Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT The literature on museum fatigue is critically reviewed in terms of (a) empirical studies, (b) phenomena associated with fatigue, (c) outcome measures used, and (d) possible causes of the phenomena. The review suggests that (a) fatigue should be defined in terms of both its causes and its outcomes; (b) museum fatigue is not a simple phenomenon and to understand it we need to examine the impact of all the phenomena as well as how they interact with each other; (c) at least 2 phenomena (object competition and information overload) that have been associated with “fatigue” appear to have little to do with fatigue other than share the pattern of decreased attention; (d) the 3 measures of direct observation (percent stop, viewing time, and time samples) are not highly correlated with one another; (e) added to the confusion are methodological issues, such as confounding variables and inconsistent outcomes; and finally, (f) there is a questionable relationship between overt measures of fatigue and self-report measures. More research and critical examination of these phenomena are needed if we are to understand and ameliorate the negative impact of what we call museum fatigue.
Stephen Bitgood (Wed,) studied this question.