Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:36:45.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-Paying Attention to Visitor Behavior: A Re-Analysis using Meta-Analytic Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

Yone Castro ,
Juan Botella  and
Mikel Asensio
Yone Castro
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Juan Botella
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Mikel Asensio*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mikel Asensio. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - Basic Psychology. Facultad de Psicología, despacho 19. Calle Iván Pavlov N° 6. Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 28049. Madrid (Spain).Phone: +34–914974096. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study describes a meta-analytic review of museum visitors’ behavior. Although there is a large number of visitor studies available, their cumulative importance has not been determined due to the lack of rigorous methods to determine common causes of visitors’ behaviors. We analyzed Serrell’s (1998) database of 110 studies, defining a number of variables that measure visitors’ behaviors in exhibition spaces which exceeded the most typical and obvious ones. We defined four indexes of effect size and obtained their combined estimates: average time per feature [ATF● = 0.43 (0.49; 0.37)], percentage of diligent visitors [dv● = 30% (0.39; 0.23)], inverse of velocity [Iv● = 4.07 min/100m2 (4.55; 3.59)], and stops per feature [SF● = 0.35 (0.38; 0.33)], and we analyzed the role of relevant moderating variables. Key findings indicate, for example, that the visiting time for each display element relates to the size of the exhibition and its newness, and visitor walking speed is higher in large exhibit areas. The indexes obtained in this study can be understood as references to be used for comparison with new evaluations. They may help to predict people’s behavior and appreciation of new exhibitions, identifying important problems in museum designs, and providing new research tools for this field.

Keywords

meta-analysismuseum studiesvisitor behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E39
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-centered design. In Bainbridge, W. (Ed.), Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. (pp. 463–468). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Asensio, M., & Asenjo, E. (Eds.) (2011). Lazos de luz azul: Museos y tecnologías 1, 2 and 3.0 [Blue light loops: Museums and 1, 2, and 3.0 Technologies]. Barcelona, Spain: UOC.Google Scholar
Asensio, M., & Pol, E. (2005). Evaluación de exposiciones [Exhibit evaluation]. In Santacana, J. & Serrat, N. (Eds.), Museografía Didáctica [Didactic Museum Studies]. (pp. 527–630). Barcelona, Spain. Ariel.Google Scholar
Bitgood, S. (2011). Social designing in museums: The psychology of visitor studies. Collected essays volumes one and two. Cambridge, MA: Museumsetc.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effects and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 97–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12 Google Scholar
Botella, J., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2015). Meta-análisis en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud [Meta-analysis of Social Science and Health]. Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Botella, J., Suero, M., & Ximénez, C. (2012). Análisis de datos en Psicología I. [Data Analysis in Psychology I]. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Carbonell, B. M. (Ed.) (2012). Museum studies. An anthology of contexts. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.) (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2 nd Ed.), New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Daignault, L. (2011). L’Evaluation muséale. Savoirs et savoir-faire [The museum evaluation. Knowledge and expertise]. Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 Google Scholar
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Nueva York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. D. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, B. (2014). The road to results. Effectives practices for building art audiences. New York, NY: Harlow Research and Consulting LCC.Google Scholar
Heath, C. D., & Lehn, V. (2010). Interactivity and collaboration: New forms of participation in museums, galleries and science centers. In Parry, R. (Ed.), Museums in a digital age. (pp. 266–280). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486 Google Scholar
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, K., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods, 17, 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028086 Google Scholar
Klingler, S., & Graft, C. (2012). In lieu of mind Reading: Visitor studies and evaluation. In Catlin-Legutko, C. & Klingler, S. (Eds.), Small museum toolkit. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Knell, S. J., Aronsson, P., Amundsen, A. B., Barnes, A. J., Burch, S., Carter, J., … Kirwan, A. (Eds.) (2011). National museums, new studies from around the world. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up. The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S. (Ed.) (2006). A companion to museum studies. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
Newcombe, R. G. (2012). Confidence intervals for proportions and related measures of effect size. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2 nd Ed., pp. 295–315). Nueva York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, H., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Serrell, B. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weil, S. (2002). Making museum matter. Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar