Annals

of Tourism Research,

Pergamon

Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 376397,

1996
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.
Motscl&: 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

377

GIANNA MOSCARDO

that are recognized as underlying sustainable

tourism. Additionally,
he emphasizes
the importance
of learning, self-discovery and exploration 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, stimulation
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 information, 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
Lane
tourism

and Ecologically

(1991)
defined
that provides:

Sustainable

ecologically

Tourism
sustainable

tourism

(EST)

as

. ..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
is critical.

suggests
that the quality of the
Specifically,
he states that:

experience

for the

tourist

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 sustainable 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 biophysical 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 improving the nature of tourism rarely include any detailed consideration
of improving the nature and behavior of tourists. Krippendorf
recognizes this when he states that:
The damage tourism causes to the people, economy and environment 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 responsibility. 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 management and especially the significance
of visitors (Hall and McArthur
1993: 13). In support of this argument, Hall and McArthur offer two
to enhance the visitor experience
and
core goals of interpretation:
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
1991).
More
controversially,
it has been
stone
circle
(Pearce
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 information 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 publication 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 extensive 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;
Benefield
and Landers
1986; Patterson
and
Bitgood,
Patterson,

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
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.
their

Source:

experiences,

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 necessary 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 subdiscipline 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 associates (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.
one relies on categories
and distinctions
derived
. . . when mindless,
in the past. Mindlessness
is single-minded
reliance
on information
without
an active
awareness
of alternative
perspectives
or alternative 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

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 situation 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
cognitive commitment.
In this instance
people can be mindless either
because they have decided that the available information
is irrelevant 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 stereotypes 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

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 influence what happens?
People are most likely to be mindful when they have an opportunity to control and influence a situation, when they believe the available 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 mindfulness 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 organizational 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
connection 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 interpretation
at built heritage sites.
Figure 1 describes a proposed mindfulness
model of visitor behavior 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;

Media

-w

___)

1. Low Interest in Content

2. High levels of Fatigue
e
3. Entertainment/Social Motive

------------

3. Educational Motive

1. High Interest in Content

2. Low levels of fatigue

VISITOR FACTORS

MINDLESS -

----------

MINDFUL-

COGNITIVE STATE

1. Little learning
2. Low
Satisfaction
3. Little
Understanding

------

1. More Learning
2. High satisfaction
3. Greater
understanding

CONSEQUENCES

Figure 1. Mindfulness Model of Visitor Behavior and Cognition at Built Heritage Sites

4. Static Exhibits
5. Poor/No Orientation
6. No guides present

1. Repetitive/Unisensory
2. Traditional Exhibits
3. No control/Interaction

1. Varied/Multisensory Media
2. Novelty/Conflict/Surprise
3. Use of questions
4. Visitor control/Interactive Exhibits
5. Dynamic exhibits
6. Physical/Cognitive Orientation
7. Topic/Content Area
8. Presence of guides
___---------

SETTING FACTORS

384

MINDFUL VISITORS

inanimate
and/or
static
exhibits.
However,
mindfulness
is more
likely when there is a variety
of exhibit
media including
multisensory 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 environmental
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 interfere with the attention
they pay to the exhibits.
Therefore,
the
model predicts
that built heritage
sites with poor physical
orientation systems - that is, ineffective
maps and signage -will
be more
likely to induce mindlessness
in their visitors
than those with effective 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 interpretation
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 reasonable 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 knowledge 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 experiences. 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

Table

1.

2.
3.
4.

2. Predictions

VISITORS

for Visitor Behavior and Cognition

Mindfulness
Model of Interpretation

Derived

from

the

Variety
and control
are the most important
elements
of mindfulness.
This
leads to two fundamental
predictions:
A. 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.
B. 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.
Cognitive
orientation
devices,
such as questions
and guides,
will enhance
learning.
Effective
physical
orientation
systems
will be more likely to result in mindful
visitors
and effective
interpretation.
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
to exhibits or guides as
be proposed: (1) increased visitor attention
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
of visitor
preference
for
for mindfulness;
(2)
high er levels
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 interactive 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 interpretation that they receive.
General
surveys of visitors to built heritage
sites also provide
evidence to support the Mindfulness
Models prediction
that interaction 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 interest 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
interactive/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

Table

Major

MINDFUL

VISITORS

3. Summary of Selected Studies Comparing

Interpretive
(Including Interaction)
at Built Heritage Sites

Conclusion

Visitors using interactive

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

Studies
Authors
Sample
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Visitors using exhibit guides/

brochures
with questionsfquizes
learn more than visitors using
traditional
guides.

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Visitors are attracted
more to
interactive
exhibits and spend
longer than at traditional
exhibits.

I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Visitors prefer interactive

to
traditional
exhibits/displays.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Techniques

(Date)
(a) Setting

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

Table

389

MOSCARDO

4. Summary of Selected Studies Comparing

Interpretive
(Excluding Interaction)
at Built Heritage Sites

Authors
(Date)
Brooks
Vernon

Sample
Setting
and
(1956)

Children
Museum

Techniques

(n)
Conclusions
(140)

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

Cone and
Kendall (1978)

Groups (26)
Museum

Large dioramas had greater attracting

and holding power and generated
more
learning than traditional
small exhibit
cases.

Goins and
Griffenhagen
greatest
(1957)

Visitors
( 100)
Museum

Unusual

Hirschi
Screven

Groups (172)
Museum

Mean label reading time was significantly

higher when labels had questions.

Houlding
(1989)

Visitors
(394)
Museum

Visitors spent more than twice as much

time at exhibits where objects could be
touched than where the objects were in
cases.

Kearns
(1940)

Visitors
(150)
Museum

A guide directing
people
target exhibits generated
for those exhibits.

Koran, Morrison
Lehman, Koran
and Gandara
(1984)

Visitors
(234)
Museum

Visitors were more attracted

that could be touched.

Landay and
Bridge (1982)

Visitors
(282)
Museum

A video display was more effective than

a traditional
wall display for attracting
and holding visitor attention
and for
visitor learning and preference.

Peart
(1984)

Visitors
(280)
Museum

The addition of a sound track to an

exhibit significantly
increased visitor
attention.

and
(1988)

objects

attract

attention.

to look at
more attention
to objects

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 dependent 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

MINDFUL VISITORS

390

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
can enhance
learning,
particularly
if they are
that questions
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
of a
by Horn (1980) p rovides one of the few published examples
study of guided tours in a built heritage setting, the Boston Museum
of Fine Arts. Horn surveyed visitors who had taken either a traditional tour, where the guide gives a standard, lecture-like
presentation, and an inquiry tour in which the guide asked visitors questions
The visitors were significantly
more
and encouraged
discussion.
positive about the inquiry tour.
It is possible that the effectiveness
of these various cognitive orientation 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 installation 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
What drew your attention
to the
answers given to the question

392

MINDFUL

VISITORS

map?
were its bright
colors and its
predicted
by the Mindfulness
Model.

unusual

position,

which

is

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 cognition (Langer
1989a,b) and the applied
research
evidence
(presented
earlier)
suggest that there are four key principles
that should underlie 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 interpretation,
and good physical
orientation
systems).
Three,
interpretation
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 integrative perspective
on previous
beliefs. In the first instance
a mindfulness
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 activity 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 building 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 interpretation,
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

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 interpretation 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 effective 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.
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.
Y

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
and
Science
Education.
American
Psychologist
41:1123-l
130.
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
Museum
Exhibit. Journal
of Research
in
Learning
From a Walk Through
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.
I
London: William Heinemann.
Lane, B.
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.
of Mindlessness-Mindfulness.
1989b
Minding
Matters:
The
Consequences
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
Park
Maps:
A Psychological
Evaluation.
1984
Dimensions
of National
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
Washington:
The
Smithsonian
Institution
Department
of
Institution.
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