An Analysis of Visitor Circulation:

How visitors circulate through museums determines what they will see, where they will focus their attention, and, ultimately, what they will learn and experience. Unfortunately, the consistency of these movement patterns is not readily apparent. This article reviews the literature on visitor circulation in light of the general value principle which predicts choice behavior as a ratio of perceived experience outcome (benefits) divided by perceived costs (time, effort, etc.). Although this principle at first appears obvious, its implications may be more profound. TOWARD UNDERSTANDING VISITOR CIRCULATION The importance of understanding how people move through museums has been recognized for many years 1 . How visitors circulate through museums determines what visitors will see, where they focus their attention, and, ultimately, what they learn and/or experience. Visitor movement at first appears chaotic. Some studies have found high rates of turning right at choice points, others have not. Some studies have found random-seeming movements through exhibitions, others have observed predictable walking patterns. This lack of apparent consistency in visitor circulation patterns led Falk to conclude: A considerable body of research documents that visitors to museums rarely follow the exact sequence of exhibit elements intended by the developers. . . . Visitors will fulfill their own agendas, for example, turning right (Melton 1972; Porter 1938) or leaving from the first available exit (Melton 1972), rather than doing what the developers intended (1993, 117). The above statement seems to imply that if visitors do not follow developers’ intended traffic pattern, the exhibit design must not have a strong influence; therefore, a visitor-centered explanation (agenda) must account for visitor behavior. Is it possible that exhibit designs inadvertently create some of the unexpected, unwanted traffic patterns? While Falk may be correct about visitors not following the intended path of the developers, his appeal to “agendas” may be an insufficient explanation for visitor circulation patterns such as turning right and leaving by the first available exit. Shettel has called Falk’s view a “visitor-centered” perspective since it emphasizes visitor-entry factors and does not include exhibit-visitor interactions (2005). An interaction approach argues that both visitor factors (such as visitor interests) and exhibit factors (design of exhibit elements, architecture, and so on) must be considered jointly. With respect to visitor circulation, the interaction perspective assumes that visitor movement patterns through museums is influenced by both what the visitor brings to the museum (prior knowledge, interests, “agenda”) and the design of the museum (exhibit elements, architecture, open space). This article takes the exhibit/visitor interaction view; it assumes that both visitor and exhibit factors must be considered jointly. More specifically, the past experiences of the individual and his/her perceptual and cognitive characteristics interact with exhibition design to influence visitor attention, circulation and movement, mental processing, and learning. For example, we are predisposed to attend to