to be a component of Enduring Personal Interest in trains [“Being a
locomotive. Being a train.”] and a healthy level of Situation-Specific Interest
[“How much water it used. How the water got into the steam engine.”].

 

 

 

 

, , 7,
I I
I ’ . ’
I ’ - l
I I
I ’ . ’ .
’ ’ a I
I I
I I , ’ .
I
Factors , ’ , - ’
l 7 7 ‘ D ‘
Enduring I Situation-Specific .’ '
7 Personal Interest 7 Interest , - ’ l
\\ \ ' \. I ' ’. I,
\ \ . _ . — , ’ . l G
\ I roup
Relevance \ I ,’ Influence
Factors \ \ ,
\ I
\ I
\ / I
\ \ ’ I
\ I
~ ~ ~ ~ — ’ ’ ’

 

 

 

Figure 18 HFM—Locomotive, Group 7

92

Group 9 (no commonalities)

This father and adult son seemed to be the least affected by the factors of
the Attention Model of any group that Visited this exhibit. It appears that
Situation-Specific Interest may be the only factor in operation for them [“Fuel
consumption.”“How fast it would go?”“Where it’s been?”“Things like that.”].

 

Interest ®
Factors

Situation-Specific
Interest

 

Relevance
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 19 HFM—Locomotive, Group 9

 

Summary of Paths Taken Through the Model in the 1998 Study
There is evidence to show that seven of the fourteen groups spent time
attending to the locomotive seemingly because of connections to personal history.
Three groups were influenced by enduring personal interest. Two of the fourteen
groups attended to the exhibit due to group influence. The final two were
primarily influenced by Situation-Specific Interest. Therefore, the attention of

nine of the groups was influenced by relevance factors and five by interest factors.

93

FINDINGS FROM THE 1999 STUDY
My notes from the 1999 study reveal much less variety than the groups
from the 1998 study. I will discuss some of the possible reasons for this
difference in Chapter V. Here, however, I will tell the single story that describes

all of the groups that I observed and interviewed this summer .

Group Pattems—A Single Story - A F amily/Social Visit

The groups visiting during the summer of 1999 were family or social
visitors, like those in Story #4 in the 1998 study. Many of the groups I
encountered this summer were on family vacations and the museum was one of
many stops they had planned to make. Once inside, they opted to visit the exhibit
under study. Others were entertaining out-of-town guests who they brought to the
museum to show a favorite exhibit or to direct their friends to exhibits which they
had mutually discussed before coming.

All of the groups in the 1999 study spent time looking at the objects in the
exhibits under study. They also engaged in conversation at various points or, in
some cases, conversed during the entire time they were in the exhibit area. These
visitors were in no hurry to move through each of these relatively large exhibits.

Each group was idiosyncratic, but the visits were similar enough in their
totality to consider them a family or social visit. These people were spending time
with each other as surely as they were spending time with the exhibit.

There were thirty-two family/social groups in the 1999 study, comprising a
total of eighty people. They varied in number from a husband and wife couple or
a pair of friends to a family of five. On average, there were 2.5 people per group.

The mode was two people per group.

94

Paths Through the Attention Model

Each of the groups in the 1999 study exhibited their own unique mix of
similarities and differences and, as such, this detail is best captured by tracing
their paths through the theoretical Attention Model. This time, the groups will not
be arranged by story—as they were in my report of the results of the 1998 study—as
there is only a single story. Instead, the paths will be grouped by the institution
where the visiting groups were encountered: the Detroit Institute of Arts, the
Henry Ford Museum, and the Michigan State University Museum. This will

permit further comparison of the dynamics of the research sites later.

 

95

Detroit Institute of Arts
Groups 1 & 4 (identical)

These two groups came to the museum with an Enduring Personal
Interest in American art in general, and American Landscape art in particular.

The family group that became my Group 1 at the DIA consisted of a young
husband, wife, and daughter (approximately 8 years old). They came to the
American Art section because they were looking for it [“We were looking
specifically for the American artists.”] since the wife had an Enduring Personal
Interest in this art [“It was my choice.”]. This interest was form of Group
Influence which was quickly superceded by their desire to educate their daughter
[“I wanted to make sure she saw the Rivera Room and, then, we started with the
American section.”]. So, the Enduring Personal Interest—of, particularly, the
wife—is mediated through the Group Influence desire to educate.

Group 4 was a couple, a man and woman, probably in their 303, who came
to the gallery because of his Enduring Personal Interest [“This is probably my
favorite section . . . I was looking for Church and I was looking for Thomas
Cole.”]. His interest also became the Group Influence that brought them to the
gallery on that day [“I probably did lead.”].

 

   
  
 

 

 

 

Interest \
Factors \
, V \
Enduring \ \

Personal Interest \\ h

\

Group

Relevance Influence
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 20 DIA, Groups 1 & 4

96

Groups 3. 7. 8. & 9 (identical)

This pattern described the path for the largest number of groups who came
to the gallery. Here, we see four different instances of Situation-Specific
Interest.

Group 3 was a young man and young woman who were actually on their
way to get something to eat when they came to the gallery. Their attention was
motivated by Situation-Specific Interest [“They look so real, just like you were
there.”].

Group 7 was a young husband and wife who were on their way to another
gallery when they came through. It was Situation-Specific Interest that caused
them to stop [“The landscapes, I think, attracted me.”“I was looking for some
places that I had been before to see if there were any, just by chance, any of the
places I’ve personally been.”].

Group 8 was a young husband and wife from out of town who were just
passing through. It was Situation-Specific Interest that made them stop [“She
though about a movie, ‘What Dreams May Come.’ Then we started talking about
computer animation {that was used in the movie to create the scenes representing
heaven} .”].

Group 9 was a young husband and wife who were touring the museum, as
they do on an annual basis. They stopped on the basis of Situation-Specific
Interest [“Not terribly familiar with the artists in here, but just like the paintings,
actually.”]

97

 

 

 

Interest
Factors
Situation-Specific
Interest
Relevance
Factors

 

at

 

Figure 21 DIA, Groups 3, 7, 8, & 9

98

 

Grou s 2 & 5 similar

These two groups shared the same elements of the model but did not share
common priorities. The paths are labeled in Figure 22 to indicate the differences.

Group 2 consisted of two young adults—a male and female—on a social
outing. She was visiting from Dayton, Ohio, and he was showing her the DIA and
the American art. It was her Enduring Personal Interest [“She wanted to see the
American art.”] in American art that brought them to the gallery—this interest also
became a Group Influence. But it was also his personally experienced past
Personal History [“Reminds me of certain light while traveling, more in
Kentucky, and those kinds of areas.”] that mediated the visit. Here, the interests
of both people in the group were active in their paying attention to the paintings.

Group 5 was an older husband and wife (probably in their 603) and their
two granddaughters. They came to show the girls the DIA (Group
Influence)[“We wanted to go someplace with our granddaughters.”] but he also
has an Enduring Personal Interest in American art [“I wanted to see the
American art.”]. There was also several general Personal History motivators at
work [“We were members {of the DIA} for years.”“We have a couple of Kindaid
things {artist Thomas Kinkaid} .”“We just had a trip to the Hermitage in St.
Petersburg.”].

 

 

 

 

      
 

EXHIBIT
Primary- , I’. .
Group 2/ 7 , r713” ‘
Secondary- 7 I, 1’ ‘\ Secondary-
Group 5 7 I, '7 ’z ’ \7 /Group 2/
,—‘ z" \Terti - .7 anary-
mm“ x" v" Grougws @ ‘ Gm”
Factors .—" .I’ ‘.
7 k I ‘ ' '\ ‘s
Enduring I 7- ; \7 \
Personal Interest - . ' ‘. \
, I. / I \
\7 \\ 7 . / /
s 7 ~ \ O 0 '0
\ ‘A 7 /’ /' Group
Relevance \. Personal __ _ 7 _ , , - ' / Influence
Factors ~ \ History I .
\ ~ . ’
‘ \ \ . 7 I I

 

 

 

Figure 22 DIA, Groups 2 & 5

99

Group 6 (no commonalities)

This husband and wife spent time paying attention to the paintings solely
on the basis of their personally experienced past (Personal History)[“We just
took a trip to New York state and I thought I’d seen some paintings of that area
here.”]. The husband did exert Group Influence when he wanted to show a
painting to his wife [“My husband wanted to show me something.”].

 

\
\
\
Interest ® \\
Factors \
P \
\\ \
\ \
\\ ‘
Group
Influence

Relevance Personal
Factors History

 

 

 

Figure 23 DIA, Group 6

100

Group 10 (no commonalities)

This young man and young woman are art students at the Center for
Creative Studies, which is located next door to the museum. They were primarily
attracted by his Enduring Personal Interest [“I knew there were some nice
paintings in here, so that’s why I came in.”], and by her Personal History in terms
of her vicariously experienced past [“My dad, with all the hills, because he grew

up in West Virginia.”].

T

 

 
   
  
   

Interest
Factors

 

I Enduring
Personal Interest I

   

Personal
History

Relevance
Factors

    

 

 

 

Figure 24 DIA, Group 10

 

101

Henry Ford Museum (Aviation)
Groups 4 & 6 (identical)

These two groups took identical paths through the model, using only the
element of Personal History.

Group 4 was a family of five: Husband, wife, teenage sons and daughter.
There were primarily drawn in by their shared personally experienced past
(Personal History)[“lt reminded by of Carl VanIleson’s airplane. We’re from
North Dakota and he’s from Hatton and they have an airplane similar to that.”].

Group 6 was a middle-aged husband and wife who were drawn by
Personal History. One of these connections was vicariously experienced history
(Personal History)[“My dad used to fly and his dad was a tail gunner in World
War II.”], as well as personally experienced history (Personal History)[“I work at
a bearing company where a lot of our bearings go into aircraft.”].

 

EXHIBIT

Interest ®
Factors

  

Personal
History

Relevance
Factors

 
   
 

 

 

 

Figure 25 HFM—Aviation, Groups 4 & 6

102

Groups 5, 11, & 12 (identical)

These three groups also took a simple path through the model, involving
only the element of Situation-Specific Interest.

Group 5 was a husband and wife in their late 503 or early 603. They were
motivated to attend by Situation-Specific Interest [“The plane, you know, the
history significance.”“The South Pole, that I thought was fascinating.”].

Group 11 was a husband, wife, daughter (approximately 7 years old), and
son (approximately 9 years old). They paid attention based on Situation-Specific
Interest [“I remember seeing something on A & E or Discovery, or something, on
that particular piece when it was new. Then, all of a sudden, there it is, right in
front of you. It’s a little different ball game.”].

Group 12 was a couple, he in his 40s and she in her 30s, who were
attracted by Situation-Specific Interest [“I liked the texture on the plane, that’s
what I was looking at.”].

 

Interest ®
Factors

Situation-Specific]
Interest

 

Relevance
Factors

Figure 26 HFM—Aviation, Groups 5, 11, & 12

 

 

 

103

Groups 8 & 1% identical)

These two groups attended based on a single factor, Enduring Personal
Interest.

Group 8 was an older husband and wife who were attracted primarily
through the husband’s Enduring Personal Interest [“I’m interested in aviation.
More interested that probably most people are.”].

Group 10 was a young married couple who were also motivated to pay
attention on the basis of the husband’s Enduring Personal Interest [“I’ve been

 

thinking about buying one, buying a helicopter or a plane.”].

Interest
Factors

®

 

 

 
    
 

Enduring
7 Personal Interest

Relevance
Factors

 

 

Figure 27 HFM—Aviation, Groups 8 & 10

104

 

Groups 3 & 7 (similar)

These two groups had similar paths through the model that would be
classified as identical except that Group 7 added the element of Group Influence
to Enduring Personal Interest and Personal History. The order of the paths is
identical for both.

Group 3 was a middle-aged husband and wife. They stopped primarily due
to his Enduring Personal Interest [“I’ve always been interested in aircraft, as far
back as I can remember.”] and through their vicariously experienced past
(Personal History)[“My uncle went to Antarctica, to the South Pole, with
Admiral Byrd.”“Your mother saw Lindbergh.”].

Group 7 comprised two middle-aged women. One was a pilot and,
therefore, made connections to her Enduring Personal Interest [“Of course, I’m
an aviator and I’ve been one for over 40 years.”] and by her personally
experienced past (Personal History)[“l did fly that {a Ford Tri-motor, but not the
one on display} .”]. The other woman made her connections through her
personally experienced past (Personal History)[“I have an affinity for Ford Tri-
motors because I rode in one.”]. They each influenced each other in choosing to
visit the exhibit (Group Influence)[“We plotted our way back here to the
Aviation exhibit.”].

 

Interest
Factors

   
 
  

 

Enduring

 

 

    
   

Personal Interest ‘. q
, \
Group
Relevance Personal _____ Influence
Factors History "
Group 7 /

 

 

Figure 28 HFM—Aviation, Groups 3 & 7

105

 

Group 1 (no commonalities)

This group consisted of a young family: Husband, wife, and daughter
(approximately 8 years old). The motivation to attend came primarily through
Enduring Personal Interest on the part of the husband [“I’m particularly
interested in aviation, so that’s probably why we spent a little more time there than
normal, than some of the other places.”]. The connection for the wife, however,
was Situation-Specific Interest [“Just the size, I think, caught our attention first.
It’s just interesting.”].

 

,.@

T

  

Interest
Factors

  

 

 

 

- K
F Enduring J Situation-Specific
Personal Interest Interest I I
- , \ I
\ I

   

\ I
\

    
  

Relevance
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 29 HFM—Aviation, Group 1

106

Group 2 (no commonalities)

This family was a husband, wife, daughter (approximately 7 years old), and
daughter (approximately 12 years old). The element causing them to stop was
primarily that of personally experienced past (Personal History)[“Specifically,
Sikorsky is from our home state. Sikorsky helic0pter is the next town over.”], but
there was also some Situation-Specific Interest [“1 saw too about Admiral Byrd .
. . that was the plane that did it, so I though that was interesting and how he named
it.”]. There was also some Group Influence as the father pointed out things to his
children [“I’m trying to point out {things} to my daughters from time to time.”].

 

   

 

 

 
    
 

 

 
 

Interest
Factors

‘ 7 .

Situation-Specific \-\
Interest . q
\
Group

Relevance Personal Influence
Factors History

 
 

 

 

 

Figure 30 HF M—Aviation, Group 2

107

Group 9 (no commonalities)

Here we have a husband, wife, and teenage son. They were drawn to the
exhibit through Situation-Specific Interest [“One thing I thought of, it’s hard to
believe, on some of this stuff, it’s hard to believe that people actually flew in this
and lived to tell about it.”]. This group also found the Autogiro a bit unbelievable
(Curiosity)[“I looked at the Autogiro because it looked funny.”].

I

 

 
      
      

 

 

Interest
Factors
Situation-Specifiq 7
Interest
Relevance
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 31 HF M—Aviation, Group 9

 

108

Michigan State University Museum
Groups 4 & 6 (identical)

These two groups were identical in that they both attended to the exhibit
based on their Enduring Personal Interest.

Group 4 was a young husband and wife with a daughter who was
approximately 7 years old. They paid attention as a result of the Enduring
Personal Interest of the daughter [“We stopped because there’s a lot of animals
here and she likes ‘em.”].

Group 6 was a young husband and wife. They paid attention as a result of
the Enduring Personal Interest of the husband [“He likes watching birds. He’s
got a book and binoculars.”], as well as a shared Enduring Personal Interest in
wildlife [“We wanted to see the animals and wildlife, things like that. We like to

 

see ‘em.” .

Interest
Factors

   
 
 

 

Enduring
Personal Interest

Relevance
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 32 MSUM, Groups 4 & 6

109

Groups 2. 7. & 10 (identical)

These three groups all paid attention solely on the basis of their Personal
History.

Group 2 was comprised of an older gentlemen and his adult grandson.
They were connected to the exhibit through the personally experienced past or
Personal History of the grandfather [“He was talking about going to Africa and
seeing the big animals.”].

Group 7 consisted of a middle-aged husband and wife. They connected
through their Personal History [“Just interested in animals we’ve seen.”].

Group 10 was a young husband and wife. They paid attention based on his
personally experienced past (Personal History)[“l live on 40 acres of land with
forest. I do hunt and fish. I really like the outdoors myself.”].

 

Interest @
Factors

Relevance Personal
Factors History

 

 

 

Figure 33 MSUM, Groups 2, 7, & 10

110

Groups 1 & 5 (similar)

These two groups took a similar path through the model. They would have
been identical but Group 1 added Curiosity to the Enduring Personal Interest
and Personal History that these groups shared.

A man and woman in their 505 made up Group 1. They were visiting the
museum as a part of her trip up from Alabama. They paid attention based on a
shared Enduring Personal Interest [“We both love animals.”] and through a
shared personally experienced past (Personal History)[“We were thinking of our
own personal memories of being out in Kansas and driving along {and seeing
wildlife}. We drove a truck together.”]. The woman also found in puzzling that
there was an apparent lack of water birds (Curiosity)[“I was wondering why there
were no water birds over there . . . why they have no water birds in their
display.”].

Group 5 was a couple, a husband and wife in their 30s. They connected
through the Enduring Personal Interest of the wife [“I like the animals. I like to
see the animals.”], as well as her personally experienced past (Personal
History)[“I was telling him we used to see those weasels on the farm.”].

 

     
   
        
 

I
Interest '
Factors

I

I. V
(Group 1 only) F ,’
Curiosity I

 
  

 

 

[ Enduring
Personal Interest 7'

 

Relevance
Factors

Personal
History

 

 

 

Figure 34 MSUM, Groups 1 & 5

111

Groups 3 & 9

These groups would have taken an identical path through the model—
Situation-Specific Interest--but Group 9 added the component of Personal
History.

Group 3 consisted of a husband, wife, and daughter (approximately 10
years old). They paid attention based on the Situation-Specific Interest of the
husband [“It looked interesting; caught my eye.”].

Group 9 consisted of a young husband, wife, and son (approximately 6
years old). They, too, exhibited Situation-Specific Interest [“That’s the smallest
deer I ever saw, and that’s the biggest anteater I ever saw.”]. They also added the
element of Personal History [“We used to go elk shining up north.”].

 

Interest ,

Factors , I (Groups 3 & 9)

| Situation-Specific
Interest

      
  

 

 
 
  

Relevance Personal

Factors
(Group 9 only)

 

 

 

Figure 35 MSUM, Groups 3 & 9

112

Group 8 (no commonalities)

This group was composed of a middle-aged woman with her teenage son
and daughter. The connection was made through their personally experienced
past (Personal History)[“We grew up in the woods. The kids were born in the
Upper Peninsula.”] The mother also influenced her children to come to the
exhibit (Group Influence)[“I think they {son and daughter} were following

me.” .

T .
\
\
Interest ® \\
Factors \
P \
\\ \
\ \
\\ ‘
Group
Influence

 

Relevance Personal
Factors History

 

 

Figure 36 MSUM, Group 8

 

 

Summary of Paths Taken Through the Model in the 1999 Study
There was evidence to show that thirteen of the thirty-two groups spent
time attending to the three exhibits in this study based on some level of enduring
personal interest. Eleven of the groups paid attention on the basis of situation-
specific interest, things they found curious’ ’ or interesting. Seven groups found a

connection to their personal history that explained the dynamic behind their

113

attention. And only one group was primarily involved with the exhibits through
group influence. Therefore, twenty-four (75%) of the thirty-two groups attended
based on interest factors while eight (25%) of the thirty-two paid attention based

on relevance factors.

SUMMARY OF THE PATHS FOR BOTH STUDIES
In this section I will summarize both the 1998 and 1999 studies before
exploring the new levels of detail (sub-factors) that I’ve uncovered within some of
the model’s factors. I will first summarize in terms of patterns through the model
that reveal a commonality between the studies. Then, I will summarize at the level

of connections.

Patterns Through the Model

I noticed two sets of patterns in the paths that the thirty-two groups took
through the attention model. The first pattern is that which describes the greatest
number of groups. Figure 37 shows the simple, or single path, pattern taken most
often by the groups in this study, that of Situation-Specific Interest. Nine groups,
or 19%, of the groups were motivated by situation-specific interest.

This path was taken by groups in each of the four exhibits. It was observed
once each in the locomotive exhibit and the evolution and diversity exhibit, three

times at the aviation exhibit, and four times with the landscape paintings.

114

 

Interest @
Factors

[Situation-Specific
Interest

 

Relevance
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 37 Largest Number of Groups for a Single Path Pattern.

The second commonality that I noticed were a series of patterns that were
present in the largest number of exhibits. One pattern was common to all four
exhibits, while three patterns were common to three of the four exhibits in this
study. There are two pairs: the first are the simple, or single-path patterns, while
the last are the complex, or multiple-path patterns. The first of these patterns
common to multiple exhibits is already shown in Figure 37, in that the pattern for
the largest number of groups (19%) also occurred in all of the exhibits. The
additional patterns are shown in Figures 38, 39, and 40. The path in Figure 38
occurs in 75% of the exhibits and was the path for six groups (13%). Figures 39
and 40 are complex path patterns that were the case for six (13%) and three (6%)

groups, respectively.

115

(Note: The solid lines in Figures 39 and 40 merely represent the paths, without

 

     
   
 

 

hierarchy.)
Interest @
Factors
Enduring

Personal Interest

Relevance
Factors

 

 

 

Figure 38 Pattern for 6 Groups in Three out of Four Exhibits

 

 
 

 

 

Interest @\
Factors
Enduring
Personal Interest
Group

Relevance Personal Influence
Factors History

 

 

 

 

Figure 39 Pattern for 6 groups in Three out of Four Exhibits.

116

 

Interest ®
Factors

  

Group
Influence

 
 

Relevance
Factors

Personal
History

  

 

 

Figure 40 Pattern for 3 groups in Three out of Four Exhibits.

Connections
I now explore the data at the level of specific connections that visiting
groups made with the exhibits through the factors in the model. Table 8 is a
compilation of the primary connections that I documented through the two studies.
The table places the three interest factors above the heavy horizontal line and the

two relevance factors below the line.

117

 

 

Factor
EPI
S-SI

C
PH
GI

# Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998 Study 1999 Study
HFM DIA HFM MSUM
Locomotive Aviation Total %
2 4 5 4 15
2 4 4 2 12 59
0 O 0 O 0
6 1 3 4 14
41
4 1 0 0 5
14 10 12 10 46 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8—Primary Connections

Two things are very evident when the data is displayed in this manner.

First, primary connections between the visitors and the exhibit were about equally

made through interest (59%) and relevance (41%) factors, though interest factors

dominated. Second, none of groups paid attention primarily based on curiosity. I

defined curiosity very rigidly (afier Berlyne), possibly undercoding curiosity in

favor of situation-specific interest (I will say more about this phenomenon in

Chapter V), as a result, there were no primary connections based on curiosity.

Groups that paid attention based on relevance found that relevance as a

connection to some aspect of their personal histories and more of these

connections occurred at the locomotive exhibit than at any other exhibit.

118

 

Several of the groups detailed in the study found multiple connections
within the model that further explained the dynamics of their motivation to attend.

A summary of these multiple connections to the model are displayed in Table 9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998 Study 1999 Study
HFM DIA HFM MSUM
Factor Locomotive Aviation Total %
EPI 5 6 5 4 20
S-SI 12 4 6 2 24 52
C 1 O 1 1 3
PH 12 4 5 7 28
48
GI 7 5 2 1 15
# Conn. 37 19 19 15 90 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9—All Connections

Two things are immediately noticeable from this tabulation. First, groups
visiting the locomotive exhibit made more of these multiple connections,
averaging 2.6 connections per group. Second, the dynamics of attention are about
equally explained in Interest factors (52%) and Relevance factors (48%), with
interest still dominating, as it did with the primary connections. Again, however,
curiosity played a minor a role in the attention of these forty-six groups (3%), but

occurring in three out of four exhibits.

119

NEW COMPONENTS—REFINING THE THEORETICAL MODEL

This qualitative study began with a theoretical model developed from the
literature. One of my primary interests was to see if this model proved plausible in
the field. My second aim was to see what detail needed to be added in the case
that it should prove authentic In this section I will report my field data as it
applies directly to the theoretical model. I will refine the model as dictated by the
dynamics of attention that were at work amongst the 46 visiting groups who
participated in this study. The theoretical Attention Model for Museum Exhibits
was shown in Figure 3, but is reproduced here in Figure 41, for convenience.

Each of the model’s factors proved useful in describing the dynamics of
attention in each of the four exhibits in the combined 1998 and 1999 studies.
Often, data collected from the groups that constituted these studies provided
additional levels of detail. I’m calling this additional level of detail the model’s
sub-factors. I will, therefore, first provide evidence for the five factors that
describe the attention dynamic and then provide additional evidence for the sub-

factors that developed as a result of the data collected in this study.

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ -—- z ’ ,
’ / ’ I
’ , ’ / , / ’ I
Interest ’ ”,’ 77’, //
Factors / 7,/’ //I’ 7x
I , , , ’ ’ , , ’ / , ’
/ A’ I / A /
. l . . .
Endurlng I Sltuatlon-SpeCIfic
I Personal Interest I Interest
L

 

   

l
\ Personal
\ History
\
Relevance \
Factors \ \

§
—————

EXHIBIT VISITOR
Characteristics or Attributes
of the Individual
(Psychological)

EXHIBIT ENVIRONMENT
Characteristics of the Immediate
Environment

    
   
    

Group
Influence

  

 

Figure 4] Attention Model for Museum Exhibits

121

 

    

 

 

The Model’s Factors
Enduring Personal Interest

A durable characteristic of the individual to be interested in specific objects
and, as a result, to pay attention to them. This factor includes the kinds of
interests that friends would list if they were describing this person, i.e., clocks,
painting, trains, etc. In the studies reported here I found that individuals were
motivated by the objects and artifacts in each of the four exhibits.

1) HFM—Locomotive Exhibit

Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention because of their interest in
some aspect of the locomotive, such as the mechanical engineering inherent in the
locomotive or in locomotives taken more generally. Two of the groups were
mechanical engineers who were in town for the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) convention that just ended prior to the first day of observations and
interviews. These engineers were interested in the design, mechanism, and
building of the locomotive. A group of three engineers from Italy said, “We come
from Europe. We are engineers and we have never saw something big like that.”
A group of three engineers from the US. were interested in “mechanical
transportation in general.” Both groups expressed interest in design and were
amazed to think of designing and building a locomotive like the #1601 without

the aid of computers.

Other visitors, however, had long term interests that were not driven by
their profession. One visitor had seen the locomotive before, developed an
interest in it, and brought a friend to see it as well: “He’s from out of town. I
knew it was here and I wanted to see it again.” Another visitor expressed a similar
interest in the #1601 and said, “Actually. I’ve been here before and knew it was
here. Wanted to see it again.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the locomotive exhibit that
enduring personal interest motivated by either professional interests or from non-
professional interests may describe the dynamics of attention where longstanding
interests are at work.

2) DIA—Luminist Gallery

Groups visiting this gallery demonstrated that personal interest factors
mediated their attention, such as a longstanding interest in American art,

American landscape art, or artists who use light in the style of the Luminist
painters. One visitor simply said, “I like American art,” while another was more
specific when he said, “I like American landscape art.” The Luminist Gallery
features paintings that are a very specific school of American landscape art that
emphasizes the unique use of light. One visitor said he and his wife collect prints
from a contemporary painter that emphasizes light. He said, “We have a couple of

Kinkaid things. Thomas Kinkaid, a new artist, or relatively new. I have some of

123

9”

his prints. He’s called the ‘Painter of Light.

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the Luminist Gallery that
enduring personal interest in the art may describe the dynamics of attention and
that longstanding interests were at work.

3) HFM—Aviation Exhibit

Visiting groups who came to the aviation exhibit demonstrated that they
paid attention because of personal interests, such as aviation, or aircraft, or
because they are pilots themselves. One visitor said, “It really caught my eye. I
like aviation stuff a lot. I don’t own one, but I would like to.” Another simply
said, “I’ve always been interested in aircraft. As far back as I can remember.”
One of the pilots that I spoke with was a woman in her sixties. She said, “I’m an
aviator and I’ve been one for over 40 years.” She had actually flown a Ford Tri-
motor aircraft. Another pilot simply said, “I’m interested in aviation. More
interested in aviation than probably most people are.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the aviation exhibit that
enduring personal interest motivated by their interests in the objects displayed may
describe the dynamics of attention where longstanding interests are at work.

4) MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit
People who came to the Diversity and Evolution exhibit demonstrated that

they paid attention because of strongly developed, or developing, personal

124

interests, such as the habitat of animals. The mother of a seven year old girl said,
“She wants to be a veterinarian when she grows up,” indicating an enduring
personal interest that was becoming well developed. A woman who likes to see
animals that inhabit her neighborhood said, “I like the animals. I like to see the
animals, particularly the animals that are around this area.” A man who had an
enduring interest in birds said, “I do like birding myself and the bird feeding.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the wildlife exhibit that
enduring personal interest in animals and their habitat may describe the dynamics
of attention where longstanding interests are at work.

The stable, or enduring, interests of visitors provide the motivation for their
attention to exhibits that connect to their enduring personal interests. This proved

true across the four exhibits encompassed by this pair of studies.

Situation-Specific Interest
An opportunistic likelihood that an individual will choose to pay attention
to a particular object based on his or her perception of the object’s interestingness.
This factor is based on the individual’s desire to know more about his or her
environment. This is what most people mean when they say someone is a curious
person. Situation-specific interest is, however, more like scientific curiosity—the

propensity to probe and discover.

125

1) HFM—Locomotive Exhibit

Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention to the locomotive because
they were intrigued by it. They wanted to know how it operated, how people
learned to design large machines, or they became absorbed in reflecting on how
powerful it must have been. One visitor simply wanted to know, “How it works.”
One man thought about what a person would have to know in order to build such
a machine: “I think if you think about the schooling you had to have in 1940 to be
a [mechanical] engineer.” Another man just found the locomotive inherently
interesting, “Walked past the President’s cars and just got started here. It caught
our eye. The sheer size and strength of it.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the locomotive exhibit that
situation-specific interest was the dynamic that may describe their attention to the
exhibit.

2) DIA—Luminist Gallery

Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention to the paintings because they
found some aspect of the gallery interesting. Some found art interesting, were
interested in exploring the genre, or were interested in the way the artists rendered
the scenes. One man who had an interest in the art itself said, “Just an interest, not
real developed.” This general interest sets this man and others like him apart from

those who have a well developed, or Enduring Personal Interest. A woman also

126

expressed a general interest in the art when she said, “Just curious. Just wanted to
see what they looked like.”

Some people did comment on the scenes depicted in the paintings, at least
in a general way. One man thought about the things of which he was reminded.
He said, “It reminds me of certain light while traveling . . . so it kind of reminds
me of traveling and things I’ve seen while traveling.” The wife of another visitor
was showing him “The Fisherman’s Wedding Party,” since they had visited
Venice, Italy. He simply said, “When we were in Venice, it didn’t look like that.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the gallery that situation-
specific interest may describe the dynamics of their attention to the paintings.

3) HFM—Aviation Exhibit

The responses to the aviation exhibit were similar to those recorded at the
locomotive in the 1998 study, the other technological exhibit in this study. That
is, they demonstrated that they paid attention to the aircraft because they were
intrigued by it. They wanted to know about the historical connection, how it was
named, and to express their satisfaction in having the opportunity to see the
famous plane. One woman found general interest through historical significance
of the plane’s name, “I saw in the brochure too about Admiral Byrd, about going
over the North Pole, then over the South Pole. That was the plane that did it, so I

thought that was interesting. And how he named it. I was interested where the

127

name came from, ‘Floyd Bennett.’” A man responded to the same aircraft by
expressing his pleasure to see it: “Just happened to be on the route through. I
didn’t know that they were here until we stopped. I said, ‘Oh, lookie here, the
Ford Tri-motor that Byrd flew over the South Pole. Wow! ’”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the aircraft that situation-
specific interest may describe the dynamics of their attention.

4) MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit

Visitors demonstrated a general, or Situation-Specific, interest in animals,
such as wanting to see the animals close up, being drawn in because of something
that caught their eye, or because they found some of the more common ones
interesting . In the “Our World” exhibit, most of the visiting groups had a
general, rather than a specific (or Enduring) interest. One woman said, “I thought
the owls were really interesting, because I’d never seen those owls close up, the
little owls.” A man said, “It looked interesting, caught my eye.” Another man
was more specific when he said, “Just some of the common birds and things like
that, are interesting.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the wildlife exhibit that

situation-specific interest may describe the dynamic of their attention.

128

mm

A characteristic of the individual to choose to pay attention to objects that
are novel or incongruous. This factor is based on the individual’s desire to reduce
uncertainty and to resolve ambiguity. Curiosity was not really found very often in
this study. It was only marginally evident in three of the four exhibits.

1) HF M—Locomotive Exhibit

The locomotive would seem to excite visitor curiosity if for no other reason
than its size. It was a draw for one couple who said that it caught their eye while
browsing the museum. The other thirteen groups did not seem surprised to find
this large locomotive in the museum.

Thus, there is evidence from this one group that their visit might be
described by the attention factor of curiosity.

2) DIA—Luminist Gallery

Curiosity wasn’t encountered amongst any of the visiting groups to this
exhibit.

3) HF M—Aviation Exhibit

The Autogiro is possibly the most curious object in the portion of the
aviation exhibit used in this study. It looks like an airplane that can’t fly while
looking as if the rotor was added as a joke. One visitor found this “contraption”

incongruous and said, “I looked at the Autogiro, because I thought it looked

129

funny. I wondered if they actually used it.”

Thus, there is evidence that this visitor’s attention may be described by
curiosity that was based on the strangeness of the exhibit.

4) MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit

A woman thought the mural in the waterfowl area to be incongruous in that
it was the only area devoid of actual wildlife. She said, “One thing, I was
wondering why there were no water birds over there. They had the paintings, and
all. But why they have no water birds over there in their display, because I think
that would be real interesting.” There were water birds, turtles, and snakes, but
she apparently missed them all while dealing with her puzzlement over the mural
taking up so much space without a single real animal present in the diorama.

Thus, there is evidence that this visitor’s attention may be described by

curiosity due to the incongruity of this area devoid of actual animals.

Personal History
I wanted to know if visiting groups made connections to exhibits based on
their own personal histories. Personal history refers to the likelihood that an
individual will choose to pay attention to an object based on a perceived
connection between the object and his or her own past. This factor is based on the
individual’s awareness that the object has some degree of personal meaning. That

is, would something in their past become salient while viewing the exhibit

130

resulting in their paying attention? If so, then the relevancy of the exhibit to their
own past history would become descriptive of the dynamics of attention.
1) HF M-Locomotive Exhibit
Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention based on making connections
to the locomotive and manifested this in a variety of ways: through their personal
history as an engineer or because of memories of hearing trains. One man from
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada said, “I came in the front door and saw this. As soon
as I saw it, it caught my eye. I can remember sitting up in there and pulling the
levers, like I say, this size down here [pointing to one of the smaller locomotives
nearby].” A retired woman said, “Reminds me, when we lived in Ohio, every
morning we would hear the whistle from the train and I always thought, ‘I would
like to ride a train like that someday.”’
Thus, there is evidence fi'om these groups that personal history may
describe the dynamics of their attention.
2) DIA—Luminist Gallery
Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention based on factors related to
their personal histories, such as memories of ancestors, one’s own history,
paintings that portrayed scenes that one had seen. One man said, “My grandfather
and his father, they probably saw scenes like that.” A woman was commenting

more on the museum sights, not the paintings, when she said, “I went to college at

131

Wayne State and so in between breaks, sometimes, I would buzz over. Back in
‘78 and ‘79.” A man was looking for similarities with places he had been. He
said, “I was looking for some places that I had been before to see if there was any,
just by chance, any of the places I’ve personally been.”
Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the gallery that their
personal histories may describe the dynamics of attention that were at work.
3) HFM—Aviation Exhibit
Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention in the aviation exhibit based
on their personal history, such as memories of their own or memories from family
and friends. One man told me of his growing interest, “[My interest started] last
year when I took the first plane ride. It’s been building and building.” Another
man and his family are acquainted with Sikorsky helicopters. He said, “Sikorsky
is from our home state. Sikorsky Helicopter is the next town over. So, we’re
interested.”
Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the aircraft that personal
history was in evidence and may describe the dynamics of their attention.
4) MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit
Visitors demonstrated that they paid attention on the basis of their personal
histories, such as common animals they had seen and the more exotic animals in

their foreign habitat. One woman spoke of her family and said, “We’ve seen, not

132

exotic animals, but animals walk through the backyard: deer, beaver, and like
that.” While a man who had visited Africa said he had “Seen the anthills about 10
feet high that the anteater would be around.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the wildlife exhibit that
personal history was at work and may describe the dynamics of their attention to

the exhibit.

Group Influence

Group influence can take many forms, but in this model it is construed to
refer to the likelihood that an individual will choose to pay attention to an object
based on a perceived association between the object and his or her group. This
factor is based on the individual’s awareness that the object has some degree of
shared meaning amongst group members

1) HFM—Locomotive Exhibit

Visitors demonstrated that their own connections to the exhibit resulted in
their attempts to influence other group mates to pay attention, such as
professionals instructing non-professionals, enthusiasts, and even interested
children . One gentleman who was a current locomotive engineer said, “Some of
the running gear on it—I was pointing out to her the sand pipes on there, the
reverse gear, and brake rigging on the engine.” Two brothers from Canada were

both knowledgeable about steam (especially Great Lakes ships) and shifted the

133

influencing role back and forth as their expertise pertained to the component they
were viewing at the time. Nor does this role of “influencer” only include adults.
In one case a gentleman told me, “The grandson brought us over here.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the locomotive exhibit that
some group members influenced others and that this might describe the dynamics
of attention in these cases.

2) DIA—Luminist Gallery

Visitors demonstrated that the influenced their group mates when visiting
the gallery such as, one person bringing others because of an interest or the
existence of a more burning desire to show another something. One woman
brought her group in so she could see something, “It was my choice because I
wanted to see something.” A man said, “I was looking for Church and I was
looking for Thomas Cole, a couple of the ones that I know and recognize.”
Another woman simply said, “My husband wanted to show me something.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the gallery that group
influence was at work and may describe the attention of others influenced by other
group mates.

3) HF M—Aviation Exhibit
Visitors demonstrated the they influenced others in their group to pay

attention to the aircraft such as, a pre-trip influence or making a discrete decision

134

after arriving. Many times this influence occurred prior to visiting, such as the
aeronautical engineer who said, “We heard about the Ford museum; that’s the
reason we came.” Or, the influence often occurs after the group has arrived at the
museum. One young man who had visited the museum before said, “We plotted
our way back here to the aviation exhibit this time.”

Thus, there is evidence from the groups visiting the aircraft that group
influence may describe the dynamics of the attention of group members.

4) MSUM—Diversity and Evolution Exhibit

Visitors demonstrated they paid attention in the wildlife exhibit on the basis
of group influence, such as one interested person leading others or using the
various displays to exert influence. One woman spoke of her interest in the
animals and then, referring to her group, said, “I think they were following me.”
Another woman spoke of her group interactions in terms of the “Conversation that
came up when we happened to see a particular animal.”

Thus, there is evidence that groups visiting the diversity and evolution
exhibit paid attention based on the influences of others in their group and group

influence may, therefore, describe the dynamics of attention in these cases.

Summary of the Model’s Factors
1 have pulled representative samples from the data set to illustrate various

aspects of the model’s factors in the above discussion. The factors seem to be

135

plausible explanations of the dynamics of attention for the groups that participated
in the 1998 and 1999 studies. I will filrther exemplify the plausibility of the
model in the next section where additional detail is added to several of the factors
by identifying sub-factors. The one element that is not strongly represented is

curiosity. I will discuss this in Chapter V.

The Model’s Sub-Factors

In this section I will discuss some of the sub-factors that have emerged
from the two studies and which add detail to the Factors discussed above. These
sub-factors are attached to the major factors: Enduring Personal Interest,
Situation-Specific Interest, Personal history, and Group Influence. They vary in
nature from instances where one group or person expressed something that clearly
adds detail to the major factor, to instances where a number of groups or
individuals expressed similar dynamics. 1 coded the data according to the factor
when none of the specifics presented themselves and according to the sub-factors

when the detail was clearly in evidence.

Enduring Personal Interest—New Interest
This sub-factor is an example of the initial step in the development of a
new Enduring Personal Interest. It was reported only by the European mechanical

engineers who visited the locomotive exhibit in the 1998 study. Their attention

136

was due to their established interest in their profession and things mechanical but
it began to develop to an interest in locomotives for their own sake. They simply

said, “We are hooked!”

Situation-Specific Interest
Situation-specific interest is the more general interest that people have in
the world around them. The data from the 1998 and 1999 studies indicate the
need for additional detail. There are three new levels of detail behind this general

interest: Emotions, Imaginings, and Transitions.

Emotions
The emotional responses that I encountered dealt with a range of General
Emotions (fear, wonder, etc.) as well as Aesthetic Responses. I will report these

two sub-divisions in turn.

General emotions.

Visitors to the four exhibits being reported here expressed a variety of
emotions. A young boy between 8 and 10 years old soberly said of the
locomotive, “It could kill me!” A man expressed a wonder at the power when he
said, “Yeah, there’s an emotional thing about their size. That’s an awful lot of
power.” A woman who visited the Luminist gallery was both calmed and

confused. She said, “The one over there, with the water, felt calming. For me,

137

they’re calming. I mean, they’re not like the more abstract seems to evoke, um,
confusion.” A man spoke of “uncertainty” and “unpredictability” as he looked at
the Church painting of Cotopaxi. A woman visiting the aviation exhibit spoke of
disbelief when she said, “Actually, the first helicopter, I think, doesn’t look like
the helicopter I rode in. And, it just looks like, ooh, I don’t know that I would
want to ride in that, it looks kind of scary.” An older man expressed his pride,
“Well, I guess I felt proud that we had so many innovative people that brought
these developments to the forefront.” A woman visiting the “Diversity and
Evolution” exhibit was scared, “Scared of the snake.” A man was surprised, “And

how big some of them are. I was surprised.”

Aesthetic responses.

Attention for some visiting groups resulted as they responded to the
aesthetics of the exhibits. Something is considered aesthetically pleasing by one
who experiences an emotional response to the beauty of the object. This
inexorably leads us to the concept of the sublime. The English writer Shaftsbury
argues that the sublime is the highest form of beauty. Something is considered
sublime if it represents something higher, such as deity. In fact, Sweeney (1991)
contends that there was a “Belief in the divinity of the natural world” (p. 158)
during the time of the Civil War. This relates to a category of emotions that I

especially observed at the DIA which I call the Natural Sublime, or the reverential

138

feeling that visitors experienced while viewing the Luminist landscape art. It also
manifested itself at the MSUM.

There is another manifestation of the sublime, however, in the
technological objects at the HFM, which I, like Perry Miller, Leo Marx, and
David Nye, call the Technological Sublime. David Nye (1994) says the sublime
“Is about repeated experiences of awe and wonder, often tinged with an element
of terror, which people have had when confronted with particular natural sites,
architectural forms, and technological achievements” (p. xvi). And the
Technological Sublime is, according to Marx (1964), the nineteenth century
Americans process where “The awe and reverence once reserved for the Deity and
later bestowed upon the visible landscape is directed toward technology or, rather,
the technological conquest of matter” (p. 197). The technological objects at the
HFM are definitely representative of the grand achievements of a heroic people
and of the conquest of space and time.

Natural Sublime

The Luminist Gallery at the DIA and the Evolution and Diversity exhibit at
the MSUM are both representative of the natural world. A young man who was
visiting the DIA spoke of the spectacular nature of the light and how the painting
seemed detached from the temporal: “We were discussing the amazing light in

these paintings. The skies, the colors in the skies, the movement, or lack of it.

139

The timelessness in some of the work.” His female companion responded to the
beauty, saying, “Beauty’s beauty. This is beautiful stuff.” Another woman, there
with her husband, stopped solely on the basis of the beauty, “Because of the
beauty of it.”

The response to the natural sublime was also in evidence at the MSUM. A
woman who was visiting with her family responded to the size of many of the
animals, saying, “And how big some of them are. I was surprised.” Another
woman who was visiting with her male friend was quite taken by the spectacle of
the butterflies that were just outside the Diversity and Evolution exhibit. She said,
“The butterflies are absolutely fascinating. I could stand there all day and look at
the butterflies.” A woman who visited with her husband and daughter expressed
amazement: “I didn’t realize that there was that many, really, different species.
You think about different animals and you don’t realize the diversity and the
different appearances.”

Technological Sublime

Many of the visitors to the locomotive in the 1998 study expressed
amazement at the shear size of the machine: “Very big.” “Huge.” “I’ve never seen
anything quite that big.” “The size of it.” “It’s HUGE!!!” “Awesome.” This
emotion was perhaps best described by a boy about eight years old who said, “It

could kill me!” Nye ( 1994) says that people often have difficulty describing

140

sublime objects. Visitors said, “Beyond description, see it!” “Go and see it.”
“Encourage everyone in general to come and see it. It’s amazing.” Visitors also
responded to the power in the machine: “It’s such a big engine. I mean, I know
there’s a lot of power in them by the size of the boiler and stuff like that.” “I
mean, you see, I mean look at the enormity of all the things on the outside.” “I
thought how huge it was—massive. And how complicated it must have been back
at that time to design and build something like that. I’ve been around, but this
thing’s huge!”

Visitors to the aviation exhibit at the HF M tended to express admiration for
the inventors, the people who had a vision for the conquest of distance by
powered flight. One woman, there with her husband, expressed her pride in
American technology in general as she said, “And American technology is just so
impressive. It makes me proud.” An older man, attending with his wife
commented about the courage of Byrd’s expedition to the South Pole, “Oh,
wonder, admiration, probably for these guys who did this. That airplane. Fly over
the South Pole in that sucker? That takes some guts!” One woman also spoke
about her surprise at the size of, particularly, Byrd’s plane, “Just the size, I think,
caught our attention first thing.” Her daughter related her surprise to what she had
seen on television: “I’m kinda’ just surprised at how big they are. Because on TV

and in pictures you can’t quite capture how big they are.”

141

Imaginings

How wonderful it was to find people projecting themselves into a painting,
watching a locomotive barrel down the track, taking to the sky, or interacting with
animals. This higher level of affective involvement is what Raphling and Serrell
(1993) call imaginings. Imaginings involves the visitor stepping outside their
own experience, trying to imagine the object in use, the painter’s vision, or the
animal in its habitat.

A woman visiting town was attempting to see the landscapes through the
artist’s eyes as she looked at the paintings. She said, “I think, I would say I was
trying to envision what they were looking at when they painted it, more so.” To
which her male companion agreed, “Yeah, I would say I was trying to enter into
their vision.” Another young woman and her male companion projected
themselves into the scene itself. She said, “We just talked about how they were
kind of peaceful and how it would feel to go there.” A man at the aviation exhibit
thought about what it would be like to be an early aviation pioneer. He said, “The
only thing 1 can think of is about the inventors, the people who first tried them.
They came up with the idea and needed somebody to test them, so they ended up
testing them themselves. Some people, it worked successfully the first time and
some lived through several crashes in order to perfect their inventions.” A woman

thought of herself going to Antarctica in the Ford Tri-motor and how cold it

142

would be: “We said the metal one looked heavy and cold to go to Antarctica.” A
man at the MSUM thought about seeing the animals in their habitat, “I think one
of us made a comment about what it would be like to see that in the wild or out in
the backyard.” A visitor to the locomotive exhibit thought about mining the coal
needed to power the locomotive, “Trying to imagine the number of people it took
to go down into the mines and things to do the coal to make one of those things
run. And the number of lives that were lost in those coal mines.” One woman
thought about the skill required to operate the locomotive: “Where they went to
school to learn how to run it?” Others thought about how difficult the work was.
One man said, “The poor guys that built it [and] those poor guys who had to feed

that sucker going down the road.”

Transitions

The sub-factor of transitions refers to an expression of a visitor being in the
process of transitioning from one factor, the one that engaged their attention,
toward a newly developing interest. For example, a man who visited the aviation
exhibit was in the process of developing his own interest in flying after going on a
flight: “Started last year when I took the first plane ride. It’s been building and
building.” The European mechanical engineers who visited the locomotive were
making the shift from attention due to enduring personal interest and personal

history in mechanical engineering to developing an interest in locomotives for

143

their own sake: “We are hooked!”

Personal History
Data from the two studies led me to code personal history data into three
sub-factors. These sub-factors are: Personally Experienced Past, Vicariously

Experienced Past, and Idealized (or romanticized) Past.

Personally Egerienced Past

One’s personally experienced past refers to memories of actual events in
the visitors’ personal pasts. These may be real or imagined, as the past often is,
but the critical determining factor is that the visitor represents these events as
coming from their own pasts. For example, a young adult student at the Center
for Creative Studies experienced a field trip to the DIA. On that basis, he returned
for a weekend visit with one of his classmates. He said, “I’m a student at the
Center for Creative Studies, next door, and we came in here for a tour one
afternoon.” But his personal past, as well as that of his female companion, goes
further back— to middle school: ‘We both, like, took art in middle school together.
We both went to the same high school and we both ended up here in Detroit.”
Another man thought about his personal experiences in terms of seeing pictures of
the paintings: “More memories of seeing. Seeing some of the paintings in books

that I had seen before.” A man who visited the aviation exhibit remembered

144

seeing programs on television about aviation: “Yeah, because I can remember
seeing something on A&E or Discovery, or something, on that particular piece
when it was new.” A woman thought about the airplane owned by a neighbor: “It
reminds me of Carl VanIleson’s airplane. We’re from North Dakota and he’s
from Hatton and they have an airplane similar to that.” A man at the MSUM
thought about animals he had personally seen: “Thinking just about the animals
I’ve seen in my own backyard.” Another man had worked at a natural history
museum and thought about that: “I used to work at a museum. Just reminded me
of my experience working at another museum.” A man visiting the locomotive
exhibit thought about his boyhood: “I remember when I was a kid seeing them.
And I rode on them. A lot of nostalgia there.” Two brothers from Canada
thought about an accident: “Oh, him and I were hit by a train in 1949. Up in
Northern Canada. Like this thing would drive right over the thing that hit us.

And the one that hit us pretty near drove over us.”

Vicariously Experienced Past

A person’s vicariously experienced past involves memories of family or
friends. This is the kind of “experience” that is lived through another person. A
man visiting the Luminist Gallery thought about his grandfather and great
grandfather: “My grandfather and his father, they probably saw scenes like this.”

Another man lived the experience through the lives of the people of the time: “I

145

try to think back to that point that they’re discussing and try to see if it’s relevant
or, see if I can understand something they might be saying in the paragraphs.”
This man’s wife thought through her father’s experiences: “My dad, with all the
hills, because he grew up in West Virginia. It looks familiar, reminds me of it.”
A woman visiting the aviation exhibit thought of her father’s experiences in the
service: “My father was in World War II. I don’t know if he’d be interested in
seeing some of the war ones too.” A couple also thought about her uncle’s and
mother’s experiences. The wife’s uncle flew with Byrd: “My uncle went to
Antarctica, to the South Pole, with Admiral Byrd.” He said, “Your mother saw
Lindbergh.” A woman at the MSUM thought about her father’s experiences and
influence: “Probably from my father. He was very interested in animals and in
birds. He kind of peaked my interest when I was younger. I guess that’s just
carried on.” A man visiting the locomotive thought about the railroad experiences
of his brother: “My younger brother was a fireman on steam powered railroad
locomotives and he progressed from the steam fired ones to the diesel ones.”
Another man thought through the experiences of several relatives: “My dad
worked for the old Nickel Plate. My grandfather worked before him, and he had
two uncles who worked on the Illinois Central, down South. My brother works
for the NS.” Another man thought of his father’s experiences: “My grandfather

worked for the Grand Trunk, he was a fireman. It does bring back some

146

memories of what he used to do.” And a woman thought of an unfortunate

incident her mother had: “My mom got a cinder in her eye from a steam engine.”

Idealized (romanticized) Past

A romantic or idealized vision of the past is a sub-factor that I found in
evidence only in the Luminist Gallery at the DIA. Here, a person thinks of the
purer, simpler times with a wistful sentiment. A woman expressed the “greener
grass” syndrome as she looked at the landscapes: “Times were better, skies were
cleaner, grass was greener.” A gentleman with another group thought about the
great age of discovery: “I guess it brought to mind the discoveries on this
continent at that period of time.” He also thought about how some of the
paintings purposively romanticized the scenes: “How these were romanticized by

the painters for the people who hadn’t seen these places themselves yet.”

Group Influence
Group mates influenced each other in a variety of ways. Four sub-factors
that I observed were: Pre-Exhibit Influence, Socialize/Educate, Lead/Follow, and

Discussion.

Pre-Exhibit Influence
Group members can influence each other prior to arriving at the exhibit.

This might be a conscious choice to visit the exhibit or a more spontaneous

147

decision when it was seen from a distance. A woman at the DIA admitted to
influencing her family: “It was my choice because I wanted to see something else
too.” A man brought his friend based on his interest: “I was looking for Church
and I was looking for Thomas Cole, a couple of the ones that I know and
recognize.” A husband and wife visited the room and returned. The wife said it
was at her husband’s urging: “My husband wanted to show me something.” A
social group, two women, came to the aviation exhibit because of a mutual choice:
“We plotted our way back here to the aviation exhibit this time.” A woman
visiting the MSUM said she and her husband came to the exhibit due to his
urging: “He likes watching birds. It was his idea.” A man brought his friend to
the locomotive exhibit based on his desire to show him something: “I knew it was
here. He’s never been here before.” A family made their decision based on the

brochure: “Looked at the brochure and thought we’d take a look at trains.”

Socialize/Educate

I have placed these two sub-factors together for convenience. There was
only one instance that I coded as socialize, but this instance could also be
construed as a desire to educate. A family visiting the DIA came because the
mother wanted to socialize and educate her daughter: “This is her first time here
and our last name is Knight and she wanted to see the Knights and the armor.

And I wanted to make sure she saw the Rivera Room and, then, we started with

148

the American section. I was explaining to her that when these artists were
painting these pictures, it was when the country was raw.”

The visitors in the remaining exhibits were seeking solely to educate fellow
group members. At the aviation exhibit it was the men who felt obligated to
enlighten females on mechanical issues. One man, for example, was explaining
the mechanism to his wife: “Tried to enlighten her on a few things, mechanically.”
Another man was teaching his daughters: “I’m trying to point out things to my
daughters from time to time as we go through.” I observed one man talking to his
children at the locomotive exhibit with gesturing and pointing, obviously involved
in a teaching interlude. He would not, however, share any of the details when
asked what he might have been saying. Others were playing the role of docents as
their expertise pertained. One man explained the mechanism to his wife: “Some
of the running gear on it. I was pointing out to her the sand pipes on there, the

reverse gear, and the brake rigging on the engine.” Two brothers shifted the

teaching role back and forth as their expertise pertained.

Lead/Follow

Another sub-factor that became evident concerned the role of group
leadership. I will say more about this in Chapter 5, but, suffice it to say, that some
people were clear on who within the group was filling the leadership role within

the exhibit under study. In the aviation exhibit, for example, a wife clearly

149

admitted that her husband was the leader at the moment: “I’m being led by the
male factor here.” At the MSUM a woman said that her family came into the
exhibit because of her leadership: “I think they were following me.” An older
gentleman visiting the locomotive exhibit said his grandson was in charge of the

group at the mOment: “The grandson brought us over here.”

Discussion

All of the groups in these studies entered into discussion. Three examples
from the MSUM are typical. A man and his grandson were discussing the
evolution topic of the exhibit: “We started talking about evolution.” A woman and
her husband talked about animals when looking at the reptiles: “When we were
looking at the snakes we were talking about different animals.” A middle-aged
husband and wife talked opportunistically, as the animal or label led them: “Just

conversation that came up when we happened to see a particular animal.”

Summa_ry of the Sub-Factors

The sub-factors just discussed add a new level of detail to the basic
Attention Model that was not evident in the original theoretical model. Data used
to exemplify the sub-factors is also applicable to the factors themselves, giving
additional support for the operation of the factors as the dynamics whereby

attention is paid. I have pulled representative samples from the data set to illustrate

150

various aspects of the model’s sub-factors in the above discussion. The sub-factors
seem to be plausible explanations of the dynamics of attention for the groups that
participated in the 1998 and 1999 studies. They further exemplify the plausibility

of the model as explanatory of the dynamics of motivating attention.

SUMMARY

This chapter summarized the findings relating to the factors within the
Attention Model and their plausibility as descriptors of the dynamics at work as
free-choice learners are motivated to pay attention in a free-choice learning
environment, a museum exhibit. I have provided stories that summarize the nature
of the visit for groups within both the 1998 and 1999 studies, included individual
paths through the model as taken by each of the forty-six groups who participated
in the studies; exemplified the model’s factors; compared the various sites along
the factors of the model; and added sub-factors to several of the model’s original
factors.

The following items highlight the findings of this study:

V The forty—six groups included in this study had one of four different
kinds of visits, called ‘stories.’ There were three stories for the winter
visitors in the 1998 study and one story for the combined three sites in
the 1999 study. This single story is equivalent to story #4 in the 1998
study.

V Stories #1, #2, and #3 from the 1998 study represent more specialized
visits: engineers, steam afficionados, locomotive engineers.

151

The fourth story in the 1998 study and the single story for the 1999 study
represent the more generalized family/social visitor.

There were specialized visitors in the 1999 study, pilots, museum
workers, artists, but their presence didn’t affect the groups like the
specialists in the 1998 study did.

There were variations in paths through the attention model even within
stories.

The major categories within the attention model—interest and
relevance—were plausible predictors of attention.

The elements within these categories—enduring personal interest,
situation-specific interest, curiosity, personal history, and group
influence—were powerful enough to describe the attention fo the forty-
six groups included in this study.

All factors except curiosity was strongly represented and generated sub-
factors that added new detail to the model.

The primary dynamics of motivation fall within the interest category:
enduring personal interest and situation-specific interest.

Personal history was the dominant dynamic factor describing attention
within the relevance category.

152

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to identify those factors that motivate free-
choice learners acting in an informal learning environment to pay attention. These
factors comprise an Attention Model for Museum Exhibits. A further purpose was
to substantiate that the attention model was applicable to visitors across multiple
exhibits. In this chapter I will revisit the scope and limitations of this study from
Chapter I, draw conclusions from the findings reported in Chapter IV, offer
hypotheses about the various paths through the model that can serve as provisional
theory for future studies, discuss the use of the model, and give suggestions for

future research.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The scope and limitations of this study result from the design and choice of
method, setting, and participants. There are at least five limitations, one from
design, three from choice of method, and one based on setting and participants: 1)
The study was designed to explore the visitors’ motivation to pay attention in a
global sense: Integrating what drew them to the exhibit with what kept them at the

exhibit. These motivators are likely quite different for most visitors. For the

153

purposes at hand, therefore, I chose to look at the total picture. 2) The sample was
not randomly chosen. Instead, groups exhibiting attention-like behaviors were
asked to consent to a conversation about their visit The results of the study cannot
be generalized to a population. 3) I relied on one contact with the participants. I
did not ask them to provide me with their names and contact information, negating
my opportunity for follow-up on areas that might benefit from clarification after
the fact. 4) I spent a very short period of time talking with each group of people.
These participants had paid admission to the museum (in all but the MSUM) and
were there to get their money’s worth. I spent from 5 to 10 minutes with each
group, on average. 5) The interviews were conducted while the visitors were still
in the exhibit or gallery. There was the temptation for them to want to continue
with their visit and there were the distractions of other visitors moving past during
the interview. Each of these limitations—method, setting, and participants—was

discussed in Chapter 1.

CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this pair of studies support the choice of interest and
relevance as categories for the factors that describe the dynamics of attention on
the part of free-choice learners. These factors of enduring personal interest,
situation-specific interest, curiosity, personal history, and group influence were

able to describe the dynamics of the motivation to attend for the visitors who

154

participated in this study. Further, the findings show that the attention model
applied to visiting groups across the four exhibits and three institutions that were
included in this study.

The results of these studies provides evidence, therefore, that the attention
model provides a more detailed analysis of the “hook” in Csikszentmihalyi and
Hermanson’s original diagram (see Figure 1), which depicted the “book” as
curiosity leading to interest. The attention model explains the ways by which a
visitor may be motivated to pay attention. The museum visitor who pays attention
then has the potential to move into Csikszentmihalyi’s flow state. The move to a
flow state would depend on opportunities for involvement and skill challenges of
the environment that don’t greatly exceed those of the visitor (Csidszentrnihalyi,

1975, 1990; Csikszentmihaly & Hermanson, 1995).

Conclusions from the Stories
The experience of the forty-six groups of museum visitors who participated
in this study were categorized into one of four stories. These stories (see Chapter
IV) describe the overall nature of the visits for these groups and were based on the
similarities in their patterns of interaction while in the exhibit, which was
corroborated by the interviews. These stories could describe the visits of most
groups visiting a museum. I add sub-factors taken from data collected from the

participants in my two studies described in Chapter IV. I am confident that the

155

model has the power to accommodate new stories, ones not encountered in the
course of these studies, as well.

I found it useful to divide the stories into two groups that were based on the
level of visitor expertise: professional/hobbyist and family/social. The
professional/hobbyist stories include the mechanical engineers, steam afficionados,
and locomotive engineers encountered in the 1998 study. The social/family stories
include the social/family visits from both the 1998 and 1999 studies.

The two groups of mechanical engineers in the 1998 study that were
included in story #1 are remarkably similar. Their enduring personal interests in
mechanisms and mechanical transportation formed their motivation to attend.
These interests in machines were professional interests that must characterize
others of their profession who visit the locomotive. But there were not
corresponding professionals who visited the exhibits in the 1999 study. There
were, for example, no aeronautical engineers who visited the aviation exhibit as a
group of professionals, nor painters who visited the Luminist Gallery en masse, nor
biologists who visited the Evolution and Diversity exhibit on a group field trip.

I speculate that any visiting group of professionals would act in similar ways
to an exhibit that would be obviously related to their vocation. A group of
biologists who might visit the Evolution and Diversity exhibit after attending a

conference at the university might discuss the various displays from professional

156

perspectives, and debate the pros and cons of topics such as wildlife ecology. They
might also shift from their enduring personal interest in biology to a situation-
specific interest in an animal such as Arctic Fox because they became interested in
some aspect of the animal’s habitat. Their attention could be generated by their
professional interest but could likely be switched based on some of the ideas or
information that they gained from the display.

Only one visiting group from the 1998 study is described by story #2 . They
were two brothers who are best characterized as steam afficionados. They were
primarily interested in Great Lakes freighters and they shared an enduring personal
interest in this technology along with a shared personal history (each had sons on
freighters). Based on these forces, they paid close attention to the large steam
locomotive. Their overall enthusiasm and intensity set them apart from all the
other visitors who participated in the two studies. Each of the three exhibits in the
1999 study were visited by individuals having a strong knowledge of the objects,
but no one else exhibited the degree of intensity nor did any of the other visitors
have a companion who was as knowledgeable as they. These two brothers were
indeed a specialized group on the basis of their interests. Thus, I place this story
withing the professional/hobbyist category.

Story #3 in the 1998 study included two groups of visitors. Both of these

couples included a gentleman who had been a locomotive engineer or who

157

 

ti
th

the

gran

dCSC,

P€0p

 

currently is a locomotive engineer. The attraction to the locomotive, based on
profession, could be considered similar to the groups of mechanical engineers.
Unlike the groups of engineers, however, there was only one expert in each of
these groups. These experts took on a teaching role, explaining details of the
locomotives to the less informed member of their group—their wives in both cases.
I titled the stories “A Docent in the Group” as a result of this dynamic. There were
pilots in the groups visiting the aviation exhibit and painters in the groups visiting
the landscape gallery, but none of them assumed the formal teaching role to extent
that these gentlemen did. I consider this a special group and place the story within
the professional/hobbyist category.

I believe that the dynamics of a group with only one professional, like these
locomotive engineers, differs from a group with multiple experts, like the
mechanical engineers, based on the opportunity for discussion. A single expert has
no choice but to share his or her experience in the “docent” role. Multiple experts
can interact based on common training and language.

The model was quite able to describe the dynamics of these three special
groups of visitors, even though my goal was to develop a model that would
describe the dynamics of a more general family/social group.

The vast majority of the groups (89%) were the kind of groups that most

people and most museum professionals (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994) would consider

158

{Ciel

 

typical of today’s museum visitors—the family/social group. Hood (1991), in her
study of visitors to the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, identifies 58%
of the winter visitors (as in my1998 study) to be family visitors and 21% to be
groups of friends. The Hood report also indicates that 64% of the summer visitors
(as in my 1999 study) to be family groups and 12% to be groups of friends. I do
not have equivalent audience characteristics for the other two institutions”, but I
believe the numbers to be similar. Hence, the family/social group of visitors is the
more typical profile of the visiting groups in this study and, given the audience
characteristics from the Hood study, the kinds of groups that one might expect to

be characteristic of museum visitors.

Conclusions from the Paths

The majority of all 46 groups followed paths through the attention model
that involved the interest factors. Groups expressed either an enduring personal
interest or a situation-specific interest. The relevance factor of personal history
explained the attention of the majority of the groups that paid attention based on
relevance. Thus, both interest and relevance were at work among these forty-six
groups as they were motivated to pay attention to the exhibits.

Hypotheses about the Varied Paths
I posit two major constructs as motivators for attention: interest and

relevance. I have discovered nine paths within the attention model that connect

159

 

ime
are
for

I \V!

€\3

i—y—I-d
u—J—n I
‘ /

 

 

 

 

 

 

interest and relevance to the dynamics of attention. The following 12 hypotheses

are my interpretation of the data from this study in a form that can become the basis

for future research and discussion. See Table 10 for a listing of the 12 hypotheses.

I will describe the paths by providing conclusion, meaning for the museum, an

example, and a suggested research question for each of the 12 hypotheses.

 

Hypothesis
No.

Concept/F actor

Hypothesis

 

1

Interest
(Concept Level)

A visitor’s propensity to pay attention to an
exhibit is influenced by the degree to which the
exhibit appeals to the visitor’s interest in the
kinds of stimuli present. This predisposition is
of three kinds: enduring personal interest,
situation-specific interest, or curiosity.

 

Relevance
(Concept Level)

A visitor’s propensity to pay attention to an
exhibit is influenced by the degree to which the
exhibit is perceived to be relevant to the visitor.
This perceived relevance is of two kinds:
personal history (psychological) or group
influence (social/psychological).

 

Enduring
Personal Interest

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if they
have a previously developed interest in the
subject of the exhibit or one of the exhibit
components. Enduring personal interest is
subordinate to the factor of interest.

 

 

 

Situation-
Specific Interest

 

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if they
find some aspect of the exhibit interesting.
This interest is a function of the perceived
interestingness of the exhibit itself and is a
function of personal traits and social
conditioning. Situation-specific interest is
subordinate to the factor of interest.

 

160

 

 

Curiosity

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if there
is some element of surprise or incongruity
inherent in the exhibit that elicits the visitor’s
natural tendency to be curious. This factor is
subordinate to the factor of interest.

 

Personal History

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if they
can see relationships between the exhibit and
their own personal history. This factor is
subordinate to the factor of relevance.

 

Connections to
Another Group
Member

A particular exhibit may not connect directly to
an individual visitor but may make one of the
connections described in hypotheses #3 through
#6 to another individual in the visitor’s group.
This attending individual may then assist the
non-attending group member to pay attention
by mediating between the exhibit and the non-
attender. This leads to the connections
described by hypotheses #8 through #12.

 

Group Influence
via Enduring
Personal Interest

Visitors within a group may become interested
in an exhibit if someone in their group has an
enduring personal interest in the exhibit or one
of its elements. Such an attending group
member may mediate the attention of non-
attending group mates. This interaction might
lead to an emerging interest that is subordinate
to the category of interest.

 

 

 

 

Group Influence
via Situation-
Specific Interest

 

Visitors within a group may become interested
in an exhibit if someone in their group first
becomes interested due to situation-specific
interest. Such an attending group member may
mediate the attention of non-attending group
mates. This interaction might lead to an
emerging interest that is subordinate to the
category of interest.

 

161

 

 

10 Group Influence Visitors within a group may become curious,
via Curiosity not about the exhibit, but to know why others in
their group find the exhibit interesting. This
may lead to an interaction between the non-
attending group member and his or her group
mates. This interaction might lead to an
emerging interest that is subordinate to the
category of interest.

 

l 1 Group Influence Visitors within a group may become interested
via Personal in an exhibit if someone in their group makes a
History connection to their own personal history. Such

an attending group member may mediate the
attention of non-attending group mates. This
interaction might lead to a connection to
personal history on the part of the non-attender
that is subordinate to relevance.

 

12 Group Influence Visitors within a group may become interested
via Direct in an exhibit if someone in their group makes a
Appeal direct appeal to the non-attended to look at

something specific. This interaction might lead
to a connection that is subordinate to the
category of relevance in that it was mediated
through the group.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10 Listing of Hypotheses

The first two hypotheses are about interest and relevance—the conceptual
level of the model. I will defer to the hypotheses concerning the specific paths for
specific examples and suggestions for research. The following ten hypotheses
concern the actual paths through the model. I use an example from only one of the
four exhibits with each of these hypotheses and consider this representative of the

remaining sites. The reader should refer to Figure 42 where the hypothesis

162

numbers are attached to the relevant connection within the model shown in the

figure.

163

 

 

, ’ 3%. EXHIBIT ENVIRONMENT

 

     
      
   

 

 

   
   

[xi/L” ,’ \\ Characteristicsofthelmmediate
H #1 ’ .— —- —/ ,7/1’? ’ :—,/ ’~ ,‘I‘ \ Envnonment
m I ’ flwt‘é”’ ,/’/ ,’/ %//’
Interest ’ ’ // I,” x/ AS.
Factors / x”.§6 y,” “fix Q
/ ’ ’ z ’ ’ lay/v: ’ I ’ z / /’
A, x / A / >
/ Enduring : lSituation-Specifij Curiosity J
I Personal Interest I Interest
\
Personal Group
\ History Influence

\
Relevance \

 

Factors \ \
Hm #2 ‘ ~ ~ _ __ ...
EXHIBIT VISITOR
Characteristics or Attributes
of the Individual
(Psychological)

 

 

Figure 42 Attention Model for Museum Exhibits with References to Hypotheses

164

 

 

 

It

 

 

Hypothesis #1 - INTEREST {Concept Level - Psychologigal]

A visitor’s propensity to pay attention to an exhibit is influenced by the
degree to which the exhibit appeals to the visitor’s interest in the kinds of stimuli
present. This interest is of three kinds: enduring personal interest, situation-
specific interest, or curiosity.

Conclusion: Visitors who have an enduring personal interest in some aspect
of the exhibit, simply find the exhibit to be interesting through situation-specific
interest, or have their curiosity aroused by the exhibit. They are more likely to pay
attention to the exhibit than those visitors who are unable to make any of these
connections.

Meaning for Museum: Many visitors need assistance in understanding how
their interests may apply to an exhibit. For example, younger visitors may find it
difficult to relate to a technological exhibit such at the #1601 since they were not
part of the railroad era. Museum practitioners should employ techniques appealing
to visitors’ enduring personal interests, developing situation-specific interests, or
creating curiosity.

Example: Specific examples are given below for the factors within this
category (enduring personal interest, situation-specific interest, and curiosity, see
hypotheses #3, #4, & #5).

Research Question: See hypotheses #3, #4, & #5 for the specific questions.

165

Hypothesis #2 - RELEVANCE [Concept Level - Psychological and Group
Mediated]

A visitor’s propensity to pay attention to an exhibit is influenced by the
degree to which the visitor perceives the exhibit to be relevant. This perceived
relevance is of two kinds: personal history (psychological) or group influence
(social/psychological).

Conclusion: Visitors who can make connections between the exhibit and
their personal history or who are assisted in making either interest or relevance
connections by other members of their group are more likely to pay attention than
visitors who do not see any personal or group relevance in the exhibit.

Meaning for Museum: Many visitors need assistance in making
connections based on relevance to an exhibit. For example, a visitor looking at the
Sikorsky helicopter may not think it workable until reminded of having seen the
“Autocopter” in the movie “Annie.” Museum practitioners should employ
techniques appealing to visitors’ sense of their personal history or that make it easy
for groups to engage in conversation over exhibits.

Example: Specific examples are given below for the factors within this
category (personal history and group influence, see hypotheses #6 and #8 though
#12)

Research Question: See hypotheses #6 and #8 through #12 for the specific
questions.

166

Hypothesis #3 - ENDURING PERSONAL INTEREST

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if they have a previously developed
interest in the subject of the exhibit or one of the exhibit components. Enduring
personal interest is subordinate to the category of interest.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits
representing topics in which they have already developed an ongoing or enduring
personal interest.

Meaning for Museum: Even visitors who have enduring personal interests
that are relevant to the exhibit might not be able to recognize how the exhibit
connects to these interests unassisted. For example, a person might not realize how
their interest in the American Civil War might relate to landscape painting. A
painting that does relate may need a label in order to make that connection clear.

Example: The museum should interpret their objects so that as many
connections to visitors’ enduring personal interests as possible can be made
explicit. The DIA did include a label with the Church painting “Cotopaxi” to
explain how the landscape might be a metaphor for events in history. Such
connections should be made clear whenever possible.

Research Question: How do people develop Csikszentmihalyi’s emerging

motivation (leading to EPI) within museum exhibits?

167

Hypothesis #4 - SITUATION-SPECIFIC INTEREST

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if they find some aspect of the
exhibit interesting. This interest is a function of the visitors’ perception of the
interestingness of the exhibit itself and is a function of personal traits and social
conditioning. Situation-specific interest is subordinate to the category of interest.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits that are
generally perceived by most visitors as being interesting.

Meaning for Museum: Museums need to make the best use of their most
interesting exhibits. It is sometimes necessary to highlight the interesting features
of exhibits. For example, a visitor might not find the painting “Ellen’s Isle”
interesting until they know that it was painted from the artist’s imagination, based
on the classic poem “Lady of the Lake.”

Example: The museum should find “interesting” features of their objects or
interesting relationships with other objects and/or historical figures and places.
The DIA did make it know than “Ellen’s Isle” was based on the poem “Lady of the
Lake.”

Research Question: What makes certain objects more inherently interesting

to visitors than others?

168

Hypothesis #5 - CURIOSITY

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if there is some element of surprise
or incongruity inherent in the exhibit that elicits the visitor’s natural tendency to be
curious. This factor is subordinate to the category of interest.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits that
stimulate their need to satiate curiosity.

Meaning for Museum: It is sometimes helpful to arrange exhibits so that
visitors are surprised to find two seemingly dissimilar exhibits next to each other.
For example, placing a Hummingbird next to a dinosaur might strike a visitor as
being incongruous, even silly, until it is made known that some scientists believe
that birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.

Example: The museum should make an effort to provide as much variety as
possible in the design of exhibits and galleries. The MSUM didn’t juxtapose the
Hummingbird and a dinosaur but did mention that relationship in a label.

Research Question: What does it take to elicit individual curiosity in a
museum that is filled with novel and ambiguous objects?

Hypothesis #6 - PERSONAL HISTORY

Visitors may pay attention to the exhibit if they can see relationships

between the exhibit and their own personal history. This factor is subordinate to

the category of relevance.

169

I!"

 

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits
representing topics that have some connection to their own personal history.

Meaning for Museum: Visitors often need assistance in finding the
connections between exhibits and their own personal history. For example, a
visitor to the locomotive might not make the immediate connection between the
locomotive and the coal mine where a grandfather worked.

Example: The museum should make an effort to connect their objects to
historical contexts and the everyday experiences of real people as well as to
geographical and culture. The HF M did mention the #1601's role in the haulage of
coal in West Virginia.

Research Question: How do visitors establish connections between
exhibits and their personal history?

Hypothesis #7 - CONNECTIONS TO ANOTHER GROUP MEMBER

A visitor in a particular exhibit may not choose initially to pay attention. He
or she may, however, subsequently choose to pay attention under the influence of
another member of the group who is paying attention. This leads to the
connections between the visitor and the exhibit described by hypotheses #8
through #12, those where an attending group member assists the non-attender.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits where their

group mates make connections to the exhibit and then assist the non-attending

170

group member to pay attention.

Meaning for Museum: Visitors are well served by exhibits that provoke
conversation. For example, getting visitors to talk about Admiral Byrd’s flight
over the South Pole in the Ford Tri-motor may help individuals within the group to
make a multitude of connections. One group member might realize that a relative
was involved in some way in the series of flights that Byrd took to the South Pole
while another might think about the contribution made by the aircraft to the
development of the modern aircraft in which he or she takes such a strong interest.

Example: The general applications of connections to another group
member are addressed by hypotheses #8 through # 12. In general, however, the
museum should seek to add ways of generating conversation among groups of
visitors. Then, those who have made connections as discussed in hypotheses #3
through #6 have additional opportunity to share with other group members

Research Question: What are the dynamics of group discussions in
museums? (See hypotheses #8 through #12 for additional questions.)

Iivpothesis #8 - Gropplpflpenceyip Enduring Personal Interest

Visitors within a group may become interested in an exhibit if someone in
their group has an enduring personal interest in the exhibit or one of its elements.
Such an attending group member may assist their non-attending group mates to pay

attention. This interaction might lead to an emerging interest that the non-attender

171

was unable to see on his or her own.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits if they are
in a group where other group members have made a connection through enduring
personal interest and then assist non-attending group members to pay attention.

Meaning for Museum: A group member who makes a connection to his or
her own enduring personal interests (see hypothesis #3) is more likely to share
information with other group members. For example, a visitor who collects
paintings that use light expressively is more likely to speak enthusiastically with
other group members when they encounter the paintings in the Luminist gallery.

Example: A scavenger hunt game could be designed to help members of
groups find important and interesting things within an exhibit. It could ask each
person to share with the others what they found that matched their own enduring
personal interest.

Research Question: In what ways do individuals share their personal

interests with others?

Hypothesis #9 - Group Influence vi_a Situation-Specific Interest

 

Visitors within a group may become interested in an exhibit if someone in
their group first becomes interested due to situation-specific interest. Such an
attending group member may assist their non-attending group mates to pay

attention. This interaction might lead to an emerging interest in some aspect of the

172

object on the part of the non-attender.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits if they are
in a group where other group members have made a connection through situation-
specific interest and then assist the non-attending group member to pay attention to
some interesting aspects of the exhibit.

Meaning for Museum: A group member who makes a connection to his or
her own general interests in interesting things (see hypothesis #4) is more likely to
share information with other group members. For example, a visitor who finds that
different ducks have feet with different shape is more likely to share that
information with a group mate.

Example: The scavenger hunt game, introduced in hypothesis #8, could
also be designed to that it asks each person to share with the others what they
found so interesting about the exhibit and why they found it so?

Research Question: How do people share information about things they
find interesting with others? Do they share their own responses or do they share on
the basis of what they think the other person will find interesting?

Hypothesis #10 - (3er Influ_er_lce via Curiosig

Visitors within a group may become curious, not about the exhibit, but to

know why others in their group find the exhibit interesting. This may lead to an

interaction between the non-attending group member and his or her group mates.

173

This interaction might lead to attending behavior due to interest or relevance.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits if they are
in a group where other members have made a connection and the non-attender
seeks to find out why others find the exhibit interesting.

Meaning for Museum: A group member who has not made a connection
may wonder why his group mates have been able to do so. This aroused curiosity
may result in him or her looking at the exhibit to detect clues as to the attention of
others.

Example: No example. There is really no way that museum professionals
can attempt to control this factor. It requires that some of the group members find
reasons to pay attention (see hypotheses #3 through #6). The initiative lies with the
non-attender to discern the reasons for others’ attention and is dependent upon
group dynamics.

Research Question: Why do people not always share their motivation for
engagement with others who are in their group?

Hypothesis #11 - Group Influence Vii! Personal Histog

Visitors within a group may become interested in an exhibit if someone else
in their group makes a connection to personal history. Such an attending group
member may assist the non-attending group member to discover his or her own

connection.

174

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits if they are
in a group where other members have made a connection through personal history
and then mediate between the exhibit and the non-attending group member.

Meaning for Museum: A group member who makes a connection to his or
her own personal history (see hypothesis #6 for that connection) is more likely to
share information with other group members. For example, a visitor who sees a
scene in a painting and realizes that the scene is of a locale that he or she has
visited is likely to share that information with a group mate. This might lead to the
non-attending person making a connection to their own personal history.

Example: The scavenger hunt game could also be designed so that it asks
each person to share with the others what they found that related to their personal
history and why.

Research Question: Under what conditions do people share glimpses of
their own personal history?

Hypothesis #12 — Group Influence via Direct Appeal

Visitors may become interested in an exhibit if someone in their group
makes a direct appeal to the non-attender to look at something specific. This
interaction might lead to a connection on the part of the non-attending person.

Conclusion: Visitors are more likely to pay attention to exhibits if they are

in a group where other group members have made a connection and are asked by

175

the attending group member to look at something specific.

Meaning for Museum: A group member who makes a connection of his or
her own may just point to something and request that a group mate do likewise.
For example, a visitor who has made a connection with the Pitcarin Autogiro may
point to the rotor and say to a group mate, “Look at that!”

Example: No example. The initiative in this case is up to the attending
group member who has made his or her own associations (see hypotheses #3
through #6). The only intervention that museum professionals can initiate is to
foster conversation among the members of groups.

Research Question: Under what conditions are people likely to point out

specifics of a museum to others in their group?

FOUR QUESTIONS
I will now discuss and draw conclusions concerning four questions that I
thought about while analyzing the data collected in the combined 1998 and 1999
studies. These are the questions: 1) Why was there a greater variety of stories in
the 1998 study? 2)Why wasn’t the factor of curiosity well represented in either of
these studies? 3) What role does group influence really play in a museum visit? 4)

How might age affect attention?

176

 

C3

\'1:

l9

SUI

sin

SU

pr

\‘i

 

Ih

 

Why was there a greater variety of stories in the 1998 study?

The 1998 study included a variety of groups that made it possible to
categorize the visits according to four “stories.” These four stories chronicled the
visits of five professional/hobbyist groups and nine family/social group visits. The
1999 study did not chronicle this same variety of visit types. The thirty-two groups
that visited the three exhibits studied adhered to the more typical family/social
group story that the majority of the groups from the 1998 study did. My personal
theory is that visiting season had much to do with this result.

Hood and Associates collected psychographic audience data for the HF M
and Greenfield Village (GV) during the five program seasons (winter, spring,
summer, autumn, and December) for the 1990 year. However, I do not have
similar documents from the Detroit Institute of Arts and Michigan State University
Museum'3 to provide the basis for a comprehensive comparison. Therefore, I will
support my theory based on HFM/GV data.

The 1998 study was conducted at the locomotive exhibit during the winter
program season at the HF M. AcCording to Hood, only twenty-three percent of the
visitors attending during the winter are first time visitors. We may infer, therefore,
that over three-quarters of the visitors are repeat visitors. Also, less than half
(43%) are from outside the Detroit metro area. The visitor profile becomes: Better

than a 50% chance that the visitors are from the Detroit metro area, or, if not, close

177

 

by. a

of {h
Visit
Of-tt‘

'I

prot

\Vm

SL111”

 

gm

rm 3

 

and

”115

 

by, and probably a repeat visitor.

Although I did not collect demographic data from my participants, several
of the visiting groups in the 1998 study revealed that they fit this profile, i.e., repeat
visitors who had seen the locomotive before and local residences entertaining out-
of-town guests. Thus, I conclude that the 1998 visiting groups probably fit the
profile provided by the Hood study for winter visitors.

The 1999 study was conducted using three aircraft from the aviation exhibit,
which was during the summer program season at the HF M. According to Hood
forty-seven percent of the visitors during the summer are first time visitors and
76% of visitors are from outside the Detroit area. A majority of the groups in the
1999 study freely told me that they were from out of town and that they were first
time visitors. I conclude, therefore, that the 1999 visiting groups were probably
also in harmony with the profile provided by the Hood study for summer visitors.

First time visitors from outside the local area where a museum is located
would seem most likely to be family visitors who are attending as part of a family
summer vacation. By extension, they would seem to be less likely to be specialized
groups who have come to the museum as a part of a professional excursion or to
revisit favorite objects. The data would also suggest that the visitors to the DIA
and the MSUM are very similar in this regard. I would conclude, therefore, that

this lack of diversity in the stories characterizing the 1999 study is to be expected,

178

 

it

si

01

u?

bu

the

the

HUI

the

E\

CU‘

 

SM

d}

if we account for visiting season.

Why wasn’t the factor of curiosity well represented in either of these studies?

Very few visitors said or did anything that I classified as curiosity. Perhaps
this is because I took great care in this pair of studies to differentiate between
situation-specific interest and curiosity. I coded as situation-specific interest when
a group was paying attention due to their perception of the inherent interestingness
of the object in the exhibit. This is the kind of interest that people are experiencing
when they report that the exhibit was interesting or even that they were curious,
but really meaning the scientific kind of curiosity.

I took Berlyne’s (1963) more strict interpretation when defining curiosity.
A group needed to respond to objects as novel, incongruous, or unique in order for
their attention to be considered a result of true curiosity. The findings suggest that
the gentleman who found the Allegheny striking in comparison with the
automobiles, the young man who thought that the Autogiro looked “funny,” and
the woman who found it incongruous that the mural at the MSUM Diversity and
Evolution exhibit contained no actual animals seemed to be the only instances of
curiosity from among the forty-six groups and 119 people included in this pair of
studies.

I wonder if curiosity, as strictly defined, is a factor that describes attentional

dynamics in museums? People come to museum to see things they do not see

179

 

 

61

fr

it
Ull

Ull‘

gm
par
dUl

HO)

 

B!

t
R!

 

everyday. They expect exotic and novel objects to be displayed. They would
certainly consider finding a 1949 Ford car in the middle of a display of animals
found on the tundra to be novel, incongruous, unique, even bizarre. But what
purpose would such a juxtaposition of tundra animals and transportation
technology serve? They would not, however, find it novel to see a landscape
painted out of the artist’s fantasy inside a gallery featuring other landscape
paintings, unless it would more appropriately reside with the modern art pieces.
My conclusion, therefore, is that visitors are less likely to be surprised to find
unique objects in the museum since they probably came to see just how novel and

unique the objects are at a specific institution.

What role does group influence really play in a museum visit?

In both of the studies reported here I focused on visitors who came in
groups. It was not my purpose to study group dynamics but, rather, to choose
participants who had the additional relevance component—group influence—at work
during their visit. My personal theory is that the group provides an influence on
non-attenders. Many museum researchers focus on groups of various kinds.
Minda Boum and her colleagues focus on family groups (Bourn, Cleghorn, &
Garfield, 1995; Borun, Chambers, & Cleghorn, 1996; Borun, & Dritsas, 1997;
Borun, Chambers, Dritsas, & Johnson, 1997; Dritsas, Borun, & Johnson, 1998).

Rosenfeld (1980) studies family groups, Draper (1984) looks at social ties, and

180

Silverman (1990) studies adult visitor pairs. There appears to be a growing
conviction that being a member of a group has a strong influence on attention and
learning in museums.

In my two studies I found instances of group influence. Groups conferred
about their itinerary both before and after arriving at the museum. Group members
with strong desires to see particular objects led their groups to the exhibits under
study. People with interest and knowledge assumed the teaching role. But these
studies were not designed to focus on group dynamics. I did not, for example,
make a concerted attempt to find out who was leading the group while at the four
exhibits that I studied or how that leadership changed when a particular group
moved to the next exhibit. I continue to believe, however, that future work will
reveal exciting information about the dynamics of groups with regard to attention

and learning in museums.

How might age affect attention?

There are many ways in which a person’s age might affect his or her
attention. Firstly, a person’s age affects whether he or she will choose to visit a
museum at all. Hooper-Greenhill (1994) has made an exhaustive study of museum
visitors. She cites age as a restrictive factor, “Museum and gallery visiting is less
likely among older people” (p. 63), but she also notes that this phenomenon

doesn’t occur until several years after a person’s retirement. We are also now

181

 

th

th.

Un

 

pr

aI

 

seeing a big resurgence in heritage tourism, with retired people being actively
approached by tour promoters. The bigger question, however, is whether age will
affect the usefulness of the attention model.

The groups included in these studies varied greatly in age from young
children to adults nearing eighty (possibly past eighty, in some cases). It would
seem to me that the older generation is more likely to make connections through
personal history than the younger people who haven’t been around objects like
those in the two HFM exhibits. This age disparity is less likely to be the case in
either the DIA or the MSUM, due to the differences in the objects exhibited.
However, even young children were as interested in the trains and planes at HF M,
as they were in the animals at the MSUM. The only exhibit that didn’t have many
children even coming in the door was the landscape gallery at the DIA; there were
only three children out of the twenty-three people who were a part of this study at
the DIA, about 8%. My conclusion, therefore, is that age plays a very minor role in
the working of the attention model and that the effect of a person’s age can only be

understood by conducting research with this question in mind.

THE DYNAMICS OF ATTENTION IN A MUSEUM SETTING
The attention model appears to be a valuable tool for both research and
practice in informal learning environments. Perhaps the model may eventually be

applied to formal learning settings as well, especially to on-line courses where

182

 

0x3

.\1
6X
ob.
on
”10

fat

3d!

 

11m

 

\‘id

 

learners’ attention must be gained without the aid of a teacher. In this section I will
discuss the uses of the model in museum and offer suggestions for future research
in this area.

Museum exhibit researchers will be likely to make the most use of the
attention model. The model provides a theoretical basis for additional research on
museum attention. I have already posed 10 possible general research questions that
are of interest to museum educators and educational psychologists alike.

Museum practitioners can also benefit from the attention model. The model
provides a firm basis for design of new exhibits that will engage attention.

Museum educators can directly incorporate elements of the model into developing
exhibits to ensure that there is great potential for visitors to pay attention to the
objects in the exhibit. For example, a museum educator could design a new exhibit
on meteorites to draw visitors’ attention to the geographic areas in which particular
meteorites were collected with an intention to make a connection through the
factors of enduring personal interest or personal history.

Museum educators can examine current exhibits in the light of the factors
and sub-factors of the attention model and, perhaps, they can make small
adjustments to enhance the possibility of visitors paying attention where they might
not have done so previously. For example, the Henry Ford Museum installed a

video enhancement to the locomotive exhibit following the 1998 study”. This

183

 

 

da

IO

Ill:

di!

m!

hat

pcz

311'

[hr

611‘

 

ex:

0t

 

video runs on a programmed loop and shows an Allegheny locomotive under
steam, pulling a train, and provides additional information about the locomotive as
well. Visitors do stop to watch the video to see what the locomotive was like in the
days of regular service. The psychological value of this intervention with respect
to attention and subsequent learning should be the focus of a future study. But, in
the meantime, it is reasonable to expect that visitors now view the locomotive
differently than did the visitors that I observed and interviewed in 1997 and
reported in 1998. The practitioners at the Henry Ford Museum used the results of
my study to apply theory (the attention model) to practice and, as a result, they
have increased the situation-specific interest potential of the exhibit by potentially
peaking visitors’ interest in components of the locomotive, such as the side rods

and boiler.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The attention model was purposefully developed as a first step to explain
the dynamics of attention paid by free-choice learners in informal learning
environments. The initial studies reported here show the model to be a plausible
explanation of the dynamics of attention, but more research is needed in this area.
I would like to briefly address four areas where additional research would be
beneficial: The area of group influence; subsequent learning, or learning that

occurs after the museum visit, visitor agendas, and exhibit labels. 1 then add a brief

184

 

at
8!

ex

 

at

 

discussion of the next “big” step—from museum attention to museum learning.

I am eager to learn more about how group influence operates in museums to
focus attention. My view is that attention on the part of museum visitors is both
qualitatively and quantitatively different for the visitor who interacts with a group
than for the solo visitor. I am interested in learning more about the dynamics of
group leadership, how the leader functions within the exhibit, the effect on other
group members, and the effect that the leadership role has on the leader himself or
herself. An initial study that focuses on groups paying attention and groups not
paying attention could answer the question: What effect does group leadership, or
lack of same, have on the attending behaviors of group members?

Another study of group influence could follow a group through several
exhibits. This way, it would be possible to see if there is a shifting of group
leadership based on the nature of the various exhibits. This kind of study could
answer questions such as: Does the group have a single leader throughout a visit to
a museum that has a variety of exhibits that appeal to a variety of interests and
expertise? Do several members of a group share the leadership role? What role(s)
is(are) played by the members who never seem to assume leadership? Which
factors, if any, set museum groups apart from groups that form around other

activities?

185

Another explanatory factor for attention in museum exhibits is the role of
visitors’ agendas. Many visitors come with agendas. These pre-visit plans might
include the desire for self-education and the visitors are using the museum as an
open-entry/open-exit curriculum. Other visitors might be interested in sharing their
pleasure in the objects and artifacts and their knowledge about these items with the
others in their group. Either way, there is an agenda that influences visitors’
attention to the exhibit and a future study could provide much valuable insight into
this aspect of museum attention.

Possibly the most influential factor that can engage visitor attention is the
exhibit label. Labels have become the object of much discussion lately in the
museum community as a communication tool (cf: Serrell, 1996 & Roberts, 1997).
In fact, Roberts (1997) has written an important book on the rise to prominence of
the museum educator and the implications of appealing to visitors’ on a more
personal level. She says, “Visitors’ interest and attention is determined not by an
object’s inherent appeal but its relevance to their own framework of knowledge
and experience [emphasis added]”(p. 69). Museum labels must, she posits, have
visitor-centered content if visitors’ interest and attention is to be gained. Beverly
Serrell is another proponent of making visitor-centered labels the norm within
museums. She says, “There are still lots of ways to improve the museum’s role of

providing interpretation through better labels. We still need to work harder to

186

 

write labels for visitors” (1996, p. xii). The attention model presented in this study
provides the factors that museum professionals might weave into their label text in
order to provide visitors’ with a sense of relevance and make appeal to visitors’
interests. Additional study of the role the attention model could play in the
development of interpretative museum labels would be an important extension of
this present work.

These four areas (group influence, subsequent learning, visitor agendas, and
exhibit labels) are but a few of the many directions that future research can take to
develop the model and use it as a theoretical tool in future studies.

Museum learning is a logical next step after museum attention. Two
researchers, John Falk and Lyn Dierking, submitted a grant proposal to the
National Science Foundation in 1994 seeking funding for a longitudinal study of
learning in museums. Falk and Dierking felt that more learning occurred after
visitors left the museum than occurred while visitors were still at the exhibit or
even within the building. Their proposed study would track visitors for an
extended period of time, fifieen years, to determine what effect the museum visit
played in the kinds of things that people learned on topics related to their visit to a
particular museum exhibit. The fifteen year figure was unfortunate in that the NSF
choose not to fund such an ambitious study. Instead, a planning grant was

provided which resulted in Mike Csikszentmihalyi coming to Anapolis, Maryland

187

to participate in the sessions and, ultimately, to write a chapter with Kim
Hermanson (1995) that became the impetus for the pair of studies that I conducted.
Nevertheless, I also hold the view that much is learned subsequent to visiting
museums and it is the attention paid and some degree of affective learning in the
museum that results in greater cognitive, affective, and, in some cases,
psychomotor learning at a later time. I am anxious to learn what researchers like
Falk and Dierking find about learning after the visit and how the visit was the
catalyst for that learning. It is even conceivable that the attention model will play
some role in such research.

The reader is also advised to look at the various hypotheses enumerated
earlier in this chapter in my section on conclusions where there are numerous
specific suggestions for research. In addition, each of the hypotheses themselves
could easily become topics for future research. I cannot stress strongly enough that
although this study was extremely rewarding, it represents but a small step in a
direction for educational research that will ultimately require the efforts of
numerous researchers to fully study: the possibilities for additional research

abound.

188

 

SUMMARY

These studies have provided a model that can become the basis to advance
our knowledge of museum learning. The purpose of this study was to identify
those factors that motivate free-choice learners acting in an informal learning
environment to pay attention. These factors comprise an Attention Model for
Museum Exhibits. A further purpose was to substantiate that the attention model
was applicable to visitors across multiple exhibits. Attention is a prerequisite for
learning, and learning is a common goal for museum exhibits.

This research was born out of a desire to add detail to Csikszentmihalyi and
Hermanson’s (1995) “hook.” Their hook was limited in its ability to describe the
complex dynamics of human attention as found in the kinds of informal learning
environments exemplified by museums. The attention model was developed out of
the desire to provide a systematic investigation into the dynamics of attention on
the part of museum visitors. In the final analysis the model does appear to be a
plausible representation of the phenomenon under study—the dynamics of
motivation to attend.

There are a multitude of ways that will persuade a person to pay attention.
All of them come at a cost of scarce attentional resources on the part of visitors.
We, as educational professionals, both in museums and in the research community,

must be thoughtful about asking visitors to expend their scarce psychic resources.

189

We must set clear goals for exhibit interpretation and be willing to assist our
visitors in making meaningful connections to the objects that we display and
interpret. The results of these efforts can be precious—human learning.

The attention model for museum exhibits appears to be a good tool for use
in future museum studies on learning in exhibits. Future research, as suggested
above, will result in assuring the model’s role in theory building as well as in the

practice of exhibit design. We will better understand how attention is gained as we

 

advance our research agenda based on the attention model. We may then move

forward with research on learning in museums.

190

10.

11.

NOTES

QSR is Qualitative Solutions and Research of Victoria, Australia. NUD*IST®
stands for N on-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing.

I will be very strict in my adherence to this definition throughout the study. For
example, when coding visitors’ statements I will not code as “curiosity” just
because they use that word. If their behaviors and subsequent conversation lead me
to believe that they experienced more of a “scientific curiosity,” I will code their
path as Situation-Specific Interest. If, on the other hand, their behaviors and
subsequent conversation lead me to believe that they experienced true surprise,
uncertainty, or any of the other collative variables, I will code as Curiosity.

See also Root (1970) for a more current interpretation of Maslow (1954).

Within the visitor relevance is Personal History. From the environment, relevance
is a function of the Group. As discussed on p. 39, the individuals in the group act
like components of a single visitor, thus making this connection a strong one.

This is represented by the work of Suzanne Hidi and her colleagues. Hidi’s work is
also used extensively in the field of Artificial Intelligence.

Named for the Allegheny Subdivision of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad.

This is the Whyte system of locomotive classification. In 2-6-6-6, the first number
indicates the number of wheels on the pilot truck that guide the locomotive around
curves; the middle numbers refer to the number of powered wheels (the Allegheny
was a ‘simple articulated’ in that it had two sets of engines under the one boiler,
thus it had two groups of six driving wheels); the last number indicates the number
of wheels in the trailing truck; the Allegheny required so many because of the large
grate area (135.2 square feet).

The Alleghenies also saw regular service in moving heavy coal trains and, later,
heavy passenger trains over the mountain routes.

Attending behaviors included looking at the locomotive, pointing at the locomotive,
groups stopping to talk amongst themselves, looking at the label, looking at the
picture of the cab interior, and similar behaviors that had the potential to indicate a
focusing of psychic energies (attention) on the artifact.

The Universal Resource Locator (URL) for the QSR web page is:
http://www.qsr.com.au/

Here, I strictly coded visitor self-reports based on the theoretical model and if a
visitor indicated that he/ she found something “curious,” I coded it as Curiosity only

191

12.

13.

14.

if it met Berlyne’s strict definition of being novel, surprising, or incongruous. If
not, I coded it as Situation-Specific Interest, as if the visitor had said that he/she
found it “interesting.”

The MSUM does have some basic information, indicating that 90% of their visitors
visit as part of a group and 60-70% of the groups include children. They do not,
however, break down their statistics by season nor differentiate between family
groups and social groups.

I did receive some basic statistics from the Michigan State University Museum, but
their data was not as exhaustive as the comprehensive Hood study for the Henry
Ford Museum/Greenfield Village. Two items are of note, however. Ninety percent
of visitors to the MSUM are with others (in groups) and 50-70% of the visiting
groups include children.

See Appendix G, Photo 2, for a view of visitors engaged with the video label added
after the conclusion of my 1998 study.

192

 

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Original Interview Questions

uestions

1. Why did you choose to stop and look at this locomotive?
FUl. Why did what you saw/heard draw you here?

FU2a. What is it about locomotives (or trains or railroads) that has always
interested you?

F U2b. Could you describe those memories?
FU2c. In what way was your curiosity piqued?
2. Tell me what you looked at?
FUl. Why did you look at those things?

FU2a. Does that relate in any way to your longstanding interest in
locomotives?

F U2b. Does that relate in any way to the memories that you mentioned?
FU2c. How did that arouse your curiosity?
3. I noticed that you stopped near the [name spot]. Why did you stop there?
F U1 . What were you thinking (or talking) about?

4. What emotions did you experience when you looked at this locomotive? That is,
how did it make you feel?

For groups, also ask:

5. Would any of you have stopped at this exhibit if you weren’t in this group? Why
(not)?

195

 

6. Who directed the group over to this exhibit? Why did you direct them here? Why
did everyone come?

7. For those who wouldn’t have normally stopped, why would you have gone to
another exhibit? Did this exhibit prove satisfying after you got here?

General/Miscellaneous:
8. If you had to describe this locomotive to a friend, what would you tell them?
9. If there was an expert present here today, what would you want to ask about this
locomotive?

10. What do you feel the museum could do to help people better understand this
exhibit?

Note: All questions will be followed-up with an eye for the major constructs driving this
research. The plan is to go from the general to the specific without giving the
visitor any tips on how I might want particular questions answered. Much of the
questioning will be spontaneous, based on the responses from visitors.

196

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Revised Interview Guide

Why did you choose to stop at this exhibit today?
Did you see, smell, or hear anything that attracted you?
Did any one individual in the group steer the group over here?

What were you thinking about as you looked at the locomotive?
Did any particular memories occur to you?
How did you feel as you looked? Did looking at the locomotive evoke any emotions?

Please tell me what you looked at?
Why did you look at those things?
Were those thing meaningful in any way (evoke memories, associations, etc.)?

I noticed that you stopped [named a few places where I saw them stop]. What were
you thinking/talking about?

Do you have any railroad memories from friends, relatives, or personal experience?
Do you consider yourself to have any longstanding interest in locomotives?

How did that come about?

What is something else that you’re very interested in?

How did that interest come about?

Do you have a friend or acquaintance who would be interested in this locomotive?
Why do you think they would be interested?

If you were to tell a friend about your visit to this locomotive, what would you tell
them?

If there were an expert present here today, what would you like to ask about this
locomotive?

What do you feel the museum could do to help people better understand this
exhibit?

198

NOTE: On March 1, visitors were also asked if they were in town for the railroad
memorabilia sale at St. Martha’s that would be taking place the following day.
If so, this would predispose them to be interested in locomotives, biasing the
results.

Also on March 1, visitors were asked if they were in town for the SAE
Convention, just concluding. Two groups were found to be in this category. It
was assumed, however, that this would not bias the results since they were not
particularly interested in locomotives in a direct way.

This guide was also modified for use in the various exhibits by substituting

exhibit-specific terms for references to “locomotive,” e.g., “gallery,” “wildlife,”
“aircraft,” etc.

199

..., u .
.‘.- .liilflllfllh
H.

 

 

APPENDIX C

 

APPENDIX C

Informed Consent Information

Introduction

Hello, I noticed that you spent some time looking at this locomotive. My name is
John Lightner and I’m a graduate student at Michigan State University and I’m talking
with visitors today in order to gather data for a study on learning in museums.

I will try to take no more of your time than necessary. The information that you
share with me will be of assistance to both my own work and to the museum.

My study is concerned with what attracts visitors to a particular exhibit and what
the dynamics of that motivation are. Your information about your encounter with the
locomotive will help me develop an attention model for museum exhibits. This work will
be written up in partial fulfillment of my program requirements at the university. In
addition, I will be submitting articles to one or two journals that print articles on this
subject. I am also planning to make a presentation at the Visitor Studies Conference in
Atlanta later this year.

The museum staff will also receive a report that will help them as they plan for the
improvement of their exhibit.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PURPOSE FOR THE
INTERVIEW?

You need not answer any question that you choose not to and you may terminate
the interview at any time you choose.

I would ask your permission to audio tape our conversation for note taking
purposes and to save some time. Would that be acceptable?

The recordings will be transcribed and I may use a direct quote when writing the
results of this study. I will not have any way of identifying you by name since I have not
asked your name. Such quotes will be attributed to an exhibit visitor and possibly given a
pseudonym, a made-up name.

201

 

 

 

You are indicating your voluntary agreement to participate by continuing with
the interview.

[If a group has no minor children present]

Any individual may answer any specific question or several of you may choose to
respond. I am seeking the best group consensus we can get in the time we have, so please
add anything you feel should be said.

Do you have any questions before we start? Let’s begin.

[If there is a question of whether any members are minors]

Is anyone in the group under 18-years of age?

[If a group clearly has minors present]

Who is the parent or guardian of the children in the group? Do you give your
voluntary consent for the children to participate in the interview? [Directed to the
children] Are you willing to participate?

As I ask questions I will ask the younger members of the group to respond first,
others may answer next. Any individual may answer any specific question or several of
you may choose to respond. I am seeking the best consensus we can get in the time we

have, so please add anything you feel should be said.

Do you have any questions before we start? Let’s begin.

202

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Informed Consent Letter

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Education 0 Department of Counseling, East Lansing - Michigan -
48824-1034
Educational Psychology and Special Education

1 October 1996

Dear Museum Visitor:

This study is concerned with what attracts visitors to a particular exhibit and what
the dynamics of that motivation are. My work is concerned with the development of an
attention model for museum exhibits. This work will be written up in partial fulfillment
of my program requirements at the university. In addition, I will be submitting articles to
one or two journals that print articles on this subject as well as making a presentation at
the Visitor Studies Conference in Atlanta, next year. The museum staff will also receive
a report that will help them as they plan for the improvement of their exhibit.

Our conversation was audio taped for note taking purposes, per your consent. The
recordings will be transcribed and I reserve the right to use a direct quote when writing
the results of this study; quotes will be attributed generically to an “exhibit visitor.”
These tapes will be kept in a locked file cabinet in my office.

Your anonymity is guaranteed in that I have not asked you to reveal your name.
Likewise the information you shared will be kept in confidence and only shared in the
ways I have described in the previous paragraphs, attributing the statements used to an
exhibit visitor.

As we agreed at the beginning of the interview, your willingness to continue
constitutes your informed consent, that is, that you are willing to continue in light of your
understanding of the use to which the information would be put.

Should you wish to contact me, you may do so at Michigan State University. A
phone number in the Educational Psychology Department is: 517/355-6684.

Thank you for your assistance in this project.

Very truly yours,

John W. Lightner

MS U is an Affirmative Acriow’Equal Opportunity Institution

204

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

Complementary Bookmark

 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO

locomotive #1601

Type: H-8 (Allegheny), Built: December, 1941
Builder: Lima Locomotive Works, Lima, Ohio

Located At: Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, MI

 

 

 

Front side of complementary bookmark.

 

Boiler Pressure: 260 psi Wheel Arrangement: 2-6-6-6
Cylinders (dia. x stroke): (4) 22 1/2" x 33" Tender: 25 tons, coal
Piston Valve (max. travel x dia.): 8" x 12" 25,000 gal., water
Driver Diameter: 67" 426,100#
Weight (loco. + tender): l,215,600# Cost: $230,663 (in 1941)
Length: 125' 8" Tractive Force: 110,200#
Width: 11'1" Tubes (# & dia.): 48 - 2 1/4"
Height (top of stack): 16' 5 1/2" Flues (# & dia.): 278 - 3 V2"

 

 

 

Back side of complementary bookmark.

Note: The bookmark is shown actual size. It was printed on a medium blue card stock.
The information is from Huddleston & Dixon, Jr. (1996).

206

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Node Names

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NODE NODE NAME VISITOR EXAMPLE
IDENTIFIER
F1 Enduring “He likes watching birds. He’s got a book
Personal and binoculars. So, it was his
Interest idea.”—Visitor to the MSUM
F2 Curiosity “Yeah, I liked the texture on the plane.
That’s what I was looking at. Why would
you do like a corrugated texture instead of a
smooth texture?”—Visitor to the Aviation
Exhibit at the HFM
F3 Personal History “I went to college at Wayne State and so in
between breaks, sometimes, I would buzz
over.”—Visitor to the DIA
F5 Group Influence “We decided to start on the end. Looked at
the brochure and thought we’d take a look
at trains.”—Visitor to the Locomotive
Exhibit at the HFM
F14 Imaginings “We just talked about how they were kind
of peaceful and how it would feel to go
there.”—Visitor to the DIA
F16 Socialize “I wanted to make sure she [her daughter]
saw the Rivera Room and, then, we started
with the American section.”—Visitor to the
DIA
F17 Idealized “Times were better. Skies were cleaner.
(romanticized) Grass was greener.”—Visitor to the DIA
Past

 

 

 

208

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F18 Pre-exhibit “He’s from out of town. I knew this was
Influence here and I wanted to see it again.”—Visitor
to the Locomotive Exhibit at the HF M
F21 Technological “Yeah, there’s an emotional thing, it’s their
Sublime size. That’s an awful lot of
power.”—Visitor to the Locomotive Exhibit
at the HF M
F22 Natural Sublime “It has that timeless quality to it, almost the
timeless quality of the sun and the
light.”—Visitor to the DIA
F25 General “I can see some emotions in the one the
Emotions volcano and the one with the
big waves here, but basically, just
uncertainty. An emotion like that or
things that are unpredictable waiting for
change. I think that, that
setting means that there's a change coming,
or there's change happening,
or just happened, or something like
that.”—Visitor to the DIA
F26 Educate “Tried to enlighten her [his wife] on a few
things, mechanically.”—Visitor to the
Aviation Exhibit at the HFM
F28 Personally “I was thinking about my own yard
Experienced whenever I was thinking about
Past that.”——Visitor to the MSUM
F29 Vicariously “My grandfather worked for the Grand
Experienced Trunk, he was a fireman. It does bring back
Past some memories of what he used to
do.”—Visitor to the Locomotive Exhibit at
the HFM
F30 Situation- “1 would think anybody would be interested

 

Specific Interest

 

in this. I have a little girl who is interested
in it.”—-Visitor to the Aviation Exhibit at the
HFM

 

209

 

 

F31

Transitioning

“(H) [His interest started] last year when I
took the first plane ride. It's been building
and building.”—Visitor to the Aviation
Exhibit at the HF M

 

F32

Discussion

“When we were looking at the snakes we
were talking about different animals. We
were both in Adack, Alaska, and that's just
a small island and most of the animals that
were there were brought by the
Navy.”—Visitor to the MSUM

 

F33

 

 

Lead-Follow

 

“The grandson brought us over
here.”—Visitor to the Locomotive Exhibit at
the HF M

 

Note: Node numbers are not sequential in that preliminary nodes were deleted as
the factors and sub-factors developed through the data analysis.

210

 

APPENDIX C

 

APPENDIX C

C&O #1601 Images

7».

3
Hanan: r51»

 

Photo .1 Visitors; With C &O #1601 (From: Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield
Village: A Pictorial Souvenir, 1993).

212

     

.-7 as. . ‘W’Wfita

Photo 2 Visitors Viewing the New Video Label at the C & O #1601 (From: http://www.
hfmgv.org/museum/allegh.html, 3/27/00)

2" ‘ '

 

213

 

Drawing 1 Profile of C & O #1601
(Bill Berkompass, artist. Used with
permission of Technical Press, Ltd.)

 

The 2-6-6-6 Allegheny - A Piece of History
Orders Yours Today... In Limited Edition
Authentically Modeled in 3/16ths Scale Brass

 

 

 

Photo 2 Brass Model of C & O #1601

215

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Berlyne, DE. (1963). Motivational problems raised by exploratory and epistemic
behavior. In Kock, S (Ed.) Psychology: A study of a science, Volume 5.
New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 284-364.

Borun, M., Chambers, M., & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in
science museums. Curator, (39), 2, 123-138.

Borun, M., Chambers, M., Dritsas, J ., & Johnson, J. (1997). Enhancing family
learning through exhibits. Curator, (40), 4, 279-295.

Borun, M., Cleghorn, A., & Garfield, C. (1995). Family learning in museums: A
bibliographic review. Curator, (38), 4, 262-270.

Borun, M. & Dritsas, J. (1997). Developing family-friendly exhibits. Curator,
(40), 3, 178-196.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). F low: The psychology of optimal experience. New
York: HarperCollins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in
museums: Why does one want to learn? In, Flak, J .H. & Dierking, L.
(Eds), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research
agenda. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. pp. 67-77.

Diamond, J. (1986). The behavior of family groups in science museums.
Curator, 29(2), 139-235.

Dierking, L. & Falk, J. (1994). Family behavior and learning in informal science
settings: A review of the research. Science Education, 78(2), 57-72.

Diers, D. (1979). Research in nursing practice. Philadelphia: J .B. Lippincott
Co.

217

 

Draper, L. (1984). Friendship and the museum experience: The interrelationship
of social ties and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley.

Dritsas, J ., Borun, M., & Johnson, J. (1998). Family learning in museums: The
PISEC perspective. Philadelphia: PISEC.

Falk, J. H. (1983). Time and behavior as predictors of learning. Science
Education, 67(2), 267-276.

Falk, J .H. & Dierking, L.D. (1995). Public institutions for personal learning:
Establishing a research agenda. Washington, DC: American Association
of Museums.

Gagné, RM. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th
Ed.). Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.
Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 26-34.

Hood, MD. (1991). Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village Audience
Assessment. Columbus, OH: Hood Associates.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museums and their visitors. London: Routledge.

Huddleston, E.L. & Dixon, Jr., T.W. (1996). The Allegheny: Lima ’sfinest on the
Chesapeake & Ohio and the Virginian. Mukilteo, WA: Hundman
Publishing.

James, W. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology, Volume I. New York:
Dover Publications, Inc.

Keele, S. (1973). Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades:
Goodyear Publishing Company.

Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical
perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34.

218

Keller, J .M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In Reigeluth, C. (Ed.),
Instructional theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp.
386-434.

Keller, J .M. (October, 1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn.
Performance & Instruction, 1-7.

Keller, John M. (November/December, 1987b). The systematic process of
motivational design. Performance & Instruction, 1-8.

Koran, Jr., J.J. & Koran, ML. (1983). The roles of attention and curiosity in
museum learning. In, Nichols, S.K., Alexander, M., & Yellis, K. (Eds.),
Museum education anthology: 1973-1983. Washington, DC: Museum
Education Roundtable, pp. 205-213.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning, and
development. In Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (Eds), The role
of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 3-25.

Laetsch, W.M., et al (1980). Children and family groups in science centers.
Science Child, 71(6), 14-17.

Lightner, J.W. (1998). An attention model for museum exhibits. A Practicum
Report, Michigan State University, East Lansing. [ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 415 362).

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1984). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Marx, L. (1964). The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal
in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Maslow, AH. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Maw, W.H. & Maw, E.W. (1968). Self-appraisal of curiosity. The Journal of
Educational Research 61(3), 462-465.

219

 

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morse, J .M.. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative research: Issues in sampling.
In Peggy L. Chinn (Ed.), Nursing research methodology: Issues and
implementation. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Morse, J .M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. pp. 230-235.

Nye, DE. (1990). Electrt'jying America: Social meanings of a new technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nye, DE. (1994). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Raphling, B. & Serrell, B. (1993). Capturing affective learning. Current trends
in audience research and evaluation. Washington DC: American
Association of Museums: Committee on audience research and evaluation.
pp. 57-62.

Roberts, LC. (1997). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the
changing museum. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Robinson, E. S. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor (AAM New Series,
No. 5). Washington DC: The American Association of Museums.

Root, AA. (1970). What instructors say to the students makes a difference.
Engineering Education, 61, 722-725.

Rosenfeld, SB. (1980). Informal learning in zoos: Naturalistic studies of family
groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.

Schunk, DH. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd Ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.

220

Serrell, B. (1997). Paying attention: The duration and allocation of visitors’ time
in museum exhibitions. Curator, 40(2), 108-113, 116-125.

Silverman, L.H. (1990). Of us and other “things The content and functions of
talk by adult visitor pairs in an art and a natural history museum.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.

Sterry, P. (1994). Social interaction of family visitors at heritage tourism sites:
Establishing a research program. In, Wells, M. & Loomis, R. (Eds),
Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 9 (pp. 127-133).
Jacksonville, AL: Visitor Studies Association.

Sweeney, J .G. (1991). Masterpieces of Western American Art. New York:
Crescent Books.

Yin, R.K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

221

"lllllllllllll'