Introduction

Museums need to know and understand their public in order to properly address their needs, which has led to visitor and satisfaction studies acquiring such an important role in their management. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the concept of satisfaction, studying it is no easy task. However, to advance this understanding and, thus, that of the visitor’s own behavior, it is necessary to extract and define the common or divergent characteristics of the visitor experience, an under addressed issue in this type of study.

This work was carried out in the context of a wider-ranging scientific research, linked to the influence of environmental conditions (lighting and hygrothermal conditions) on visitor satisfaction in museums, which was framed in specific projects related to studying and evaluating the preservation and exhibition of material heritage, which had been requested by instances from different museum management settings (Dirección Nacional de Museos, Dirección de Patrimonio de la Provincia de Tucumán and the Archdiocese of Tucumán).The study of overall museum satisfaction, or the level of satisfaction visitors reach upon completing their visit, is a field of museology still in development, hence the corresponding parameters may vary according to the author, though it should be said it comprises all those variables inherent to the visitor and the museum which influence them, whether positively or negatively ^{(Bazán, Ajmat & Sandoval, 2018)}.

The concept of satisfaction has received numerous definitions that vary significantly among themselves ^{(Bigné & Andreu, 2004}; ^{De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{McMullan & O’Neill, 2010)}, without having, as yet, achieved a consensus. However, two great blocks can be distinguished, which encompass all the hitherto proposed definitions throughout its protracted study:

This work, along with the theoretical model presented herein, were developed in the framework of the cognitive-affective focus, adopting the definition for satisfaction proposed by ^{Bigné & Andreu (2004)}.

In addition to the cognitive and affective psychological variables, there are two more groups of variables which literature considers important in the formation of satisfaction: sociodemographic and environmental, both of which bear great influence on visitor behavior and satisfaction ^{(Olson & Peter, 2006)}. It is thus for socio-demographic because, as has been noted, we do not perceive reality directly, but instead through a set of conventions, schemes and stereotypes that vary from one culture to another and over time ^{(Falk & Dierking, 2016}; ^{Dodd, Jones, Sawyer & Tseliou, 2012)}. Those variables tend to receive a descriptive statistical analysis in museum satisfaction studies, without going further into possible relations between them and other data obtained ^{(Bigné & Andreu, 2004}; ^{De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Góes Ferreira Lima Verde, Oliveira Arruda & Moura, 2010}; ^{Gosling, Silva & De Freitas, 2016)}. Although this offers a profile of frequent visitors, it disregards information that is valuable to interpret the results obtained, so as to evaluate each experience. In certain empirical works variables such as age, ethnic group, education or occupation have proved significant to overall satisfaction ^{(Brida, Monterubbianesi & Zapata-Aguirre, 2013}; ^{Sheng & Chen, 2012)}.

On the other hand, environmental variables, such as lighting, ambient temperature, relative humidity and air velocity have a decisive positive or negative effect on the museum experience ^{(Pérez, 2000}; ^{Olson & Peter, 2006}; ^{Góes Ferreira Lima Verde et al., 2010}; ^{Desvallées & Mairesse, 2010}; ^{Falk & Dierking, 2016)}. Their research on visitors is important because many of them are major factors in the deterioration of exhibited objects ^{(American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], 2011}; ^{Commission internationale de l’éclairage [CIE], 2004}; ^{Pavlogeorgatos, 2003}; ^{Thomson, 1986)}, they also affect the visitor’s experience in both comfort and perception of the museal space.

The overall experience in museums takes shape based on an interaction between “the internal”-or what the visitor brings to the visit (previous experiences, interests, expectations, motivations)- with “the external” -or services offered, both tangible (e.g. the exhibition) or intangible (e.g. the educational component or even the values transmitted)- ^{(Packer & Ballantyne, 2016}; ^{De Rojas & Camarero, 2008)}. Satisfaction is a response to that phenomenon, or interpretation of the situation of the visit ^{(Forrest, 2013}; ^{Góes Ferreira Lima Verde et al., 2010)}.

Hence, the study of the formation of satisfaction includes a set of preexisting variables which the visitors themselves bring to the visit and which will affect how they relate to the experience the museum offers, and another set of variables, born of the visitors’ perception as a result of their interaction with the exhibition and its components, which takes shape during the visit.

A model on the formation of museum satisfaction

In most cases, the approach of studies on museum satisfaction presents a fragmented analysis, focused on the relation between satisfaction and demographic, psychological or spatial variables, which indicates the need to unify existing knowledge on satisfaction in those environments, and to propose new and more integrated theoretical models.

This work demonstrates the application of a model of satisfaction developed with the aim of studying the visitor’s own variables, which are brought to the museum, and how those particular perceptions of the experience offered by the museum influence overall satisfaction with the visit.

The model comprises a confirmatory section, that is to say, with variables empirically validated previously by other studies on the formation of museum satisfaction ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Bigné & Andreu, 2004)}, and a proposed exploratory section, which offers variables and relations not covered in previous bibliography. The overall model was validated in a peer-reviewed and approved doctoral thesis ^{(Bazán, 2020)}.

The confirmatory section includes affective and cognitive psychological variables: the affective group includes mood prior to visit (MPV) ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Bagozzi et al., 1999)} and emotions ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Bigné & Andreu, 2004}; ^{Bagozzi et al., 1999)}, the latter represented through the variables pleasure (PLE) and arousal (ARL), in accordance with the model of formation of emotions proposed by ^{Russell & Pratt (1980)}, widely used in environmental psychology ^{(Coppin & Sander, 2012)}. The pleasure variable indicates to what degree a person feels good, happy or content in specific situations, while arousal indicates the level to which a person feels stimulated or active ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008)}.

The cognitive variables group includes visitor’s expectations (EXP) ^{(Sheng & Chen, 2012}; ^{De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Higgs, Polonsky & Hollick, 2005)}, perceived quality (PQ) ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008)} and disconfirmation (DIS) ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Bigné & Andreu, 2004)}, the latter defined as the difference between what users expect of a product or service and perception after use, which can be positive, neutral or negative, as noted above ^{(McMullan & O’Neill, 2010}; ^{Olson & Peter, 2006)}.

The exploratory section is composed of mood following the visit (MFV) ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Bagozzi et al., 1999)} and four environmental variables: temperature perception (TPER), satisfaction with temperature (SATT) lighting perception (LPER) and satisfaction with lighting (SATL). The inclusion of MFV is due to certain authors affirming that mood can be caused or modified by secondary emotions, changes to the environment or general ambient conditions, among others ^{(Bagozzi et al., 1999)}. This work seeks to empirically prove possible mood changes between arrival at the museum and completing the visit. Regarding environmental variables, while the framework for the investigation of which this work forms part included more variables on environmental conditions, four will be covered herein: lighting and temperature perceptions, defined as the degree of lighting or temperature perceived by the visitor, and satisfaction with said lighting and temperature, or how pleased the visitors were with the levels of lighting or temperature perceived in the museum ^{(Bazán et al., 2018)}.

The model is complemented by sociodemographic and visit profile variables, along with a group of independent variables mostly related to museum fatigue ^{(Bitgood, 2009a}, ^2009b; ^{Jeong & Lee, 2006}; ^{Davey, 2005)}. No hypothesis is proposed to relate this latter group to the rest of the variables, but their relation to overall satisfaction is analyzed.

Figure 1 presents the confirmatory and exploratory variables involved, as well as their relations. The group of independent variables related to museum fatigue are also included.

(Diagram: Bazán, & Ajmat, 2021)

Figure 1 Parts of proposed model. 

Methodology

The instrument for measurement

The proposed theoretical model was adapted to a questionnaire designed to be applied in visitor studies.

It included six information sections: 1) sociodemographic data: age, occupation, level of education, place of origin; 2) motivation and visit profile: reasons for visiting museum, first visit or not, whether visits museums frequently, whether visit was accompanied and in what way (individual, in a group, with family, with partner), whether it was morning or afternoon (shift) and whether it formed part of guided tour in cases the museum offers this mode; 3) cognitive psychological considerations: expectations, disconfirmation and perceived quality; 4) affective psychological considerations: mood before and after visit, boredom, pleasure and arousal; 5) physical or environmental considerations: light and temperature perception, existence of adequate resting areas, complexity of circulation, fatigue following visit, object saturation; and 6) satisfaction with visit.

The questionnaire was designed based on relevant bibliography on psychology and environmental psychology, museology and visitor studies, tourism and marketing, as well as environmental conditions in museums, among others ^{(Russell, 1980}; ^{Russell & Pratt, 1980}; ^{Oliver et al., 1997}; ^{Pérez, 2000}; ^{Bigné & Andreu, 2004}; ^{Higgs et al., 2005}; ^{Jeong & Lee, 2006}; ^{De Rojas & Camarero, 2008}; ^{Ajmat, Sandoval, Arana, O’Donell, Gor & Alonso, 2011}; ^{Dodd et al., 2012}; ^{Pattini, Rodríguez, Monteoliva & Garretón, 2012}; ^{Coppin & Sander, 2012}; ^{Falk & Dierking, 2016)}. One of its main features is the independent measurement of variables the visitor brings to the museum and those that take shape during the visit. This was carried out in two phases: before and after the visit (Figure 2). Data was collected in the same way in each case: the same person responded to the two parts of the questionnaire. The visitors were approached before they entered the first room; if they wished to participate, they answered the first part of the question-naire, did their circuit and then returned to answer the second part.

(Diagram: ^{Bazán, & Ajmat; source: Bazán et al., 2018})

Figure 2 Questionnaire structure and blocks of information included. 

Another characteristic was its highly structured style, composed of closed questions with a Likert-style response scale of five points, dichotomous selection or semantic differential. A reliability analysis was carried out -the Cronbach alfa value³ of 0.835 reflects solid internal consistency in questionnaire responses.

Psychological and satisfaction variables were measured through more than one question in each case, creating scales that were then transformed into a single average value. Said scales were adopted from relevant bibliography, such as: satisfaction ^{(Oliver, 1997)}, ^{De Rojas & Camarero (2008)}; pleasure and arousal: ^{Russell & Pratt (1980)}; mood prior to visit, expectations, perceived quality and disconfirmation: ^{De Rojas & Camarero (2008)}.⁴ Equally, mood prior to and following visit were modified and adapted based on a proposal by ^{De Rojas & Camarero (2008)}, while the remaining variables were measured with a single question, drafted in the frame of this work.

The scale of overall satisfaction, a variable this work seeks to analyze in detail, was composed of five items^{5 (Oliver, 1997}; ^{De Rojas & Camarero, 2008)}: 1) This is one of the best museums I have visited; 2) I am satisfied with my decision to visit this museum; 3) I really enjoyed myself in this museum; 4) I will recommend my friends visit the museum; and 5) I will speak positively about this museum.

The museums chosen

The measurements were carried out in four museums in Argentina with different characteristics; in the first two, visitors were approached and invited to participate just before they began their visit, while in the last ones there was a prior call for volunteers to participate as visitors, who were then invited to visit the two museums consecutively.

The first of the four museums, the Museo Histórico Provincial Presidente Nicolás Avellaneda (MHIST), is in San Miguel de Tucumán (Figure 3).

(Planimetry: Bazán, & Ajmat, 2021; photograph: Liliana Natalia Bazán, 2018)

Figure 3 Lower level (a), upper level (b) and façade of Museo Histórico Provincial Presidente Nicolás Avellaneda. 

It is located in the former residence of Dr Nicolás Avellaneda, who was the nation’s president in the period 1874-1880. It high-lights pieces of great heritage value, such as the Ibatín Jug, made of embossed silver, rescued from the first founding of the city of San Miguel de Tucumán (17^th century), charcoal portraits by the famous tucumana sculptress, Lola Mora, and an extensive numismatic collection.

Like most museums in Tucumán, this one is poorly frequented, except for the winter holiday period, in the month of July, the time at which the measurements were taken. The number of people surveyed was 62.

The second was the Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia y Casa del Virrey Liniers (MEJAG), in Alta Gracia, Cordoba Province (Figure 4).

(Planimetry: redrawn based on plans by architect Antonio Sabatté, courtesy of: Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia and Casa del Virrey Liniers; photograph: Liliana Natalia Bazán, 2019)

Figure 4 Floor and façade of Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia y Casa del Virrey Liniers. 

It is located in the former residence of the 17^th century Jesuit Estancia. Declared a World Heritage since the year 2000, it shows how the different groups who inhabited the residence over the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries lived: the Jesuits themselves, enslaved African laborers, women and Viceroy Liniers.

It is a highly frequented museum, mainly during the summer holidays, the time when the measurements were taken. It obtained 101 responses.

Finally, the two museums where work was with volunteer visitor, both in the city of San Miguel de Tucumán. Here we sought the chance that the same person visited more than one museum, with different characteristics, allowing direct contrasting of data between measurements obtained for each museum.⁷ The total number of volunteers reached 51.

The first was the Museo Casa Histórica de la Independencia (CHI), a building which itself has a symbolic connotation as an icon of national history, being the site of the first Congreso General Constituyente which declared the Independence of the United Provinces of South America on July 9th, 1816. It has been declared a national monument. It has Colonial architecture with a traditional structure of patios (Figure 5).

(Planimetry: ^{Bazán, & Ajmat; photograph: Juan Ajmat, 2018})

Figure 5 Floor and façade of Museo Casa Histórica de la Independencia. 

The second is the Museo de Arte Sacro de Tucumán (MAS), belonging to the Archdiocese of Tucumán (Figure 6). It has heritage of a religious nature, products of artistic manifestations mostly linked to the practice of religion. It is a very poorly frequented museum with a highly specific theme, hence the audience it attracts is considerably smaller than the others.

(Planimetry: Bazán, & Ajmat, 2021; photograph: Juan Ajmat, 2018)

Figure 6 Floor and façade of Museo de Arte Sacro de Tucumán. 

Results

Discussion of results

The theoretical model proposed in this work was able to confirm all the case studies in its confirmatory and exploratory phases: it serves to explain the level of overall satisfaction reported by visitors both with or without exploratory variables. This means the proposed phases can be used progressively, according to the objectives. If the aim focusses simply on the level of overall satisfaction and its psychological components, only the confirmatory question-naire need be used, while if you seek to delve into the analysis of physical and environmental components you also include the exploratory section in the envisaged visitor study, which could be of use for the institution if, for example, controls or changes in the environmental conditions have occurred, associated with the preservation or conservation of the exhibited objects, among others.

Through in-depth analysis of sociodemographic and visit profile variables, certain common patterns were identified among all the case studies, such as the apparent influence of age on satisfaction and many of its component variables reported by visitors. Here there seems to be a marked difference between two age groups: over and under 40. This could be linked to generational differences in visitors’ needs for each group, a widely discussed topic nowadays in visitor studies and visitor characterization.

The greatest level of overall satisfaction was registered in MEJAG, followed by MHIST, and finally CHI and MAS, with a similar average level. The psychological variables that accompany those results reflect a similar behavior for the set of museums: the highest ratings of each psychological variable (cognitive and affective) were usually given by visitors in MEJAG, followed by MHIST, then MAS and finally CHI.

The marked difference between the two museums with the higher assessment levels by visitors (MEJAG and MHIST) and the two lower (CHI y MAS) regarding both satisfaction and psychological variables could be due to:

Perceived quality was the most influential variable in overall satisfaction in three cases. The exception being CHI, where this variable was outdone by pleasure and, in second place, disconfirmation. The CHI case could be linked to pleasure being an emotional variable, and with the museum’s symbolic nature, which could have shaped the cognitive evaluation of the experience. As for disconfirmation, 88% of the volunteers had already visited the museum, unlike the other cases, which could mean that disconfirmation regarding a prior visit or knowledge shaped the quality perceived.

Conclusions

Developing and validating tools and methodologies such as those presented herein, which enable the degree of satisfaction in a specific context to be measured in an integral manner, is primed as a substantial contribution to decision-making in museum management. Its use will enhance the scope of evaluations by measuring the extent to which variables participate in the formation of satisfaction, either those specific to the visitor profile or those in which the museum can intervene.

Albeit the model’s structure and the variables included are a key part of the evaluation, what allowed us to reach the stated results was the ability to differentiate between the cognitive and emotional state of the visitors before and after the visit, along with a deeper analysis of the relation between those states and their visit profile, both factors characteristic of the methodology developed.

Common patterns found in the case studies analyzed provide sufficient evidence to state that sociodemographic variables seem to have a significant influence on the visitors’ cognitive and emotional state (psychological variables) until they arrive at the museum, but that influence seems to wane once they begin their visit and up until they complete it. While this second stage develops, the visitors may find themselves in a different mental state, with cognitive and affective conditions determined by their first mental state as well as their perception or interpretation of the services offered by the museum. Their overall satisfaction will eventually be composed of that second state of mind, which will also be influenced by physical variables, i.e. their perception of the environment.

The results obtained in three out of four cases analyzed suggest a prevalence of cognitive psychological variables in the formation of overall satisfaction, such as perceived quality, which is also in line with results found by other authors ^{(De Rojas & Camarero, 2008)}. However, this does not mean affective variables have no influence on satisfaction. In the case of museums with a significant historical meaning for the visiting public, such as CHI, emotions can play a leading role in the formation of satisfaction, perhaps modifying the visitors’ perception of the museum and thus giving a more flexible assessment of their satisfaction compared to a situation with a lower affective load.

This change in perception and resulting evaluation of the visit and satisfaction can also be observed in terms of visitor motivations, age or specific visit characteristics, such as whether or not they took a guided tour. Hence, this change of perception can occur due to characteristics ascribable to the visitor’s profile or to others, such as the service or experience offered by the museum itself.

While the present work did not delve into the study of motivations, it did find evidence of a profile relating to a more specific or in-depth interest in the content of the exhibition in question and another of a more recreational approach. In terms of age, the generational differences observed when evaluating the experience by the visitor demonstrates the need for deeper research to identify the different needs of each age group concerning satisfaction and enjoyment of the experience.

Distinguishing these profiles would be a tool for museum institutions to plan, manage and design their exhibitions, and to determine the services to be offered, such as guided tours. Therefore, it also has implications regarding museums’ need to garner deeper understanding of the profiles of their different publics and how this affects their perceptions and assessments of the specific experience a museum offers.

The methodology presented does not lack limitations. Firstly, it requires a considerable investment of time on the part of the researcher, since a significant amount is dedicated to data collection. Equally, the study requires a lot of time from the visitor to answer a two-part questionnaire. Secondly, future implementations wound be well-advised to complement the results obtained by applying the methodology with a detailed analysis of the particular characteristics of each museum regarding the content it presents and the services offered. That would enable contrasting the perceptions reported by the visitors with objective data on the context of their experience, which would broaden the scope of possibilities to detect common patterns between museums.

Continuous application of this methodology in different case studies will facilitate deeper analysis of convergences and divergences of the variables involved, with a view to generating guidelines for exhibition design and decision-making linked to museum management.