Visitor Behavior in Museum Exhibitions and the Implications for

Improving Exhibits
Beverly Serrell, Director of Serrell & Associates
December 2016

The remarks in this paper are based on a presentation at XXIX Jornada de la Xarxa de
Museus Local, Usuaris de museus. Avaluacio i identificacio d'oportunitats de millora,
Museu Molí Paperer. Capellades, November 2016

Stages of Visitor Behavior Research in Museum Exhibitions

Researchers gather data to answer questions about visitor behavior in museum
exhibitions in the hope that the information will be used to make improvements in the
process and product of making exhibits and to improve the visitors' experience with them.
Some of the investigations are done in the early stages of development for the content of
a new exhibition; others are addressed midway during the design and construction
phases, and many questions are asked after the exhibition has opened to the public.
These different stages of evaluation are called front-end, formative, and summative. We
will briefly consider some useful questions for the first two stages, and the remainder of
the paper will focus on one essential method of summative evaluation, called tracking
and timing (T&T).

The purpose of front-end evaluation is to investigate what visitors know, think, or feel
about the topic or subject of the new exhibition. The information gathered will help exhibit
developers to present their ideas in ways that visitors are more likely to understand,
relate to, or personally feel a connection with. A very useful question for data collectors
to ask potential visitors is:
"Do you have any special interest, knowledge, or training in ____ ? If yes,
explain."
(Depending on the exhibit content under development, the blank space is filled in
with the most relevant topic.)
The first part of the question is a Yes or No answer, and the data can be quantified.
Typically, more visitors say "No" than "Yes." The second part is an open-ended question
that produces responses that are rich and varied as to how visitors see themselves in

1
relation to the topic. We typically hear visitors make connections to their jobs, education,
family history, leisure interests, and current events. Another typical answer is, "Yes, I am
just interested," which is probably related to the desire to be seen as a nice person.

The purpose of gathering feedback from visitors during the design and construction
phase of exhibit development–particularly for draft label text and mock-ups of interactive
exhibit components–is to find out if the vocabulary level of the text is at the right level, or
if visitors can figure out what to do with the prototype hands-on device, and also to see if
they understand it. At this formative stage, exhibit developers are checking to see if there
are any unanticipated problems or issues with the exhibits that can be fixed before going
into final designs. Prototype testing with visitors can save money and avoid
embarrassments or headaches that often occur when untested exhibits break easily or
are incomprehensible to visitors.

A useful protocol for testing mock-ups of labels or interactive exhibits is to invite visitors
(individuals or small groups) to try out the prototype and then answer three open-ended
questions:
In your own words, what is this exhibit about?
Do you think other visitors will understand and enjoy it?
Do you have any suggestions for improvements?
Answers to the first question result in qualitative data that can be analyzed as to the
degree to which it matches the exhibit developers' intended ideas. Lots of good answers
suggest you have effective development. Evidence of effectiveness would also be when
answers to the second question achieve the quantitative metric of 80 percent unqualified
"Yes." An example of a qualified answer is, "Well, yes, I think so...Maybe adults will. But
children might not," which indicates that they are not sure, but they don't want to appear
stupid. Findings that indicate a problem or lack of effectiveness are visitors' suggestions
or comments that are counterproductive to the museum's intentions, or, more likely,
feedback indicating that visitors have misunderstood the content or purpose of the
exhibit due to some unanticipated problem in the design.

There are many types of questions that are asked in summative evaluations, including,
for example, demographics (Who came?), motivational questions (Why did they come?),

2
satisfaction ratings (What did they like best? Least?), educational or communication
effectiveness (What did they learn?), or user ergonomics (Was the text easy to read?).

In-exhibit behaviors, such as, Where did they go? and What did they do? are best
answered by unobtrusively watching visitors rather than directly asking them. Data
collectors can often gather more accurate data by systematically observing a
representative sample of visitors, noting what visitors do, especially time spent, stops
made, and other behaviors that indicate engagement and paying attention.

Research has shown that visits to museum exhibitions are often brief and incomplete.
Regardless of the topic or size of the exhibit, often a visit lasts less than 20 minutes and
visitors stop at fewer than one-third of the exhibit elements. So what does it mean when
visitors say (when asked in exit interviews)
"I stayed an hour and a half."
"I saw it all."
"I read everything."
"There should be more information."
It probably means that they are overestimating the time they spent; they saw and read
everything they wanted to see and read; and they didn't find enough information that
directly related to what they know and care about.

Patterns of Visitor Behavior Revealed by Tracking and Timing

Tracking and timing (T&T) reveals data that can be analyzed quantitatively and
qualitatively. It is not random, and there are common patterns. The remainder of this
paper will discuss many of the findings from T&T research conducted over the years and
summarized by Yalowitz and Bronnenkant (2009), from Bitgood's Attention-Value model
(2014), and from Serrell's T&T databases (1998, 2010). Extensive bibliographies are
referenced by these authors.

Right-Turn Bias
Given an equal choice in directions to go when entering an exhibition, there is a
tendancy for visitors to turn to the right. If turning right is the intended way to start the
visit, good. If the intended pathway is to begin to the left, exhibit designers must make
this choice obvious. Clues to a left turn could be lighting (brighter to the left), the position

3
of objects and cases (enticing views to the left), and a darker, less interesting view to the
right. An arrow on the floor might help direct traffic, but multiple clues are necessary to
overcome the right-turn bias.

Entrance Gradient Decrease

Visitors tend to pay more attention to the early parts of the exhibition and less time and
effort to the later parts. This principle is true especially when visitors do not know how
big the exhibition is, that is, how many galleries there are or how many sections the
content is divided into. To help visitors budget their time more efficiently, orientation
clues such as a floor plan map or suggested viewing times can help visitors distribute
their time and effort throughout the exhibition. Designs that help pace the exhibit
experience, such as density changes, various media, and seating opportunities can give
visitors ways to optimize their energy and attention.

Exit Opportunities Taken

In exhibitions that are laid out over several galleries, the occasion of a doorway can often
mean that visitors leave a gallery before they have investigated the entire contents of a
room. This tendency is true particularly where the objects are mounted on the walls.
Visitors tend to stick to the wall, until they come to an opening, and they see more
enticing objects nearby in another room.

Center Cases or Objects Skipped

Interpretive elements placed in the center of the room are often skipped or missed
because visitors are following the walls. Visitors must invest more effort to make choices
about alternate pathways, such as zigzagging or backtracking.

This phenomenon occurs less frequently in art museum exhibitions when a very
dramatic sculpture is placed in the middle of the room. In that case, attention is drawn
away from the exhibits lining the walls, as the three-dimensional object distracts
engagement from flat paintings.

There Is Magic in 20 Minutes

Research on time spent in museum exhibitions of many types, sizes, and topics has
shown that a majority have an average total time spent by visitors of less than 20

4
minutes. Twenty minutes is often enough time for visitors to briefly and incompletely see
and stop at a relatively small sampling of exhibit elements that have successfully
attracted their attention, and they are now ready to move on to the next event (e.g.,
exhibit, program, lunch, or exit). Exhibit developers should keep in mind what visitors can
realistically do in 20 minutes without becoming overwhelmed, rushed, or bored.

Time Data Is Often Skewed

When plotting time data (i.e., total time spent by visitors to one exhibition) for analysis,
the histogram graph is usually skewed (i.e., not a normal bell-shaped curve), with a large
portion of the numbers piled up on the low-time part of the distribution. Exhibitions that
are more thoroughly used, however, often have a more normal distribution of time data.
Time data for museum exhibitions is rarely bimodal. (Histograms and scattergrams are
shown in the PowerPoint presentation of this topic on the website
http://www.diba.cat/web/opc/jornades_museus.)

Time/Stops Scattergrams Show a Linear Relationship

Scattergrams are a visual concrete representation of how much time and how much
engagement took place in an exhibition. When plotting time and stops data for an
exhibition on a scattergram, each point on the scattergram is one visitor, and the pattern
of points usually ranges from the lower left (short time spent, fewer stops) to the upper
right of the scattergram (longer times, more stops). There is a general positive
relationship between time and stops: more stops equals more time. It takes time to stop,
look, read, talk, point, take a photo, read out loud, manipulate, explore, look more closely,
etc. Scattergrams with clusters of many points in the lower right indicate low levels of
engagement. Scattergrams with clusters of points spread into the upper right side
indicate that more visitors were paying attention to the exhibits. Exceptionally thoroughly
used exhibitions have more points (visitors) in the upper right side of the scattergram.

Theory tells us that paying attention is a prerequisite for engagement and that attention
and engagement are necessary for learning. Research gives evidence that visitors who
spend more time and are more engaged with more parts of the exhibition are likely to
learn more. Stated another way: Visitors who spend more time create more opportunities
for themselves to learn and enjoy more.

5
Label Reading Depends on Interest and Effort
Theory tells us that the effort visitors make to pay attention should result in a perceived
value for the effort. Benefits, such as feeling smart, competent, and inspired, make effort
worthwhile. A visitor's level of interest in the topic predicts some of the effort he or she
will make to read a label, but the length of the label (number of words) is also a factor.
Shorter labels attract and hold more readers than longer labels. A long label looks like
more effort. Big blocks of text discourage readers.

There Is Magic in 50 Words

Visitors read a greater portion of a label when the text is shorter. Fifty words or less per
label or per paragraph is a good rule. Labels with paragraphs in shorter chunks attract
and hold more readers than do longer solid paragraphs of words.

A Majority of Visitors Skip the Introductory Label

In spite of all the effort exhibit designers put into making a large introductory label and
the importance they believe it has, many visitors do not pay attention to it. This tendency
is particularly troubling to museum education staff when the introduction contains key
ideas necessary for visitors to understand the exhibition. Rates of less than 25 percent
attraction to the label are common and might be due to poor placement of the label,
competition with the interesting objects visitors see ahead, or the length of the label. It
may be less true in art museums where many visitors feel unsure of their art knowledge
and feel the need for some interpretation to help them enjoy the experience, especially
with unfamiliar art or artists. To help visitors make use of the introductions in all
museums, make them shorter, with a brief large statement that can be read from a
distance or while walking, and use graphics to aid the effectiveness of communication.

Live Animals Win

In any type of exhibition, a display with live animals will attract the most attention.

Heat Maps Indicate the Hot and Cold Areas of an Exhibition

Another way to analyze and report tracking and timing data is to show a visual layout of
the floor plan of the exhibition with color coding for the popularity of the different exhibit
elements, known as a heat map. For example, the most used exhibits are shown in red;
the least used elements in blue. (Usually a gradient of three to five colors are shown.)

6
Heat maps highlight other trends as well. Evidence for the right-turn bias, ignored center
kiosk, exit gradient, skipped introductory label, live animal exhibit attraction, common
pathways, and other patterns of visitor behavior, will be revealed. For museums with
temporary exhibition galleries, these data can give exhibit developers ideas about the
layouts for future shows in the same gallery.

A Meta-Scattergram of Tracking and Timing Data

The average time spent and the number of stops made by a sample of visitors (45
subjects or more, but not more than 100) in an exhibition can be used to establish two
metrics that can be used to compare exhibitions: the sweep rate and the percentage of
diligent visitors.
The sweep rate is derived by dividing the size of the exhibition's floor plan (in square
feet) by the average time spent by visitors. For example, a 7,000-square-foot exhibit with
an average time of 21 minutes would equal a sweep rate of 333.
The percentage of diligent visitors is derived by counting the number of visitors who
stopped at more than half of the exhibit elements in the exhibition and dividing that
number by the number of visitors in the sample. For example, if, in an exhibition with 29
elements, the number of visitors who stopped at 15 or more elements was 32 out of the
70 visitors tracked, then the percent of diligent visitors equals 46 percent.
The meta-scattergram plots these two metrics where each point on the scattergram is
one exhibition. Figure 1 shows the metrics for 47 exhibitions.

7
 Figure 1
900

800

700
Sweep Rate Index (SRI)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Diligent Visitor (%DV)

The sweep rates on this scattergram range from a low of 38 to a high of 800. The lower
the sweep rate the more time spent per unit of space, i.e. the slower the visitors were
moving through the exhibition.
The percentage of diligent visitors range from a low of zero (nobody stopped at more
than half the elements) to a high of 78 (more than three-quarters of the visitors were
diligent). The higher the percentage of diligent visitors, the more visitors were engaged in
using the exhibit elements.
The quadrant lines in Figure 1 are drawn at the approximate medians for the sample
(sweep rate = 300; diligent visitors = 25%). Exhibitions with sweep rates less than 300
and more than 51 percent diligent visitors are called exceptionally thoroughly used
exhibits.
In Figure 1 there are seven exceptionally thoroughly used exhibitions (low sweep rates,
high percentage of diligent visitors). They had only one thing in common: there were
relatively fewer exhibit elements.
Individually they had these qualities:

8
  Highly popular topics (Star Wars, Egyptian Mummies)
 Exhibits that afforded looking carefully and closely (Amber: Window to the Past)
 A compelling story of worldwide concern (The Endurance: Shackleton's
Legendary Antarctic Expedition)
 Strong local appeal (Kachemak Bay, Alaska: An Exploration of People and
Place)
 Destination visitors (Animal Eyes)
 Highly interactive (Playground)

If an exhibition has high sweep rates and low percentages of diligent visitors, what
changes can be made to encourage visitors to stop more often and spend more time? If
an exhibition has a low sweep rate and a low percentage of diligent visitors, can some of
the elements attracting fewer visitors be removed to make the exhibition smaller or less
overwhelming? If the percentage of diligent visitors is low, how can developers be sure
that the main ideas of the exhibition are effectively communicated?

Conclusions and Recommendations

Visitors tend to use exhibitions briefly and incompletely. Plan exhibitions that will make
sense when visitors sample less than half of the exhibit elements. Assume interest, but
don’t assume effort.

Make introductory labels short and readable at a distance. Provide orientation in several
different modalities (e.g., brochure, signage, floor plan, bullet list of themes/sections).

Plan smaller exhibitions designed for brief visits with good Big Ideas. (See Chapter 1 in
Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach.)

Visitors’ attention and time spent can be increased by making exhibit elements more
social, interactive, and intergenerational. Make exhibitions that encourage more people
to become diligent visitors.

Visitors want to feel good about themselves: competent, smart, and inspired. Help them
to feel “this exhibit was meant for me.”

9
Do your own tracking studies and build your own database of visitor behavior.

Discussions of the T&T methods and data collection can lead to changes in the
museum’s attitude toward their visitors. Staff members will become more empathetic
toward visitors: for the number of choices visitors have to make; how much effort it takes
for them to read standing up while keeping track of their friends or children, and the
amount of time it takes to look at a large number of exhibit elements competing for their
attention.

What is the lowest sweep rate and the highest percentage of diligent visitors you could
expect at your museum, given your topics and your visitors? Where would you like your
next exhibition to be on the meta-scattergram?

RESOURCES
Bitgood, Stephen. 2014. "Exhibition Design that Provides High Value and Engages
Visitor Attention." Exhibitionist 33 (1): 6–14.
Bitgood, Stephen. 2014. Engaging the Visitor. on-line resource,
http://museumsetc.com/products/engaging
Borun, Minda, et al. 1998. Family Learning in Museums: Family Learning in Museums:
The PISEC Perspective, Association of Science-Technology Centers, Washington DC
Serrell, Beverly. 2015. Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach, Second Edition.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Serrell, Beverly. 2010. "Paying More Attention to Paying Attention."
http://www.informalscience.org/news-views/paying-more-attention-paying-attention
Serrell, Beverly. 1998. Paying Attention: Visitors and Museum Exhibitions. AAM.
Yalowitz, Steven and Kerry Bronnenkant. 2009. "Tracking and Timing: Unlocking Visitor
Behavior." Visitor Studies 12(1): 47–64.

bserrell@gmail.com

10