ENHANCING THE MUSEUM EXPERIENCE BY
VISITOR-TO-VISITOR INTERACTION
Master Thesis
MSc. Business Administration – Entrepreneurship and Innovation
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Wietze van der Aa
Student: Rianne Poodt
Student ID: 10479554
Date: 29 June 2015
1
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Rianne Poodt who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
2
ABSTRACT
While the role of visitor-to-visitor (V2V) interaction in shaping service experience has been recognised in the services literature, empirical examination of this issue is limited. Investigation of social contacts has mainly focused on customer–service dyads, while much less is known about V2V interactions. Specifically, V2V interaction in museums is a scarce subject in the literature. To fill this knowledge gap, this study has examined interaction amongst visitors in three different museums and the impact this has on the museum experience, satisfaction, and delight.
Qualitative (observations & interviews) and quantitative (survey, n=553) research was conducted. Findings reveal that V2V interaction has a positive direct effect on social experiences, a negative direct effect on escapism experiences and less clear effects on object experiences and cognitive experiences. It appears that solitary and accompanied visitors’ cognitive and object experiences could be equal, but in different ways. Furthermore, this study suggests that having a short conversation with people visitors previously did not know, could have a positive effect on satisfaction and delight. Further research has to examine this finding.
Keywords: Visitor-to-visitor interaction, Discussing art works, Conversations with previously unknown people, Experiences, Museums, Satisfaction, Delight
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“We must find time to stop and thank the people who make a difference in our lives.“ - John F. Kennedy
First, I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Wietze van der Aa for his support and guidance during the execution of this research. Thank you for your enthusiasm, positive attitude, advice, and encouragement. Moreover, I want to thank dr. Tsvi Vinig and dr. Wietze van der Aa for their dedication regarding this master’s programme. I am so glad that I started this master’s specialisation. I was challenged and really able to learn new and interesting things.
Furthermore, I am very grateful to the museums that gave me the access needed to conduct my research. Specifically, I would like to thank drs. Geke Vinke (Museum Volkenkunde), Kelly Schenk and her colleagues from the communication and marketing department (Rijkmuseum), Karin Sommerer and Sophia Koen (Stedelijk Museum), and Joan de Vries (Tropenmuseum). It was a privilege to conduct research in these extraordinary, inspiring environments.
Perhaps most important of all, I would like to thank all museum visitors who wanted to participate in this research, and who were willing to fill in my fairly lengthy questionnaire or speak to me. Although it was hard work to collect all the data, I met many interesting and very kind people, which motivated me to get even more respondents.
I also want to thank Dick van Dijk and Robin van Westen (Waag Society). Because of our discussion I started to think about this thesis topic. You are in part, the initiators of this project and I am really thankful for that.
Last but not least, I would like to say the following words to my brother: I am so happy to have you as my brother! We are both richly blessed with our parents. ANOTHER POODTJES CHAMPAGNE MOMENT HAS ARRIVED!
4
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ... 6
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES ... 8
2.2 Theoretical bases of a (museum) experience ...10
2.2.1 Sub-dimensions of an experience ... 10 2.3 Visitor Interaction ...14 2.3.1 Communication ... 14 2.3.2 Visitor-to-visitor interaction... 16 2.4 Satisfaction ...18 2.5 Delight ...19 2.6 Research Model ...21
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 22
3.1 Qualitative interviews & non-participatory observations ...22
3.2 Quantitative research: survey ...23
3.2.1 Research setting & participants ... 23
3.2.2 Data collection ... 24
3.2.3 Questionnaire design ... 25
3.2.4 Measurement of variables... 25
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ... 27
4.1 Results of qualitative research ...27
4.1.1 Solitary versus in company ... 27
4.1.2 Reasons to speak ... 28
4.1.3 The social context beyond the museum walls ... 30
4.1.4 Brief conclusion of qualitative section... 31
4.1.5 Revised conceptual model ... 31
4.2 Results quantitative research ...33
4.2.1 Sample ... 33
4.2.2 Analysis ... 34
4.2.4 Hypotheses testing... 37
4.2.4.1 Direct effects of V2V interaction (discussed artworks) on experiences ... 37
4.2.4.2 Direct effects V2V interaction (with previously unknown people) on experiences ... 39
4.2.4.3 Direct effects experiences on satisfaction ... 40
4.2.4.4 Direct effects experiences on delight ... 44
4.2.4.6 Direct effect V2V interaction on satisfaction & delight ... 46
4.2.4.5 Mediation effects ... 47
4.2.5 Differences between the three museums ... 53
4.2.5.1 V2V interaction ... 53
4.2.5.2 Experiences & satisfaction & delight ... 53
4.2.6 Comparison of solitary visitors and visitors in company ... 54
4.2.6.1 Contribution social context & content interaction ... 54
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ... 58
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION ... 65
6.2 Future research ...67
6.3 Managerial implications ...67
5
APPENDIX ... 78
APPENDIX 1 Variables used in the questionnaire ...79
APPENDIX 2 Questionnaire (Dutch version) ...82
APPENDIX 3 Questionnaire (English version) ...90
Index of tables
Table 1: prior work that draws on experience ... 13Table 2: respondent characteristics ... 33
Table 3: measurement items and descriptive statistics ... 35
Table 4: means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities ... 36
Table 5: summary direct effects V2V interaction (discussed artworks) on experiences ... 38
Table 6: summary direct effects V2V interaction (conversation with unknown) on experiences ... 40
Table 7: hierarchical regression model of satisfaction (emotion based, SAT1) ... 41
Table 8: hierarchical regression model of satisfaction (evaluation based, SAT2) ... 42
Table 9: summary direct effects experiences on satisfaction ... 43
Table 10: hierarchical regression model of delight ... 44
Table 11: summary direct effects experiences on delight ... 45
Table 12: summary of mediating effects (discussing artworks - satisfaction) ... 49
Table 13: summary of mediating effects (discussing artworks - delight) ... 49
Table 14: summary of mediating effects (converstaion with unkown - satisfaction) ... 52
Table 15: summary of mediating effects (conversation with unknown - delight.………..52
Table 16: perceived value of social contact (“being on your own” or “having company”. ... 54
Table 17: personal preferences for social interaction... 57
Table 18: hypotheses and their level of support ... 63
Index of figures
Figure 1: the progression of Economic Value Model (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 22) ... 9Figure 2: the four realms of an experience. Adapted from Pine & Gilmore, 1999. ... 11
Figure 3: the simple form of the Transmission Model ... 14
Figure 4: conceptual model of visitor-to-visitor interaction in museums ... 21
Figure 5: revised conceptual model of visitor-to-visitor interaction in museums ... 32
Figure 6: PROCESS model 4 ... 47
Figure 7: mediation model V2V interaction (discussed artworks) on satisfaction. ... 48
Figure 8: mediation model V2V interaction (conversation with unknown) on satisfaction ... 50
6
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
“Life is a series of experiences – some we want to repeat, and some we would like to forget” (Weaver,
2012, p. 9)In today's service economy, many companies simply wrap experiences around their traditional offerings to improve their sales. However, creating and directing memorable experiences is more than just adding ‘amusement’ to an existing company offer. It forces companies to appeal to customer needs and wants, to enable them to connect with the service in a personal and memorable way (Pine & Gilmore 1999; Pullman & Gross 2004).
The creation of an experience is an important discussion topic for museums as well. The public resources available for museums are under pressure, whilst the financial downturn has meant less likelihood of corporate sponsorship. From 2017, grants for Dutch museums will be more dependent on the results they achieve. Government funding will not only be based on overall figures such as current visitor numbers, museums also have to broaden the range of people visiting museums (Ministry of Art and Culture, 2013). To make up for funding shortfalls, museums have to develop innovative ways to attract and retain visitors.
Museums acknowledge the need to offer visitors alternative experiences in addition to the traditional experience of learning (Vergo, 1997). Alongside the long-standing commitment of many museums to display authentic objects, in particular, there is a growing interest in exploring the ways in which new technology can engage with visitors to support the experience (Bradburne, 2001). Many museums try to develop new forms of ‘interactivity’ that facilitate co-participation. The term ‘interactivity’ is a little misleading as it encompasses an extraordinary range of tools, technologies and techniques. The term suggests active participation, not only with regard to an object, but also in response to an active agent. Yet, the designs of many digital ‘interactives’ in a museum promote machine-human interactions, while simultaneously limiting the social interactions of visitors (Heath & Lehn, 2008; Roberts et al., 2014). Social interaction seems to be very important, as customers’ experiences are not only influenced by their interaction with the service providers, but also by the presence of other customers (Zomerdijk & Vos, 2010). Especially for museums, this is an important discussion, as visits are social events (Stephens, 1986; Choi, 1999; Falk, Moussouri, & Coulson, 1998); a lot of visitors visit museums together with friends or family and while experiencing museums.
7
This suggests that the challenges seem to lie in designing for collaborative museum experiences (Roberts et al., 2014). However, before designing new technology that facilitates social interaction, there is need to know more about which kind of social interaction influences the museum experience, if any. While the role of visitor-to-visitor (V2V) interaction in shaping service experience has been recognised in the services literature, empirical examination of this issue is limited. Investigation of social contacts has mainly focused on customer – service dyads, while much less is known about V2V interactions. Specifically, literature about V2V interaction in museums is scarce, although there have been several calls to scholars to further research into the ‘social context’ of museums (Falk & Dierking, 1997, 2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Vom Lehn, 2006). To fill in this knowledge gap, this study explores interaction between visitors and its impact on the museum experience, satisfaction and delight. In particular, it addresses the following question:How could visitor-to-visitor (V2V) interaction enhance the museum experience, satisfaction and delight?
The remainder of this thesis is structured as follows: the literature review opens with a review of the existing conceptualisation of an experience, followed by the definition, which will be used in this study. In the subsequent section the main findings of previous research on the role of V2V interaction will be explored and the research hypotheses will be developed. This results in a conceptual foundation for understanding the possible influence social interaction could have among visitors and their museum experience, satisfaction and delight. The research methodology, chapter 3, will then be detailed in the following section. Chapter 4 presents the analysis and results of the qualitative and quantitative research. In chapter 5, the study outcomes will be discussed. Finally, in chapter 6, the conclusion and limitations of the study are presented, implications for academics and practitioners will be discussed, and directions for future research are provided.
8
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
The first section of this literature review discusses the development from product, to service, to an experience focus. Section 2.2 starts by analysing the conceptualisation of a (museum) experience. An experience includes different levels (Gentle, Spiller, and Noci, 2007); these levels vary in the literature, which will be discussed. Subsequently, the changing communication role for museums, from transmission approach to a more meaning-making interpretation view, will be examined, followed by a more specified section about V2V interaction in museums. Ultimately the concepts of satisfaction and delight will be discussed leading to different hypotheses by combining V2V interaction, museum experiences, satisfaction and delight.
2.1 From product to service to experience
In the marketing literature thinking has evolved from a product-focused approach to a service-and-interaction-focused approach of SD-logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008a, b). A service centred view implies that the objective is to customise offerings, to recognise that the customer is always a co-creator, and to strive to maximise consumer involvement in the customisation to better fit their needs (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008a). However, some scholars argue that the approaches in service research are often viewed as co-creation dominated by and from the perspective of the service provider (Heinonen et al, 2010). An example of this is analysing a service system from the company’s point of view with service blueprinting (see, for example, Bitner et al., 2008). Yet, a lot of scholars argue that the goal for service should be to create value for the customer (Grönroos, 2008). According to this perspective, what matters to customers is how they experience the services: “Business starts out with the needs, the realities, the values of the customer. It demands that business define its goal as the satisfaction of customer needs” (Drucker, 1974, P. 64).
Pine and Gilmore’s model (1999) illustrates how staging experiences constitute a new source of value creation and represent the final stage in the development of economic value. They thereby make a distinction between services and experiences and show how staging an experience in line with customers’ needs is crucial for differentiating oneself from competitors. “Guests obtain memorable experiences when a company intentionally uses services as the stage and goods as props to engage individual customers in an inherently personal way” (Gilmore & Pine, 2002, p. 88).
9
Figure 1: the progression of Economic Value Model (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 22)Differentiated Relevant to
Competitive Needs of Customer
Position
Undifferentiated Irrelevant to
Market Pricing Premium
Museums are a part of the aforementioned service and experience economy. Although museums are about ‘real things’ (e.g. objects, exhibitions), it is about the visitor engagement with these objects that creates the individual user experience (Black, 2005). For the majority, the quality of their experience will depend on all aspects of the visit, a complex combination unique to the individual or to the individual social/family group: “How we welcome visitors to our museums, respond to their needs and make them feel comfortable is central to their museum experience” (Black, 2005, P. 98).
Nowadays, most museums accept that they are part of the service world, and that they have similarities to other service providers in the need to understand and respond to user demand, and to achieve user satisfaction at a time of rapidly rising expectation on service quality (Black, 2005). However, although lot of scholars and practitioners in different fields acknowledge that experience should be the new focus of managerial attention, they are less unified on both its precise definition and its measure. The next section attempts to give an overview of the theoretical bases of a (museum) experience. Extract Commodities Make Goods Deliver Services Stage Experience
10
2.2 Theoretical bases of a (museum) experience
To date, there is not a comprehensive theoretical framework of experiences, and especially the experience literature specific to museums is scarce. Given the diversity of definitions of ‘customer experience’, a unified underpinning theory is likely to be difficult to achieve.
‘Experience theory’ has developed from a utilitarian view with economic based models, for example through value (Abbot, 1956), to broader hedonism definitions of customer experience (Palmer, 2010). Hedonistic definitions of customer experience imply a variety of stimuli that create value for consumers. The effects of individual stimuli have been extensively researched. For example: physical surroundings and employee responses (Bitner, 1990), authenticity and giving extras (Price, Arnould and Tierney, 1995), service interfaces (Weijters et al., 2007), the service delivery process (Danaher and Mattsson, 1994), and relationship marketing (Gummesson, 2002).
Scholars agree that the customer’s experience is holistic in that all contacts that a consumer has with an organisation are important (Harris, et al., 2003). The challenge for the development of a holistic experience is to integrate a diverse array of stimuli in order to assess the ‘trade-offs’ that are entailed in creating customer value (Palmer, 20010). When accepting Gupta and Vajic’s (2000, p. 34) definition of customer experience as being the “interaction with different elements of a context created by the service provider”, the contribution to experience of a potentially diverse range of elements (sub-dimensions) must be analysed and synthesised.
2.2.1 Sub-dimensions of an experience
Falk and Dierking’s (1992) interactive experience model has been cited by many scholars in the field of visitor studies. They conceptualised the museum visit as an interaction among three overlapping contexts: the personal context, the social context, and the physical context. The personal context consists of prior knowledge, experience, attitudes, motivation, and interest. The social context comprises the experience including those with whom the visitor attends, as well as those encountered during the experience, such as museum staff and other visitors. The physical context is formed by the architecture and ‘feel’ of the building, as well as the objects and artefacts contained within (Falk & Dierking, 1992). Falk and Dierking’s (2012) model shows that a museum visit is not an isolated experience, as there is interaction and dialogue between the three contexts. Moreover, they emphasise that experience is a process before, during and after the event. However, they do not clearly define the content of an ‘experience’. Although the processes are very important to create an experience, together with the ability to satisfy the customer’s needs and demands (Mehmetoglu &
11
Engen, 2011), it is necessary to understand the constructs that create a good museum experience in the first place.Pine and Gilmore (1999) presented a practical, conceptual framework for understanding the nature of customer experience in general. According to Pine and Gilmore (1999), there are four realms, the 4ES, (or dimensions) of experience differentiated by the level and form of customer involvement in business offerings (Figure 2). The 4ES are differentiated at two levels: the degree of customer involvement (passive vs. active), and the eagerness in which the customer connects or engages with the event/performance (absorption vs. immersion). Active-passive participation entails the level of customer involvement in the creation of the experience. Absorption is “occupying customers’ attention by bringing the experience into the mind” and immersion is “becoming physically or virtually a part of the experience itself” (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 31).
Figure 2: the four realms of an experience. Adapted from Pine & Gilmore, 1999. Absorption
Entertainment Educational
Passive Active Participation Participation EstheticEscapist
ImmersionThe four realms are considered mutually compromised and the perfect combination of these four directions leads to an excellent experience (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, 32-33).
In the marketing literature, management scholars have started discussions about the content of an experience after Schmitt (1999) proposed the term ‘experiential marketing’, and since then experiential marketing is an emerging marketing management philosophy. Schmitt (1999) has explored five different types of experiences that marketers can create for customers, which refer to sensory experiences (SENSE), affective experiences (FEEL), creative cognitive experiences (THINK),
12
physical experiences, behaviours, and lifestyles (ACT) and social-identity experiences (RELATE). It is not only the marketing literature that has discussed the content of an experience. Research on tourist experience has been developed a lot during the last fifty years (Cohen, 2008; Weaver, Weber, & McCleary, 2007). If museum visits are regarded as a kind of trip, the tourist experience in a tourism study could be compared with a visitor experience (Sheng and Chenn, 2012). Trauer (2006) implied that tourism has an experiential and emotional nature. The role of subjectivity became more important as researchers began to assume that experience is a person’s interpretation of situations (Uriely, 2005). This perspective is similar to the interactive experience model proposed by Falk and Dierking (1992) as discussed before. While the growing attention that is given to the subjective nature of tourist experiences is evident, a similar development seems to be instigated within the study of cultural heritage. Poria et al. (2003) suggested that individuals’ subjective perceptions and behaviours are the core elements of heritage tourism experiences and thus require attention. Ashworth (1999) suggested that different individuals perceive and encounter heritage spaces in different ways based on their cultural background.Elaborating on these understandings, a recent definition of customers experience include that an “experience is strictly personal and implies the customer’s involvement at different levels” (Gentile, Spiller, and Noci 2007, p. 397). These different levels vary in different studies. Pekarik et al. (1999) showed that experiences in museums could be classified into four categories: object experiences, cognitive experiences, introspective experiences, and social experiences. They incorporated a list of fourteen experiences into survey questionnaires and studies in nine Smithsonian museums, with a total sample of 2,828 visitors, supported the four experiences types as distinct. “If museums want to be accountable to their visitors, they should at least respect and consider as valid each of these four types of museum experiences” (Doering, 1999 P. 83). Doering (1999) described that the museum design should contain different kinds of spaces that foster the direct experience of objects; by presenting learning as a first-rate experience and encouraging private imagination, and those that enhance interactions among visitors.
Fornerino et al. (2006) identified five dimensions of customer experience namely sensorial-perceptual, affective, physical–behaviour, social, and cognitive (facets). On the other hand, Gentile et al. (2007) proposed six components of customer experience: sensorial, emotional, cognitive, pragmatic, lifestyle, and relational, but did not empirically test the framework. Verhoef et al. (2009) defines an experience as “holistic in nature and involving cognitive, affective, social and physical responses to the retailer” (Verhoef et all, 2009, p. 32).
13
Table 1 gives an overview of the conceptualisation of experience in previous studies.Table 1: prior work that draws on experience
Article Definition / Dimensions Experiences Falk & Dierking,
(1992,p. 6)
“The visitor’s experience can be thought of as a continually shifting interaction among personal, social and physical contexts”.
Pine & Gillmore (1999) Entertainment, educational, aesthetic, escapist (active / passive). Schmitt (1999) Think, feel, act, sense, and relate.
Pekarik et al (1999) Object experience, cognitive experience, introspective experience and social experience (museum experiences).
LaSalle and Britton (2003) Rational, emotional, sensorial physical and spiritual. Forenerino (2006) Sensorial-perceptual, affective, physical, social, cognitive.
Sheng & Chen (2011) Easiness and fun, cultural entertainment, personal identification, historical reminiscences, and escapism.
Gentile, Spiller, and Noci (2007, p. 397)
“The experience is strictly personal and implies the
Customer’s involvement at different levels (rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, and spiritual)”.
Verhoef et al (2009) Involving “cognitive, affective, social and physical responses to the retailer”.
While previous research uses different dimensions to define an experience, they all acknowledge the complex nature and argue that it is more than a composite construct, involving different dimensions of a visitor’s life, including the physical, the intellectual, the social, and the emotional.
In the literature on museums, it is very difficult to find either a comprehensive theoretical framework of experiences in museums or adequate empirical data that could guide the work. Pekarik’s (1999) constructs were the only that were raised from empirical research (N=2,828 visitors). For the purpose of this thesis, Pekarik’s (1999) constructs will be used: object experience, cognitive experience, introspective experience, and social experience. These constructs are in line with Schmitt (1999); Gentile, Spiller, and Noci (2007), and Verhoeff et al. (2009), but are specified for museums, which makes these the best constructs for this research, especially because experiences are context dependent (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003; Palmer, 2010).
In the ‘object experience’ the focus is on something outside the visitor, the object. The ‘cognitive experiences’ are about understanding and knowledge. ‘Introspective experiences’ are those in which the individual turns inward, to feelings and experiences that are essentially private, usually triggered by an object or a setting in the museum. The ‘social experiences’ are about relating to a group or culture and spending time with people (Pekarik, 1999).
14
2.3 Visitor Interaction
2.3.1 Communication
Museums mainly communicate through objects, artefacts or artworks. Exhibitions and displays are the primary means through which objects are displayed and stories are told, and it is often here that the meaning-making process begins. Although the exhibition, as a medium, will vary with different types of museums, the linear communication approach has been the most commonly used approach within museums. Museum curators were the active storytellers and interpreters of past and present cultures, and visitors the passive receivers of knowledge. In the ‘communication field’ this is called the transmission approach, which views communication as an information process, with sending information from one party to another (Shannon and Weaver, 1949).
Figure 3: the simple form of the Transmission Model
COMMUNICATOR MESSAGE/MEDIA RECEIVER
Knowledge is viewed as being static: there is a ‘correct version’ that can be transmitted. The transmission approach reflects how museums have communicated with visitors throughout most of their existence. Museums have acted as the knowledgeable interpreter and visitors were passive receivers. This model also reflects a stereotype that many museums want to put behind them and instead embrace a so-called ‘participatory museum’ or ‘engaging museum’ (Simon, 2010). Museums are, more frequently using new digital media, from audio tours, touch screens, till games and co-creation. The challenge for the engaging museum is to “develop ways that support users to observe, discuss, analyses, interpret and eventually make meanings for themselves’”(Black 2012: 90).
This change in thinking is also possible to see in the definition of museums made by The International Council of Museums (ICOM). The two following official definitions are from 1974 and 2007 respectively; changes are highlighted in bold text:
The International Council of Museums’ definition, 1974 - 2007:
“A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of man and his
15
The International Council of Museums’ definition, 2007 - now:“A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and
intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and
enjoyment” (ICOM: website).
Although ICOM is now stating that a ‘scientific’ definition of a museum should free itself from certain elements contributed by ICOM (ICOM, 2010), such as the not-for-profit aspect of a museum, it is interesting to notice that their definition consists of ‘the intangible’ to the core function of a museum. So the communication role of the museums has changed. Where, in the past, museums focused solely on artefacts, museums should now also focus on what cannot actually be seen
(Nielsen, 2014). This means opening up discussions about those aspects of history or culture that we
do not know much about, and letting visitors take part in the interpretation process. Fish (1980) regarded the meaning created from texts as a product of interpretation, rather than the focus of interpretation. The focus of meaning making is therefore not on the text but rather on an individual experience, in which specific elements of a text are considered significant through personal experience, social influences and tradition (Fish, 1980). People modify meanings in accordance with their prior experiences and knowledge and relate to their selves in order to develop from their experiences (Fish 1980: 1-17; Hooper-Greenhill 2007a).
It is important to consider other means of communication beyond the exhibitions themselves. Exhibitions are still the most important communication medium for museums. However, as new technological media and virtual interaction develop, many museums have embraced these new media as part of their communication (Hodge, 2011). Additionally, talks, lectures, tours, films, concerts, collections tours, shops and cafes or restaurants etcetera are part of how museums interact with visitors (Nielsen, 2014). Moreover, technology has managed to take the museum ‘outside’ the actual museum buildings, whether it be online or in new settings around cities or in the countryside. This has been a demand from the audience; mobile and online technology is part of everyone’s life and will therefore have a natural place in visitor communication. There is no doubt that technology has created new ways of communicating for museums, but since most museums feel that they are here to represent objects of the past, it can be difficult for museums to find a proper balance between the two concepts (Nielsen, 2014).
16
2.3.2 Visitor-to-visitor interaction
The challenge for a museum is “to develop ways that support users to observe, discuss, analyse, interpret and eventually make meanings for themselves” (Black, 2012, p.90). Although museums are not only using a transmission communication style anymore, the interaction they are trying to create is mainly focused on interaction between the museum (for example the employees, or new digital machines) and the visitors. This kind of interaction is also the mean focus of existing literature (Tsiros and Parasuraman, 2006). However, customers/visitors could influence each other’s experience as well (Martin 1996). In the retail and tourist industry there is quite a lot of research about the role of customer-to-customer interaction. Customers can influence one another either directly or indirectly (Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1992) in positive or negative way. For example, one’s appearance could feel ominous (Aronoff et al., 1992) and proximity and eye contact with strangers could be viewed as something negative (Albas and Albas, 1989). By being disruptive (e.g., talking loudly during a film in a cinema) visitors could also affect others directly. On the other hand, a positive way of direct interaction could be customers who assist fellow customers by playing the role of an advisor (Verhoef, et al., 2009).
The opportunity to socialise or bond with other customers can satisfy social needs and make an experience more enjoyable (e.g. Grove and Fisk, 1997; Harris and Baron, 2004). The possible effect of social interaction on an experience is also shown in Hood’s (2004) research. He identified the following six criteria of a desirable leisure experience: being with people, or social interaction; doing something worthwhile; feeling comfortable and at ease in one’s surroundings; having a challenge of new experiences; having an opportunity to learn, and participating actively.
Besides the social aspect, V2V interaction could also stimulate the meaning-making process. As Hood (2004) showed, a desirable leisure experience consists of learning and participating actively as well. Berger and Luckmann (1991) argue that all knowledge, including the most basic common sense knowledge of everyday life, is derived from and maintained by social interactions. When people interact, they do so with the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related, and from this understanding their common knowledge of reality is reinforced. In the literature on education they call this ‘constructive learning’. The major assumptions of constructivism are: 1) There is a real world that sets boundaries to what we can experience 2) the structure of the world is created in the mind through interaction with the world and based on interpretation. 3) the mind creates symbols by perceiving and interpreting the world 4) human thought is imaginative and develops out of perception, sensory and interpretive process and it depends on the knowers’ experiences and understanding (Cobb, 1994; Jonassen, 1992a; Philips, 1995).
There are several schools of thought within the constructivist paradigm (Cobb, 1994; Prawat & Floden, 1994). The two most prominent ones are personal constructivism, and social or
17
sociocultural constructivism. The personal constructivist’s knowledge is constructed in the head of the learner while he/she is re-organising experiences and cognitive structures (Piaget, 1970). For the social constructivists, knowledge is constructed in communities of practice through social interaction (Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989; Kuhn, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1987). Cobb (1994) argues that the two approaches cannot be separated because both complement each other. For constructivists, learning is meaning making, an approach a lot of museums are looking for.There is no quantitative research available about the effect of V2V interaction on the different experience dimensions in museums. However, it is clear that museums are social settings (Falk and Dierking, 2000, 2012). Museum visitors not only attend to people they visit the museum with, but to the other visitors too (Falk and Dierking, 2012). The discussed literature and theories showed that communication within the museum space is a social, as well as a constructivist process. Yet scholars and museums ‘gurus’ are critical on museums and argue that they create significant barriers to social exchange (Simon, 2010). According to them, some museums discourage conversation by encouraging silence and other museums are so noisy having a conversation is impossible (Falk & Dierking, 2012). Simon (2010) stated that a commonly expressed form of public dissatisfaction with museums is that the institution is not a comfortable social place for a person to talk about ideas with friends or strangers (Simon, 2010). However, for some visitors, social interactions can inhibit the sense of serenity or escape they are seeking (Falk, 2009).
The previous discussion and the different experience dimensions lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypotheses 1: V2V interaction has a positive direct effect on museum visitor’s experiences.
Hypotheses 1a: V2V interaction has a positive direct effect on object experiences. Hypothesis 1b: V2V interaction has a positive direct effect on cognitive experiences. Hypotheses 1c: V2V interaction has a positive direct effect on introspective experiences. Hypothesis 1d: V2V interaction has a positive direct effect on social experiences.
18
2.4 Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction has been the subject of much attention in the literature (Palmer, 2010). Satisfaction is described as “an evaluation of an emotion” (Hunt, 1977, pp. 459–460), suggesting that it reflects the degree to which a consumer believes that the possession and/or use of a service evokes positive feelings (Rust and Oliver, 1994).
The literature unveils some confusion between customer experience and satisfaction. For Baker and Crompton (2000), customer satisfaction is equivalent to the quality of experience. However, Yi (1990) stressed that satisfaction is not “just the pleasure of a consumption experience, but the evaluation that the experience is as pleasurable as it was supposed, or expected, to be” (p. 75). In addition, a significant amount of research supports that satisfaction is an evaluative process that grasps both cognitive and affective evaluations (e.g., Bigne et al., 2005, Oliver, 1977). The cognitive aspect of expectation formation is informed by information processing theory (Miller, 1956), which suggests that the human mind assimilates information related to each customer experience, processes it, and generates a response to it. The affective aspect of expectation formation is more instinctual. It is an emotional reaction to stimulation arising from a customer experience (Zajonc, 1980).
Tian-Cole et al. (2002) specified quality of experience as specific psychological benefits achieved, while satisfaction was visitors’ judgment of their total experience, or the sum of distinct benefits. The authors demonstrated that quality of experience is the antecedent of satisfaction. The quality of experience was positively and directly associated with satisfaction (Cole et al., 2002 & Cole and Scott, 2004). Therefore, satisfaction is an experienced-based and post-purchase phenomenon (Giese & cote, 2000) and a direct positive relationship between perceived positive experience and customer satisfaction has been indicated by a variety of product and services studies (e.g. Srivastava
& Kaul, 2014). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The museum experience has a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction.
Hypotheses 2a: object experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction. Hypothesis 2b: cognitive experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction. Hypotheses 2c: introspective experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction. Hypothesis 2d: social experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction.
19
Parker and Ward (2000) suggested that although service delivery may not depend on customer participation and interaction, a customer’s satisfaction with the service experience could be enhanced by it. Based on hypotheses 1 & 2 and since experience precedes satisfaction, hypothesis 3 is proposed:Hypothesis 3: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum satisfaction, mediated by museum experience.
Hypotheses 3a: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum satisfaction, mediated by object experience.
Hypothesis 3b: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum satisfaction, mediated by cognitive experience.
Hypotheses 3c: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum satisfaction, mediated by introspective experience.
Hypothesis 3d: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum satisfaction, mediated by social experience.
2.5 Delight
Meeting customer’s expectations leads to satisfied customers, as the experience is as pleasurable as it was supposed, or expected, to be (Bigne et al., 2005). Expectations are assumptions that customers have about product or service performance “that function as standards or reference points against which performance is judged” (Zeithnaml and Bitner, 2006, P81). They are derived from a variety of factors, including worth of mouth, individual needs, previous experiences, and external communication (Gronroos, 1982, Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Researchers have, for some time, entertained the notion that highly positive satisfaction states exist on the same multidimensional continuum of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. This implies that the range of the satisfaction concept is not truncated when needs, expectations, etcetera are just met, rather, satisfaction continues into more positive territory as expectations are exceeded (Oliver, 1980) and as corresponding emotions become highly positive including those of pleasant surprise (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991), and high positive affect (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) refer to these additional psychological benefits as ‘hedonic consumption’ and note that the strategy of providing only utilitarian benefits will prove deficient in today’s product and service environment. Thus, academics have entertained the possibility that high positive emotions such as delight may supplement the satisfaction concept.
20
Scholars found that, among respondents who had reported ‘satisfaction’ (as opposed to dissatisfaction), there was a distinct differentiation in the emotional content of their reports. Among those who were more satisfied there were two groups, one experiencing pleasant surprise (delight) and another happiness/contentment. A third group of moderately satisfied respondents appeared to experience no significant emotional profile. The highest levels of joy and surprise occurred for the group labelled ‘delighted’ (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991).Delight could be defined as a positive consequence of surpassing customer’s expectations (Cronin, 2003; Palmer, 2010). This notion of a ‘higher-level’ of satisfaction is seen by many practitioners as the way to “provide a distinct advantage to the company that does it first and does it well consistently” (Chandler, 1989, P. 30, quoted in Oliver et al., 1997). However, not all scholars agree with this notion. There is a discussion about whether you must delight your customers, or just satisfy them. However, it is important to mention that this is probably context dependent. Dixon et al. (2010) found that what customers really want is just a satisfactory solution to their service issue. However, they mainly focused on phone-based and self-service interactions. In these settings, their research shows that loyalty has a lot more to do with how well companies deliver on their basic services, than on how dazzling the service experience might be (Dixon et al., 2010). In contradiction, two studies from Oliver et al. (1997), showed that delight has an influence on the consumer’s willingness to reengage the consumable. Delight is a function of surprisingly unexpected pleasure, so it is questionable if delight is possible to manifest for mundane services and products, such as the context of the study from Dixon (2010).
This research is about personal experiences while visiting museums; it is not about providing just utilitarian benefits. The context is in agreement with Oliver’s (1997) setting, therefore the outcome variable, Delight, is interesting to investigate besides satisfaction. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: Museum experience has a positive direct effect on delight.
Hypotheses 4a: object experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction. Hypothesis 4b: cognitive experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction. Hypotheses 4c: introspective experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction. Hypothesis 4d: social experiences have a positive direct effect on museum satisfaction.
21
Hypothesis 5: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on delight, mediated by museumexperience.
Hypotheses 5a: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum delight, mediated by object experience.
Hypothesis 5b: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum delight, mediated by cognitive experience.
Hypotheses 5c: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum delight, mediated by introspective experience.
Hypothesis 5d: V2V interaction has a positive indirect effect on museum delight, mediated by social experience.
2.6 Research Model
In previous sections, five sets of hypotheses were established. The model refers to the relationship between V2V interaction, the different museum experience dimensions, satisfaction, and delight, indicated by the arrows in figure 4.
Figure 4: conceptual model of visitor-to-visitor interaction in museums
H1
H2, H4
H3, H5
The visitor experience constructs are derived from Pekarik et al. (1999), the satisfaction constructs from Westbrook and Oliver (1991), Oliver (1997) and Cronin et al. (2000), the delight measures are adopted from Oliver et al (1997) (see methodology for more details about these measures). The visitor-to-visitor interaction measure is not derived from the literature and will be further developed and tested during the qualitative research of this study.
Visitor-to-Visitor-interaction Discussing artworks Visitor Experience Object Experiences Cognitive Experiences Introspective Experiences Social Experiences Satisfaction Evaluation Emotion Delight
22
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To date, no quantitative research has examined the interaction between customers in museums and it is not clear if V2V interaction (and which kind of V2V interaction) enhances the museum experience. Therefore, a mixed research method is applied to pursuit the answer to the research question (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The research design contained both qualitative (observations & interviews) and quantitative (a survey) to test the hypotheses.
3.1 Qualitative interviews & non-participatory observations
While museum visitors visited the exhibition area, they were kindly asked to participate in a brief interview. For the purpose of this stage of the study the questions were of a very explorative nature to avoid pushing respondents towards specific answers. The very unrestricted interview technique similar to a free-association task (e.g. Hollway & Jefferson, 2000) was used to ask the interviewees open questions like ‘How do you think your interaction with other visitors could improve the quality of your visit?’
Most of the short interviews were recorded via mobile phone. However, this was not always suitable, as the interviews were not planned and conversations arose spontaneously while visiting the museums. Therefore, not all conversations were recorded, and paper and pencil was also used. After each museum visit the conversations and observations were elaborated and structured.
The sampling process ended when the information became more and more redundant, indicating that saturation had been reached. This is consistent with sample sizes recommended by scholars for exploratory research purposes (e.g., Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
To understand whether strangers initiated conversations with each other around the content/context of the museum and if so, how they did so, non-participatory observations were used. Participatory observations are avoided because joining would already make visits a social experience. The pictures and memos produced during these observations served as both ‘data’ and ‘analytical means’ (Goulding, 2002) to reflect upon the interviews.
The short interviews and observations were done in various museums: Hermitage, Amsterdam Museum, Museum van Loon, Stedelijk Museum, Tropenmuseum, Rijksmuseum, and Museum Volkenkunde.
23
3.2 Quantitative research: survey
Qualitative methods are not designed to test the effectiveness of sub-experiences, like social interaction. What visitors remember about an experience may be different from what they originally said was important to their visit (Braun, 1999). Therefore, measurement needs to reflect the customer’s recollection of the experiences to understand if social interaction could create positive experiences and memories. This is the reason why a survey was conducted.
3.2.1 Research setting & participants
The present research was conducted among visitors of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, and Museum Volkenkunde (Ethnology) Leiden. These museums are chosen because they are completely different (‘Classical’, ‘Modern’, ‘Ethnology’). These different characteristics are important for the examination of whether it is possible to draw conclusions about the ‘museum visitors in general’. Perhaps different museums attract different visitors. Moreover, the Rijksmuseum and Stedelijk Museum have a large number of visitors every day, which is important for this time bound research.
The Rijksmuseum
As a national institute, the Rijksmuseum offers a representative overview of Dutch art and history from the Middle Ages onwards and of major aspects of European and Asian art. It is the most visited museum in the Netherlands with a record number of 2.45 million visitors annually (Rijksmuseum, 2015). During this research, the Rijksmuseum presented a temporary exhibition about the ‘Late Rembrandt’, a retrospective of the later works of Rembrandt van Rijn (total visitors ‘Late Rembrandt’:520.698, from 12 February 2015 till 17 May 2015).
Stedelijk Museum
The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam is an international museum dedicated to modern and contemporary art and design. During this research the Stedelijk Museum showed a blockbuster exhibition of Henri Matisse (1869 – 1954), from 27 March 2015 till 16 August 2015 (amount of visitors from 12 march 2015 till 10 June 2015: 200.000)
24
Museum Volkenkunde (Museum of Ethnology).‘Museum Volkenkunde’ is a museum about ethnology, located in Leiden. The collection encompasses objects from Africa, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Latin America, North America, Oceania, and Asia. The website from Museum Volkenkunde calls it: ‘a world tour in one day’.
During this research there was a special temporary exhibition: Geisha. The website of the museum explains it as ‘The Japanese with the stark white face, red lips and precious kimono is a stereotype of Japanese aesthetics, surrounded by mysticism and misunderstandings. But what does her daily life look like? Is it a profession or a calling?’ Geisha was the most successful exhibition in the history of the museum so far (105.552 visitors from 10 October 2014 - 25 May 2015).
As shown in the literature review, for some visitors, social interactions can inhibit the sense of serenity or escape they are seeking (Falk, 2009). To gain a good overview of the exact role of V2V interaction, this research includes solitary visitors and groups. Participants had to be able to read in Dutch or English.
3.2.2 Data collection
Since no complete sampling frame of the visitor populations was available, a quota-and-convenience mixed sampling method was used to identify potential respondents. As visitors left the exhibition area, they were invited to participate in a survey. They could choose to fill out the survey directly with a paper-pencil questionnaire, or by digital means.
For the purpose of this research, the website www.museumonderzoek.nl is developed to make the way to the online survey as easy as possible. In the qualitative part it became clear that a lot of visitors, especially when visiting a crowded blockbuster exhibition, were tired or had to catch the bus or train after their visit. In anticipation of this, business cards were created with the link to the present research. This enabled the visitors to fill out the questionnaire while sitting on the bus or train. As an extra incentive, a sponsored hotel stay in ‘Wijk aan Zee’ was raffled.
The online survey program used in this study, Qualtrics, directly imported the results of the survey to the statistical tool SPSS. Although, there were 310 visitors who did fill in the paper questionnaire manually, the online program still saved time. 6 people were not able to read the questions very well or to write down their answers (due to a handicap, or due to age). Therefore, they got assistance to allow them to participate in the survey.
25
3.2.3 Questionnaire design
Based on previous studies (Pekarik et al., 1999; Doering et al., 1999; Tröndle et al., 2012; Packer & Ballantyne, 2005; Hunt, 1977; Oliver, 1977; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991; Cronin, 2000) and the qualitative research, a survey was developed. Due to the qualitative part of this research, it became clear that visitors could attach importance to an ‘escapism feeling’ in the museum and that some visitors preferred to visit a museum in silence. This was an important insight, which was not included in the experience dimensions from Prekarik et al. (1999). The four Realms from Pine and Gilmore (1999) were important to take in account as well. This is the reason that ‘Escapism experiences’ is added to the model.
In order to find possible composition or content problems, the questionnaire was revised by 4 friends/family members with different backgrounds (academic and non-academic) and ages. The modified survey was pre-tested among 6 museum visitors. By doing this in consultation with visitors, the remaining unclear questions were revealed.
The complete questionnaire is shown in the appendix (the English and Dutch version).
3.2.4 Measurement of variables
Experience (EXP)
To measure the perceived experience, the constructs and items of Pekarik et al. (1999) were used, as were Pine and Gilmore’s (1999; 2002a; 2002b) experience economy concepts. The remainder originated from personal experience while observing and talking to visitors in the museums.
All the ‘experience dimensions’ items are measured on a 7-point scale (1=not at all to 7=completely).
Satisfaction (SAT1 & SAT2)
Because satisfaction with a service provider is perceived as being both an evaluative and emotion-based response to a service encounter (Oliver, 1997; Cronin et al, 2000), two sets of items were employed.
The emotion-based measures (SAT1) are adapted from Westbrook and Oliver (1991), whereas the second ‘evaluative’ set of satisfaction measures (SAT2) are adapted from Oliver’s (1997), and Cronin (2000) cumulative satisfaction measures. The scoring format for the SAT1 scale is a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much.’ The SAT2 scoring was also a Likert-type format ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’
26
DelightTwo disconfirmation measures were used, one to assess the overall experience on a continuous ‘better than expected’ basis, and another to categorise respondents into a ‘(pleasantly) surprised’ level of consumption category. A seven-point scale was used, which was bounded by ‘strongly disagree’ at the negative extreme of the continuum, and ‘strongly agree’ at the positive extreme. These measures are adopted from Oliver et al. (1997).
Social Interaction (Independent variable)
The social interaction measure is derived from Tröndle et al. (2012) and further developed and tested during the qualitative research section of this study.
Besides the social aspect, V2V interaction could also stimulate the meaning-making process. The question: ‘walking through the exhibitions, did you discuss the artworks with anyone?’ addresses both (scale of measurement: very often | often | sometimes | seldom | not really | No, I did not).
The qualitative research of this study suggests that people enjoy having conversations with someone they did not know before entering the museum. This has led to another visitor-to-visitor interaction measure: ‘I had a nice conversation with people I did not know’ (Likert-type format ranging from 1=not at all, to 7=completely).
These, and all other measurement scales, are reported in the Appendix.
Control variables: visitor characteristics
The results of the current study were controlled by using five control variables: Age, gender, education, regularity of museum visits and familiarity with the museum, to purify the statistical analysis. These items are included in the last section of the survey.
27
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In this chapter, the results of the study are discussed. The first section includes the results of the qualitative research, and the second part, the quantitative results.
4.1 Results of qualitative research
In this part, the main findings from the conversations and observation will be analysed. After analysing the findings, common themes are presented as follows: 1) Solitary visitors versus visitors in company, 2) the different initiators for V2V interaction, which is further coded into categories of shared language and background, queues and crowds, memories – nostalgia, and other people’s appearance, 3) the social context beyond the museum walls, with sub-themes of before and after the visit, and the ‘digital visit’.
4.1.1 Solitary versus in company
While observing and having conversations with different visitors, in different museums, it became clear that it is important not to oversimplify social interaction. Visitors show various degrees of willingness towards speaking to others. While some solitary visitors seemed to feel a little uncomfortable when asked about if and why they visited the museum alone, others firmly pointed out they like to be alone in the museum. The visitors who choose to go to museums alone do so, just to enjoy the museum in silence. Other visitors go to museums with companions, but split up in the museum and talk afterwards.
However, sometimes being alone in the museum is not a conscious choice. This was the case for a 75-year old woman. She sometimes makes contact with strangers in the museum to discuss artworks. This contact with others enhances her experience. She was enjoying the conversation about this research visibly as well, which was also the case with other people. Although a personal, subjective experience, it seemed that talking to visitors did put a smile on their faces most of the time. Conversely, an older man had a tear in his eye while having a conversation. He was thinking about his time in World War II. He came alone, and this was his conscious choice. When asked to comment on this, he said: “I’m here to process my war trauma, I would like to do this myself, without sharing”.
28
4.1.2 Reasons to speak
People who visit museums alone potentially have very nice conversations with strangers. To give an example, an anecdote from the Tropenmuseum will be presented: a woman sat on a bench listing to an instrument. Another visitor looked questioningly at the earphone and the woman commented: ‘the sound is quite nice’. They were sitting next to each other listening to the music. This woman, who was around the 55 years of age, likes to talk she explained later. However, she prefers to go alone to museums, so that she can “do her own thing”. She liked the fact that the museum is quiet and “an escape from the crowds”. After asking her if she had nice conversations in the museum she spoke of the aforementioned conversation, which had already been observed. She commented that “it is nice to have occasionally contact, but not during my whole visit”.
Shared language & background
On occasion, it seemed that people in the same age category, with a similar appearance, started to talk to each other sooner. Two middle-aged men, both wearing hearing devices and both wearing glasses, started to talk: “Es ist hier sehr beschäftigt he?” One of the men was Dutch, but was hearing the other man speak German. The Dutch man grew up in Germany and they talked for a while about different experiences in Germany. This conversation started while waiting in the queue at the coffee corner inside the Rijksmuseum.
In a sitting area near the aforementioned coffee corner some Americans, who did not know each other, started speaking to each other about what they had seen in Amsterdam so far. This example and the German conversation shows that speaking the same language could be an additional reason to start a conversation, it seems to connect people to each other.
Familiarity to oneself has been shown, repeatedly, to be highly diagnostic in liking another. Perceptions of similarity are relatively high early in the acquaintanceship process, both because people (falsely) assume similarity with others in the absence of other knowledge (e.g., Norton et al., 2007; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977; Krueger & Clement, 1997) and because people tend to emphasise or exaggerate their similarities with others when preparing to meet (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998).
29
Queues & CrowdWaiting in queues, also seems to be a good trigger for starting conversation with unknown people. The aforementioned German conversation started while waiting in a queue and this is seen in other queues too. Most of the time people were sharing their common ‘grief’ about the waiting time.
However, crowds also had a negative side, which can be seen from comments such as: “I would be interested to join the experiences of other visitors, but this time I was disturbed by meeting so many people in the museum”. Some visitors mentioned that they had more contact with people when it is less crowded. Now they tried to ‘avoid’ other people. Although, a visitor also mentioned that she was glad that she was not the only one in the museum. She liked the fact that there were people around her.
While conducting observations in two photography museums it was very quiet and visitor’s started to whisper when someone was entering the exposition hall. This shows a big contrast in atmospheres between the museums, which possibly has to do with the amount of people in the museum.
Sharing Memories – Nostalgia
While observing in the Hermitage, in one case, it became a participatory observation, because a woman started a conversation. She pointed to a painting depicting an icy scene and commented: “women had to skate with long skirts, do you see that? I can remember some pictures of my mother skating. She did not wear trousers”. After a short conversation her museum company joined the conversation: “Now the children are skating on figure skates instead of racing skates”.
In this case, the painting initiated interaction. There are many other examples where the exhibition was the reason to talk. This kind of social interaction is viewed as important for collective ‘sense making’ (Silverman, 1995). Conversations initiated by museum objects act as mediators for constructing meanings about the contents of a given museum (Leinhardt & Crowley, 2002).
In this particular case, the museum aroused emotional feelings of nostalgia for the visitors. Those who may experience the same nostalgia perhaps feel connected to each other. In the Museum Volkenkunde, one woman spoke about how she talked about Japan with a Japanese man and his child. The woman had visited Japan many years ago and she enjoyed talking about the culture and the shared experience. Another example of the ‘nostalgic feeling’ was in the Hermitage, where a woman recognised a saucepan in the old kitchen part of the museum. Her mother had the same and another woman also recognised the kitchen utensils from her youth. They were laughing about some memories and shared experiences.
Prior research (e.g. Goulding, 1999a; Jafari & Taheri, 2013) also identified, nostalgia as a complicated emotional and psychological sensibility, which has the power to connect individuals
30
together through shared meanings and feelings. The ‘Linking value’ (Cova, 1997) of consumption, in these cases, is the emotional feelings aroused by the museum objects.Other Peoples’ Looks
In the Stedelijk Museum, other peoples’ looks sometimes initiated conversation. During the observations there were some visitors with striking clothing, for example comments such as “that is a real bold outfit” were heard (in this case it was about a girl, around 25 years of age, in a leotard). One could observe people thinking with a restrained laugh on their face.
A girl (26, costume designer) had a fun interaction: “because my clothes are nicely stained with a painting; the woman wanted to take a picture of me and the painting”.
4.1.3 The social context beyond the museum walls
Before and after the visit
The museum’s experience continues to stimulate social interaction amongst those who visited the place, even after they leave the physical boundary of the museum. This is apparent from the comments below:
“We usually go for a drink or bite afterwards and talk about what we saw in the museum” - 3 male friends, around the 27 years of age.
“A friend of mine encourage me to go, I guess we will discuss it this week with each other. So at this moment I do not share my experiences, but I will after this visit” - woman, solitary, approximately 40 years of age.
Sharing the experience is also applicable for solitary visitors, as the social dimension stretches beyond the museum walls. Visitors draw upon and refer to their experiences of exhibits and exhibitions after the visit when they participate in conversations in their everyday life.
