Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 376397, 1996

Pergamon CopyrIght 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britam. All rights reserved 0160-7383/96 $15.00+0.00

0160-7383(95)00068-2

MINDFUL VISITORS Heritage and Tourism

Gianna Moscardo James Cook University, Australia

Abstract: This paper begins with the premise that interpretation is the key to ensuring the quality of the tourism experience and argues that successful interpretation is critical both for the effective management and conservation of built heritage sites and for sustainable tourism. The paper introduces the concept of mindfulness and outlines its use in developing a model for designing effective interpretation at built heritage sites. A supporting set of principles for this design is provided. It is argued that mindfulness is an integrating concept that can be used to enhance the quality of visitor experiences and create a sustainable link between tourism and built heritage. Keywords: interpretation, heritage management, mindfulness, sustainable tourism.

R&umC: Visiteurs attentifs: patrimoine et tourisme. Larticle commence en partant du principe que Iinterprttation est la cl6 pour assurer la qualit de IexpCrience touristique. Larticle soutient quune interprCtation rCussie est ntcessaire pour la gestion efficace, la conservation du patrimoine construite et le tourisme soutenable en gtnCra1. On prtsente le concept de Iesprit attention& et propose one faGon dappliquer ce concept pour ilaborer one interprCtation e&ace aux sites patrimoniaux construits. Larticle prCsente on ensemble de principes pour IClaboration de ce genre dinterprttation. On soutient que Iesprit intentionm? reprtsente un concept unifiant quon peut utiliser pur rehausser la qualit de IexpCrience touristique et c&r on lien sootenable entre le tourisme et le patrimoine construit. Mots- cl&: interprCtation, gestion du patrimoine, esprit attention& tourisme sootenable.

INTRODUCTION

How can we get from extensive to intensive travel, From devouring miles to lingering, From ticking off items in the travel guide to stopping and thinking, From rush to leisure, From aggressive and destructive to creative communication, From camera-wearing idiots to people with the third eye? I believe these are the important and burning issues. For we are all looking for meaning and humanity (Krippendorf 1987:141).

With this poem Krippendorf begins the final section of his 1987 book, The Holidaymakers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. In this section he expands upon a new approach to tourism, variously referred to as healthy travel or human tourism. In his discussion of this human tourism, Krippendorf touches upon many of the principles

Gianna Moscardo is a Senior Research Officer with the Department of Tourism at James Cook University (Townsville QLD 4811, Australia. email gianna.moscardo@jcu.edu.au), working in the Rainforest and Reef Tourism Programs as part of the Cooperative Research Centers for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management and for the Ecologically Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef.

376

reviewerHighlight

reviewerHighlight

GIANNA MOSCARDO 377

that are recognized as underlying sustainable tourism. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of learning, self-discovery and explo- ration as motives for, and activities in, tourism, and he argues strongly that animation should have a central role in tourism. He defines animation as:

. ..giving a person the courage to come out of his shell; laying free what is buried; providing information, ideas and stimuli; creating favurable preconditions and setting an example; liberate freedom in people, namely the freedom to become active oneself. Animation should help remove barriers, it should encourage the exploratory spirit and openness for new contacts, thus making it possible to escape from isolation. Animation is help towards self-help, stimu- lation of self-creativity and self-participation (Krippendorf 1987:142).

In a similar spirit and words Tilden (1977) described and outlined the core elements of interpretation. Tilden describes interpretation as an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships, as an art, and as revelation based upon informa- tion, and suggests that its aim is not instruction but provocation (19773-9). Tld 1 en also asserts that interpretation must connect its topic or place to something within the personality or experience of the visitors (1977:9). It is easy to see that Tilden and Krippendorf are describing the same activity, and that both believe this to be an important one for the quality of heritage conservation.

It is the core argument of this paper that effective interpretation can play a central and critical role in sustainable tourism in general and more specifically in the effective management of visitors to built heritage sites. The paper proposes an integrating framework for ensuring the development of successful interpretation at sites such as museums, art galleries, historic buildings and precincts.

Interpretation and Ecologically Sustainable Tourism

Lane (1991) defined ecologically sustainable tourism (EST) as tourism that provides:

. ..satisfying jobs without dominating the local economy. It must not abuse the natural environment, and should be architecturally respectable. . . . The benefits of tourism should be diffused through many communities, not concentrated on a narrow coastal strip or scenic valley (1991:2).

He also suggests that the quality of the experience for the tourist is critical. Specifically, he states that:

the visitor will gain an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the area, its landscapes and peoples. The tourist will become concerned and, therefore, protective of the host area (1991:2).

This theme of the quality of tourism experiences and the need for effective interpretation of the host regions environment and culture

378 MINDFUL VISITORS

to visitors can be found in many descriptions of ecologically sustain- able tourism. The Australian Governments Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group Report for Tourism (1991) sets out eight key characteristics of EST. The first of these is that EST is tourism that is concerned with the quality of experience, and the set also includes the idea that EST is tourism that allows the guest to gain an understanding of the region visited and which encourages guests to be concerned about and protective of the host community and environment. Interpretation is also included in descriptions and discussions of EST to be found in Gunn (1994), Visser and Njugana (1992) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1992) and is included as a requirement in many tourism industry codes of practice. Examples of such codes for New Zealand and Britain are given by Green (1992) and UNEP (1992).

It could be argued, however, that such inclusions are superficial, and most authors pay only lip service to the ideas of educating and enhancing tourism experiences. This reflects a more general tendency in discussions of EST to focus on biological and biophysi- cal rather than social and cultural aspects of tourism and its impacts (Pearce 1993; Pigram 1990). Additionally, while the tourist is often cited as the cause of many negative impacts, discussions of improv- ing the nature of tourism rarely include any detailed consideration of improving the nature and behavior of tourists. Krippendorf recog- nizes this when he states that:

The damage tourism causes to the people, economy and environ- ment of the host area, especially in the long-term, remains hidden from the tourist. He has been left out of all discussion on the subject, even though he is one of the main protagonists. . . . They are therefore carefree and ignorant rather than devious. To lay all blame at their door would be as wrong as denying their responsi- bility. But they should certainly be made aware of the situation! (1987:43).

This paper demonstrates that interpretation can play a critical role in sustainable tourism by educating tourists about the nature of the host region and culture, informing them of the consequences of their actions, enhancing their experience and encouraging them to engage in sustainable behaviors.

Interpretation and Built Heritage Management

In the area of heritage management, it has been proposed that the visitor experience should be placed at the center of any heritage management process and that traditional management that has focused on the heritage resource is deficient because it generally takes inadequate account of the human element in heritage manage- ment and especially the significance of visitors (Hall and McArthur 1993: 13). In support of this argument, Hall and McArthur offer two core goals of interpretation: to enhance the visitor experience and consequently ensure public support for heritage conservation, and through education to encourage visitors to behave in appropriate

GIANNA MOSCARDO 379

ways. Interpretation can also relieve pressure on heritage sites through the distribution of visitors at a site (for example, through the development of self-guiding walks at an historic site) or through controlling access to a site (for example, by allowing access to an historic house only with a guided tour) (McArthur and Hall 1993; Uzzell 1989). Additionally, pressure on heritage sites can be relieved by informing visitors of lesser-known sites or areas. An example of this function of interpretation could be the direction of visitors at Stonehenge to other archeological sites in the vicinity of the famous stone circle (Pearce 1991). More controversially, it has been suggested that interpretation could act to preserve especially fragile sites through substitution. In this case, interpretation could provide alternative experiences and activities for visitors, allowing them some understanding of a built heritage site without them having to actually be at the site (von Droste, Silk and Rossler 1992).

Much of the danger to built heritage sites arguably results from destruction for tourism development, crowding and congestion, or from the inappropriate behavior of visitors, such as touching delicate surfaces, littering and vandalism. Effective interpretation can relieve crowding and congestion, alter behavior, either directly through infor- mation or indirectly through fostering visitor appreciation of a site, and can create public support for conservation of built heritage sites through positive visitor experiences. The key to achieving such goals is to ensure that interpretation is effective.

Ensuring Effective Interpretation

There is a substantial and growing body of research and literature concerned with understanding what makes effective interpretation in various heritage settings. This work is usually referred to as visitor studies. Bitgood (1988a) has conducted a quantitative history of visitor studies based on a comprehensive bibliography of visitor studies published by the International Laboratory for Visitor Studies (ILVS) (1988), which indicated both a steady increase in the publi- cation of visitor studies and that there existed a substantial body of data on visitors that can be examined. Even a cursory examination of journals in the fields of museum management, visitor studies and environmental education provides evidence of the increasing body of literature on this topic. Despite this, there have been few attempts to integrate the results into any coherent framework or to apply theory to understand or explain the results. Several authors have noted the lack of theory in museum visitor research, with many suggesting that the atheoretical nature of the research has resulted in poor methodology and limited impact on exhibit design (Martin and OReilly 1988, 1989; McNamara 1990; Shettel 1989).

The work of Bitgood and his associates represents the most exten- sive and systematic attempt to review research in the area of visitor behavior and cognition. This group have attempted to draw together the broader range of research results into what they refer to as principles of visitor behavior (Bitgood and Patterson 1987a; Bitgood, Patterson, Benefield and Landers 1986; Patterson and

380 MINDFUL VISITORS

Table 1. Summary of Principles of Visitor Behavior

Size: Larger size results in longer viewing times and better recall. Motion: Moving elements in an exhibit result in greater attention from visitors. Aesthetic Factors: Shapes, colors and patterns of exhibit objects are related to

visitor attention. Novelty/Rarity: There is an inherent attraction in novel/rare objects. Sensory Factors: Multisensory exhibits produce longer viewing times. Interactive Factors: Interactive exhibits, which give visitors some control over

their experiences, result in higher levels of visitor attention. Visitor Participation: Visitor participation is associated with greater attention

and better recall. Object Satiation and Fatigue: Repetition of content or exhibit style is related

to decreased attention. Special Interests: Visitors are more likely to select exhibits related to their

interests. Demographic Factors: Factors such as age, educational level and group

composition are related to visitor behavior, although no consistent patterns can be discerned.

Visibility of Exhibit: Barriers to visibility reduce viewing times. Proximity of Exhibit: The closer visitors can get to exhibits, the longer they

stay. Realism: Naturalistic exhibits provide more memorable experiences. Sensory Competition: Exhibit stimuli compete for visitor attention.

Source: Patterson and Bitgood (1988).

Bitgood 1988). These principles (Table 1) can be best seen as variables that have been found to be significantly related to visitor attention and learning and, as noted by the authors, are more empirical than theoretical (Patterson and Bitgood 1988:40).

While such research reviews are valuable, what is clearly neces- sary is some integrative theoretical framework to guide both future visitor studies and the design of interpretation. One place to seek such a framework is in the field of social cognition, which is a subdis- cipline of psychology concerned with understanding the way in which people think and learn in everyday settings as opposed to laboratory settings (Forgas 1981). One major theoretical approach to such social cognition can be found in the work of Langer and her associ- ates (Langer 1989a,b). Langers basic argument is that in any given situation people can be either mindful or mindless, and often they are mindless.

Mindless behavior is behavior that is overdetermined by the past. . . . when mindless, one relies on categories and distinctions derived in the past. Mindlessness is single-minded reliance on information without an active awareness of alternative perspectives or alterna- tive uses to which the information could be put. When mindless, the individual relies on structures that have been appropriated from another source (Langer, Hatem, Joss and Howell 1989:140).

There are two basic paths to, or types of, mindlessness. The first occurs in familiar and/or repetitive situations. In such situations the

reviewerHighlight

GIANNA MOSCARDO 381

individual either knows the routine because it is familiar (such as driving to work on the same route everyday) or because the situa- tion offers a simple repetitive formula where it is easy to learn a routine quickly (such as in a traditional museum with room after room of static glass cabinet displays). A classic example of mindless behavior in routine or repetitive situations is that of a colleague who taught a class in introductory anthropology for an entire academic year. The lectures for this class were held at the same times in both semesters, but in the second semester the venue changed. At the scheduled time for the first lecture in the second semester, the lecturer gathered her notes, rushed to the hall that had housed the lectures in the first semester, walked to the front of the class and began to lecturethe class on various aspects of kinship systems. Approximately 20 minutes into this lecture, a student in the front row nervously asked the relevance of this material to geology. The lecturer had mindlessly enacted the routine of the previous semester and failed to process the available information that this was not her class. What is most compelling about this example is that many of the geology students happily took substantial notes on anthropology, and few appeared to realize that anything was amiss. Not only was the teacher mindless, but it appears that many of the students were also able to enact the seemingly thoughtful behavior of taking notes in a mindless fashion. But this should not be surprising if one considers that attending lectures and taking notes is a very familiar and repetitive task for students.

A second path to mindlessness is referred to as premature cogni- tive commitment. In this instance people can be mindless either because they have decided that the available information is irrele- vant or unimportant to them or because they accept or borrow unquestioningly a definition or stereotype from elsewhere. An example of both these situations can be found in studies of the attention paid to information on AIDS by people who do not consider themselves to be at risk from this disease and who believe that the disease is associated with deviant sexual behavior. In these studies such individuals were found to be unlikely to remember very much information from public health brochures even when specifically asked to consider them and that what they did claim to remember as information was often distorted to be consistent with the stereo- types of AIDS sufferers that they brought with them to the study (Echabe and Rovira 1989).

The alternative to mindlessness is mindfulness. Langer defines mindfulness as:

. ..a state of mind that results from drawing novel distinctions, examining information from new perspectives, and being sensitive to context. . . . When we are mindful we recognize that there is not a single optimal perspective, but many possible perspectives on the same situation (Langer 1993:44).

Mindful people actively process information and question what is going on in a setting. Mindfulness allows individuals maximum control over their own behavior and the situations they find

reviewerHighlight

reviewerHighlight

382 MINDFUL VISITORS

themselves in (Langer and Piper 1988). Conversely, when control is taken away from people, they are likely to be mindless. Why pay attention to details and the setting if you have no power to influ- ence what happens?

People are most likely to be mindful when they have an opportu- nity to control and influence a situation, when they believe the avail- able information is relevant to them, and/or when there is variety, novelty or surprise in a situation. Langer has provided considerable empirical evidence of direct and significant links between mindful- ness and increased self-esteem, learning and creativity and effective management (Langer 1989a,b). The concepts of mindfulness and mindlessness have been used successfully in the fields of education (Salomon and Globerson 1987), consumer education (de Turck and Goldhaber 1989), environmental design (Fuhrer 1989) and organi- zational management (Gioia and Manz 1985).

A MINDFULNESS MODEL OF INTERPRETATION

How then might mindfulness and mindlessness be connected to interpretation at built heritage sites? The most important connec- tion is that of the type of visitor effective interpretation aims to create. Clearly, interpretation is trying to produce mindful visitors; visitors who are active, interested, questioning and capable of reassessing the way they view the world. Further, those conditions that Langer proposes should induce mindfulness - activity, control, interaction, novelty and personal interest-have all been found in previous research to be related to more effective interpretation. Repetition, on the other hand, has been found to be related to decreased visitor attention, which can be seen as an indicator of mindlessness. It is likely that mindfulness and mindlessness are valuable concepts in understanding how visitors respond to inter- pretation at built heritage sites.

Figure 1 describes a proposed mindfulness model of visitor behav- ior and cognition at built heritage sites. The model puts forward two sets of factors that influence visitors at built heritage sites: Setting Factors and Visitor Factors. Setting Factors include exhibits and displays, guided tours, signs, maps, guidebooks, brochures and walks. Visitor Factors include familiarity with the place and with heritage sites in general, motivation for the visit and companions. The two sets of factors combine to determine whether visitors will be mindful or mindless. Mindful visitors will be more tikely than mindless visitors to enjoy their visit, express satisfaction with their visit, learn more from their visit and be interested in discovering more about a topic or place. Mindful visitors should also be more aware of the consequences of their behavior and more appreciative of the heritage site.

In the case of Setting Factors, the following are seen as likely to induce mindlessness: repetitive and traditional exhibit/signage media and/or tour design (repetition allows visitors to quickly develop and use a mindless script or routine); exhibit or tour designs that do not allow the visitors to control the information they receive;

reviewerHighlight

SETTIN

G F

AC

TO

RS

VIS

ITO

R F

AC

TO

RS

CO

GN

ITIV

E

STA

TE

CO

NSEQ

UEN

CES

1. V

ari

ed/M

ult

isenso

ry Media

7

2. N

ove

lty/

Conflic

t/Surp

rise

3. U

se of q

uest

ions

1. H

igh In

tere

st in C

onte

nt

1. M

ore

Learn

ing

4. V

isit

or c

ontr

ol/In

tera

ctiv

e

Exhib

its

-w

2. L

ow

levels

of fa

tigue

___)

M

IND

FUL-

3.

Educa

tional M

oti

ve

2. H

igh s

ati

sfact

ion

5. D

ynam

ic exhib

its

3. G

reate

r 6. P

hys

ical/C

ognit

ive Ori

enta

tion

I

unders

tandin

g

7. T

opic

/Conte

nt Are

a

8. P

rese

nce

of g

uid

es

h

___-

----

- --

--

----

----

----

--

----

----

--

----

I t

1. R

epeti

tive/U

nis

enso

ry

Media

1. L

ow

Inte

rest

in C

onte

nt

1. L

ittl

e le

arn

ing

2. T

radit

ional E

xhib

its

) 2. H

igh le

vels

of F

ati

gue

e

MIN

DLE

SS -

2. L

ow

3. N

o c

ontr

ol/In

tera

ctio

n

3. E

nte

rtain

ment/

Soci

al

Moti

ve

Sati

sfact

ion

4. S

tati

c Exhib

its

t 3. L

ittl

e

5. P

oor/

No O

rienta

tion

Unders

tandin

g

6. N

o g

uid

es p

rese

nt

Fig

ure

1.

Min

dfu

lnes

s M

od

el o

f V

isit

or

Beh

av

ior

an

d C

og

nit

ion

at

Bu

ilt

Her

ita

ge

Sit

es

384 MINDFUL VISITORS

inanimate and/or static exhibits. However, mindfulness is more likely when there is a variety of exhibit media including multisen- sory exhibits and exhibits with extreme physical properties; there is content perceived by the visitors to be personally relevant, vivid or affectively charged; the interpretation content and/or the exhibit media are novel, unexpected or surprising; questions are used to create conflict or ambiguity; there is an opportunity for the visitor to control the information that they receive (this is most likely in interactive/participatory exhibits or tours); exhibits are dynamic or animate and exhibits/tours give visitors the opportunity for direct contact with objects/topics; and there is a structure underlying the organization of the interpretive content.

The model includes predictions about the influence of physical orientation systems. These predictions do not come directly from Langers work, but rather they are derived from research in environ- mental psychology that indicates that people who have difficulty orienting themselves experience feelings of loss of control and anxiety (Pearce 1988; Pearce and Black 1984). It seems reasonable to propose that while people may be mindful about their orientation in a situation with poor orientation systems, this factor will inter- fere with the attention they pay to the exhibits. Therefore, the model predicts that built heritage sites with poor physical orienta- tion systems - that is, ineffective maps and signage -will be more likely to induce mindlessness in their visitors than those with effec- tive systems.

The model also introduces the idea that a structure underlying the content or organization of the exhibits, or cognitive orientation system, combined with novelty, surprise or conflict, will induce mindfulness and result in learning. This proposal recognizes work in educational, cognitive and environmental psychology that indicates learning is enhanced by the presence of a structure to organize new information (Carey 1986; Hammitt 1984; Kaplan and Kaplan 1978; Nasar 1989). It is also argued that when there is too much novelty, conflict or information in a setting, mindfulness will not result in enhanced cognitive performance, as much of the active information processing will be directed towards trying to develop some system to deal with the information overload. Further, too little information in the setting is likely to induce mindlessness, as visitors can easily create a routine to deal with the setting.

An important prediction made by the model with regard to inter- pretation in built heritage sites is that, in general, the use of guides will be conducive to mindful visitors. There are several reasons put forward for this effectiveness of guides. Guides can provide physical orientation, and, through their ability to answer questions, they can make the material presented personally relevant for visitors. Research describing guided tours in other settings emphasizes both these points (Fine and Speer 1985; Pearce 1984).

In addition to the Setting Factors, the model includes several Visitor Factors that can influence the visitors cognitive state. Specifically, visitors are more likely to be mindful if they have a high level of interest in the content area and if they are not fatigued.

GIANNA MOSCARDO 385

Visitors who have a low level of interest in the content area and who are fatigued are likely to be mindless. A third Visitor Factor is that of the visitors specific goals for their visit. While Langers work does not provide any guidance in this area of motivation, it seems reason- able to propose that visitors with educational goals will be more likely to be mindful than those with social goals.

The model includes a variable referred to as familiarity. Familiarity can be seen as operating on two levels: with a specific site and with built heritage sites in general. In both cases it can be argued that familiarity should induce mindfulness, as it is likely to reflect an educational motive or specific interests. Further, it can be suggested that familiarity with a specific site should also be conducive to mindfulness because it should increase visitors knowl- edge of both the physical layout of a site and the cognitive structure of the interpretation on offer.

The model proposes that the two sets of factors, Setting Factors and Visitor Factors, can combine in a number of ways to produce the visitors cognitive state. For example, a visitor with a very high level of interest in a topic may be mindful regardless of the Setting Factors, while a visitor who has no interest at all in a topic and who is fatigued may be mindless regardless of the Setting Factors. A visitor with low levels of interest may become mindful in a setting where it is easy to find their way around, with a variety of media and the opportunity to interact with exhibits.

Thus far, the discussion has included both Setting and Visitor Factors as the model aims to provide a complete picture of visitor responses to interpretation at built heritage sites. The purpose of the present discussion, however, is to develop principles for the design of interpretation at these places. As Setting Factors are those that are under the most direct control of site managers, the rest of this paper focuses on these factors only. Before doing so, however, it is important to recognize that there is overlap between the categories set out in Figure 1. This is particularly the case for the variables of visitor interest in a topic or place and visitor fatigue. While visitors bring their own interests and experiences with them to any specific place, these do not remain constant throughout their visit. In this model it is argued that it is possible to generate visitor interest in a topic on-site by making connections to their experi- ences. Tilden (1977) p rovides an excellent example of how such connections can be made when he reports on an exhibit label in a museum in Texas. The label read:

Prehistoric mammoths were here in Texas just a few thousand years ago. They roamed the plains in great herds. . . The chances are that they browsed right where you are standing now. Where

you are standing now. With that statement the mammoths are not far away creatures of time or space but right under your feet (Tilden 1977:13-14).

Heritage managers can also consider and influence visitor fatigue through the provision of seating and the programming of tours.

386 MINDFUL VISITORS

Table 2. Predictions for Visitor Behavior and Cognition Derived from the Mindfulness Model of Interpretation

1. Variety and control are the most important elements of mindfulness. This leads to two fundamental predictions: A.

B.

Interactive/participatory exhibits, exhibits that give visitors control over the type and amount of information they receive (this includes the use of exhibit adjuncts such as quiz cards, exploratory games, brochures or guides that direct attention and learning) will be likely to induce mindfulness. The more participation and control that visitors have, the more likely it is that visitors will be mindful. Any exhibit that differs in some way from traditional museum exhibits (which are static objects in cases with labels or text and/or illustrations), including multisensory or dynamic exhibits and exhibits with features that are extreme in size, color or sound will all be more likely than traditional exhibits to induce mindfulness. The model predicts that the greatest difference will lie between traditional/expected exhibits and any change to an exhibit, and that increasing participation and control will be reflected in increases in these measures. Repetition of exhibit media or structure will induce mindlessness.

2. Cognitive orientation devices, such as questions and guides, will enhance learning.

3. Effective physical orientation systems will be more likely to result in mindful visitors and effective interpretation.

4. Guided tours or contact with interpretive staff should be effective interpretive techniques.

Having outlined this model of interpretation, it is now necessary to examine the evidence available to support the model. Table 2 sets out predictions, derived from the model, for visitor responses to various Setting Factors and, consequently, these are predictions about what should result in effective interpretation. The next task of this paper then is to examine the existing research data available on visitors in built heritage settings in order to assess the validity of the models predictions. But it is necessary to first set out what types of results can be seen as indicators of mindfulness or mindlessness and interpretation effectiveness. For the purposes of this paper, four sets of indicatorsof mindfulness and interpretation effectiveness can be proposed: (1) increased visitor attention to exhibits or guides as indicated by both attracting power and holding time. Attracting power is defined as the proportion of visitors passing an exhibit who are attracted to stop at that exhibit, while holding time refers to the length of time that visitors spend at an exhibit. It should be noted that attention is a necessary although not sufficient condition for mindfulness; (2) high er levels of visitor preference for exhibits/tours and their contents; (3) higher levels of interest in the interpretive material; and (4) greater recall of and learning from interpretation.

Having established what to look for in the existing visitor research, that research can now be reviewed. This review was based upon major published bibliographies (International Laboratory for

GIANNA MOSCARDO 387

Visitor Studies 1988; Screven 1984) and articles identified from a search of the key journals in the field. The journals Curator, The International Journal of Museum Management and CuratorshiP, Museums Journal, ILVS Review, Visitor Behauior and Museum News were all searched for the years subsequent to the ILVS 1988 bibliography. This search process was further augmented by a search of current contents.

Interaction and Control

One of the most consistent findings in visitor studies is that inter- active interpretive techniques are effective at catching and keeping visitor attention and at improving learning and interest. Table 3 contains a comprehensive selection of studies conducted at built heritage sites that have compared traditional - that is, static and unidimensional - exhibits or interpretive techniques to interactive or participatory techniques. In all cases the research indicates that improvements in interpretive effectiveness are related to increased opportunities for visitors to participate in and control the interpre- tation that they receive.

General surveys of visitors to built heritage sites also provide evidence to support the Mindfulness Models prediction that inter- action and control are important for effective interpretation. Alt (1980), for example, reviewed four years of visitor surveys at the British Museum of Natural History which collected data on visitor demographics, motivation, expectations and general evaluations of galleries. Alt notes that in these surveys the highest levels of inter- est were given for the Hall of Human Biology, which had been recently renovated and included numerous and varied interactive exhibits, in contrast to the traditional exhibition techniques used elsewhere in the museum. In a similar vein, a study of Discovery Corners in the Smithsonians National Museum of History and Technology found the features visitors most liked about the corners were the opportunity to get information relevant to their own personal concerns, the opportunity to touch objects, and that the Corners were different from the usual activities available in the museum (Wolf, Munley and Tymitz 1979).

In both of the previous two survey examples, variety of activities was seen as important. Table 4 contains a summary of built heritage visitor studies that have compared traditional interpretive techniques and exhibits to other techniques, excluding interac- tive/participatory ones. This table includes studies examining the effectiveness of audio-visuals, multisensory and dynamic interpretive techniques. Again the results are clear; all these features appear to enhance visitor attention and learning.

The Mindfulness Model is very specific in its prediction that any change away from traditional exhibits will be likely to make visitors mindful. An examination of those studies in Tables 3 and 4 which

388 MINDFUL VISITORS

Table 3. Summary of Selected Studies Comparing Interpretive Techniques (Including Interaction) at Built Heritage Sites

Major Conclusion

Studies Authors (Date) Sample (a) Setting

Visitors using interactive exhibits learn more about exhibit content than visitors to traditional static exhibits.

Visitors using exhibit guides/ brochures with questionsfquizes learn more than visitors using traditional guides.

Visitors are attracted more to interactive exhibits and spend longer than at traditional exhibits.

Visitors prefer interactive to traditional exhibits/displays.

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Blud ( 1990) Adult-child pairs (72) Museum Eason and Linn (1976) Children (740) Museum Gilles & Wilson (1982) Children (1423) and Visitors (295) Museum Gottesdiener and Boyer (1992) Visitors (943) Art gallery Morrisey (1991) Groups (306) Museum Screven (1974a) Visitors (405) Museum Screven (1974b) Visitors (276) Museum Screven (1975) Visitors (736) Museum Sneider, Eason and Friedman (1979) Children (138) Museum Borun (1977) Visitors (500) Museum DeWaard, Jagmin, Maisto and McNamara (1974) Visitors (120) Museum Korn (1988) Visitors (not given) Botanic gardens McManus ( 1985) Groups (29) Museum Screven (1974a) Visitors (405) Museum Screven (197413) Visitors (276) Museum Screven (1975) Visitors (736) Museum Borun (1977) Visitors (500) Museum Diamond, Smith and Bond (1988) Groups (100) Museum Gillies and Wilson (1982) Children (1423) and visitors (295) Museum Hayward (1988) Visitors (3296) Museum Koran, Koran and Longino (1986) Visitors (13 1) Museum Worts ( 1990) Visitors (265) Art gallery Borun (1977) Visitors (500) Museum Diamond, Smith and Bond (1988) Groups (100) Museum Gillies and Wilson (1982) Children (1423) and visitors (295) Museum Worts (1990) Visitors (265) Art gallery

GIANNA MOSCARDO 389

Table 4. Summary of Selected Studies Comparing Interpretive Techniques (Excluding Interaction) at Built Heritage Sites

Authors (Date)

Sample (n) Setting Conclusions

Brooks and Vernon (1956)

Cone and Kendall (1978)

Goins and Griffenhagen greatest (1957)

Hirschi and Screven (1988)

Houlding (1989)

Kearns (1940)

Koran, Morrison Lehman, Koran and Gandara (1984)

Visitors (234) Museum

Landay and Visitors (282) Bridge (1982) Museum

Peart (1984)

Children (140) Museum

Groups (26) Museum

Visitors ( 100) Museum

Groups (172) Museum

Visitors (394) Museum

Visitors (150) Museum

Visitors (280) Museum

Dynamic/moving exhibits had greater attracting and holding power than static exhibits and visitors preferred moving exhibits.

Large dioramas had greater attracting and holding power and generated more learning than traditional small exhibit cases.

Unusual objects attract attention.

Mean label reading time was significantly higher when labels had questions.

Visitors spent more than twice as much time at exhibits where objects could be touched than where the objects were in cases.

A guide directing people to look at target exhibits generated more attention for those exhibits.

Visitors were more attracted to objects that could be touched.

A video display was more effective than a traditional wall display for attracting and holding visitor attention and for visitor learning and preference.

The addition of a sound track to an exhibit significantly increased visitor attention.

compared several different exhibit conditions, revealed that there was support for this prediction with most studies in this category concluding that the significant or greatest differences on the depen- dent measures lay between the control groups and all other groups, with increased scores on the dependent measures usually associated with increased opportunities for visitor participation. In all of these studies any change away from traditional exhibits resulted in the greatest changes on the dependent measures. Again, these results are also supported by general visitor surveys. A survey of visitors to the Anniston Museum of Natural History (Alabama) found that the most liked and most memorable exhibits were those that were

390 MINDFUL VISITORS

different from the other exhibits either in style or size (Bitgood, Patterson and Nichols 1986).

As would be expected, the prediction that repetition will induce mindlessness is also supported by several studies. In observation studies repetition consistently results in a. pattern of decreasing attention paid to exhibits. The observational studies reported by Bitgood (1988b), Melton (1972), S errell (1977), Falk, Koran, Dierking and Dreblow (1985) and Weiss and Boutourline (1969) all provide evidence of decreasing visitor attention to repetitive exhibits.

Cognitive Orientation

Several of the studies in Tables 3 and 4 included conditions in which questions were placed in exhibit labels or in associated quiz games or brochures. In most cases the use of questions was effective in increasing visitor attention and learning, and this conclusion is consistent with that drawn by Bitgood (1989) in his review of studies into the effectiveness of questions.

Two studies provide direct evidence that questions can act as cognitive orientation devices and thus enhance learning. In a study conducted at the Florida State Museum (Lehman and Lehman 1984), undergraduate students were given instructions to observe an exhibit carefully, read the information available in the exhibit and answer some questions that were given to them, or to observe the exhibit, read the information, generate their own questions and answer these. While both groups who answered questions did better on a test on the exhibit content than a control group who did not answer questions, the group answering the questions given to them before the exhibit was experienced did best of all three groups. In a similar study also conducted with students visiting the Florida State Museum, Koran, Lehman, Shafer and Koran (1983) asked students to study some questions either before or after entering a display area. The results revealed that both these groups of students had significantly higher mean scores than a group having no questions, and that the group who studied the questions before entering the display area had the highest mean score. Thus, it seems that questions can enhance learning, particularly if they are presented before an exhibit is experienced.

The use of questions is one way of providing cognitive orientation to interpretation; others include the use of guided tours, previsit instructions and the organization of exhibit material. Gennaro (1981) and Gennaro, Stoneberg and Tanck (1984), for example, provided evidence from several studies of school children supporting the value of previsit instructions on how to visit a museum for enhancing learning from a museum.

Guided Tours

There is little research evidence to demonstrate that guided tours or contact with interpretive staff can be effective in increasing visitor learning, although there is a widespread belief among interpreters

GIANNA MOSCARDO 391

that this is the case (McArthur and Hall 1993). Research conducted by Horn (1980) p rovides one of the few published examples of a study of guided tours in a built heritage setting, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Horn surveyed visitors who had taken either a tradi- tional tour, where the guide gives a standard, lecture-like presenta- tion, and an inquiry tour in which the guide asked visitors questions and encouraged discussion. The visitors were significantly more positive about the inquiry tour.

It is possible that the effectiveness of these various cognitive orien- tation devices results from their power to reduce the amount of information in a museum setting and give visitors control over their experience. There is evidence that visitors were more likely to pay attention to paintings in low density art galleries than in high density ones (Bitgood 1988b). B arnard, Loomis and Cross (1980) studied students visiting a small museum and found that students had better recall of exhibits if they were exposed to only a subset of exhibits than if they were exposed to all exhibits.

Physical Orientation

The Mindfulness Model predicts that interpretation effectiveness will be enhanced if visitors can easily find their way around built heritage sites. This prediction is based on the argument that visitors who have difficulty orienting themselves in a place may be mindful, but this will be directed towards finding their way rather than towards the exhibit contents. While many authors have suggested that built heritage sites need effective physical orientation systems (Guthrie 1984; Miles, Alt, Gosling, Lewis and Tout 1982; Screven 1986), very little data is available either to support this claim or to suggest what makes for effective physical orientation systems. Cohen, Winkel, Olsen and Wheeler (1977) found that in a museum without orientation devices, 71% of visitors were unaware of the existence of entire halls, 86% had no idea what the nearest hall was, and 41% had been forced to backtrack at some point in their visit. The authors surveyed visitors at the same museum after the instal- lation of maps, signs or both and found that all conditions improved visitor orientation. This study also revealed that visitors preferred to use maps and signs than to approach museum staff. Bitgood and Patterson (198713) and Bitgood and Richardson (1987) also found that visitors preferred to use maps and signs than contact staff, and results from the latter study indicated that visitors using hand-held maps viewed more exhibits than visitors without maps.

In a review of a study of visitor orientation at the British Museum of Natural History (Griggs 1983) it was noted that visitors do use maps and signs to find their way in exhibit halls. A more recent study compared the use of a map installed on a wall of the Royal Ontario Museum with a map set into the floor (Lockett, Boyer-Tarlo and Emonson 1989). The results from observations of and interviews with visitors found a marked increase in the use of the map and preference for it when placed on the floor. The two most common answers given to the question What drew your attention to the

392 MINDFUL VISITORS

map? were its bright colors and its unusual position, which is predicted by the Mindfulness Model.

Principles for Mindful Interpretive Design

The previous section has introduced the concepts of mindfulness and mindlessness; generated a model for understanding how visitors respond to interpretation at built heritage sites; and reviewed evidence from visitor studies that supported the model. Both the theoretical discussions and basic research evidence from social cogni- tion (Langer 1989a,b) and the applied research evidence (presented earlier) suggest that there are four key principles that should under- lie interpretation at built heritage sites. One, visitors should be given variety in their experiences. Two, visitors should be given control over their experiences (in general control is given to visitors through opportunities to interact with or participate in the inter- pretation, and good physical orientation systems). Three, interpre- tation needs to make connections to the personal experiences of visitors; and four, interpretation needs to challenge visitors, to question and encourage them to question.

While two of these principles (the use of interaction and making personal connections) are standard beliefs in interpretation, the mindfulness concept provides both new principles and a new integra- tive perspective on previous beliefs. In the first instance a mindful- ness perspective highlights the critical role of variety in the experiences available for visitors. These experiences can be varied along a number of dimensions, including the degree of physical activ- ity required (for example, listening to a storyteller vs. participating in a dance); the number of visitors involved in an activity (for example, sitting alone in a prison cell, as compared to being part of a large theatre audience); the amount of technology involved in the interpretation (for example, writing your own experience of a build- ing on a piece of paper for a visitor experience noticeboard vs. using an interactive computer to design buildings); the number of senses used; and the interpretive media used.

In terms of providing a new and integrative perspective on inter- pretation, mindfulness provides a novel theoretical explanation for the success of interactive interpretive techniques based on novelty and visitor control. A mindfulness perspective also predicts that interactives may not always be effective. If interactive techniques become very common and/or are used in a repetitive way, it is likely that they will lose their power to generate visitor mindfulness. Further, mindfulness suggests other ways in which visitor control can be maximized, particularly through effective orientation systems.

CONCLUSIONS

If interpretation at built heritage sites can be effective and create mindful visitors, then the management and conservation of such places can be substantially improved. Carefully designed interpretive

reviewerHighlight

GIANNA MOSCARDO 393

programs can directly influence the distribution of visitors at a site, relieving to some degree congestion and pressure. Mindful visitors will understand the consequences of their actions and be able to behave in ways that lessen their impacts on a site. Mindful visitors will also have a greater appreciation and understanding of a site, and such understanding can provide both support for changing their behaviors on site and for the conservation of the site.

Effective interpretation and the creation of mindful visitors at built heritage sites can have important consequences for tourism at a more general level. Built heritage sites contain much information about the history and culture of a place, and successful interpreta- tion at such sites can create visitors who not only appreciate the specific site but who have some understanding of the region or nation that the site is a part of. If one sees tourists as playing a central role in the creation of more sustainable tourism, then effec- tive interpretation at built heritage sites can make a substantial contribution to the sustainability of tourism in general. In discussing the importance of interpretation and tourism to the success of World Heritage sites, von Droste, Silk and Rossler believe that the real imperative of management is to:

. ..make people aware of the importance of building bonds between nature and culture, between the past and the future, and between different cultures (1992:9). 0 0

REFERENCES

Alt, M. B. 1980 Four Years of Visitor Surveys at the British Museum (Natural History)

1976-79. Museums Iournal 80:10-18. Y

Barnard, W. A., R. J. Loomis, and H. A. Cross 1980 Assessment of Visual Recall and Recognition Learning in a Museum

Environment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 16:31 l-313. Bitgood, S.

1988a Visitor Studies: Coming of Age. Visitor Behavior 3(3):3. 1988b Museum Fatigue: Early Studies. Visitor Behavior 3( 1):4-5. 1989 Deadly Sins Revisited: A Review of the Exhibit Label Literature. Visitor

Behavior 4(3):&l 1. Bitgood, S., and D. Patterson

1987a Principles of Exhibit Design. Visitor Behavior 2( 1):4-6. 1987b Orientation and Wayfinding in a Small Museum. Visitor Behavior 1(4):6.

Bitgood, S., D. Patterson, A. Benefield, and A. Landers 1986 Understanding Your Visitors: Ten Factors That Influence Their Behavior.

Technical Report No. 86-80. J ac k sonville: The Jacksonville State University, Psychology Institute.

Bitgood, S., D. Patterson, and G. Nichols 1986 Report of a Survey of Visitors to the Anniston Museum of Natural History.

Technical Report No. 8650. J ac k sonville: The Jacksonville State University Psychology Institute.

Bitgood, S., and K. Richardson 1987 Wayfinding at the Birmingham Zoo. Visitor Behavior 1(4):9.

Blud, L. M. 1990 Social Interaction and Learning Among Family Groups Visiting a Museum.

Museum Management and Curatorship 9:43-5 1. Borun, M.

1977 Measuring the Immeasurable: A Pilot Study of Museum Effectiveness. Washington: Association of Science Technology Centers.

394 MINDFUL VISITORS

Brooks, J. A. M., and P. E. Vernon 1956 A Study of Childrens Interests and Comprehension at a Science Museum.

British Journal of Psychology 47:175-182. Carey, S.

1986 Cognitive Science 41:1123-l 130.

and Science Education. American Psychologist

Cohen, M. S., Winkel, G. H., Olsen, R., and F. Wheeler 1977 Orientation in a Museum: An Experimental Visitor Study. Curator 20:85-87.

Cone, C., and K. Kendall 1978 Space, Time and Interaction: Visitor Behavior at the Science Museum of

Minnesota. Curator 2 1:245-258. DeWaard, R. J., N. Jagmin, S. A. Maisto, and P. McNamara

1974 Effects of Using Programmed Cards on Learning in a Museum Environment. Journal-of Educational Research 67:457-460.

Diamond, J., A. Smith and A. Bond 1988 California Academy of Sciences Discovery Room. Curator 3 1: 157-166.

Droste. B. von. D. Silk. and M. Rossler 1992 Tourism, World Heritage and Sustainable Development. UNEP Industry

and Environment 15:6-g. Eason, L. P., and M. C. Linn

1976 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Participatory Exhibits. Curator 19:45-62. Echabe, A. E., and D. P. Rovira

1989 Social Representations and Memory: The Case of AIDS. European Journal of Social Psychology 19:543-55 1.

Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group 1991 Final Report -Tourism. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing

Service. Falk, J. H., J. J. Koran, L. D. Dierking, and L. Dreblow

1985 Predicting Visitor Behavior. Curator 28:249-257. Fine, E. C., and J. H. Speer

1985 Tour Guide Performances as Sight Sacrilization. Annals of Tourism Research 12:73-96.

Forgas, J. P. 1981 Social Cognition. London: Academic Press

Fuhrer, U. 1989 Effects of Prior Knowledge, Crowding, and Congruence of Subjects and

Others Goals on Question Asking in an Unfamiliar Setting. Psychological Reports 64:131-145.

Gennaio, E. D. 1981 The Effectiveness of Using Pre-Visit Instructional Materials on Learning

From a Museum Field Trip Experience. Iournal of Research in Science Teaching 18:275-279. _ .

Gennaro, G. D., S. A. Stoneberg, and S. Tanck 1984 Chance or the Prepared Mind? In Museum Education Anthology 1973-1983,

S. Nicholls, eds., pp. 201-205. Washington: Museum Education Roundtable. Gillies, P., and R. Wilson

1982 Participatory Exhibits: Is Fun Educational? Museums Journal 82:131-135. Gioia, D. A., and C. C. Manz

1985 Linking Cognition and Behavior: A Script Processing Interpretation of Vicarious Learning. Academy of Management Review 10:527-539.

Goins, A. E., and C. Griffenhagen 1957 Psychological Studies of Museum Visitors and Exhibits at the US National

Museum. Museologist 64: l-6. Gottesdiener, H., and J. Boyer

1992 Self-Testing Raphael: How a Computer Stimulates Visitors in an Art Exhibition. ILVS Review 2:165-180.

Green, P. 1992 Park Management in New Zealand. UNEP Industry and Environment

15:16-21. Griggs, S. A.

1983 Orientating Visitors Within a Thematic Display. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship 2:119-134.

GIANNA MOSCARDO 395

Gunn, C. 1994 Tourism Planning (3rd ed). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Guthrie, M. H. 1984 Circulation: An Examination for Redesign. In Exhibition Design as an

Education Tool, Reinwardt Studies in Museology. Leiden: Reinwardt Academy. Hall, C. M., and S. McArthur

1993 Heritage Management: An Introductory Framework. In Heritage Management in New Zealand and Australia, C. M. Hall and S. McArthur, eds., pp. l-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hammitt, W. E. 1984 Cognitive Processes Involved in Environmental Interpretation. Journal of

Environmental Education 15:l l-15. Hayward, J.

1988 Counting Visitors Helps to Evaluate Exhibits: A Case Study of Behavioral Mapping. ILVS Review 1:76-85.

Hirschi, K. D., and C. G. Screven 1988 Effects of Questions on Visitor Reading Behavior. ILVS Review 1:50-61.

Horn, A. L. 1980 A Comparative Study of Two Methods of Conducting Docent Tours in Art

Museums. Curator 23: 105-l 17. Houlding, L. P.

1989 Pull-Out Drawers Open Windows. Curator 32:275-280. International Laboratorv for Visitor Studies

1988 ILVS Bibliography and Abstracts (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: International Laboratory for Visitor Studies.

Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan, 1978 Humanscape: Environments for People. Belmont: Duxbury Press.

Kearns, W. E. 1940 Studies of Visitor Behavior at the Peabody Museum of Natural History.

Museum News 17( 14):5-8. Koran, J. J., M. L. Koran, and S. J. Longino

1986 The Relationship of Age, Sex, Attention, and Holding Power with Two Types of Science Exhibits. Curator 29:227-235.

Koran, J. J., J. R. Lehman, L. D. Shafer, and M. L. Koran 1983 The Relative Effects of Pre- and Post-Attention Directing Devices on

Learning From a Walk Through Museum Exhibit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20:341-364.

Koran, Jr., J. J., L. Morrison, J. R. Lehman, M. L. Koran, and L. Gandara 1984 Attention and Curiosity in Museums. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching 21:357-363. Korn, R.

1988 Self-Guiding Brochures: An Evaluation. Curator 31:9-19. Krippendorf, J. -

1987 The Holidav Makers: Understanding the Imuact of Leisure and Travel. London: William Heinemann.

Lane, B.

I

1991 Sustainable Tourism: A New Concept for the Interpreter. Interpretation Journal 49: l-4.

Landay, J., and R. G. Bridge 1982 Video vs. Wallpanel Display: An Experiment in Museum Learning. Curator

25:41-56. Langer, E. J.

1989a Mindfulness. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing. 1989b Minding Matters: The Consequences of Mindlessness-Mindfulness.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 22:137-173. 1993 A Mindful Education. Educational Psychologist 28:43-50.

Langer, E., M. Hatem, J. Joss, and M. Howell 1989 Conditional Teaching and Mindful Learning: The Role of Uncertainty in

Education. Creativity Research Journal 2:139-150. Langer, E. J., and A. Piper

1988 Television From a Mindful/Mindless Perspective. Applied Social Psychology Annual 8:247-260.

396 MINDFUL VISITORS

Lehman, J. R., and K. M. Lehman 1984 The Relative Effects of Experimenter and Subject Generated Questions on

Learning From Museum Case Exhibits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2 I :93 l-935.

Lockett, C., D. Boyer-Tarlo, and J. Emonson 1989 Using the Floor for Exhibit Information: A Formative Evaluation for the

Ancient Near East Galleries. In Visitor Studies: Theory, Research, and Practice (vol. 2), S. Bitgood, A. Benefield and D. Patterson, eds., pp. 163-167.

Jacksonville: Center for Social Design. Martin, J., and J. OReilly

1988 Editors Introduction: Contemporary Environment-Behavior Research in Zoological Parks. Environment and Behavior 20:387-395.

1989 The Emergence of Environment-Behavior Research in Zoological Parks. In Public Places and Spaces, I. Altman and E. H. Zube, eds., pp. 173-192. New York: Plenum.

McArthur, S., and C. M. Hall 1993 Visitor Management and Interpretation at Heritage Sites. In Heritage

Management in New Zealand and Australia, C. M. Hall and S. McArthur, eds., pp. 18-39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McManus, P. 1985 Worksheet-Induced Behaviour in the British Museum (Natural History).

Journal of Biological Education, 19:237-242. McNamara, P. A.

1990 Trying It Out. ILVS Review 1:132-134. Melton, A. W.

1972 Visitor Behavior in Museums: Some Early Research in Environmental Design. Human Factors 14:393%403.

Miles, R. S., M. B. Alt, D. C. Gosling, B. N. Lewis, and A. F. Tout 1982 The Design of Educational Exhibits. London: George, Allen & Unwin.

Morrissey, K. 1991 Visitor Behaviour and Interactive Video. Curator 34:109-l 18.

Nasar, J. L 1989 Perception, Cognition and Evaluation of Urban Places. In Public Places and

Spaces, I. Altman and E. H. Zube, eds., pp. 31-56. New York: Plenum Press. Patterson, D., and S. Bitgood

1988 Some Evolving Principles of Visitor Behavior. In Visitor Studies - 1988: Theory, Research and Practice, S. Bitgood, J. T. Roper, Jr., and A. Benefield, eds., pp. 41-50. Jacksonville: Center for Social Design.

Pearce, P. L. 1984 Tourist-Guide Interaction. Annals of Tourism Research 11:129-146. 1988 The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New York:

Springer Verlag. 1991 Analysing Tourist Attractions. Journal of Tourism Studies 2( 1):46-55. 1993 From Culture Shock to Culture Exchange: The Agenda for Human Resource

Development in Cross-Cultural Interaction. Paper presented at the Global Action to Global Change: A PATA/WTO Human Resources for Tourism Conference, October, Bali, Indonesia.

Pearce, P. L., and N. Black 1984 Dimensions of National Park Maps: A Psychological Evaluation.

Cartography 13(3):189-203. Peart, B.

1984 Impact of Exhibit Type on Knowledge Gain, Attitudes, and Behavior. Curator 27:220-237.

Pigram, J. J. 1990 Sustainable Tourism: Policy Considerations. Journal of Tourism Studies

1(2):2-9. Salomon, G., and T. Globerson

1987 Skill May Not Be Enough: The Role of Mindfulness in Learning and Transfer. International Journal of Educational Research 11:623-627.

Screven, C. G. 1974a Learning and Exhibits: Instructional Design. Museum News 52(5):67-75. 197413 The Measurement and Facilitation of Learning in the Museum

GIANNA MOSCARDO 397

Environment: An Experimental Analysis. Publications in Museum Behavior, 1. Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Office of Museum Programs.

1975 Thz Effectiveness of Guidance Devices on Visitor Lear&g. Curator 18219-243.

1984 Educational Evaluation and Research in Museums and Public Exhibits: A Bibliography. Curator 27:147-165.

1986 Exhibitions and Information Centres: Princinles and Annroaches. Curator 29:109-137.

Serrell, B. 1977 Survey of Visitor Attitudes and Awareness at an Aquarium. Curator

20:48-52. Shettel, H.

1989 Evaluation in Museums: A Short History of a Short History. In Heritage Interpretation (vol. 2), The Visitor Experience, D. I,. Uzzell, ed., pp. 129-137. London: Belhaven.

Sneider, C. I., L. P. Eason, and A. J. Friedman 1979 Summative Evaluation of a Particioatorv Science Exhibit. Science Education

63:25-36. Tilden, F.

1977 Interpreting Our Heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Turck, M. A. de, and G. M. Goldhaber 1989 Effectiveness of Product Warning Labels: Effects of Consumers Information

Processing Objectives. Journal of Consumer Affairs 23: 11 l-l 26. United Nations Environment Programme

1992 Sustainable Tourism Development. UNEP Industry and Environment 15:1-5.

Uzzell, D. 1989 Introduction: The Visitor Experience. In Heritage Interpretation (vol. 2), D.

L. Uzzell, ed., pp. l-15. London: Belhaven. Visser, N., and S. Njuguna

1992 Environmental Imoacts of Tourism on the Kenva Coast. UNEP Industrv and Environment 15:42-$2.

Weiss, S., and S. Bouterline 1969 The Communication Value of Exhibits. Museum News 42f3):23-27. \ I

Wolf, R. L., M. E. Munley, and B. L. Tymitz 1979 The Pause That Refreshes: A Study of Visitor Reactions to the Discovery

Corners in National Museum of History and Technology Smithsonian Institution. Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Department of Psvcholoaical Studies.

Worts, D. u 1990 The Computer as Catalyst: Experiences at the Art Gallery of Ontario. ILVS

Review 1(2):91-108.

Submitted 19 December 1994 Resubmitted 29 June 1995 Accepted 10 July 1995 Refereed anonymously