21/3 1978

Space, Time, and

Family Interaction:
Visitor Behavior at the
Science Museum
of Minnesota
CYNTHIA A. CONE
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
KEITH KENDALL, STUDENT
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY
Where did you go? To the museum. What did you do there?
There is increasing interest today in museums as learning environ-
ments rather than as repositories of artifacts. This shift in concern
raises questions about how visitors respond to museum displays.
Since most people visit museums accompanied by others, such
questions necessarily involve the examination of group interaction.
This report is the summary of the results of research on visitor
behavior in the anthropology hall of the Science Museum of
Minnesota, designed and conducted by a group of students and us
at Hamline University. Our interest was in the movement and inter-
action of family groups in the hall. Specifically, we wanted to
determine what attracted their attention and if family members
interacted differently depending on their generation and sex. On a
Saturday and Sunday we observed twenty-six family groups for the
entire time they spent in the anthropology hall. Because the analysis
of this sample suggested distinct variations in the behavior of family
245
CURATOR
members according to their position in the family, a second set of
observations was made. This focused on role behavior and involved a
total of sixty-eight family groups.
METHOD
Data was obtained in two ways: by observing visitor behavior in the
hall and by interviewing visitors. Two students followed each family,
selected at random, as it entered the hall. FarniZy was defined as a
parent-child group. Using maps of the hall for notations, one student
noted the time the group spent at each exhibit while the other
recorded family interaction. If the group separated, the student
timed the parent accompanied by the child or children, called the
family core. These recorded times refer predominantly to the
movement of adult women, as children more often stayed close to
their mothers. Where parents separated, the researcher observing
interaction attended first to the parent in the vicinity of offspring,
but also tried to record the activities of the other adult or of children
who left the group. For particularly active groups or for those whose
members moved relatively independently, the observers had difficulty
in monitoring all the behavior and in making a complete record of
observations. Nevertheless, for every family group we have a complete
record of the movement of the core of that group and for the
majority of families we were able to observe and record their entire
passage through the hall. When individuals left the core they were
generally on their own. Consequently, while we lack some data
concerning the time an individual spent in front of particular
exhibits, the data on family interaction are fairly complete.
Immediately after the activities of a group were recorded, the two
researchers went over their observations to add additional informa-
tion and coordinate their observations. They then proceeded to
observe another family. As a family left the hall, a student ap-
proached it for a brief interview. All members of the group were
asked what they especially remembered about the hall and why they
remembered it.
Before students recorded the observations used in this analysis,
they participated in several practice sessions in which they worked
on developing skill in observing and inconspicuous recording so as
not to disturb the visitors experience of the museum. There were
never more than two teams of observers in the hall at any one time.
The Anthropology Hall-The anthropology hall occupies a space
approximately 100 by 34 feet (Figure 1). Exhibits are set into the
wall in a continuous line with no free-standing units. There are twelve
246
21/3 1978
dioramas, twenty-two artifact displays, and nine two-dimensional
displays of explanatory tables, maps, and photographs. Area I is
devoted to Ancient Egypt. Area I1 contains material from the Plains
Indians. Following on the right wall in Area 11, exhibits 21 to 23
refer to the Eskimo, and on the left are four exhibits about the
Southwest. Exhibits 18 through 31 concern South American Indians.
On the left wall in Area I V are displays devoted to the Northwest
Coast and on the left wall in Area V are Woodland Indian exhibits.
Finally, three displays, 32 to 34 refer to the Philippines. As will be
discussed below, the area designations are derived from visitor move-
ment through the hall, although visitor movement does not
necessarily coincide with the culture-area relationships among
exhibits.
RESULTS
Of the twenty-six family groups observed, there were eighteen
two-parent groups and eight one-parent groups. Altogether, eighty-six
people were observed, approximately half of which were children
who ranged in estimated age from two to fifteen. Sixty-two percent
were between the ages of four and eight. Incidentally, during the
course of data collection no single visitors were seen entering the
museum, which suggests that museum visiting is a social occasion, of
which social interaction of some sort must be a significant
component.
The average time a family group spent in the hall was slightly less
than ten minutes. In front of an exhibit, the average time spent was
1 Anthropology Hall floor plan.
CURATOR
thirty seconds. Almost no families attended to all of the exhibits,
but if they had, given the average total time in the hall, they would
have averaged only 9.5 seconds at each display! From the point of
view of the visitor one should envision an exhibit hall of this sort as
a moving picture, the visitors themselves providing the motion.
Types of Exhibits and Visitor Response-In our initial research
planning we hypothesized that there would be a relationship between
recall of an exhibit and the time spent viewing it. There is indeed a
high correlation between the two. We compared the amount of time
spent at exhibits recalled in the interview with the length of time
spent at those not mentioned in the interview but at which a group
was observed to stop (t =3.5 > .01).
Other data on the most frequently recalled exhibits indicate that
the number of groups which stopped at these exhibits, as well as the
amount of verbal interaction in front of them, was also high (Table
1). Of the four most memorable exhibits, two are the only life-size
dioramas in the hall, the third is a display of a human and a bird
mummy, and the fourth is a small but life-size teepee. People viewed
this last exhibit without stopping, so less time was spent at it than at
the other three memorable exhibits. Mostly it attracted the smaller
children, and it is their recollections that give it a high rating. This
may be because the doorway of the teepee was so low that only small
children could see the artificial campfire inside without stooping
over.
Table 1- Frequently Recalled Exhibits
No. of
No. of Average Incidents No. of
Groups Time Stopped of Verbal Times
Exhibit Stopping (i n seconds) Interaction Recalled
Chippewa diorama #38 20 77 50.6 13 13 50
46.2 22 11 42
Jivaro diorama #20 21 88
Teepee #42 12 46 36.6 9 6 23
# %
# # %
Egyptian mummy #5 20 77 56.5 32 9 35
N =26 groups
Chippewa wild-ricing diorama.
Overview of old Egyptian display.
248
CURATOR
Verbal responses at the mummy exhibit and in the interviews
suggest that this display is remembered because the corpses provide
some experience with death, and visitors were intrigued by the
apparent retardation of decomposition. Children often remarked on
the condition of teeth and nails. The life-size dioramas frequently
provoked a response of awe, as if they provided a magical glimpse
into another world.
Food, pets, and family roles were commented upon. The stuffed
dogs, one in each of the life-size dioramas, were such a great source
of attention that their presence seemed to automatically increase the
time spent in front of a display. Certainly the nature of the verbal
response to the popular displays provides support for Duboss ideas
about the functions of science museums (Dubos, 1973). Dubos
maintains that the abstract learning of scientific principles can be
best accomplished in an academic environment. What science
museums can provide most effectively are the qualitative experiences
of scientific thought and observation.
The data on visitor response to types of displays add additional
support to Duboss view. Though there was considerable variation in
the size and location of the three types of displays-some artifact
displays attracting more attention than some dioramas-the dioramas
attracted the most groups and elicited the most verbal interaction
(Table 2).
Table 2-Exhibit Types and Visitor Behavior
Average No. Average Average No.
of Groups Time Spent of Verbal Average
Type Number Stopping (in seconds) Interactions Recall
Dioramas 12 10.25 34.9 6.6 2.2
Artifact displays 20 8 32.7 4.4 1.1
Labels, maps, photos 9 3.2 16.1 0.1 -
N =26 groups
Graphic displays received very little attention. Only one family of
the twenty-six was noted to read labels, and in the interview members
expressed the regret that so little information was provided. The
other twenty-five families learned mainly from the exhibits them-
selves or through instruction from another family member whose
explanations were derived from previously acquired knowledge rather
than from the labels.
SpatMZ Determinants of Visitor Behavior-Movement through the
museum hall was not random, but neither did it correspond to the
250
2113 1918
Egyptian mummy display.
sequences planned by museum designers. Nearly all the groups
entered the anthropology hall first in preference to the other two,
concerning the natural and physical sciences, available to them. This
required that they turn left, in contrast to Meltons findings (1972)
that people generally turned to the right when they entered a
museum hall. Seventy percent went to the Egyptian room first, all of
them ignoring the sand-painting exhibit to the left, number 1. For
years, the mummy in the Egyptian room has been an extremely
popular exhibit and knowledge of its location in the anthropology
hall is likely to influence the movement of visitors. Within the
Egyptian room there was no clearcut pattern, although the second
most popular display there is a diorama. During our period of
observation a family rarely visited the Egyptian room alone, and since
the room and the exhibits were small, the existence of others would
affect the sequence of movement.
From the Egyptian room, the majority of people moved along the
left wall, ignoring the large label (15) and continuing on through the
alcove including displays 17, 18, and 19. At this point the pattern
of movement began to show greater variation. Generally groups
25 1
CURATOR
would move to one of the three Eskimo exhibits (21, 22, or 23) on
their right, then left to the large Amazon diorama (20). (At this point
50% left this area to go to the next room in the hall.) The other
half moved to their right from exhibit 20 to exhibit 27, a Northwest
Coast totem pole and box. Only half of these (25% of the total) then
further explored the alcove opposite the diorama. The last room in
the hall, Area V, had the most random movement but 77% of the
groups stopped at the Chippewa diorama (77).
As people progressed through the hall not only did their movement
pattern vary more, but so did the number of exhibits viewed, the time
spent at each exhibit, and the amount of verbal interaction. The data
in Table 3 demonstrate that as visitors progress through the hall
they stop at fewer exhibits, spend less time at those to which they do
attend, and interact with each other less. With the exception of the
large dioramas which attracted attention regardless of placement, the
amount of attention paid to an exhibit depended on when, in the
viewing sequence, it was observed. Except for the large dioramas, we
found no correlation between size of display and the attention given
it.
Table 3-Exhibit Areas and Visitor Behavior
Average No. Average Average No.
of Groups Time Spent of Verbal
Areas Stopping (in seconds) Interactions
I 10.2 32.4 5.5
II 12.2 33.6 6
I l l 7.1 18.9 3.5
I V 8 (4.51" 27.4 3.5
V 6.4 (4.1)* 19.2 2.3
* I n areas IV and V the large dioramas received considerably more at t ent i on
than the other exhibits. The numbers i n parentheses exclude these exhi bi ts
f rom the calculations.
N =26 groups
Visitor Interaction-Tabulations of kinds of visitor behavior were
initially divided into verbal interaction and movement. Verbal
interaction included reading aloud, explaining, questioning, and
pointing out aspects of exhibits. Movement included leading,
separating, and rejoining. Our sample included children of varying
ages from infants in arms to teenagers. Since we would expect
considerable variation in parent-child and child-child interaction,
according to the child's age, we felt generalizations concerning the
total sample were not appropriate, but dividing the children into age
252
21/3 1978
Eskimo case.
groups left us with such small numbers in each class that again we
hesitated to generalize. We did, however, make some comparisons
that suggested a second step in the research. Within the eighteen
two-parent groups we observed that mothers were much more likely
than fathers to interact verbally with the children, particularly in
offering explanations. Thirty incidences of explanation were recorded
for mothers and only eleven for fathers. In looking at behavior
directed by parents to grade-school-aged children, we noted that the
boys were spoken to more often, fifty-two incidents as opposed to
twelve for girls. Boys were also more likely to initiate both verbal
interaction and motion.
I n response to these results which suggested considerable sex-role
differentiation in visitor behavior, mothers as compared to fathers
and daughters as compared to sons, a further study was conducted.
Observations were made of family interaction in front of the four
exhibits determined by the earlier research to be the most popular
(the two life-size dioramas, the teepee, and the mummy) and were
recorded according to the categories previously developed. Because
the researchers directed their observations to family interaction in
front of single exhibits rather than the entire hall the problems of
monitoring the movement of a family group through the hall were
eliminated. Sixty-eight family groups were observed for the duration
of time which they spent in front of an exhibit. Each family group
253
CURATOR
included a child or children from two to nine years of age. Age was
estimated according to approximate height. The distribution of kinds
of groups can be found in Table 4. Fifty-five of the sixty-eight
families were two-parent groups and thirteen were one-parent groups.
The distribution among sex and generation categories, mothers and
fathers, sons and daughters, was sufficiently even to warrant placing
al l observations in a single tabulation. Data were gathered on a total
of sixty-three mothers, fifty-eight fathers, seventy-four sons, and
seventy-six daughters.
Table 5 provides a summary of the kinds of interactions observed.
The predominant mode of verbal interaction was explanation. The
most frequent type of movement was separation, members of the
group subsequently rejoining as they moved to another exhibit. I t is
notable that among the sixty-eight families, all with young children,
only nineteen incidences of discipline were observed-4% of the total
number of observed acts. Is a museum environment a place where it
is relatively easy for children to behave in a manner consistent with
the expectations of their parents?
Some striking differences in patterns of verbal interaction can be
discerned in Table 6. For simplification, explaining, reading, ques-
tioning, and pointing have been grouped together. I t is worth adding,
however, that the most frequent verbal behavior of parents toward
children is the offering of explanations, while children, in turn, ask
questions of their parents. Mothers initiated verbal interaction far
more often than the other categories (actor ratio of 160) and they
almost entirely addressed children, dividing their attention fairly
equally between sons and daughters. Fathers engaged much less in
Table &Composition of Groups
Parents Children
Mother and Father Son(s) and Daughter(4 30
Son(s) only 17
8 Daughter(s) only
Total 55
One Parent Mother, Son(s) and Daughter(4 4
Father, Son(s) and Daughter(4 1
Mother and Daughterb) 2
Father and Daughter(s1 1
Mother and Son(s1 1
4
Father and Son(s) -
Total 13
Total 68
-
254
21/3 1918
verbal behavior and directed most of it towards their sons. Sons
initiated almost as much verbal interaction as their fathers and
directed it almost equally to both parents. Daughters were the least
likely to engage in verbal interaction (an actor ratio of 26), a striking
contrast to their mothers. Unlike their brothers, they addressed few
remarks or questions to their fathers.
Table %Types of Family Interaction
Number of
Type of Incidences
Interaction Observed %
Reads aloud
Explains
Questions
Points
Disciplines
Separates
Rejoins
Leads
Total
N =68 family groups
43
70
52
34
19
123
84
72
497
-
8
l 4 40%verbal
11
7
4
25
17 56%motion
14
Table &Verbal Interaction
To To To To
Number Mother Father Daughter Son Actor"
Observed # % # % # % # % Total Ratio
Mother
63 - - 6 6 46 46 49 49 101 160
Father 58
9 2 4 - - 6 16 22 60 37 64
Daughter 76 17 80 3
14 - - 1 5 21 26
Son 74 21 53 19
48 - - - - 40 54
number of acts
number of persons
'Actor Rat i o = x 100
Table 7-Motion
Number Leads Separates Actor" J oins Actor"
Observed # % # % Subtotal Ratio # % Total Ratio
Mother 63 17 23 25 33 42 66 33 44 75 119
Father 58 25 34 33 45 58 100 16 22 74 128
Daughter 76 12 22 24 44 36 47 18 33 54 71
Son 74 18 24 41 54 59 80 17 23 76 102
number of acts
number of persons
' Actor Rat i o = x 100
255
CURATOR
We divided movement into three kinds: separation, leading, and
rejoining. The tabulations are summarized in Table 7. The initiation
of movement through separation or the act of leading appeared to be
a largely male prerogative, for fathers have an actor ratio of 100 and
sons of 80, while the actor ratios of mothers and daughters are 66 and
47 respectively. Mothers and daughters had to hustle (44%) to catch
up-and 33% of their acts of motion involved rejoining in contrast to
the less than 25% that males devoted to this movement. As in the case
of verbal interaction, daughters were the least apt to initiate move-
ment, but unlike verbal behavior, their acts of movement referred to
their mothers and fathers equally. Overall, the most frequent inter-
action was between parents and children with less frequent exchange
between parents and very little interaction indeed amongst the
children themselves.
Mothers, rather than fathers, chiefly play the role of teacher. The
following anecdote illustrates one mothers attempt to assert her role
and to socialize her husband into assuming the less verbally active
behavior we found typical of fathers-especially with their daughters.
A mother and father with a daughter of about four years of age
entered the Egyptian room. The father picked up his daughter and
systematically carried her from one exhibit to the next, carefully and
at some length pointing out to her a number of features in each
display. After they attended to three displays, the mother left,
wandering out of the Egyptian room and through the remainder of
the hall. After the father and daughter had examined three more
exhibits she returned and remarked with modulated impatience that
she had nearly finished, and commented on the fathers slowness. He
continued to describe an exhibit to his daughter. The mother then
rather sharply instructed her husband that he should put his daughter
down and let her go at her own pace. He reluctantly did so and the
family proceeded to the next section of the hall. About three minutes
later the mother took the daughters hand and began leading her
through the hall explaining the displays as they proceeded. The father
left to explore on his own.
Chase contends that learning and sociality are inextricably related
(Chase, 1975). Museums appear to be places where parents, partic-
ularly mothers, teach their children. Parental teaching in a public
context, however, is handled in an intimate fashion. The encroach-
ment of other groups caused parents to move their children closer to
them in a tight-knit cluster or often precipitated parents to move the
family on to another exhibit. Parents were frequently seen to position
their children on either side or to stand behind them with their hands
on the childrens shoulders. Museums also appear to be contexts for
256
21/3 1978
teaching children distancing behavior and for family groups to display
themselves. The spacing of exhibits should take cognizance of these
family needs. If design goals are to encourage family interaction and
prolonged viewing, large exhibits and well-spaced displays would
facilitate them. Making displays free-standing so that a family could
gather round and discover it together should also facilitate inter-
action and learning. Exhibits which could provide opportunities for a
family group to cooperate in altering, creating, or manipulating a
display would further enhance interaction.
The result of this research concerning family interaction raises some
interesting and challenging problems for museum designers. The
extent to which fathers ignored their daughters is startling and surely
is partly responsible for the relative passivity of young girls in the
museum environment. How does this affect their experience of the
museum compared to that of their brothers? Do they learn less? One
might hypothesize a science museum to be a male environment.
But mothers took a much more active role in teaching children than
did fathers, and at times attempted to prevent fathers from engaging
in explanation. Though mothers more actively taught their children,
the high incidence of two-parent groups suggests that a museum visit
is, nevertheless, a family outing. To what extent ought museum
designers be concerned with family interaction? If designers wish
their exhibits to increase family interaction, what features can they
employ to effect this result, particularly when much of the patterning
of family interaction is determined outside the museum?
The completion of the new anthropology hall at the Science
Museum of Minnesota will help to provide answers to these questions.
The thrust of the new hall is to emphasize a greater variety of
experiences for visitors than did the more traditional hall that is the
subject of this research. A family visiting the new exhibition will
encounter displays in which it can participate with various degrees
of involvement. Individuals can become part of a walk-in diorama
of a Mayan house, observe fabric-dyeing techniques, or add to a
Peoples Loom. Such an approach to museum design should alter
visitor behavior considerably, increasing not only the visitors involve-
ment in the displays but also their interaction with each other. Since
a great many of the new exhibits focus on domestic activities such as
cooking, dyeing and weaving, and ceramics, we would also predict
increased involvement on the part of daughters. How will fathers
respond? Beyond celebrating the varieties of human adaptations and
broadening the understanding of universal human problems, museums
may play some part in the continuing development of the larger
social and cultural world of which they are a part.
257
CURATOR
SUMMARY
Movement through the anthropology hall did not correspond to the
logical sequencing of exhibits but generally focused on the four
exhibits that were large and particularly dramatic. Time spent in
front of a single display was brief, averaging thirty seconds. There
was a high correlation between time spent in front of an exhibit,
recall of that exhibit, and verbal interaction among family members.
As visitors moved through the hall there was a consistent decrease in
the number of exhibits viewed, the time spent attending to them, and
verbal interaction.
The observation of families revealed distinct patterning of genera-
tion and sex roles. Though there was considerable variation in the
extent and type of interaction between categories of family
members, a family visit to a museum appears to be a social and a
learning occasion. Learning from the exhibits is largely one of direct
observation accompanied by explanations from parents to children,
less often to each other. A visit to a museum allows a family to
display itself as a unit. In museums children learn appropriate
behavior in public places from their parents. The few incidences of
discipline observed suggest that a museum offers a setting where it is
easy for children to achieve the desired standards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express gratitude to the Science Museum of
Minnesota for its cooperation on this project, especially to Louis
Casagrande, Curator of Anthropology, and Karla McGray, Human
Resources Coordinator. The enthusiasm and dedication of the
students who participated in the research extended far beyond the
academic call of duty. They are Sheila Leahy, Mark Standa, Christina
Hammer, Bruce Lundberg, J anet Allen, Paul Willis, and Greg Hall.
Special thanks are extended to J ohn McGrath for his statistical
analysis .
REFERENCES
De Borhegyi, Stephan F. and Irene A. Hanson, The Museum Visitor, Publications
in Museology, number 3, Milwaukee Public Museum, 1968.
Chase, Richard A., Museums as Learning Environments, Museum News,
number 5, 1975, pages 37-43.
Dubos, Re&, Sensory Perception and the Museum Experience, Museum News,
number 2, 1973, pages 50-51.
Kearns, William E., Studies of Visitor Behavior at the Peabody Museum of
Natural History, Yale University, Museum News, number 18, 1940, pages 5-8.
Melton, Arthur W., Visitor Behavior in Museums: Some Early Research in
Environmental Design, Human Factors, number 4, 1972, pages 393-403.
258