Citation
Exploring Constraints, Benefits Sought and Realized by Visitors to the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art

Material Information

Title:
Exploring Constraints, Benefits Sought and Realized by Visitors to the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
Creator:
Kim, Jaehyun
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (130 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management
Committee Chair:
DONOHOE,HOLLY M
Committee Co-Chair:
PENNINGTON,LORI
Committee Members:
NAGY,REBECCA MARTIN
Graduation Date:
8/9/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Art museums ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Demography ( jstor )
Ethnicity ( jstor )
Motivation ( jstor )
Museums ( jstor )
Recreation ( jstor )
Self esteem ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
T tests ( jstor )
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
benefits -- constraints -- museum
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism thesis, M.S.

Notes

Abstract:
Understanding the psychosocial factors behind an individual choice to visit a museum can be more insightful than only analyzing the demographics of museum visitors for museum management. Within the context of this problem, this research is comprised of three main studies. The purposes of study 1 and 2 are to explore the key constraints, benefits sought and benefits realized by pre visit group (study 1) and post visit group (study 2) respectively. Moreover, studies 1 and 2 investigated the relationship between the demographics (i.e., gender, college program, and the reported ethnicity) and each variable. The aim of study 3 was to examine the gap between pre visit and post visit groups based upon constraint, benefit sought and realized factors. The data for this study was collected from 247 visitors for the pre visit group and 242 visitors for the post-visit group during the months of March and April 2014 at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art. The results of study 1 indicated that both the key benefits sought and constraints among college student visitors was shown in leisure related factor (e.g., to be entertained) and time constraint (e.g., I do not have enough time) respectively. This study also revealed that several significances were found between demographics and benefits sought and constraints. For study 2, the post visit group was analyzed in the same way. Interestingly, the results of all analyses showed the similar tendency to study 1 when investigating the key constraints and benefits realized. Likewise, several significant relationships were also found between demographics and benefits realized and constraints. In study 3, the results of the gap analysis showed that most of the means for benefits realized were rated higher than benefits sought, which indicates that the Harn Museum exceeded the benefits sought by college student visitors. The results of the t test indicated that a significant difference existed between pre and post visit groups in terms of several benefits (i.e., learning, leisure, and social interaction) and constraint factors (i.e., product failings). On the basis of the results above, this study could provide insights that will enable Harn management to make informed decisions about how to achieve their mission and thus, improve the satisfaction of visitors. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: DONOHOE,HOLLY M.
Local:
Co-adviser: PENNINGTON,LORI.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jaehyun Kim.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Kim, Jaehyun. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
968786237 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EXPLORING CONSTRAINTS, BENEFITS SOUGHT AND REALIZED BY VISITORS TO THE SAMUEL P. HARN MUSEUM OF ART By JAEHYUN KIM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREEE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 2014 Jaehyun Kim

PAGE 3

3 To my wife, JooOck

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Nothing could be done without my family. First of all, I would like to thank my father, Dongkyu who has taught me to have confidence in any circumstance and has been a role model for me. His words were always great encouragement to me. I would also like to thank my mother, Jingyeon who has always played a great supportive role in my life and has provided me with the emotional support necessary to continue my education. Additionally, I would like to thank my younger sister, Haehyun for cheering me up. In particular, I must thank a brother in law, John son for being one of my best friends and helping me improve my English. I thank my best friend and wife, Joo Ock for her constant love, patience and understanding throughout the past two years. Since I know how difficult it is to live in foreign country, I am so proud of her for being so strong. I am very grateful to have a new addition to my family – my son Ka ng Woo, the little guy who is the shining light at the end of my tunnel. I am truly honored that I have learned from the best committee members. I would very much like to express my deep gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Holly Donohoe for her help, guidance, and belief in my abilities during the last two years. She has been friendly, supportive, and caring in many ways. She has also taught me enthusiasm for research and professionalism, both of which will improve my future. I would like to thank Dr. Lori P enningtonGray for generously agreeing to act as my committee and helping me to improve my statistical skills. I would also like to thank Director of the Harn Museum of Art, Dr. Rebecca Nagy who has provided me with generous support for my successful project and survey at the Harn Museum, which was necessary for this study.

PAGE 5

5 Finally, I am also very thankful to the best colleagues at the College of Health and Human Performance. I consider myself lucky to have met many wonderful people during my life and I truly could do all things through them. Once again I am very thankful to them all .

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS p age ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 12 A BSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 15 Research Purpose Statement and Research Questions ......................................... 18 Study 1: Analysis of the PreVisit Group ................................................................. 18 Study 2: Analysis of the Post Visit Group ............................................................... 19 Study 3: Analysis of the Gap between Preand Post Visit Groups ......................... 19 2 L ITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 20 Benefits Sought and Benefits Realized ................................................................... 20 Ben efits Sought ...................................................................................................... 22 Benefits Sought and Museum Visitation ................................................................. 24 Benefits Realized .................................................................................................... 26 Benefits R ealized and Museum Visitation ............................................................... 29 Constraints .............................................................................................................. 31 Constraints and Museum Visitation ........................................................................ 37 Conceptual Framework Summary ........................................................................ 39 3 M ETHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 45 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 45 Survey Instrument ................................................................................................... 46 Statistical Procedure for the Benefit Model Fit .................................................. 47 Statistical Procedure for the Constraint Model Fit ............................................ 49 Data A nalysis .......................................................................................................... 49 4 R ESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 59 Visitor Profile ........................................................................................................... 59 Overall Visitor Profile ........................................................................................ 60 Pre visit Group Profile ...................................................................................... 60 Post visit Group Profile ..................................................................................... 61 Key Findings from Visitor Profiles ..................................................................... 62 Study 1: Analysis of the PreVisit Group ................................................................. 62

PAGE 7

7 Research Question 1: What are the key benefits sought by college students when visiting the Harn Museum of Art? ......................................................... 62 Research Question 2: What are the key constraints amongst college students when visiting the Harn Museum of the Art? .................................... 63 Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art and benefits sought? ......................................................................................................... 63 Research Question 4: What is the relationship betwee n the demographics of college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art and constraints? ................................................................................................... 65 Key Findings from Study 1 ............................................................................... 67 Study 2: Analysis of the Post Visit Group ............................................................... 68 Research Question 5: What are the key benefits realized by college student after visiting the Harn Museum of Art? .......................................................... 68 Research Question 6: What are the key constraints amongst college students after visiting the Har n Museum of the Art? ...................................... 69 Research Question 7: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art and benefits realized? .......................................................................................... 69 Research Question 8: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art and constraints? ................................................................................................... 72 Key Findings from Study 2 ............................................................................... 73 Study 3: Analysis of the Gap between Preand Post Visit Groups ......................... 73 Research Question 9: What are the differences between benefits sought and benefits realized amongst college student visitors to the Harn Museum of Art? ............................................................................................. 74 Measuring Gap Score ...................................................................................... 74 Research Question 10: What are the differences in the key constraints between college students on their way into and out of the Harn Museum of Art? ........................................................................................................... 76 Key Findings from Study 3 ............................................................................... 77 Summary of Key Findings ....................................................................................... 77 5 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 99 Visitor Profile ........................................................................................................... 99 Benefits Sought .................................................................................................... 100 Benefits Realized .................................................................................................. 102 Constraints ............................................................................................................ 103 Gap between P re and P ost V isit G roups ............................................................. 105 Practical Recommendations ................................................................................. 106 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 108 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................... 109 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 110

PAGE 8

8 APPENDIX A : SURVEY INSTRUMENT ......................................................................................... 113 B : IRB AND INFORMED CONSENT ........................................................................... 121 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 130

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Benefits sought construct r elevant to m useum visitation ..................................... 41 2 2 Realized b enefits r elevant to m useum visitation ................................................. 42 2 3 Constraints r elevant to m useum visitation .......................................................... 43 2 4 Conceptual f ramework: key concepts and constructs r elevant ........................... 44 3 1 Learning / Intellectual Development survey q uestion .......................................... 51 3 2 Social Interaction / Development survey question ............................................... 51 3 3 Leisure survey q uestion ...................................................................................... 51 3 4 Self esteem survey q uestion ............................................................................... 51 3 5 Learning / Intellectual Development survey q uestion .......................................... 52 3 6 So cial Interaction / Development survey q uestion ............................................... 52 3 7 Leisure survey q uestion ...................................................................................... 52 3 8 Self esteem survey q uestion ............................................................................... 52 3 9 Factor l oadings, composite r eliability, and a verage variance e xtracted values for b enefit scale i tems ......................................................................................... 53 3 10 Time survey q uestion .......................................................................................... 54 3 11 Access survey q uestion ...................................................................................... 54 3 12 Product failings survey q uestion .......................................................................... 54 3 13 Lack of interest survey q uestion .......................................................................... 54 3 14 Repetition survey q uestion .................................................................................. 55 3 15 Factor l oadings, composite r eliability, and a verage variance e xtracted values for constraint scale i tems ......................................................................... 56 4 1 Visitor p rofile for the Harn Museum of Art ............................................................ 78 4 2 Mean and standard d eviation for b enefits sought i tems ....................................... 79 4 3 Frequency of b enefits sought i tems (in percentage) ............................................ 80

PAGE 10

10 4 4 Mean and standard d eviation for constraints i tems ............................................. 81 4 5 Frequency of constraints i tems (in percentage) .................................................. 82 4 6 Mean and standard d eviation for g ender and b enefits sought f actors ................. 83 4 7 Independent sample t test of g ender with b enefits sought f actors ...................... 83 4 8 Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and b enefits sought f actors .. 83 4 9 Independent sample t test of college p rogram with b enefits sought f actors ....... 83 4 10 Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and b enefits sought f actors ............... 84 4 11 Independent sample t test of e thnicity with b enefits sought f actors .................... 84 4 12 Me an and standard d eviation for g ender and constraint f actors ......................... 84 4 13 Independent sample t test of g ender with Previsit constraints f actors ............... 84 4 14 Mean and standard d eviation for college p ro gram and Previsit constraint f actors ................................................................................................................. 85 4 15 Independent sample t test of college p rogram with Previsit constraints f actors ................................................................................................................. 85 4 16 Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and Pre vi sit constraint f actors ......... 85 4 17 Independent sample t test of e thnic ity with Pre visit constraints f actors ............. 86 4 18 Mean and standard d eviation for b enefits r ealized i tems .................................... 87 4 19 Frequency of b enefits r ealized i tems (in percentage) .......................................... 88 4 20 Mean and standard d eviation for constraints i tems ............................................. 89 4 21 Frequency of b enefits constraints i tems (in percentage) ..................................... 90 4 22 Mean and standard d eviation for g ender and b enefit r ealized f actors ................. 91 4 23 Independent sample t test of g ender with b enefits r ealized f actors ..................... 91 4 24 Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and b enefits r ealized f actors ................................................................................................................. 91 4 25 Independent sample t test of college p rogram with b enefits r ealized f actors ...... 91 4 26 Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and b enefits r ealized f actors ............. 92

PAGE 11

11 4 27 Independent sample t test of e thnicity with b enefits r ealized f actors ................. 92 4 28 M ean and standard d eviation for g e nder and constraint f actors ........................ 92 4 29 Independent sample t t est of g ender with constraints f actors ........................... 92 4 30 Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and Post visit constraint f actors ................................................................................................................ 93 4 31 Independent sample t test of college p rogram with Post visit co nstraints f actors ................................................................................................................ 93 4 32 Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and Post visit constraint f actors ....... 93 4 33 Independent sample t test of e thnici ty with Post visit constraints f actors ........... 94 4 34 Analysis of the differences between two groups on sociodemographics .......... 94 4 35 Distribution of college p rogram variable with w eighting ...................................... 95 4 36 Mean for b enefit i tems and g ap scores .............................................................. 96 4 37 Means and standard d eviations with b enefit f actors ........................................... 97 4 38 Independent sample t test of visitors with b enefit f actors ................................... 97 4 39 Means and standard d eviations with constraint f actors ...................................... 97 4 40 Independent sample t test of visitors with constraint f actors .............................. 97 4 41 Summary of k ey f indings .................................................................................... 98

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Standardized factor loading and items loaded on factors in the benefit model ... 57 3 2 Standardized factor loading and items loaded on factors in the constraint ......... 58

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EXPLORING CONSTRAINTS, BENEFITS SOUGHT AND REALIZED BY VISITORS TO THE SAMUEL P. HARN MUSEUM OF ART By Jaehyun Kim August 2014 Chair: Holly Donohoe Major : Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Understanding the psychosocial factors behind an individual’s choice to visit a museum can be more insightful than only analyzing the demographics of museum visitors for museum management. Within the context of this problem, this research is comprised of three main studies. The purposes of study 1 and 2 are to explore the key constraints, benefits sought and benefits realized by previsit group (study 1) and post visit group (study 2) respectively . Moreover, studies 1 and 2 investigated the relationship between the demographics (i.e., gender, college program, and the reported ethnicity) and each variable. The aim of study 3 was to examine the gap between previsit and post visit groups based upon c onstraint, benefit sought and realized factors. The data for this study was collected from 247 visitors for the pre visit group and 242 visitors for the post visit group during the months of March and April 2014 at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art. The results of study 1 indicated that both the key benefits sought and constraints among college student visitors was shown in leisure related factor (e.g., to be entertained) and time constraint (e.g., I do not have enough time) respectively. This study also revealed that several significances were found between demographics and

PAGE 14

14 benefits sought and constraints. For study 2, the post visit group was analyzed in the same way. Interestingly, the results of all analyses showed the similar tendency to study 1 when investigating the key constraints and benefits realized. Likewise, several significant relationships were also found between demographics and benefits realized and constraints. In study 3, the results of the gap analysis showed that most of the means for benefits realized were rated higher than benefits sought, which indicates that the Harn Museum exceeded the benefits sought by college student visitors. The results of the t test indicated that a significant difference existed between preand post visit groups in terms of several benefits (i.e., learning, leisure, and social interaction) and constraint factors (i.e., product failings). On the basis of the results above, this study could provide insights that will enable Harn management to make informed decisi ons about how to achieve their mission and thus, improve visitors’ satisfaction.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Museums are defined as institutions where historically and culturally interesting and important artifacts are preserved and displayed for public viewing (Timothy, 2011). In the case of the art museum, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD, 2013) defines the museum as follows: An art museum is a legally organized, not for profit institution or component of a not for profit institution or government entity with a mission to study, care for, interpret, and exhibit works of art. In this sense, Enasel (2011) indicates that museums are of great value because they play a central role in preserving cultural heritage and educating the public. The v isitors are the primary museum audience and in many cases, they are also a significant source of funding for operations (through entrance fees and donations), new collections, and research for example. The literature indicates that an understanding of the museum visitor is fundamental for all aspects of museum planning and management. To this end, Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan (1998) indicate that museum visitor research has focused primarily on demographic segmentation as this has the most practical value for museum management. The Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) was the first major attempt to collect data on arts attendance across the entire adult population of the United States. The SPPA was conducted in 1982, 1992, and 2002. DeMaggio and Mukhtar (2004) analyzed the data across all survey years and they found that attendance rates for art museums and galleries increased over this time period. Conversely, a study conducted by the National

PAGE 16

16 Endowment for the Arts in 2008 found that the percentage of adults in the U.S. who attended art museums and galleries was 27% in 2002 but this fell to 23% in 2008. At the time of the 2008 survey, the U.S. had been in an economic recession; and it was suggested that economic constraints had an effect on adult attendance to art museums and galleries (National Endowment for the Arts, 2009). At the local scale, a report released by the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art at the University of Florida showed both of the aforementioned tendencies in the past five years; that is, the total number of visits declined from 101,200 in 2007 to 77,277 in 2010, but it increased by 24,780 to 102,057 between 2011 and 2012 (Harn Museum of Art, 2013). Hood (1991) suggested that merely analyzing demographics and participation patterns will not reveal what people value in their leisure experiences. Similarly, Thyne (2001) indicated that demographics are valuable for better understanding visitor basics such as gender, income, and education, but the psychosocial factors behind an individ ual’s choice to visit a museum can be more insightful for museum management. The psychosocial factors that are commonly investigated in the leisure and tourism literature and specifically the visitor literature are motivations, benefits and constraints. T hese factors are identified as salient because they provide insights into the museum visitors’ decision making behaviors. The leisure literature indicates that motivations are the intrinsic and extrinsic forces that compel an individual to participate in a leisure activity such as a museum visit (Alexandirs, Tsorbatzoudis, & Grouios, 2002; IsoAhola, 1989; Slater, 2007). Benefits are positive physical, social, economic, psychological or other outcomes resulting from participation (Driver & Bruns, 1999; Ever ett & Barrett,

PAGE 17

17 2011) while constraints are defined as the factors that inhibit or prohibit leisure participation (Jackson, 1997; Jun, Kyle, & Mowen, 2009). The Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art is located at the University of Florida in Gainesville. The Harn’s mission is to collaborate with university and community partners to inspire, educate and enrich people’s lives through art. “The museum brings the joy of experiencing great works of art to diverse university, community, national and global audiences through relevant and enlightening art collections, exhibitions and learning opportunities.” (Harn Museum of Art, 2013, p.10). To accomplish this mission, the Harn is collaborating with University of Florida faculty and students, local partners and the international art community in an effort to provide relevant and engaging art centered programming that reflects world cultures, human history and current events (Harn Museum of Art, 2013). The Harn’s management team reports that their visitors are primarily facult y and students of the University of Florida while local residents, instate and out of state visitors comprise a minority. However, this report is based on operational observations and a few oneoff visitor surveys while no systematic visitor surveys have been conducted. As such, there is little understanding of the Harn’s visitors, their demographics, and the benefits and constraints associated with visiting the museum. In order to operationalize their mission to promote the arts and to inspire, educate, and enrich the lives of their visitors, it is essential that a visitor survey is conducted so that the museum can make informed planning and management decisions with their visitor in mind.

PAGE 18

18 Research Purpose Statement and Research Questions Within the contex t of this problem, this research is comprised of three main studies. The purposes of the study 1 and 2 are to explore the key constraints, benefits sought and benefits realized by previsit group (study 1) and post visit group (study 2) respectively. Moreover, studies 1 and 2 investigated the relationship between the demographics (i.e., gender, college program, and the reported ethnicity) and each variable. The aim of the study 3 is to examine the gap between pre visit and post visit groups based on constraint, benefit sought and realized factors. The three studies are grouped by ten research questions. Study 1: Analysis of the PreVisit Group 1. What are the key benefits sought by college students when visiting the Harn Museum of Art? 2. What are the key constraints among college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art? 3. What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art and benefits sought? 4. What is the relationship between the demographi cs of college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art and constraints?

PAGE 19

19 Study 2: Analysis of the Post Visit Group 5. What are the key benefits realized by college students after visiting the Harn Museum of Art? 6. What are the key constraints among college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art? 7. What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art and benefits realized? 8. What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art and constraints? Study 3: Analysis of the Gap between Preand Post Visit Groups 9. What are the differences between benefits sought and benefits realized among college student visitors to the Harn Museum of Art? 10. What are the differences in the key constraints between college students on their way into and out of the Harn Museum of Art? A survey is designed to capture data from college student visitors to the Harn Museum of Art so as to answer the research questions above. In particular, gap analysis will provide insights that will enable Harn management to make informed decisions about how to achieve their mission; that is, to improve audiences’ satisfaction. On the basis of the results that are to emerge from the proposed research, recommendations will be made for visitor engagement as well as future research in the area of museum visitation generally, and Harn visitation specifically.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 L ITERATURE REVIEW In this section, the constructs that comprise the study’s conceptual framework benefits and constraints will be defined and the associated literature will be critically reviewed. In general, there is recognition in the leisure and tourism literature that a visitor’s experience is affected by benefits sought, benefits realized, and constraints impeding or affecting the experience (Um & Crompton, 1992). The centrality of benefits and constraints in the visitor experience has stimulated research in each of these areas respectively so that they may now be viewed as distinctive subfields in tourism, leisure and recreation. Benefits Sought and Benefits Realized The research in relation to benefits sought is derived from the marketing field (Haley, 1968). Haley indicated that the benefits sought from a certain product provide insight into the primary reasons why one might purchase it. In the context of tourism, for example, the term “benefits sought” is often used interchangeably with motivations. A number of studies (e.g., Loker & Perdue, 1992; Papadimitriou & Gibson, 2008; Pennington Gray & Kerstetter, 2001; Tian et al., 1996) have conceptualized benefits sought as “motivation” and revealed general categories and types of benefits such as learning, escape, relaxation, and time with family or friends (Papadimitriou et al., 2008).Therefore, research investigating benefits sought seems to be directly related to measuring motivationbased factor(s). Dann (1981) questioned the ability of researchers to measure tourists’ motivationbased benefits sought in that most people may be unable to reflect on what

PAGE 21

21 motivates them to make certain choices before their travel. Inst ead, Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) suggested the concept of benefits realized as a more accurate way to infer tourists’ needs and motivations compared to benefits sought since benefits realized assumes the outcomebased approach to the concept of benefits s ought and it can more accurately be measured. For example, Woodside and Jacobs’s (1985) study investigating the benefits realized of three different national samples (i.e., Japanese, mainland Americans and Canadian visitors to Hawaii) found that there were distinct differences in benefits realized by nationality. In the support of this proposition, Shoemaker (1994) examined past travel experience to infer benefits realized that could affect tourists’ choice of vacation destination and to create smaller homogeneous market segments. This study found that discrepancies existed between what tourists seek and what they actually do. The high gaps between expectations and perceptions of their experiences may result in visitor dissatisfaction. The consistent results of the previous studies suggest that a measure of benefits realized may offer useful insight for destination management and travel marketing strategies, such as making physical improvements in destination facilities and revising promotional planning (W oodside et al., 1985). Furthermore, Woodside et al. (1985) argued knowledge of the benefits realized from visit a destination would be important in that such information may relate more directly to tourists’ attitudes and beliefs that can affect decisionm aking behavior.

PAGE 22

22 Benefits Sought Research related to benefits sought is motivationbased. For the purpose of this study, motivations are defined as the internal forces that prompt an individual to participate in an activity (IsoAhola, 1989). As the most basic concept in psychology, motivational factors have been widely studied in leisure, recreation, and tourism to predict and explain individuals’ decisionmaking and behavior (IsoAhola, 1989). For example, Dann (1977) assumed a sociological approach to i nvestigate two proposed motivational factors: anomie and egoenhancement. Anomie refers to the desire for social interaction and fantasy as well as a break from work. The second motivation factor derived from the need for enhancing the ego through travel. In this study, both of these proposed tourist motivations were considered by the author as “push” factors that can help us to understand “what makes tourists travel?” Dann (1977) found that “above average socioeconomic status”, “young people”, “those from small towns and rural areas”, “repeaters”, and “those with above average knowledge of the [destination] island” were more likely to display the tendency toward anomie motivation. Conversely, “those with lower socio economic status including a higher porti on of elderly and female”, “firsttimers”, “single”, and “those from large cities” displayed more of a tendency towards egoenhancement in their attitudes. Similarly, Crompton (1979) studied the motivations of leisure travelers in Texas and Massachuset ts. He conducted personto person unstructured interviews and revealed that seven of nine motives were viewed as “sociopsychological motivations” for leisure travel: (1) escape from a perceived mundane environment, (2) exploration and evaluation of self, (3) relaxation, (4) prestige, (5) regression, (6) enhancement of

PAGE 23

23 kinship relationships, and (7) facilitation of social interaction. The remaining motives (i.e., novelty and education) were categorized as “cultural motives”. Crompton (1979) also reported that the factors are not mutually exclusive; instead, the factors work together to motivate individuals to engage in leisure travel. Beard and Ragheb (1983) investigated leisure motivation and identified four major dimensions: (1) intellectual, (2) social, ( 3) competencemastery, and (4) stimulus avoidance. The intellectual component is the extent to which individuals are motivated to engage in leisure activities that involve learning, exploring, discovering, creating, or imagining. The social component is the extent to which individuals are motivated to engage in leisure activities for social reasons such as the need for interpersonal relationship (e.g., friendship) and the need for the esteem of others. The competencemastery component refers to the extent t o which individuals engage in leisure activities in order to master, challenge, and/or compete. The stimulus avoidance component refers to “the drive to escape and get away from over stimulating life situations” (Bear and Ragheb, 1983; p. 225). On the basi s of these four motivation dimensions, they developed a Leisure Motivation Scale to assess what motivates individuals to participate in leisure activities. Ryan and Glendon (1998) used this Leisure Motivation Scale proposed by Beard and Ragheb (1983) to as sess the motivations of British vacationers. Four dimensions of motives emerged: (1) Social (e.g., have a good time with friends), (2) relaxation (e.g., relax mentally), (3) intellectual (e.g., to increase my knowledge), and (4) competencemastery dimension (e.g., challenge my ability). Informed by Beard and Ragheb’s (1983) research, Weissinger and Bandalos (1995) developed the Intrinsic Leisure Motivation Scale (ILM) to measure differences in

PAGE 24

24 the propensity to seek intrinsic rewards in leisure behavior. The scale is comprised of 24 items that are organized on the basis of four key constructs: (1) “self determination”, which is characterized by awareness of intrinsic needs and a strong desire to make discretionary choices based on these needs, (2) “competence”, which represents attention to feedback that provides information about effectiveness, ability, and skill, (3) “commitment”, which is a tendency toward deep involvement in leisure behaviors, and (4) “challenge”, which is defined as a tendency toward seeking leisure experiences that stretch one's limits and provide novel stimuli. The result of reliability data, validity data, and factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis in this study supported the viability of the ILM Scale in research contexts. Graefe, Thapa, Confer, and Absher (2000) compared the motivations of visitors to the Allegheny National Forest. Five constructs were central to the visitor’s motivation to visit the forest and variances between different visitor groups emerged from the analysis. For example, single day visitors were motivated to visit by the desire to be around nature and learn about it, whereas overnight visitors were motivated to visit by the opportunity to “escape” into the wilderness. Benefits Sought and Museum Vi sitation Similar themes and factors have emerged from the study of museum visitor motivations but their relative importance can vary across time, space and context. Thyne (2001) identified four central motivating factors that affect the choice to visit a m useum: (1) social opportunities; (2) edutainment; (3) sense of accomplishment; and (4) sense of belonging. Congruent with antecedent motivation research, this study found that the factors are not mutually exclusive but that they can be ranked based on relative

PAGE 25

25 importance. For example, Jansen Verbeke et al. (1996) conducted interviews and used a laddering technique to identify the motivation(s) underlying consumer choice behavior among museum visitors. This study revealed that learning is the primary motivat ing factor and it confirmed that it is inextricably linked with other motivating factors such as social opportunities and quality of life enhancements. That is to say that visitors can be motivated to visit a museum primarily by a desire to learn, but also for the benefits of socializing or entertainment (e.g., to be fun, to be with their friends and to spend quality family time together). Alternatively, Debenedetti’s (2003) study of museum visitors revealed that a majority visit a museum to have opportunit ies to catch up with friends, to socialize, to be with loved ones, and to share an experience outside the realm of daily life. Interviews with museum visitors revealed that the social motivation to visit a museum can be driven by five functions of a social encounter: (1) mutual enrichment (e.g., the verbal exchange); (2) recreation (e.g., to relax); (3) reassurance (e.g., reduce stress); (4) prestige (e.g. emotional satisfaction); and (5) transmission of knowledge. In this sense, the author argues that the presence of companions and/or social opportunities play a significant role in the motivation to visit a museum as well as their satisfaction with the museum experience. Unlike Jansen Verbeke et al. (1996) and Debenetti’s (2003) studies, Slater’s (2007) study found escapism to be the primary visitor motivator while social and family interaction and learning were secondary but important motivators. From the aforementioned bodies of literature, it is possible to conclude that a set of key constructs is centra l to understanding the benefits sought from participation in leisure, recreation, and/or tourism that are specifically relevant to museum visitation: (1)

PAGE 26

26 learning / intellectual development; (2) social interaction / development; and (3) stimulus / escapism . Items used to measure each of these constructs have been culled from the literature and adapted for this study from Beard and Ragheb’s (1983) Leisure Motivation Scale and from Tian et al.’s (1996) study of museum visitors (Table 21). Benefits Realized B enefits realized can be defined as the positive physical, social, economic, psychological or other outcomes resulting from participation (Driver & Bruns, 1999). In the leisure context, these positive outcomes are associated with participation in a leisure opportunity such as playing soccer, attending a concert, visiting a museum, or playing cards. The literature is replete with case studies that highlight the benefits of leisure and tourism participation and much work has been done to identify, categorize a nd measure these beneficial outcomes. For example, Tinsley and Kass (1978, 1979) and Tinsley and Johnson (1984) suggested that benefits can vary across leisure activities. Tinsley et al. (1978) identified 27 needgratifying dimensions and demonstrated how they varied across leisure activities and in 1979, they identified 8 generalized “psychological benefits of leisure”: “Self expression,” “Companionship,” “Power,” “Compensation,” “Security,” “Service,” “Intellectual Aestheticism,” and “Solitude.” These st udies informed the development of the PAL (Paragraphs about Leisure) tool for measuring the psychological benefits of leisure. PAL is based on the notion that leisure opportunities are important in helping people satisfy basic psychological needs (Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs & Kaufman, 1985). In 1995, Tinsley and Eldredge used PAL as the basis for developing a needbased taxonomy of leisure activities that improved counseling psychologists’

PAGE 27

27 understanding of both the clients’ leisure experiences and psychological needs. The 82 leisure activities were cluster analyzed with the scores on the 11 PAL scales (i.e., exertion, affiliation, enhancement, self expression, nurturance, compensation, sensibility, conscientiousness, status, challenge and hedonism). As a result, 12 leisure activity clusters were adopted: agency, novelty, belongingness, service, sensual enjoyment, cognitive stimulation, self expression, creativity, competition, vicarious competition, relaxation, and residual. The results revealed that there is vari ation in scores on the PAL scale among the members of each cluster, and that participation in leisure activities helped participants fulfill psychological needs they derived such as sensibility and challenge. For example, Cluster 1, named “agency”, was characterized by the highest score on Exertion, a high score on Challenge, and a moderately low score on Sensibility; the cluster showed physical striving to retain a difficult goal, and a reduced attention to intellectual and aesthetic stimulation. On the ot her hand, Cluster 6, named “cognitive stimulation”, was high on Sensibility; this cluster required little physical exertion and emphasized on intellectual and sensual stimulation. Given the differences in individual needs, counseling psychologists should c onsider the PAL scale scores of the clusters and the activities in each cluster to lead their clients to make more beneficial decisions about their leisure behavior (Tinsley et al, 1995). Similarly, other researchers (GarG, Couture, Ogryzlo & Schinke, 2010; Kaplan, 1973; Nimrod, 2007; Tomas, Crompton, & Scott, 2003) have supported the notion not only that those participating in different leisure activities can get different patterns of physical, social, psychological or other outcomes but also that the leis ure outcomes accruing from participation can vary within a single activity.

PAGE 28

28 In Driver, Brown & Peterson’s (1991) edited book, Benefits of Leisure, the Benefits Approach to Leisure (BAL), was introduced and guidelines for its implementation were provided. A ccording to the BAL, benefits can be linked to each other within the “benefits chain of causality.” Three types of leisure benefits exist in this chain: (1) the prevention of a worse condition (e.g., maintained health, friendships, and community stability) , (2) an improved condition (e.g., increased leaning, improved skill levels, and economic benefits), and (3) the realization of a specific satisfying psychological experience (e.g., successfully testing one’s skills, experiencing closeness as a family, and relieving a mental or physical stress). Furthermore, this chain includes psychological, physiological, economic, social, and environmental benefits (Driver, Tinsley & Manfredo, 1991). It is this holistic understanding of benefits that now permeates the li terature concerned with leisure benefits. Tomas et al. (2003) investigated benefits sought through examining zoological park visitors. A factor analysis with oblique rotation was conducted on the benefit items and the items loaded on the six domains (i.e. , Introspection/ New People, Wildlife Appreciation and Learning, Family togetherness, Escape, Wildlife Enjoyment, Companionship). Findings of this study indicated that there were considerable differences in the importance visitors attributed to the six dom ains. Family togetherness ranked as the most important benefit whereas Introspection/New People ranked as the least important benefit while at the zoo. Visitors attached importance to social interaction (i.e., bonding time) and an enjoyable experience incl uding learning about animals in family groups; thus, the task for the zoo managers is to produce an atmosphere that encourage visitors to realize these benefits (Tomas et al., 2003).

PAGE 29

29 Benefits R ealized and Museum Visitation The commonly held view that museums are for knowledge acquisition has most certainly changed over time (Combs, 1999). Combs (1999) indicates that museums contribute to providing a multi faceted experience with a variety of physical, social, psychological, and intellectual benefits. I t is the case that today, the visitor perceives and consumes the museum as a place for a beneficial leisure experiences rather than wholly for an educational experience (Foley & McPherson, 2000). McIntosh (1999) pointed out that providers can interact with visitors based on the individual’s psychological state by adopting a benefits based approach. In this regard, deeper understanding of audiences who attach greater importance to certain benefits than others may be very useful in the process of determining product positioning, promotional appeals, and design, and pricing (McIntosh, 1999). Kim Lian Chan (2009) investigated the benefits resulting from the visitor experience of the Sabah Museum (the state museum of Sabah, Malaysia). Survey respondents were asked to describe and reflect on their experiences and the benefits gained from the Sabah Museum. The benefits that emerged from the analysis were categorized as cognitive, affective, reflective, and recreation. The results showed that a majority of the visito rs (47%) considered their visit to the museum to be a cognitive experience (e.g., an educational and learning experience). Furthermore, 23% of visitors viewed their benefits as being affective (e.g., to share the local culture with others, seeing new things themselves); 15% were reflective (e.g., gaining ‘respect’ for other cultures and religions); and 15% were recreational. In particular, the benefits (i.e., learning and educational experience) can be interpreted in keeping with the previous

PAGE 30

30 literatures focused primarily on cognitive learning outcomes in the context of museums (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hooper Greenhill, 1999; Rounds 2004). Packer (2008) investigated beneficial outcomes other than the benefit associated with learning, conducting semi structured interviews with adult visitors. This study found three types of benefits: (1) psychological well being (i.e., personal growth, environmental mastery, purpose in life, positive relations, or self acceptance); (2) subjective well being (i.e., feeli ng good or feeling happy as a result of the visit); and (3) restoration (i.e., a sense of relaxation, peace and tranquility, or thoughtfulness). In particular, the study emphasized the importance of restoration as a benefit of visiting a museum. When compared to the benefit of ‘learning,’ the restorative nature is a littleknown type of benefit; thus, he recommended further research attention to the concept, which would allow museum practitioners to better understand and meet visitors’ multiple needs and ex pectations (Packer, 2008). In 1995, structured interviews with tourists visiting three cultural heritage sites in the United Kingdom (i.e., Ironbridge Gorge Museum, the Black Country Museum, and New Lanark World Heritage Village) were conducted by McIntos h (1999) with a purpose to define and measure the benefits of visitation. The benefits reported by tourists were classified into three main process areas: (1) affective process (e.g., enjoyed reliving or sharing memories); (2) reflective process (e.g., dra wn comparisons between life then and now); and (3) cognitive process (e.g., learned about history). However, the author argued that the benefits gained by visitors to the heritage settings were mainly psychological factors and he emphasized the emotive and subjective nature of heritage

PAGE 31

31 experiences and the affective and cognitive processes resulting in unique psychological benefits accruing from participation. Everett and Barrett (2011) explored the benefits derived from a sustained engagement with a single museum by adapting the narrative inquiry method. The narratives revealed a broad range of benefits including: ‘increased well being,’ ‘improved self confidence,’ ‘a strengthened feeling of belonging,’ ‘connecting with people who share interests and values’ , ‘spending quality time with family and friends,’ ‘shaping important connections to place and personal identity,’ and ‘warding off the effects of aging.’ The study indicated that a better understanding of visitation benefits can be useful in developing, providing, and promoting experiences that provide a range of benefits to visitors. The literature identifies many different kinds of benefits and they have been shown to vary across a range of settings, activities, and populations. However, five categories of benefits are generally recognized in the tourism and leisure literature: psychological, sociological, physiological, economic, and environmental (Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991). These five benefits categories will be used to guide this study while fi ve specific benefits that have been validated in the museum and tourism literature (Tian, Crompton & Witt, 1996) is used for this study (Table 22). Constraints Jackson (1993) defines constraints as the factors that inhibit or prohibit an individual’s act ivity or choice. In recent years, constraints have received a great deal of attention from researchers because they are considered to be one of the most important factors for predicting the decision making process (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997).

PAGE 32

32 Crawford and Godbey’s (1987) theoretical leisure constraints framework identifies factors that would inhibit or prohibit an individuals’ leisure participation. It is composed of three main categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints. Intrapers onal constraints are defined as “individual psychological states and attributes, which interact closely with leisure preferences rather than intervening between preferences and participation” (Crawford et al., 1987, p.122). That is, intrapersonal constrain ts represent internal factors such as anxiety, stress, religiosity, perceived reference group attitudes, and perceived self skill. Interpersonal constraints are caused by social interactions or the relationship with friends, family and others (e.g., confli cting schedule or values with friends or family for leisure participation). Structural constraints are external constraints such as the scheduling of work and leisure time, financial problems, seasonality, and accessibility to participate in leisure activi ties. This framework has been criticized in the literature despite revisions by Crawford and Godbey (1991) because it is perceived to be stationary rather than process oriented (Crawford et al., 1991). Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey (1991), therefore, proposed another model that integrates previous attempts and describes constraints within an individual’s decisionmaking process hierarchically. The Hierarchical Process Model assumes that a hierarchy of importance between the three types of constraints exists. That is, intrapersonal constraints are the most powerful obstacles to participation. Interpersonal constraints are secondary, whereas structural constraints are the least powerful. According to this model, individuals will be faced with constraints first a t the intrapersonal level. In the absence of internal constraints, they will form leisure preferences and then interpersonal constraints will arise when attempting to

PAGE 33

33 find a partner with whom to participate in preferred leisure activities. Next, when inter personal constraints are overcome, structural constraints will be encountered. This might include a lack of transportation to the leisure activity site, poor weather for outdoor activities, or physical access restrictions. Finally, this model suggests that only when the structural constraints are absent or individuals successfully negotiate these constraints will leisure participation occur. Many studies (e.g., Alexandris et al., 1997; Raymore, Godbey, Crawford & Von Eye, 1993; Samdahl & Jekubovich, 1997) have used this model in an effort to better understand a variety of constraints among different populations and leisure activity types. For example, Raymore et al. (1993) conducted a study of high school students to investigate whether three distinct types of constraints exist in the hierarchy proposed by Crawford et al. (1991). In this study, the analysis confirmed that the three subcategories of leisure constraints exist (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural). In addition, this study found that the constraints are not independent; each type of constraint occurred in a hierarchy consistent with the Crawford et al. model (1991). Samdahl et al. (1997) also confirmed the validity of the Hierarchical Process Model in their indepth interviews wit h 88 adults. The interviewees were asked whether or not they were able to make time for themselves during their daily routines and to identify the factors that made that possible or impossible. In this study, they found evidence of structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal constraints. In term of structural constraints, money, time, and health were commonly identified as major constraints on outdoor recreation activities. For interpersonal constraints, family responsibilities were the most common constraints for many of the participants. Some participants described

PAGE 34

34 lack of a partner and having a partner who did not share their leisure activities as interpersonal constraints. Finally, they failed to find many examples of intrapersonal constraints but sever al participants revealed that leisurerelated intrapersonal constraints are factors that reflect overall life dissatisfaction. Some participants, for example, spoke about how introverted personalities and the low level of self esteem had a negative effect on their social relationships in addition to their leisure choices. In another study, Alexandris et al. (1997) identified seven leisure constraints faced by Greek sport participants (i.e., individual/psychological constraints, lack of knowledge, accessibi lity/financial, facilities/services, lack of interest, time, and lack of partners). They indicated that these seven constraint factors can be grouped into Crawford et al.’s (1991) Hierarchical Process Model constraint categories (i.e., intrapersonal, inter personal, and structural constraints). The intrapersonal constraints included the factors ‘lack of knowledge’, ‘individual/psychological’ and ‘lack of interest.’ The interpersonal constraint refers to ‘lack of partners.’ Finally, the three factors includin g ‘facilities/services’, ‘accessibility/financial’, and ‘lack of time’ were conceptualized as structural constraints. The results of this study indicated that those who have high levels of intrapersonal constraints are less likely to have higher levels of participation than those who experience intrapersonal constraints at the lower levels. Further, the study found that interpersonal and structural constraints had no significant relationships with both participation and nonparticipation. This finding corres ponded with the notion of ‘the hierarchy of importance’ proposed by Crawford et al. (1991); intrapersonal constraints are the most powerful on leisure participation.

PAGE 35

35 Prior to the early 1990s, constraints were considered to be insurmountable barriers that d irectly caused nonparticipation but more recent researchers have posited that it is also possible for individuals to negotiate such constraints (Alexandris, Kouthouris & Girgolas, 2007). Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey (1993) proposed a new perspective on l eisure constraints; that is, individuals’ efforts to negotiate various constraints can lead to modified leisure participation rather than nonparticipation. As a result, a growing body of literature has examined this negotiation process (e.g., Alexandris e t al., 2007; Hubbard & Mannell, 2001; Jackson & Rucks, 1995; Kay & Jackson, 1991). A representative example is Kay et al.’s (1991) study of structural constraints. They asked respondents how they coped with time and financial constraints. In terms of the f inancial related constraints, the respondents reported that: 60% reduced their participation, 11% saved to participate, 8% found cheaper opportunities, and11% reported that these constraints prevented them from participating. For respondents faced with tim e constraints, they reported that it reduced their participation (71%), and it reduced the amount of time they spent on household chores (27%). Jackson et al. (1995) conducted a study by using both qualitative and quantitative data collected from 425 juni or high and highschool students in order to measure leisure constraint negotiation strategies. They identified constraints encountered in participating and then investigated and classified strategies adopted to overcome those constraints. The negotiation strategies were classified into behavioral and cognitive. The majority of study participants (79%) adopted behavioral strategies, while 11% adopted cognitive strategies. Specifically, behavioral strategies included time

PAGE 36

36 management, the acquisition of neces sary skills, changing of interpersonal relations, improving finances, physical therapy, and modifying leisure aspirations. Of the strategies, the negotiation strategies most frequently mentioned were time management and skill acquisition, but the strategies adopted by individuals varied according to the activity. Hubbard et al. (2001) also found the time management strategy to be the most common negotiation strategy used to overcome constraints (e.g., I cut short the activity session), followed by ‘skill ac quisition’ (e.g., I learn new activities), ‘interpersonal coordination’ (e.g., I try to find people to do activities with), and ‘financial management’ (e.g., I try to budget my money). Their research suggests that when individuals encounter leisure constraints, they are more likely to use negotiation strategies to mitigate their negative impact rather than simply choosing not to participate in leisure activities. Alexandris et al. (2007) examined negotiation strategies used by recreational alpine skiers and tested the mediating role of negotiation in the relationship between motivation and the intention to continue participating in the activity. In this study, the negotiation dimension was composed of five factors: improve skiing knowledge, adjust lifestyle , acquire information about the ski areas, manage time, and find a partner. The “time management” and “improve skiing knowledge” dimensions were found to contribute the most to participation continuance intention, which suggests that individuals who overco me their time related constraints successfully and improved their knowledge of skiing are more likely to continue to participate. They also confirmed that the “time management” and the “find partners” factors are applicable regardless of the

PAGE 37

37 population, the culture, and the activities and this is congruent with the aforementioned research. Constraints and Museum Visitation The constraints concept has received a disproportionate amount of attention in the museum literature and as such, only a few case studies are included in this review. Hood (2004) examined the constraints associated with visiting art museums. This study describes six major criteria by which individuals judge and make decisions regarding museum visits and by extension, affect their ability t o visit and enjoy the museum experience: (1) being with people, or social interaction; (2) doing something worthwhile; (3) feeling comfortable and at ease in one’s surroundings; (4) having a challenging new experiences; (5) having an opportunity to learn; and (6) participating actively. They found that frequent visitors highly valued all six of the criteria and perceived that museums were places that could satisfy all six. On the other hand, the three leisuretime criteria (i.e., being with people, participating actively, and feeling at ease in their surrounding) were identified as the most important to people who did not visit museums. That is to say, nonvisitors perceived museums as environments that restricted activity and were socially and physically uncomfortable. Instead, this group preferred to spend out of home leisure time participating in or watching sports, picnicking, or going to shopping malls. It was also suggested that museum directors should make better connections with audiences by better understanding how these potential constraints affect the intention and the quality of a visit. Prentice (1994) conducted interviews with residents of three British cities (Swansea, Durham, and Edinburgh) to provide insight into potential visitation

PAGE 38

38 constraints. In this study, the respondents were asked to reply to four opinion statements, ‘Museums are boring places’, ‘Museums are often expensive places to visit’, ‘In my experience it is generally insufficient at museums to keep children occupied’, ‘Museums ar e mainly places to visit when on holiday.’ This study found that significant numbers of the British population viewed museums as expensive places to visit, as places mainly to be visited when on holiday, and as insufficient interest to children. However, m useums were not perceived as boring places by the majority of those respondents in all of the three cities. Ti an, Crompton, and Witt (1996) attempted to identify and integrate benefits and constraints to uncover target markets that are likely to be the most responsive to marketing investments. They examined six constraints (cost, time, access, repetition, product failing, and lack of interest) and on this basis identified five population clusters: (1) Highly Constrained Visitors, (2) Committed Localities, (3) Unconstrained Mature Enthusiasts, (4) Pac People, and (5) Cost Conscious Visitors. These clusters were crosstabulated with benefit clust ers (i.e., Child Centered Adults, ExtensiveBenefit Seekers, Tagalongs, NonEgo Involved Visitors). The result was the identification of four target markets each of which had unique constraints and benefits: (1) ChildCentered adults who are Unconstrained Mature Enthusiasts; (2) ChildCentered Adults who are Committed Localities; (3) ExtensiveBenefit Seekers who are Committed Localities; and (4) Extensive Benefit Seekers who are Cost Conscious Visitors. Jun, Kyle, and O’Leary (2006) investigated multiple socio demographic factors (i.e., gender, age, income, number of children under 18, and place of residence) that influence the perception of internal constraints (i.e., feeling out of place, lack of

PAGE 39

39 companions, child responsibilities, health problems, and s afety) and external constraints (i.e., cost, programs, location, and time) to art museum visitation. They found various levels of constraints depending not only on gender (i.e., men and women) but the number of children that people have. They also found that individuals with a lower level of income are more likely to perceive external constraints on visiting museums, whereas internal constraints existed among individuals with a greater number of children under the age of 18 and people living in metropolitan areas rather than those living in nonmetropolitan areas. Alexandris and Carroll (1997) indicated that constraints are considered to be one of the most important factors for predicting the decision making process. Many researchers have attempted to ident ify constraints that inhibit individuals from visiting museums (Hood, 1993; Prentice, 1994; Tina et al., 1996). A list of these factors involves ‘lack of companions,’ ‘child responsibilities,’ ‘health problems,’ ‘cost,’ location,’ ‘lack of time,’ ‘repetiti on,’ ‘lack of interest and safety.’ On the basis of the aforementioned literature, select constraints constructs are brought forward because of their relevancy to this study (Table 23). Conceptual Framework Summary In this review, a variety of theoretic al and methodological issues were identified associated with the literature on visitor motivations, benefits, and constraints. In general, there is recognition in the leisure and tourism literature that a visitor’s decisionmaking process is essentially a tradeoff between motivators, the experience’s benefits, and the constraints impeding or affecting such an experience (Um and Crompton, 1992). The leisure and tourism literature is well developed in this regard and thus, it can inform the

PAGE 40

40 study of museum v isitation. The museum literature specifically, has focused primarily on demographic segmentation as this has the most practical value in museum management (Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan, 1998). However, there is a growing value for understanding the psychosocial factors that affect museum visitation and Tian et al.’s (1996) study of museum visitor constraints and benefits has validated the key constructs from the more generalized tourism and leisure literature. Based on the review of these bodies of knowledge, key concepts and constructs have been identified, defined, and their applicability to the study of museum visitors established. They are brought forward as the conceptual framework for this study (Table 24).

PAGE 41

41 Table 21. Benefits so ught construct r elevant to m useum visitation Key Construct Definition Items Learning / Intellectual Development Motivation to increase knowledge 1. To learn about culture 2. To satisfy a curiosity 3. To explore new ideas 4. To expand knowledge 5. To discover new things Social Interaction / Development Motivation to communicate with others; To have a good time with others 1. To develop relationships with others 2. To meet new and different people 3. To share thoughts, feelings, or skills with others 4. To improve social skills Leisure Motivation to escape from the daily routine and responsibilities 1. To slow down 2. To have fun 3. To relieve stress and tension 4. To be entertained 5. To escape from daily activities/responsibilities 6. To enjoy leisure time Self esteem Motivation to feel better about themselves 1.To increase my feelings of self worth 2. To help me feel like better person 3. To derive a feeling of accomplishment

PAGE 42

42 Table 22. Realized b enefits r elevant to m useum visitation Key Construct Definition Items Learning / Intellectual Development One’s perception of being educated 1. Learned about culture 2. Satisfied a curiosity 3. Explored new ideas 4. Expanded knowledge 5. Discovered new things Social Interaction / Development One’s perception of connecting with people who share interests and values 1. Developed relationships with others 2. Met new and different people 3. Shared thoughts, feelings, or skills with others 4. Improved social skills Leisure One’s perception of being comfortable and relaxed 1. Slowed down 2. Had fun 3. Relieved stress and tension 4. Was entertained 5. Escaped from daily activities/responsibilities 6. Enjoyed leisure time Self esteem One’s perception of how one feels about themselves 1. Increased my feelings of self worth 2. Helped me feel like better person 3. Derived a feeling of accomplishment

PAGE 43

43 Table 23. Constraints r elevant to m useum visitation Key Constructs Definition Items Time Negative perception of their time to participate 1. I don’t have enough time 2. I am too busy 3. I have more important things to do Access Negative perception of difficulty to get to; Public transport access difficulties 1. It’s not easy to get to the Harn Museum 2. The location is inconvenient 3. The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live 4. Parking is inconvenient Product failings Negative perception of the Harn museum product quality (e.g., a repetition of product) 1. The Harn Museum is unattractive 2. The Harn Museum is of poor quality 3. The exhibits are poor quality 4. The educational value of the museum is po or Lack of interest Negative perception of visiting museums (e.g., I am not interested in museums) 1. It is not the “in” thing to do 2. I am not interested in museum 3. I am not interested in art museums 4. I do not want to visit the Harn Museum alone 5. I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit Repetition Negative perception of social interaction (e.g., lack of friends or family for visiting a museum together) 1. There is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive 2. I can see everything in the museum on the Internet 3. I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits

PAGE 44

44 Table 24. Conceptual f ramework: key concepts and constructs r elevant Concepts Definition Key Constructs Benefits Sought The internal forces that prompt an individual to visit the Harn Museum (IsoAhola, 1989). Learning Self esteem Leisure Social Interaction Benefits Realized The positive psychological, sociological, physiological, economic, and environmental outcomes realized from visiting the Harn Museum (Driver & Bruns, 1999) Learning Self esteem Leisure Social Interaction Constraint The factors that inhibit or prohibit a specific activity such as visiting the Harn Museum (Jackson, 1993) Time Difficulty of Access Product failings Lack of Interest Repetition

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 3 M ETHODOLOGY A survey was administered in order to capture primary data from visitors to the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art. The following sections describe the data collection and analysis procedures as well as the survey instrument. Data Collection The Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art is located at the University of Florida campus and nearby to a community college and as such, the museum considers the college student population as the principal and primary targeted visitor demographic. Since opening its doors in 1990, t he Harn Museum has attracted thousands of college students for academic and soci al activities each year (Harn Museum of Art, 2013) . Given the centrality, importance and significance of this demographic group, the target population for this study is college student visitors to the Samuel P. Harn Museum. The researcher visited the museum during regular operating hours as well as at a special event (i.e., Museum Night) to administer intercept surveys. The surveys were collected only in areas and on days approved in advance by the museum’s Director. The researcher intercepted visitors com ing through the museum entrance as the previsit group and leaving the museum after their visit as the post visit group. Respondents were assigned to one of these two groups and they were surveyed accordingly. The previsit group was asked about the benefi ts they seek from their visit and the post visit group was asked about the benefits they realized from their visit. Both groups also were asked about the constraints they faced as well as a series of demographic questions. The surveys were administered at onsite survey desks. Four iPad stations were set up

PAGE 46

46 on the customer service/welcome center desk so that visitors could self administer the survey. UF Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approvals were obtained before the survey was administered and informed consent obtained from every voluntary participant (see Appendix). Survey Instrument The survey was developed using Qualtrics survey software because it is the University of Florida’s preferred survey development software and because of its time and cost savings, and its flexibility and ease of use (Shannon & Bradshaw, 2002). Concomitantly, Qualtrics allows for multi modal data collection that supports the aforementioned proposed data collection methods (i.e. survey can be completed through an iPad or using the traditional pen and paper method). Demographic Information For the purpose of describing the characteristics of museum visitors, a sociodemographic section was included in the questionnaire and it contained questions related to three variables (i.e., gender, current college program, and ethnicity). Benefits sought For study 1, benefits sought were measured with the four subscales (Learning, Social Interaction, Leisure, and Self esteem) including 18 items that were adopted from Tian et al. (1996) and Beard et al. (1983). These items were modified to suit the speci fic context of this study (i.e., museum) based on the review of three expert panels composed of professors and the Director of the Harn Museum. As a result, benefit sought items measured are identified in Table 31, 32, 33 and 34. Respondents were

PAGE 47

47 asked to indicate their agreement with a set of statements using a 5point Likert type scale, where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. For example, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with this statement: “I visit the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art to expand my knowledge.” Benefits Realized For study 2, benefits realized were measured with the same four subscales (Learning, Social Interaction, Leisure, and Self esteem) with a total of 18 items that were adopted from Tian et al. (1996) and Bear d et al. (1983). These items were also modified to reflect the particular context of this study based on the review of three expert panels composed of professors and the Director of the Harn Museum. The benefits items began with the following statement: ‘V isiting the Harn provided the following benefit(s) to’ and each item was structured in a 5point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Statistical Procedure for the Benefit Model Fit Statistical processes were used t o examine reliability and validity refinement of the benefit model. Table 39 displays factor loadings, Composite Reliability, Average Variance Extracted Values and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients values for the CFA on benefit scale. The results indicated good internal consistency for observed variables with Cronbach’ s alpha coefficients ranging from .85 for social interaction to .89 for learning, leisure, and self esteem and the AVE values ranging from .53 for social interaction to .73 for self esteem. Composite reliability scores of latent factors were ranged between .82 for social interaction and .92 for leisure. The CR values of greater

PAGE 48

48 than .70 and AVE values of greater than .50 are considered as good overall construct reliability ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981) . Figure 1 also shows that the model yielded an acceptable model fit (x = 348.57; df = 129; x/df =2.70; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04; CFI = .957). Kline (1998) suggested that a relative chi square in the range of 3 to 1 indicates favorable fit between the hy pothetical model and the sample data for large samples (i.e., sample sizes of 200 or more). An RMSEA value of 0.05 or less indicates a close fit to the data, a value of 0.08 indicates a reasonable fit and a value of 0.01 or greater indicates a poor fit. Values of at least .9 in CFI indicate an acceptable fit, while an SRMR of less than .10 suggests a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Based on these statistics, the model was considered acceptable. Constraints To measure constraint for both studies, the items from constraint scales (Tian et al., 1996) were adopted because it was validated in the context of museum. This scale has a total of 19 items under five domains (Time, Difficulty of Access, Product Failings , Lack of Interest and Repetition). For the present study, ‘Cost’ dimension composed of 3 items was dropped from Tian et al.’s (1996) scales since the Harn Museum’s admission is free. The items were measured with a 5point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Each items started with the statement, “I would consider not going to the Harn because” Statistical Procedure for the Constraint Model Fit Statistical processes were also used to test reliability and validity of the constraint model. Table 315 displays factor loadings, Composite Reliability, Average Variance

PAGE 49

49 Extracted Values and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients values for the CFA on constraint scale. The results indicated good internal consistency for observed var iables with Cronbach ’ s alpha coefficients ranging from .79 for lack of interest to .90 for product failings. AVE values were ranging from .52 for lack of interest to .81 for product failings. Composite reliability scores of latent factors were ranged between .84 for lack of interest and .94 for product failings. All CR values of greater than .70 and AVE values of greater than .50 are considered as good overall construct reliability ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981) . Figure 2 also shows that the model yielded an acceptable model fit (x = 555.364; df = 142; x/df =3.91; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .07; CFI = .931). The cutoff criteria for fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) were adopted. They suggest values of at least .9 in CFI indicate an acceptable fit, while an SRMR of less than .10 suggests a good fit. Based on these statistics, the model was considered acceptable. Data A nalysis All analyses in the present study were conducted using SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Descriptive statistics were run to identify the demographic profile of visitors to the Harn Museum. For research questions 1, 2, 5 and 6, means and standard deviations were generated for identifying the constraints, benefits sought, and benefits realized. For research questions 3, 4, 7 and 8, independent sample t tests were used to examine differences in constraints, benefits sought and benefits realized based on the independent variables (i.e., gender, current college program, and ethnicity). For research question 9, gap analysis was used to examine the difference between previsit and post visit groups. This process included

PAGE 50

50 calculating a gap score between the mean for benefit sought items and benefit realized items. Independent samples t test was also employed to inv estigate if there were differences in the key benefits sought and benefits realized between college students on their way into (previsit – benefits sought) and out (post visit – benefits realized) of the Harn Museum. For research question 10, Independent samples t test was used to investigate differences in the key constraints between college students on their way into (pre visit group) and out (post visit group) of the Harn Museum.

PAGE 51

51 Table 31. Learning / Intellectual Development survey q uestion Visiting the Harn provided me with the following: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree To learn about culture To satisfy a curiosity To explore new ideas To expand knowledge To discover new things Table 32. Social In teraction / Development survey q uestion I think that visiting the Harn gave me the benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree To develop relationships with others To meet new and different people To share thoughts, feelings, or skills with others To improve social skills Table 33. Leisure survey q uestion I think that visiting the Harn gave me the benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree To slow down To have fun To relieve stress and tension To be entertained To escape from daily activities / responsibilities To enjoy leisure time Table 3 4. Self esteem survey q uestion I think that visiting the Harn gave me the benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree To increase my feelings of self worth To help me feel like better person To derive a feeling of accomplishment

PAGE 52

52 Table 35. Learning / Intellectual Development survey q uestion Visiting the Harn Museum provided me with following benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree I learned about culture I satisfied a curiosity I explored new ideas I expanded knowledge I discovered new things Table 36. So cial Interaction / Development survey q uestion Visiting the Harn Museum provided me with following benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree I developed relationships with others I met new and different people I shared thoughts, feelings, or skills with others I improved social skills Table 37. Leisure survey q uestion Visiting the Harn Museum provided me with following benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree I slowed down I had fun I relieved stress and tension I was entertained I escaped from daily activities / responsibilities I enjoyed leisure time Table 38. Self esteem survey q uestion Visiting the Harn Museum provided me with following benefit(s): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree I increased my feelings of self worth I helped me feel like better person I derived a feeling of accomplishment

PAGE 53

53 Table 39. Factor l oadings, composite r eliability, and a verage variance e xtracted values for b enefit scale i tems Item Composite AVE Cronbach’s reliability alpha Learning .91 .67 .88 To learn about culture .82 To satisfy a curiosity .82 To explore new ideas .82 To expand knowledge .68 To discover new things .70 Social Interaction .82 .53 .85 To develop relationship with others .75 To meet new and different people .75 To share thoughts, feelings, or skills with other .73 To improve social skills .82 Leisure .92 .65 .89 To slow down .59 To have fun .80 To relieve stress and tension .82 To be entertained .81 To escape from daily activities/responsibilities .73 To enjoy leisure time .82 Self esteem .89 .73 .89 To increase my feelings of self worth .90 To help me feel like a better person .92 To derive a feeling of accomplishment .73 Note. Dropped Items Learning: To learn about myself, To be creative, To learn a new skill Social Interaction: To sense of belonging, To gain the respect of others Leisure: To stimulate the mind

PAGE 54

54 Table 310. Time survey q uestion I would consider not going to the Harn because Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree I don’t have enough time I am too busy I have more important things to do Table 311. Access survey q uestion I would consider not going to the Harn because Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree It’s not easy to get to the Harn museum The location is inconvenient The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live Parking is inconvenient Table 312. Product failings survey q uestion I would consider not going to the Harn because Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree The Harn Museum is unattractive The Harn Museum is of poor quality The exhibits are of poor quality The educational value of the museum is poor Table 313. Lack of interest survey q uestion I would consider not going to the Harn because Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree It’s not the “in” thing to do I’m not interested in museum I’m not interested in art museum I do not want to visit the Harn museum alone I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit

PAGE 55

55 Table 314. Repetition survey q uestion I would consider not going to the Harn because Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree There is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive I can see everything in the museum on the Internet I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits

PAGE 56

56 Table 315. Factor l oadings, composite r eliability, and a verage variance e xtracted values for constraint scale i tems Item Composite AVE Cronbach’s reliability alpha Time 0.88 0.71 0.87 I do not have enough time 0.92 I am too busy 0.96 I have more important things to do 0.62 Difficulty of Access 0.88 0.65 0.88 It's not easy to get to the Harn Museum 0.86 The location of the museum is inconvenient 0.95 The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live 0.83 parking is inconvenient 0.57 Product Failings 0.94 0.81 0.90 The Harn Museum is unattractive 0.78 The Harn Museum is of poor quality 0.93 The exhibits are of poor quality 0.78 The educational value of the museum is poor 0.86 Lack of interest 0.84 0.52 0.79 It's not the "in" thing to do 0.75 I am not interested in museums 0.59 I am not interested in art museums 0.60 I do not want to visit the Harn Museum alone 0.77 I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit 0.58 Repetition 0.90 0.76 0.85 There is no point in visiting because I have 0.97 already seen everything and it will be repetitive I can see everything in the museum on the internet 0.92 I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits 0.57 Note. Dropped Items Lack of interest: I do not understand the exhibits, The exhibits are too complicated for me

PAGE 57

57 Figure 31. Standardized factor loading and items loaded on factors in the benefit model

PAGE 58

58 Figure 32. Standardized factor loading and items loaded on factors in the constraint model

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 4 R ESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS C hapter 4 explains the results of the statistical analysis for the four variables including sociodemographics, benefits sought, benefits realized and constraints. For the purpose of this study, the questionnaires were completed by college student visitors as they came through the museum entrance (previsit group) and when they left the museum after the completion of their visit (post visit group). Thus, the data sets were collected from 247 visitors for the former group and 242 visitors for the latter group respectively, for a total of 489 respondents. The analysis is divided into three major studies. The first study details the analysis of the previsit group. The second study presents the analysis of the post visit group. The third study describes the gap for the preand post visit groups. The original research questions of this study are employed to structure the results section. Visitor Profile The respondents in this sample were asked to report their sociodemographic characteristics, such as gender, current college program, reported ethnicity. Furthermore, the researcher focuses on two additional questions in regards to whether respondents’ vis its were the first visit and whether they are a member of the Harn Museum. Thus, the visitor profile is comprised of five variables: gender, current college program, reported ethnicity, previous visitation, and Harn Museum membership (Table 4 1).

PAGE 60

60 Overall Visitor Profile The frequency of visitors to the Harn Museum was 62.4% female, which accounted for 305 of the 489 respondents. This was compared to 37.6% (184 respondents) who were male. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were students pursuing an undergraduate degree (89.4%), followed by 4.7% who reported pursuing an associate’s degree, 3.3% master’s degree, and 1.6% a PhD. Only 1% indicated professional certificate and other college program. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were White/Caucasian (59.9%). The next largest ethnic group was Hispanic (16.0%), followed by 10.8% who reported being Asian, 8.6% who reported being African American, and 0.6% indicating Native American and Pacific Islander respectively. Only 3.5% indicated some ot her ethnic identity. Of the 489 college student visitors, 261 were first time visitors to the Harn Museum (53.4%) and 228 had visited the Harn Museum in the past (46.6%). In this sample, 94% were not members of the Harn Museum and 6% were members of the Ha rn Museum. Pre visit Group Profile In the previsit group, the frequency of visitors to the Harn Museum was 64% female, which accounted for 158 of the 247 visitors. This was compared to 36% (89 visitors) who were male. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were undergraduate degree (85.4%), followed by 6.1% who reported being associate’s degree, 4.0% who reported being masters’ degree, and 2.8% indicating PhD. Only 1.6% indicated professional certificate and other college program. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were White/ Caucasian (61.1%). The next largest ethnic group were

PAGE 61

61 of Hispanic (17.0%), followed by 10.5% who reported being Asian, 8.5% who reported being African American, and 2.8% indicated some other ethnic identity. There were no visitors indicating a Native Ameri can and Pacific Islander as ethnicity. Of the 247 college student visitors, 129 were first visit to the Harn Museum (52.2%) and 118 had visited the Harn Museum in the past (47.8%). In this sample, 94% were not members of the Harn Museum and 6% were members of the Harn Museum. Post visit Group Profile In the post visit group, the frequency of visitors to the Harn Museum was 60.7% female, which accounted for 147 of the 242 respondents. This was compared to 39.3% (95 respondents) who were male. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were undergraduate degree (93.4%), followed by 3.3% who reported being associates degree, 2.5% who reported being masters’ degree, and 0.4% indicating PhD. Only 0.4% indicated professional certificate and other college program . The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were White/Caucasian (58.7%). The next largest ethnic group were of Hispanic (14.6%), followed by 11.2% who reported being Asian, 8.7% who reported being African American, and 1.2% indicating a Native American and Pacific Islander respectively. 4.1% of the respondents indicated some other ethnic identity. Of the 242 college student visitors, 132 were first visit to the Harn Museum (54.5%) and 110 had visited the Harn Museum in the past (45.5%). In this sample, 9 4.2% were Nonmember of the Harn Museum and 5.8% member of the Harn Museum.

PAGE 62

62 Key Findings from Visitor Profiles Of all visitors, the female visitors (62.4%) were more than the male visitors (37.6%). The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were Undergraduate students (89.4%). A majority were White/Caucasian (59.9%). Of the 489 college student visitors, 94% were Nonmember of the Harn Museum and 6% member of the Harn Museum. Similar proportions of all types of visitor profiles (i.e., overall, preand post visit group) were found in the result of this study. Study 1: Analysis of the PreVisit Group Research Question 1: What are the key benefits sought by college students when visiting the Harn Museum of Art? Based on the factor analysis, benefits sought were defined by four factors: Learning, Social Interaction, Leisure, and Self esteem. The data in Table 42 show, the highest mean for benefit sought among the 18 items is ‘to be entertained (mean = 4.1). The second highest mean is ‘to learn about culture’ and ‘to discover new things’ (mean = 4.0). The lowest mean is ‘to meet new and different people’, ‘ to increase my feelings of self worth’, and ‘to help me feel like a better person’ (mean = 3.0). The second lowest mean is ‘to improve social skill’ (mean = 3.1). The frequency of the benefits sought statements rated by the previsit group is shown in Table 43 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating applied by the previsit group.

PAGE 63

63 Research Question 2: What are the key constraints amongst college students when visiting the Harn Museum of the Art? The constraint statements were given on a fivepoint Likert scale. The highest mean for constraints among the 19 items is ‘I do not have enough time,’ and ‘I am too busy’ (mean = 3.5). The lowest mean for constraint among the 19 items is ‘ The Harn Museum is of poor quality ,’ and ‘ The exhibits are of poor quality ’ (mean = 1.8). The m eans and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 44. (n=242) The frequency of the constraint statements rated by the previsit group is shown in Table 45 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating by the respondents. Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art and benefits sought? This question of whether or not a relationship existed between benefits sought from visiting the Harn Museum and the sociodemographic information given by the previsit group was explored in this section. Sociodemographic variables including gender, ethnic identity, and current college program were analyzed wi th the benefit sought factors to determine if any relationships existed between these variables. The sociodemographic variables of gender, ethnic identity, and current college program were compared with each of the benefit sought factors using an independent sample t test.

PAGE 64

64 Gender and Benefits Sought Independent sample t test was used to test if there were any differences in the mean scores of benefits sought factors based upon respondents’ gender. The means and standard deviations for ethnicity attained wi th the benefit realized factors are shown in Table 46. In Table 47, the results of this t test analysis are shown. Independent sample t test reveals that there were no significant relationships between gender and the four factors of benefit sought, as w as indicated by the significance statistic in the second column of Table 47. Current College Program and Benefits Sought Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the benefits sought factors based on current college program of previsit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting current college program other than Undergraduate Degree, these were organized into two groupings for more manageable analysis, undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree. The means and standard deviations for college program attained with the benefit sought factors are shown in Table 48. The results of Independent sample t test were shown in Table 49. Independent sample t test reveals that there were no significant relationships between college program and the four factors of benefit sought, as was indicated by the significance statistic in t he second column of Table 49.

PAGE 65

65 Reported Ethnicity and Benefit Sought Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of benefit sought factors based on reported ethnicity of the previsit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting ethnicity other than White/Caucasian, these were organized into two groups for more manageable analysis, White/Caucasian and nonWhite/Caucasian. The means and standard deviations for ethnicity attained with the benefit sought factors are shown in Table 410. The results of Independent sample t test were shown in Table 411. The results indicate significance was found between White/Caucasian and NonWhite/Caucasian regarding the leisure factor. Non White/Caucasian group was significantly higher than White/Caucasian group in the leisure factor, M=3.90 and M= 3.71 respectively. No significant differences existed between White/Caucasian and NonWhite/Caucasian ’ constraints for ‘ learning’, ‘social interaction’ , and ‘ self esteem ’ . Research Question 4: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way into the Harn Museum of Art and constraints? The question of whether or not a relationship exists between constraints and the socio demographic information given by the previsit group was explored in this section. Socio demographic variables including gender, ethnic identity, and current college program were analyzed with the constraint factors to determine if any relationships existed between these variables. To tes t this research question, independent sample t tests were performed on each of the constraint factors with selected background characteristics.

PAGE 66

66 Gender and Constraints Independent sample t test was used to test if there were any differences in the mean scor es of constraint factors based upon respondents’ gender. The means and standard deviations for gender attained with the constraints are shown in Table 412. The results of the Independent sample t test are shown in Table 413. The results indicate signific ance was found between males and females regarding the difficulty of access constraint factor. Males were significantly higher than females in the difficulty of access constraints, M=2.60 and M= 2.37 respectively. No significant differences existed between male and female college students ’ constraints for ‘ time’, ‘product failing’ , ‘ lack of interest ’ , and ‘ repetition’ . Current College Program and Constraints Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the constraint factors based on the current college program of the previsit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting current college program other than Undergraduate Degree, these were organized into two groupings for more manageable analysis, undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree. The means and standard deviations for college program with the constraints are shown in Table 414. The results of the Independent sample t test are shown in Table 415. The results indicate significance was found between undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree regarding the Difficulty of Access, Lack of Interest and Repetition constraints. Undergraduate degree students were significantly higher than nonundergraduate degree students in Difficulty of Access , M=2.50 and M= 2.24 respectively. Undergraduate degree were significantly higher than nonundergraduate

PAGE 67

67 degree students in Lack of Interest , M=2.39 and M= 2.11 r espectively. Undergraduate degree were significantly higher than nonundergraduate degree students in Repetition, M=2.23and M= 1.71 respectively. No significant differences existed between two groups of students’ constraints for ‘ time’, and ‘product failin g’. Ethnicity and Constraints Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the constraint factors based on ethnicity of the previsit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting ethnicity other than White/Cau casian, respondents were organized into two groups for more manageable analysis, White/Caucasian and nonWhite/Caucasian. The means and standard deviations for ethnicity with the constraints are shown in Table 416. The results of t test analysis are shown in Table 417. Independent sample t test reveals that there were no significant relationships between ethnicity and the five constraint factors, as was indicated by the significance statistic in the second column of Table 417. Key Findings from Study 1 T he highest mean for benefit sought among the 18 items is ‘to be entertained (mean = 4.1) while the lowest mean is ‘to meet new and different people’, ‘ to increase my feelings of self worth’, and ‘to help me feel like a better person’ (mean = 3.0). The high est mean for constraints among the 19 items is ‘I do not have enough time,’ and ‘I am too busy’ (mean = 3.5) while the lowest mean is ‘ The

PAGE 68

68 Harn Museum is of poor quality ,’ and ‘ The exhibits are of poor quality ’ (mean = 1.8). The results of t test showed that there was significant relationship between ethnicity and the leisurerelated benefit sought. In terms of constraints and sociodemographics, a statistically significant relationship was found between males and females regarding the difficulty of acces s to the Harn. A statistically significant relationship was also found between undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree regarding the difficulty of access, lack of interest and repetitionrelated constraints. Study 2: Analysis of the Post Visit Group Research Question 5: What are the key benefits realized by college student after visiting the Harn Museum of Art? To measure benefits realized by college student visitors to the Harn Museum of Art, this study used the same questionnaire as the benefi t sought questionnaire, but with some specific wording changes. Thus, benefit realized was also defined by four factors: Learning, Social Interaction, Leisure, and Self esteem. In Table 418, the highest mean for benefit realized among the 18 items is ‘I discovered new things’ (mean = 4.3). The second highest mean is ‘I learned about culture’, ‘I was entertained’, ‘ I escaped from daily activities/responsibilities’, and ‘I enjoyed leisure time’ (mean = 4.2). The lowest mean is ‘ I met new and different people ’ (mean = 3.0). The second lowest mean for benefit realized items is ‘ I developed relationship with others’ and ‘I improved social skills’ (mean = 3.3).

PAGE 69

69 The frequency of the benefit realized statements rated by the post visit group is shown in Table 419 i n percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating by the post visit group. Research Question 6: What are the key constraints amongst college students after visiting the Harn Museum of the Art? The constraint s tatements were given on a fivepoint Likert scale. The highest mean for constraints among 19 items is ‘I am too busy’ (mean = 3.5). The lowest mean for constraints among 19 items is ‘ The Harn Museum is of poor quality ,’ and ‘ The exhibits are of poor qualit y’ (mean = 1.6). The means and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 420. The frequency of the constraint statements rated by the post visit group is shown in Table 421 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating applied by the respondents. Research Question 7: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art and benefits realized? This question of whether or not a relationship existed between benefits realized from visiting the Harn Museum and the sociodemographic information given by the post visit group was explored in this section. The sociodemographic variables of gender, ethnic identity, and current col lege program were compared with each of the benefit realized factors using an independent sample t test.

PAGE 70

70 Gender and Benefits Realized Independent sample t test was used to test if there were any differences in the mean scores of benefits realized factors based upon respondents’ gender. The means and standard deviations for gender attained with the benefit realized factors are shown in Table 422. In Table 423, the results of this t test analysis are shown. Independent sample t test reveals that there were no significant relationships between gender and the four benefit realized factors, as was indicated by the significance statistic in the second column of Table 423. Current College Program and Benefits Realized Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the benefits realized factors based on current college program of the post visit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting current college program other than undergraduate degree, respondents were organized into two groups for more manageable analysis, undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree. The means and standard deviations for college program with the benefit realized factors are shown in Table 424. The results of the Independent sample t test are shown in Table 425. The results indicate significance between undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree regarding the social interaction factor. Nonundergraduate degree was significantly higher than undergraduate degree in the social interaction factor, M=3.78 and M= 3.26 respectively. No significant differences existed between undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree for ‘ learning’, ‘leisure , and ‘ self esteem ’ .

PAGE 71

71 Ethnicity and Benefit Realiz ed Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the benefit realized factors based on the reported ethnicity of the post visit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting ethnicity other than White/Caucasian, they were organized into two groups for more manageable analysis, White/Caucasian and NonWhite/Caucasian. The means and standard deviations for ethnicity with the benefit realized factors are shown in Table 426. The results of Independent sample t test are shown in Table 427. The Independent sample t test reveals that there are no significant relationships between ethnicity and the benefit realized factors, as was indicated by the significance statistic in the second column of Table 427. Research Question 8: What is the relationship between the demographics of college students on their way out of the Harn Museum of Art and constraints? Gender and Constraints Independent sample t test was used to access if the differences in the mean scores of the const raint factors based upon respondents’ gender. The means and standard deviations for gender with the constraints are shown in Table 428. The results of Independent sample t test are shown in Table 429. The results indicate significant difference between males and females regarding the repetition constraint factor. Males were significantly higher than females in the repetition constraints, M=2.30 and M= 2.05 respectively. No significant differences existed

PAGE 72

72 between male and female college students ’ constraints for ‘ time’, ‘difficulty of access’, ‘product failing’ , and ‘ lack of interest ’. Current College Program and Constraints Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the constraint factors based on current college program of the post visit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting current college program other than undergraduate degree, these were grouped into two groupings for more manageable analysis; undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree. The means and standard deviations for college program with the constraints are shown in Table 430. The results of the Independent sample t test are shown in Table 431. The Independent Sample t test reveals that there are no significant relationships between college program and the constraint factors, as was indicated by the significance statistic in the second column of Table 431. Ethnicity and Constraints Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the constraint factors based on the ethnicity of the post visit group. Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting ethnicity other than White/Caucasian, t hey were organized into two groups for more manageable analysis, White/Caucasian and nonWhite/Caucasian. The means and standard deviations for ethnicity attained with the constraints are shown in Table 432. The results of the Independent sample t test ar e shown in Table 433. The results indicate significant differences between White/Caucasian and non-

PAGE 73

73 White/Caucasian regarding ‘ time’. White/Caucasians were significantly higher than NonWhite/Caucasians in the ‘ time’ constraints , M=3.43 and M= 3.18 respect ively. No significant differences existed between college students ’ ethnicities in terms of constraints for ‘ difficulty of access’, ‘product failing’, ‘lack of interest’ , and ‘repetition’. Key Findings from Study 2 The highest mean for benefit realized am ong the 18 items is ‘I discovered new things’ (mean = 4.3) while the lowest mean is ‘ I met new and different people’ (mean = 3.0). The highest mean for constraints among 19 items is ‘I am too busy’ (mean = 3.5). The lowest mean for constraints among 19 items is ‘ The Harn Museum is of poor quality ,’ and ‘ The exhibits are of poor quality ’ (mean = 1.6). The results of the t test showed that there was significant relationship between college program and the social interactionrelated benefit realized. In terms of constraints and sociodemographics, a statistically significant relationship was found between males and females regarding the repetitionrelated constraints. A statistically significant relationship was also found between White and nonWhite regarding the ‘Time’ constraint factor. Study 3: Analysis of the Gap between Preand Post Visit Groups The purpose of study 3 is to examine the differences between pre visit and post visit groups by measuring the gap score. The gap score indicates the mean differences between benefits sought and benefits realized measured by the same items and thus

PAGE 74

74 tells us if discrepancies exist between what visitors sought and what they actually obtained. In this sense, having a representative sample of the population is required to analyze the gap between previsit group and post visit group. Chisquare test shows the number of visitors and percentage of each group based on the sociodemographics and visitors’ past experiences studied in Table 434. The researcher ran an independent sample t test for gender, college program, ethnicity demographics, previous visitation, and Harn membership based on previsit and post visit groups to determine whether all five characteristics are distributed identically across two groups. In Table 434, the result of the t test revealed that there was a significant difference in the college program variable based on preand post visit group. In other words, the number of undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree in each of two groups are not the same. Thus, weighting was assigned to the college program variable in order to obtain the same proportion of undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree in these two groups. This study increased the number of undergraduate degree in the post visit group and decreases the number of nonundergraduate degree in the previsit group to represent previsit population. Current college program distribution with weight is shown in Table 435. Research Question 9: What are the differences between benefits sought and benefits realized amongst college student visitors to the Harn Museum of Art? Measuring Gap Score The visitors to the Harn Museum were asked if they are on the way into or out of the Harn Museum to see if there were differences in the benefits of the previsit and

PAGE 75

75 post visit group. In an attempt to better understand the gap between preand post visit groups, the researcher applied marketing concepts of service quality and gap analysis to the present study. Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1985, 1988) operationalized service quality as the outcome of a comparison between customers’ expect ations and perceptions. In this context, this study examined if the benefit sought factors were met by measuring the gap scores between benefits sought and realized. The basic idea of this gap analysis is in keeping with the analysis of service quality whi ch is calculated from subtractions between expectations (i.e., benefits sought) and performance (i.e., benefits realized) (Parasuraman et al. 1985). A more recent study by Papadimitriou & Gibson (2008) used this analysis to investigate the gap between the benefits sought and realized by mountain sport tourists visiting Epirus, Greece. The negative gap scores ( ) show that benefit realized is greater than benefit sought while the positive gap scores (+) indicate that benefit sought is greater than benefit realized. The means for benefit factors and the gap scores are shown in Table 436. As a result, there was a positive gap for social interactionrelated item ‘ to meet (I met) new and different people’. There was no gap for one item ‘to develop (I developed) relationship with others’ (.00). The most negative gap scores were found for ‘to increase (I increased) my feelings of self worth’ ( .47), followed by ‘ to escape (I escaped) from daily activities/responsibilities’ ( .43). With the weighted sample, the Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the benefit factors based on two groups . The means and standard deviations for visitor groups attained with the four benefit factors are shown in Table 437.

PAGE 76

76 The results of the I ndependent sample t test are shown in Table 438. The results indicate significant difference between the groups regarding Learning, Leisure and Self Esteem . The post visit group was significantly higher than the previsit group in Learning, M=4.11 and M= 3.89 respectively. The post visit group was significantly higher than previsit group in Leisure, M=4.07 and M= 3.80 respectively. Post visit group was also significantly higher than the previsit group in Self Esteem , M=3.48 and M= 3.04 respectively. No significant differences existed between previsit and post visit groups for Social Interaction. Research Question 10: What are the differences in the key constraints between college students on their way into and out of the Harn Museum of Ar t? Independent sample t test was used to examine the differences in mean scores of the constraint factors based on two groups . The means and standard deviations for constraint factors and the previsit and post visit group are shown in Table 439. The results of the Independent sample t test are shown in Table 440. The results indicate significant difference between the groups regarding the Product Failing. The previsit group was significantly higher than the post visit group in Product Failing, M=1.86 and M= 1.69 respectively. No significant differences existed between the previsit and post visit groups for Time, Difficulty of Access, Lack of Interest and Repetition.

PAGE 77

77 Key Findings from Study 3 Most of benefits were realized by respondents. A statistically significant relationship was found between preand post visit groups regarding the learning, leisure, and self esteem related benefit factors. A statistically significant relationship was found between two groups regarding product failingsrelated constraint factor. Summary of Key Findings The summary of key findings from this study is shown in T able 441.

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 1. Visitor p rofile for the Harn Museum of Art Socio -Demographic Characteristics Overall Group (N= 489) Pre -visit Group (n= 247) Post -visit Group (n= 242) Frequency Valid % Frequency Valid % Frequency Valid % Gender (n=489) Male 184 37.6% 89 36% 95 39.3% Female 305 62.4% 158 64% 147 60.7% Current College Program (n=489) Undergraduate Degree 437 89.4% 211 85.4% 226 93.4% Non-Undergraduate Degree 52 10.6% 36 14.6% 16 6.6% PhD 8 1.6% 7 2.8% 1 0.4% Masters Degree 16 3.3% 10 4.0% 6 2.5% Associates Degree 23 4.7% 15 6.1% 8 3.3% Professional Certificate 2 0.4% 2 0.8% 0 0.0% Other 3 0.6% 2 0.8% 1 0.4% Ethnic Identity (n=489) White/Caucasian 293 59.9% 151 61.1% 147 58.7% Non-White/Caucasian 196 40.1% 96 38.9% 95 41.3% African American 42 8.6% 21 8.5% 21 8.7% Hispanic 78 16.0% 42 17.0% 36 14.6% Asian 53 10.8% 26 10.5% 27 11.2% Native American 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 3 1.2% Pacific Islander 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 3 1.2% Other 17 3.5% 7 2.8% 10 4.1% Previous Visitation (n=489) First Visitor 261 53.4% 129 52.2% 132 54.5% Previous Visitor 228 46.6% 118 47.8% 110 45.5% Member of the Harn (n=489) Member 29 6.0% 15 6.0% 14 5.8% Non-Member 460 94.0% 232 94.0% 228 94.2%

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 2. Mean and s tandard d eviation for b enefits s ought i tems Benefits Sought Items Mean Standard Deviation To be entertained 4.1 .74 To learn about culture 4.0 .81 To discover new things 4.0 .81 To expand knowledge 3.9 .83 To have fun 3.9 .84 To enjoy leisure time 3.9 .87 To satisfy a curiosity 3.8 .91 To relieve stress and tension 3.8 .85 To escape from daily activities/responsibilities 3.7 .91 To explore new ideas 3.7 .90 To slow down 3.4 1.02 To develop relationship with others 3.3 1.10 To share thoughts, feelings, or skills with other 3.3 1.04 To derive a feeling of accomplishment 3.1 1.04 To improve social skills 3.1 1.09 To meet new and different people 3.0 1.10 To increase my feelings of self worth 3.0 1.06 To help me feel like a better person 3.0 1.03

PAGE 80

80 Table 4 3. Frequency of b enefits s ought i tems (in percentage) Benefits Sought Items 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree To learn about culture 2.0 2.0 16.6 57.1 22.3 To satisfy a curiosity 2.4 4.0 24.3 47 22.3 To explore new ideas 2.8 5.3 27.5 48.6 15.8 To expand knowledge 2.0 2.8 20.2 55.1 19.8 To discover new things 1.6 2.8 15 55.9 24.7 To develop relationship with others 6.5 18.2 31.2 31.2 13 To meet new and different people 8.5 23.1 33.2 25.5 9.7 To share thoughts, feelings, or skills with other 6.1 14.6 34.4 34 10.9 To improve social skills 9.3 18.2 34 30.4 8.1 To slow down 5.7 11.3 32.0 39.3 11.7 To have fun 2.4 1.6 21.1 53 21.9 To relieve stress and tension 2.4 3.2 26.3 51.8 16.2 To be entertained 1.6 .8 15.4 60.7 21.5 To escape from daily activities / responsibilities 2.4 7.3 20.2 53 17 To enjoy leisure time 2.0 3.6 20.2 51 23.1 To increase my feelings of self worth 10.1 19 42.5 20.2 8.1 To help me feel like a better person 8.9 19.8 40.5 24.3 6.5 To derive a feeling of a ccomplishment 7.3 17 37.7 29.6 8.5

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 4. Mean and s tandard d e viation for c onstraints i tems Constraint Items Mean Standard Deviation I do not have enough time 3.5 1.04 I am too busy 3.5 1.04 I have more important things to do 3.1 1.02 I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit 2.6 1.00 The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live 2.5 1.09 Parking is inconvenient 2.5 .95 It's not easy to get to the Harn Museum 2.4 1.02 The location of the museum is inconvenient 2.4 1.00 I am not interested in art museum 2.5 .88 I am not interested in museums 2.4 1.01 It's not the "in" thing to do 2.1 .86 I do not want to visit the Harn Museum alone 2.1 .96 There is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive 2.1 .91 I can see everything in the museum on the internet 2.1 .99 I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits 2.0 .77 The Harn Museum is unattractive 1.9 .76 The educational value of the museum is poor 1.9 .74 The Harn Museum is of poor quality 1.8 .71 The exhibits are of poor quality 1.8 .73

PAGE 82

82 Table 4 5. Frequency of c onstraints i tems (in percentage) Constraints Items 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I do not have enough time 4.9 14.6 22.3 46.2 12.1 I am too busy 4.5 14.6 21.1 46.2 13.8 I have more important things to do 7.8 18.6 34.8 33.6 4.9 It's not easy to get to the Harn Museum 17.0 40.1 27.9 11.3 3.6 The location of the museum is inconvenient 17.8 39.7 27.5 12.6 2.4 The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live 17.8 40.1 23.1 14.2 4.9 Parking is inconvenient 15.4 34.8 36.8 10.9 2.0 The Harn Museum is unattractive 31.2 47.8 19.8 .8 .4 The Harn Museum is of poor quality 37.7 47.4 14.2 .8 0 The exhibits are of poor quality 34.8 46.2 18.6 .4 0 The educational value of the museum is poor 32.8 48.2 17.8 1.2 0 It's not the "in" thing to do 26.7 46.6 19.8 6.9 0 I am not interested in museums 19.4 38.1 25.5 15.8 1.2 I am not interested in art museum 14.6 31.2 44.1 9.3 .8 I do not want to visit the Harn museum alone 27.9 42.9 17.4 11.3 .4 I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit 13.8 33.2 32.0 19.4 1.6 There is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive 27.9 45.3 19.8 5.3 1.6 I can see everything in the museum on the internet 28.3 43.7 17.8 7.7 2.4 I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits 25.1 52.2 19.8 3.6 0

PAGE 83

83 Table 46. Mean and standard d eviation for g ender and b enefits sought f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem Gender N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Males 89 3.87 .69 3.27 .89 3.72 .59 3.00 .95 Females 158 3.87 .68 3.12 .95 3.82 .75 3.06 .95 Total 247 3.87 .68 3.17 .93 3.78 .70 3.04 .95 Table 47. Independent sample t test of g ender with b enefits sought f actors Gender with Factors t Sig. N Gender with Learning Gender with Social Interaction Gender with Leisure Gender with Self Esteem .09 1.18 1.06 .48 .93 .24 .29 .63 247 247 247 247 Table 48. Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and b enefits sought f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem College Program N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Undergraduate Degree 211 3.84 .68 3.17 .94 3.76 .73 3.03 .93 Non Undergraduate Degree 36 4.01 .71 3.19 .87 3.93 .50 3.06 1.01 Total 247 3.87 .68 3.17 .93 3.78 .70 3.04 .95 Table 49. Independent sample t test of colleg e p rogram with b enefits sought f actors College Program with Factors t Sig. N College Program with Learning College Program with Social Interaction College Program with Leisure College Program with Self Esteem 1.35 .14 1.32 .11 .18 .89 .19 .91 247 247 247 247

PAGE 84

84 Table 410. Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and b enefits sought f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem Ethnicity N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD White/Caucasian 151 3.83 .64 3.10 .85 3.71 .67 3.02 .90 Non White/Caucasian 96 3.92 .74 3.29 1.03 3.90 .73 3.06 1.03 Total 247 3.87 .68 3.17 .927 3.78 .70 3.04 .95 Table 411. Independent sample t test of e thnicity with b enefits sought f actors Ethnicity with Factors t Sig. N Ethnicity with Learning Ethnicity with Social Interaction Ethnicity with Leisure Ethnicity with Self Esteem 1.11 1.59 2.05 .31 .27 .11 .04 .76 247 247 247 247 Table 412. Mean and standard d eviation for g e nder and constraint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest Gender N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Males 89 3.41 .92 2.60 .87 1.95 .70 2.42 .65 2.12 .67 Females 158 3.31 .92 2.37 .84 1.80 .63 2.31 .72 2.04 .82 Total 247 3.34 .92 2.46 .86 1.85 .65 2.35 .70 2.07 .77 Table 413. Independent sample t test of g ender with Previsit constraints f actors Gender with Factors t Sig. N Gender with Time Gender with Difficulty of Access Gender with Product Failing Gender with Lack of Interest Gender with Repetition .80 2.22 1.67 1.29 .78 .42 .03 .10 .20 .44 247 247 247 247 247

PAGE 85

85 Table 414. Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and Previsit constraint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest College Program N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Undergraduate Degree 211 3.38 .91 2.50 .88 1.91 .64 2.39 .67 2.13 .78 Non Undergraduate Degree 36 3.12 .93 2.24 .64 1.84 .76 2.11 .80 1.71 .63 Total 247 3.35 .92 2.46 .86 1.85 .66 2.35 .70 2.01 .77 Table 415. Independent sample t test of college p rogram with Pre visit constraints f actors College Program with Factors t Sig. N College Program with Time College Program with Difficulty of Access College Program with Product Failing College Program with Lack of Interest College Program with Repetition 1.23 2.13 .55 2.22 3.05 .42 .04 .10 .03 .00 247 247 247 247 247 Table 416. Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and Pre visit constraint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest Ethnicity N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD White/ Caucasian 151 3.41 .87 2.42 .85 1.84 .60 2.31 .67 2.12 .78 Non White/ Caucasian 96 3.25 .99 2.48 .87 1.87 .73 2.37 .75 1.99 .76 Total 247 3.35 .92 2.46 .86 1.85 .65 2.35 .70 2.07 .77

PAGE 86

86 Table 417. Independent sample t test of e thnicity with Pre visit constraints f actors Ethnicity with Factors t Sig. N Ethnicity with Time Ethnicity with Difficulty of Access Ethnicity with Product Failing Ethnicity with Lack of Interest Ethnicity with Repetition 1.31 .53 .28 .64 1.35 .19 .60 .78 .52 .18 247 247 247 247 247

PAGE 87

87 Table 418. Mean and standard d eviation for b enefits r ealized i tems Benefits Realized Items Mean Standard Deviation I discovered new things 4.3 .73 I learned about culture 4.2 .75 I was entertained 4.2 .75 I escaped from daily activities/responsibilities 4.2 .83 I enjoyed leisure time 4.2 .79 I satisfied a curiosity 4.1 .85 I had fun 4.1 .73 I explored new ideas 4.0 .89 I relieved stress and tension 4.0 .82 I expanded knowledge 3.9 .94 I slowed down 3.8 .90 I shared thoughts, feelings, or skills with other 3.6 1.10 I derived a feeling of accomplishment 3.6 .94 I increased my feelings of self worth 3.4 .98 I helped me feel like a better person 3.4 1.00 I developed relationship with others 3.3 1.14 I improved social skills 3.3 1.04 I met new and different people 3.0 1.16

PAGE 88

88 Table 419. Frequency of b enefits r ealized i tems (in percentage) Benefit Realized Items 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I learned about culture 1.2 1.7 7.9 54.5 34.7 I satisfied a curiosity 2.1 2.1 13.2 50.0 32.6 I explored new ideas 2.5 2.1 16.5 46.3 32.6 I expanded knowledge 1.7 6.6 16.9 45.5 29.3 I discovered new things .8 1.2 8.3 49.2 40.5 I developed relationship with others 8.7 15.7 29.8 32.6 13.2 I met new and different people 12.0 19.4 31.8 26.4 10.3 I shared thoughts, feelings, or skills with other 5.0 12.4 21.9 39.3 21.5 I improved social skills 5.8 13.6 41.7 26.0 12.8 I slowed down 1.7 7.0 22.3 48.8 20.2 I had fun .4 2.5 12.0 57.4 27.7 I relieved stress and tension .8 3.7 17.4 50.4 27.7 I was entertained .8 1.2 11.6 51.2 35.1 I escaped from daily activities/responsibilities .4 5.0 9.9 45.5 39.3 I enjoyed leisure time .8 2.9 10.3 49.2 36.8 I increased my feelings of self worth 3.7 9.1 42.6 28.9 15.7 I helped me feel like a better person 3.7 13.6 38.4 31.0 13.2 I derived a feeling of accomplishment 1.7 9.1 36.8 35.1 17.4

PAGE 89

89 Table 4 20. Mean and s tandard d eviation for c onstraints i tems Constraint Items Mean Standard Deviation I am too busy 3.5 1.06 I do not have enough time 3.4 1.06 I have more important things to do 3.2 1.04 It's not easy to get to the Harn Museum 2.5 1.11 I am not interested in art museums 2.5 .96 I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit 2.5 1.13 The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live 2.4 1.15 Parking is inconvenient 2.4 1.00 The location of the museum is inconvenient 2.3 1.06 I am not interested in museums 2.2 1.01 I can see everything in the museum on the internet 2.2 1.11 I do not want to visit the Harn Museum alone 2.1 1.00 There is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive 2.1 1.02 I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits 2.1 .83 It's not the "in" thing to do 2.0 .86 The Harn Museum is unattractive 1.8 .81 The educational value of the museum is poor 1.7 .78 The Harn Museum is of poor quality 1.6 .72 The exhibits are of poor quality 1.6 .72

PAGE 90

90 Table 4 21. Frequency of b enefits c onstraints i tems (in percentage) Constraints Items 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I do not have enough time 4.5 19.4 24.0 40.5 11.6 I am too busy 4.5 16.5 21.1 44.6 13.2 I have more important things to do 7.4 16.5 35.5 32.6 7.9 It's not easy to get to the Harn Museum 20.7 36.0 21.9 18.2 3.3 The location of the museum is inconvenient 22.7 40.9 21.1 11.6 3.7 The Harn museum is too far away from where I live 22.3 37.2 19.8 15.3 5.4 Parking is inconvenient 18.6 35.1 31.4 12.8 2.1 The Harn Museum is unattractive 42.6 42.6 12.4 1.2 1.2 The Harn Museum is of poor quality 51.2 38.8 8.7 .8 .4 The exhibits are of poor quality 48.3 40.5 9.5 1.7 0 The educational value of the museum is poor 45.0 40.5 12.0 2.1 .4 It's not the "in" thing to do 27.7 49.2 16.1 6.6 .4 I am not interested in museums 25.6 40.5 21.1 11.2 1.7 I am not interested in art museums 15.7 33.1 34.7 16.1 .4 I do not want to visit the Harn museum alone 33.5 37.2 16.9 12.4 0 I have no friends and/or family with whom to visit 21.9 31.4 23.6 20.2 2.9 There is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive 32.2 39.3 17.4 9.1 2.1 I can see everything in the museum on the internet 30.2 36.8 16.5 13.6 2.9 I do not have enough opportunities to engage with the exhibits 24.4 43.0 28.1 4.5 0

PAGE 91

91 Table 422. Mean and standard d eviation for g ender and b enefit r ealized f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem Gender N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Males 95 4.01 .66 3.27 .86 4.03 .57 3.38 .81 Females 147 4.17 .70 3.30 .91 4.10 .68 3.51 .89 Total 242 4.11 .69 3.29 .89 4.07 .64 3.46 .86 Table 423. Independent sample t test of g ender with b enefits r ealized f actors Gender with Factors t Sig. N Gender with Learning Gender with Social Interaction Gender with Leisure Gender with Self Esteem 1.77 .31 .70 1.16 .08 .76 .49 .25 242 242 242 242 Table 424. Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and b enefits r ealized f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem College Program N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Undergraduate Degree 226 4.11 .69 3.26 .89 4.07 .64 3.44 .86 Non Undergraduate Degree 16 4.16 .65 3.78 .75 4.06 .60 3.75 .79 Total 242 4.11 .69 3.29 .89 4.07 .64 3.46 .86 Table 425. Independent sample t test of college p rogram with b enefits r ealized f actors College Program with Factors t Sig. N College Program with Learning College Program with Social Interaction College Program with Leisure College Program with Self Esteem .32 2.30 .07 1.41 .75 .02 .95 .16 242 242 242 242

PAGE 92

92 Table 426. Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and b enefits r ealized f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem Ethnicity N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD White/Caucasian 142 4.14 .65 3.26 .87 4.06 .61 3.40 .85 Non White/Caucasian 100 4.07 .75 3.34 .93 4.09 .68 3.54 .86 Total 242 4.11 .69 3.29 .89 4.07 .64 3.46 .86 Table 427. Independent sample t test of e thnicity with b enefits r ealized f actors Ethnicity with Factors t Sig. N Ethnicity with Learning Ethnicity with Social Interaction Ethnicity with Leisure Ethnicity with Self Esteem .68 .66 .25 1.24 .50 .51 .81 .22 242 242 242 242 Table 428. Mean and standard d eviation for g ender and constraint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest Gender N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Males 95 3.37 .93 2.54 .95 1.76 .68 2.36 .68 2.30 .86 Females 147 3.25 .94 2.35 .92 1.63 .63 2.22 .76 2.05 .89 Total 242 3.33 .94 2.42 .93 1.68 .65 2.27 .73 2.15 .88 Table 429. Independent sample t test of g ender with constraints f actors Gender with Factors t Sig. N Gender with Time Gender with Difficulty of Access Gender with Product Failing Gender with Lack of Interest Gender with Repetition 1.01 1.53 1.44 1.47 2.13 .31 .13 .15 .14 .03 242 242 242 242 242

PAGE 93

93 Table 430. Mean and standard d eviation for college p rogram and Post visit constraint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest College Program N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Undergraduate Degree 226 3.32 .93 2.45 .94 1.68 .64 2.28 .72 2.15 .89 Non Undergraduate Degree 16 3.44 1.01 2.00 .84 1.73 .86 2.23 .84 2.10 .88 Total 247 3.33 .94 2.42 .93 1.68 .65 2.27 .73 2.15 .88 Table 431. Independent sample t test of college p rogram with Post visit constraints f actors College Program with Factors t Sig. N College Program with Time College Program with Difficulty of Access College Program with Product Failing College Program with Lack of Interest College Program with Repetition .50 1.88 .33 .28 .21 .62 .06 .74 .78 .84 242 242 242 242 242 Table 4 32. Mean and standard d eviation for e thnicity and Post visit constraint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest Ethnicity N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD White/ Caucasian 142 3.43 .87 2.45 .92 1.66 .62 2.22 .69 2.16 .88 Non White/ Caucasian 100 3.18 1.02 2.39 .95 1.72 .69 2.19 .78 2.13 .90 Total 242 3.33 .94 2.42 .93 1.68 .65 2.27 .73 2.15 .88

PAGE 94

94 Table 433. Independent sample t test of e thnicity with Post visit constraints f actors Ethnicity with Factors t Sig. N Ethnicity with Time Ethnicity with Difficulty of Access Ethnicity with Product Failing Ethnicity with Lack of Interest Ethnicity with Repetition 2.04 .52 .74 1.44 .28 .04 .60 .46 .15 .78 242 242 242 242 242 Table 434. Analysis of the differences between two groups on sociodemographics Socio Demographics Pre visit Post visit t Sig. N % N % Gender .74 .46 Male 89 36 95 39.3 Female 158 64 147 60.7 Current College Program 2.87 .00 Undergraduate Degree 211 85.4 226 93.4 Non Undergraduate Degree 36 14.6 16 6.6 Ethnic Identity .55 .58 White/Caucasian 151 61.1 142 58.7 Non White/Caucasian 96 38.9 100 41.3 Previous Visitation .51 .61 First Visitor 129 52.2 132 54.5 Previous Visitor 118 47.8 110 45.5 Harn Member .13 .89 Member 232 93.9 228 94.2 Non Member 15 6.1 14 5.8

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 35. Distribution of c ollege p rogram v ariable with w eighting College Program % of Pre visit Group (n=247) Unweighted % of Post visit Group (n=242) Weight Weighted % of Post visit Group Undergraduate degree 85.4 93.4 0.91 85.3 Non Undergraduate degree 14.6 6.6 2.21 14.7

PAGE 96

96 Table 436. Mean for b enefit i tems and g ap scores Benefit Benefits Sought and Gap Mean Mean Domain (Benefits Realized) Items Score Benefit Sought Benefit Realized Learning To learn (I learned) about culture .24 3.96 4.20 Learning To satisfy (I satisfied) a curiosity .23 3.86 4.09 Learning To explore (I explored) new ideas .36 3.69 4.05 Learning To expand (I expanded) knowledge .06 3.88 3.94 Learning To discover (I discovered) new things .28 3.99 4.27 Social Interaction To develop (I developed) relationship with others .00 3.26 3.26 Social Interaction To meet (I met) new and different people .01 3.05 3.04 Social Interaction To share (I shared) thoughts, feelings, or skills with other .31 3.29 3.60 Social Interaction To improve (I improved) social skills .16 3.10 3.26 Leisure To slow (I slowed) down .39 3.40 3.79 Leisure To have (I had) fun .20 3.90 4.10 Leisure To relieve (I relieved) stress and tension .24 3.76 4.00 Leisure To be (I was) entertained .19 4.00 4.19 Leisure To escape (I escaped) from daily activities/responsibilities .43 3.75 4.18 Leisure To enjoy (I enjoyed) leisure time .29 3.89 4.18 Self Esteem To increase (I increased) my feelings of self worth .47 2.97 3.44 Self Esteem To help (I helped) me feel like a better person .36 3.00 3.36 Self Esteem To derive (I derived) a feeling of accomplishment .32 3.15 3.57 Note: The negative gap scores ( ) show that benefit realized is greater than benefit sought. The positive gap score (+) indicates that benefit sought is greater than benefit realized.

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 37. Means and s tandard d eviations wi th b enefit f actors Learning Social Interaction Leisure Self Esteem Visitor Groups N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Pre visit 272 3.89 .69 3.18 .92 3.80 .67 3.04 .98 Post visit 241 4.11 .69 3.33 .89 4.07 .63 3.48 .85 Table 4 38. Independent sample t test of visitors with b enefit f actors t Sig. N Visitors with Learning Visitors with Social Interaction Visitors with Leisure Visitors with Self Esteem 3.635 1.940 4.559 5.426 .000 .053 .000 .000 513 513 513 513 Table 439. Means and standard d eviations with constr aint f actors Time Difficulty of Product Lack of Repetition Access Failings Interest Visitor Groups Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Pre visit 3.32 .92 2.42 .83 1.86 .67 2.30 .72 2.01 .76 Post visit 3.33 .94 2.39 .93 1.69 .67 2.27 .74 2.14 .88 Table 440. Independent sample t test of visitors with constraint f actors t Sig. N Visitors with Time Visitors with Difficulty of Access Visitors with Product Failings Visitors with Lack of Interest Visitors with Repetition .184 .461 2.971 .576 1.878 .854 .648 .003 .565 .061 513 513 513 513 513

PAGE 98

98 Table 441. Summary of key f indings Key Findings Visitor Profiles Of all visitors, the female visitors were more than the male visitors. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were Undergraduate Degree as well as White/Caucasian. 94% were Nonmembers of the Harn Museum. Study 1 The highest mean for benefit soug ht is ‘to be entertained The highest mean for constraints is ‘I do not have enough time,’ and ‘I am too busy’. A significant relationship between ethnicity and the leisurerelated benefit sought were found. A statistically significant relationship was fo und between males and females regarding the difficulty of access and between undergraduate degree and nonundergraduate degree regarding the difficulty of access, lack of interest and repetitionrelated constraints. Study2 The highest mean for benefit realized is ‘I discovered new things’. The highest mean for constraints is ‘I am too busy’. A significant relationship between college program and the social interactionrelated benefit realized were found. A statistically significant relationship was found between males and females regarding the repetitionrelated constraints and between White and nonWhite regarding the Time constraint factors. Study 3 All mean scores of benefit realized are greater than or equal to benefit sought. A significant relationship was found between preand post visit groups regarding the learning, leisure, and self esteem related benefit factors. A statistically significant relationship was found between two groups regarding product failings related constraint factor.

PAGE 99

99 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This research was composed of three main studies. For the study 1, the researcher examined the key constraints and benefits sought by college student visitors on their way into the Harn Museum and investigated the relationship between previsit group’s demographics and benefits sought and constraints respectively. Similarly, this study investigated the key constraints and benefits realiz ed by college student visitors on their way out of the Harn Museum and identified the relationship between post visit group’s demographics and benefits realized and constraints respectively in the study 2. In study 3, the gap between previsit and post vis it groups was identified. C hapter 5 discusses the discussion the key findings, practical implications, and it provides recommendations for future research, and conclusion. Visitor Profile A total of 489 surveys were collected during the time between March and April, 2014. The visitor profile for the Harn Museum provided insights into the college student population which is the principal and primary targeted visitor. The respondents of this survey were predominantly female (64%). Research on arts participati on has usually found higher rates among women than among men (Bihagen and Katz Gerro, 2000; DiMaggio, 1982; Kaufman and Gabler, 2004; Tepper, 2000). The results of a more recent survey of the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) also found that about 55 percent of people (54.6%) who go to art museums or art galleries in 2008 are women (National Endowment for the Arts, 2009). Differences in leisure preferences and participation could be attributed to gender differences. Zuzanna Fimi ska & Simon

PAGE 100

100 Jonas Hadlich (2008), for example, revealed that females expressed more interest in visiting art galleries and museums than males while males spent more time with sports activities in different countries (e.g., the United States, Canada, the Soviet Union, and Japan) (Larson & Verma, 1999). The latter study indicated that this resulted from ‘gender trait stereotyping’ and different ‘socialization methods’ for males and females. The overall visitor profile revealed that the majority of respondents (59.9%) id entified White/Caucasian as their ethnic identity. This finding is also supported by a survey conducted by SPPA in 2008, which indicated that about 78.9 percent of whites, 8.6 percent of Hispanics, 11.4 percent of African Americans, and 6.6 percent of adul ts in other racial/ethnic categories (e.g., Asian Americans and Native Americans) visited an art museum or gallery in 2008. In terms of previous visitation, nearly half of college student visitors (46.6%) have visited the Harn Museum, which can be viewed as a positive aspect. However, when looking at whether the respondents were members of the Harn Museum or not, only 6% stated that they had a Harn membership, and the vast majority (94%) reported that they were not members of the Harn Museum. Perhaps this reflects the college student visitors’ low level of awareness and interests with regard to the Harn membership, but this requires further study. Benefits Sought In this study, the results revealed that the primary benefits sought factors were Leisure (e.g., to be entertained) and Learning (e.g., to discover new things). These results indicate that visitors view the museum as a place for ‘ edutainment’, where audiences are educated and entertained at the same time. As the support of the

PAGE 101

101 findings of this study, JansenVerbeke et al. (1996) found that museum visitors’ main motives for visiting museums were to learn something, to see new things, and to escape everyday activities. This is also in keeping with Combs (1999) who indicated that visitors came to the museum for ‘a leisurely, exploratory experience’ in which they could experience a unique combination of learning as well as leisure. This result shows that it is important for museums to provide a multifaceted experience including entertainment as well as education. Independent sample t tests were performed on each factor of the benefit sought questionnaire with selected background characteristics to determine if any relationships exist between these variables. The result showed that the nonWhite/Caucasian group was significantly higher than the White/Caucasian group in terms of leisureoriented benefits sought . The White/Cauc asian group might be more likely to seek to escape from daily activities or enjoy leisure time in different types of leisure activities, not museum going. Barnett (2006) indicated that the differences across ethnicity can be viewed as predictive factors of leisure preferences; that is, the modes of leisure involvement are an expression of one’s cultural experiences in different ways. For example, McGuire, O'Leary, Dottavio, & Alexander (1987) found differences in the leisure activity preferences of black and white leisure participants. Blacks strongly preferred attending sporting events, and traveling while Whites held preferences for walking and outdoor activities, such as hunting. Moreover, Philipp’s (2009) study revealed that African Americans may have d eveloped different meanings for leisure as their leisure opportunities and experiences

PAGE 102

102 were psychologically and physically different from European American; that is, these ethnicity differences would influence both leisure preferences and benefits sought. Indeed, the author found that African Americans rated significantly higher than European Americans in terms of four leisure benefit scales (i.e., relaxation, self expression, social interaction, and self esteem). Benefits Realized The post visit group was analyzed in the same way. Interestingly, the results of all analyses showed the similar tendency to study; that is, the key benefits realized among the 18 items were found in the learningrelated (i.e., ‘I discovered new things’) factors. This can be inter preted in keeping with the previous literatures focused primarily on learning outcomes in the context of museums (e.g., Falk et al., 2000; Hooper Greenhill, 1999; Rounds, 2004). Furthermore, the key benefits realized were also found in the leisurerelated factor; ‘I was entertained’, ‘ I escaped from daily activities/responsibilities’, and ‘I enjoyed leisure time’ . Given the analyses of the key benefits sought and realized, it was revealed that the Harn Museum had a commitment not only to provide, but also t o satisfy a multifaceted experience (i.e., edutainment) for the college student visitors. The results of the Independent sample t test between the college program and benefit realized indicated that the group of nonundergraduate degree was significantly higher than the undergraduate degree group in the ‘Social Interaction’ factor. The differences in mean scores would indicate that the nonundergraduate degree group benefited more from developing relationship with others, meeting new and different

PAGE 103

103 people, sharing thoughts, and improving social skills in the Harn Museum in comparison to the undergraduate degree group. Constraints The greatest constraints to visiting the museum were time (e.g., I do not have enough time), followed closely by difficulty of access (e.g., The Harn Museum is too far away from where I live). M any literatures in the field of leisure and tourism (e.g., Gil bert & Hudson, 2000; Hudson, Hinch, Walker & Simpson, 2010; Scott & Jackson, 1996; Scott & Mowen, 2010) have indicated that the lack of time was one of strongest and the most frequently cited constraint. Perhaps it is assumed that college student visitors indicated that they did not have enough time to attend museums, because they had work commitments, felt that they have more important things to do, or lacked transportation. However, the rest of constraint factors (i.e., product failings, repetition and lack of interest related constraints) were rated relatively lower than time and access constraints; that is, visitors had overall positive views on the Harn Museum itself, the products of and the educational value of the Harn Museum . In particular, the low l evels of interest related constraints (e.g., ‘ I am not interested in museums’) are good news for the Harn Museum in that the individuals who are most influenced by intrapersonal constraints (e.g., lack of interest) would be far less likely to engage in any given leisure activity (Raymore et al., 1993). The results of the Independent sample t test between gender and constraint factors revealed that there was significant difference between gender and the difficulty of access related constraints; males were more likely than females to show the higher level of constraints. Likewise, males were more likely than females to indicate repetition-

PAGE 104

104 related constraints (e.g., there is no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it will be repetitive). These are in contrast to the results of the previous literatures (e.g., Alexandris et al., 1997; Jackson & Henderson, 1995; Hudson, 2000; Shaw & Henderson, 2005). Jackson et al. (1995), for example, indicated that women are overall more constrained in their leisure than men. Given that the present study was conducted in the context of museum, an individual might have different types of constraints for different leisure activities (Jackson, 1994; Nyaupane, Morais, & Graefe, 2003). The results of analysis between college program and constraint factors indicated that significant differences existed between people pursuing an undergraduate degree and those pursuing a nonundergraduate degree regarding the factors of ‘ d ifficulty of a ccess’, ‘ l ack of i nterest’ and ‘ r epetition’. Perhaps this meant that undergraduate students may feel more inconvenient when it comes to public transportation and have less interest in visiting the museum alone or the museum itself compared to the group of nonundergraduate degree. In particular, negative perception of accessibility may be determined by the cost (Nyaupane & Andereck, 2008). In this regard, it is assumed that the lower income group (i.e., undergraduate degree) was more constrained by ‘difficulty of accessibility’ than the higher income group (i.e., masters’ and PhD degree). Indeed, Jackson (1993) also indicated that financial and accessibility related constraints were shown to decrease significantly with the advance of age. In terms of the repetition factor, perhaps males and undergraduate students may expect and set a high value on more dynamic experiences with more diverse programs and events aimed at those populations in comparison with females and the group of nonundergraduate degree

PAGE 105

105 students respectively, but this is speculation and requires further study. This study also found the significant difference between ethnicities in terms of time related constraints; White/Caucasian was constrained more than nonWhite/Caucasian in terms of time related constraints. Perhaps the different level of leisure constraint s could be explained by cultural differences. Since African Americans’ leisure opportunities and experiences, for example were physically and psychologically different from those of White/Caucasian’s, they may have assigned different meanings to their leis ure (Philipp, 2009) and perceived certain constraints differently. However, given the paucity of previous research on this issue in the context of museum, further study on the interaction between ethnicities and leisure constraints will be needed in the fu ture. Gap between P re and P ost V isit G roups The results of the gap analysis in this study indicated that all gaps between benefits sought and realized were negative with the exception of item ‘ to develop (I developed) relationship with others’ (0.00). This shows that all of the means for benefits realized were rated higher than benefits sought, which indicates that college student visitors were satisfied with their overall experience in the Harn Museum and thus their benefits sought were met. Based on t he result of the gap analysis, reviewing each item which composes a factor would provide useful insight into which aspects of a dimension were superior or inferior and thus indicated directions for improvement (MacKay & Crompton, 1990). In addition to the gap analysis, the results of the Independent sample t test showed that a significant difference existed between the preand post visit group,

PAGE 106

106 which means that the former had a lower level of learning, leisure, and self esteem related benefits than the lat ter. According to the result of research question 10, the previsit group encountered a higher level of product related constraints than the post visit group. Given the fact that a majority of visitors were satisfied with their overall experience in the H arn Museum, it is assumed that the post visit group were more likely to rate the lower level of product related constraints than the previsit group. However, given that all respondents were all under similar conditions as college students, they may hold t he same view with the rest of the constraints, especially with structural constraints, such as time and accessibility, indicating that ‘I do not have enough time to attend museums because I have work commitments, feel that I have more important things to do, or lacked transportation’. Practical Recommendations The results of this study have several practical implications for the management of the Harn Museum and its goal to become more knowledgeable about the college student experience at the museum. The r esults of this study may therefore assist museum managers to understand the benefits sought and realized by the targeted population (i.e., college students) and to address constraints to visitation. The majority of visitors to the Harn Museum were the fem ale, undergraduate degree student and White/Caucasian. Although adjusting the balance of the proportions in the visitor profile will not be easy, the Harn management team needs to take into consideration those who are the minority (i.e., males, nonundergr aduate degree, and nonWhite/Caucasian group) to build a broader audience base. In this study, for example, males were more constrained by repetitionrelated constraints (e.g., There is

PAGE 107

107 no point in visiting because I have already seen everything and it wil l be repetitive). It will be important for the Harn Museum to provide more dynamic experiences with more diverse programs and exhibitions targeted at the minority group (i.e., males) i nstead of designing similar museum services for a stereotyped visitor group (Reussner, 2003) . The results revealed that both key benefits sought and realized showed leisure and learningrelated factors in common. These results indicate that visitors view the museum as a place for ‘ edutainment’, where audiences are educated and entertained at the same time. Combs (1999) indicated that visitors came to the museum for ‘a leisurely and exploratory experience’ in which they could experience a unique combination of learning as well as leisure. Given this, i t could be said that paying attention to an enjoyable museum experience as well as the fulfillment of its educational purpose is a precondition for developing marketing strategies to improve or maximize visitor satisfaction (Reussner, 2003). By providing their visitors with enjoyable and educational programs at the same time, the Harn Museum could retain and enlarge their attracting power. In terms of the benefit realized from visiting the Harn Museum, this st udy found that the social interactionrelated factor was rated the lowest among the 18 items. Given that college students are one of the largest targeted groups, the Harn Museum may need to take into consideration the special events aimed mainly at improvi ng social interaction of college student visitors at the Harn Museum. The college student visitors who were satisfied with the events or programs and thus, encouraged to make multiple visits could be the more powerful means of advertising than the mediabased advertising in that they promote the museum by word of mouth recommendation to

PAGE 108

108 those around them (Prince, 1990). Harrison & Shaw (2004) also indicated that highly satisfied visitors tended to show higher mean scores for intention to recommend. The f indings from the gap analysis (study 3) also have important implications for management. For all of the benefit factors (i.e., learning, social interaction, leisure, and self esteem), benefits realized exceeded benefits sought and thus no management attent ion may be needed. However, Harrison et al. (2004) pointed out that although a statistically significant positive relationship was found between highly satisfied visitors and the mean scores for the intention to return, it was very weak, which means that t he high mean for satisfaction score does not guarantee the high level of intention to return to the museum. Furthermore, they concluded that visitor may not return to a museum in the near future without the substantial changes in museum products. Given this, it would be more important for the Harn Museum to determine how to move more visitors into the highly satisfied group as a longrange planning and desirable strategy. In this regard, the Harn Museum needs to regularly monitor constraints, benefits sought and realized of their visitors in an effort to evaluate and cope with changing visitors’ behaviors in the future. Limitations The sampling of this study is limited to college student visitors to the Harn Museum during the spring of 2014. As such, it is important to note that the findings of this study may not be generalized for all Harn visitors or for all museum visitors in general. Convenience sampling is limiting because it cannot be used to represent a population (Bryman, 2008), which may lead to bi ased results. However, this sampling

PAGE 109

109 was the best method for this study because it was a cost effective and less time consuming way to collect data from visitors to the Harn. Recommendations for Future Research The results and implications of this study provide guidance for future research. In terms of methodology, this study conducted a survey for the previsit and post visit group respectively, which means that this research did not compare two sets of scores from the same visitors. In order to more acc urately examine a significant difference between ‘before and after’, future research could employ a matchedpair sample t test design in which benefit factors are measured twice for the same visitors. Research on museum visitors may benefit from this line of analysis. This study focused only on college student visitors as the primary targeted visitors. Additional research would benefit from comparing the constraint and benefit factors of college student visitors to noncollege student visitors. Moreover, non visitor research provides insight into motives and particularly into constraints that need to be overcome to attract the broader public (i.e., potential visitors). This could lead to museum market development through broadening the visitor profile (Davies & Prentice, 1995) and providing various perspectives to the decision making process (Sterry & Leighton, 2004). Future research could include qualitative methods that could provide more detailed information on constraints and benefits sought and realized from visiting the museum. The data collected from this method would possibly improve the existing scales in the field of museum study by uncovering other constructs or items that this study might not have considered. Indepth interviews could also help understand the

PAGE 110

110 key findings of this study. Furthermore, high levels of motivations do not guarantee high levels of participation, and high levels of constraints do not necessarily mean reductions in visitation. In this sense, investigations of the relationships between benefits sought and constraints in the decision would be also interesting for future pursuits. As this research investigated art museum visitors, future research should focus on different types of museums (e.g., children’s museums and natural history museums). Such research may provide museum management teams with more information about specific and particular constraints, benefits sought and realized by their own visitors. The results of this study may be different depending on the types of mus eums. It would be important to understand the motivations and constraints of visitors or nonvisitors as much as possible in an effort to improve the visitor satisfaction and the success of museums. Conclusion As previously mentioned, the Harn Museum has not conducted systematic visitor surveys. The purposes of the study 1 and 2 were to explore the key constraints, benefits sought and benefits realized by previsit group (study 1) and post visit group (study 2) respectively. Moreover, these studies 1 and 2 investigated the relationship between the demographics (i.e., gender, college program, and the reported ethnicity) and each variable. The aim of the study 3 was to examine the gap between previsit and post visit groups based upon constraint, benefit sought and realized factors. The results and discussion of findings within this study will benefit the museum management team and staffs in that they provide valuable information about college student visitors based on sociopsychological factors (i.e., constr aints, benefits sought and realized).

PAGE 111

111 Study 1 found that both the key benefits sought and constraints among college student visitors were shown in Leisure related factor (e.g., to be entertained) and time constraint (e.g., I do not have enough time) respectively. This study also revealed that several significances were found between demographics and benefits sought and constraints. For study 2, the post visit group was analyzed in the same way. Interestingly, the results of all analyses showed simil ar tendency to study 1 when investigating the key constraints (i.e., time and difficulty of access related) and benefits realized (i.e., learning and leisurerelated). Likewise, several significant relationships were also found between demographics and benefits realized and constraints. In study 3, the results of the gap analysis showed that all of the means for benefits realized were rated higher than benefits sought, which indicates that the Harn Museum provided beneficial experiences for the college student visitors through learning opportunities, social interaction, leisure space, and emotional development (i.e., self esteem). The results of t test indicated that a significant difference existed between Preand Post visit groups in terms of several benefits (i.e., learning, leisure, and social interaction) and constraint factors (i.e., product failings). On the basis of the results above, the Harn Museums could retain and enlarge their attracting power by providing their visitors with enjoyable and educational programs at the same time. Furthermore, s ince the social interactionrelated factor showed the lowest mean for benefits realized, the Harn Museum may need to take into consideration the unique events aimed mainly at improving the social interaction of the college student visitors at the Harn Museum. Although this study revealed that Harn’s

PAGE 112

112 current resources can meet benefits sought by college student visitors to a certain extent, they need to regularly monitor visitors’ constraints, benefits sought and realized in an effort to move more visitors into the highly satisfied group.

PAGE 113

113 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT

PAGE 114

114

PAGE 115

115

PAGE 116

116

PAGE 117

117

PAGE 118

118

PAGE 119

119

PAGE 120

120

PAGE 121

121 APPENDIX B IRB AND INFORMED CONSENT

PAGE 122

1 22 LIST OF REFERENCES Association of Art Museum Directors (2013). Definition of an Art Museum . Retrieved from https://aamd.org/about/membership. Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1997). Demographic differences in the perception of constraints on recreational sport participation: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure Studies , 16(2), 107125. Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., & Girgolas, G. (2007). Investigating the relationships among motivation, negotiation, and alpine skiing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(4), 648667. Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., & Grouios, G. (2002). Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(3), 233252. Barnett, L. A. (2006). Accounting for leisure preferences from within: The relative contributions of gender, race or ethnicity, personality, affective style, and motivational orientation. Journal of Leisure Res earch, 38(4), 445. Beard, J. G., & Ragheb, M. G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 219228. Bihagen, E., & Katz Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender differences. Poetics, 27(5), 327349. Bruyere, B. L., Rodriguez, D. A., & Vaske, J. J. (2002). Enhancing importanceperformance analysis through segmentation. Journal of travel & tourism marketing, 12(1), 81 95. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. C ombs , A. A. (1999). Why do they come? listening to visitors at a decorative arts museum. Curator: The Museum Journal, 42(3), 186197. Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9 (2), 119127. Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13(4), 309320. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6 (4), 408424.

PAGE 123

123 Da nn, G. (1977). Anomie, egoenhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4 (4), 184194. Dann, G. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of tourism research , 8 (2), 187219. Davies , A., & Prentice, R. (1995). Conceptualizing the latent visitor to heritage attractions. Tourism Management , 16(7), 491500. Debenedetti, S. (2003). Investigating the role of companions in the art museum experience. International Journal of Arts Management, 5 (3) , 5263. DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of US high school students. American sociological review , 189 201. DiMaggio, P., & Mukhtar, T. (2004). Arts participation as cultural capital in the U nited S tates, 1982– 2002: Signs of decline? Poetics, 32(2), 169194. Driver, B. L., Tinsley, E., & Manfredo, M. J. (1991). The paragraphs about leisure and recreation experience preference scales: Two inventories designed to assess the breadth of perceived ps ychological benefits of leisure. In Peterson, G. L., Brown, P. J., & Driver, B. L. (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 263286). State College, Pa: Venture Pub. Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure. Preliminary Drafts of the Chapters in this Volume were Presented at a Workshop of the Authors in Snowbird, Utah, may 1989. Driver, B. L. & Bruns, D. H. (1999). Concepts and uses of the benefits approach to leisure. In Jackson, E. L. & Burton , T. L. (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty first century (pp. 349369) . State College, P a : Venture Publishing. CULTURAL MARKETING: THE MUSEUM. THE MUSEUM IMAGE FORMATION PROCESS. Studia Universitatis Babes BolyaiStudia Europaea, (3), 167 186. Everett, M. C., & Barrett, M. S. (2011). Benefits visitors derive from sustained engagement with a single museum. Curator: The Museum Journal, 54(4), 431 446. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor ex periences and the making of meaning. Altamira Press. Early Adolescence: A Replication Study.

PAGE 124

124 Foley, M., & McPherson, G. (2000). Museums as leisure. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6(2), 161174. Fondness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation and information sources. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 555581. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382 388. Garg, R., Couture, R., Ogryzlo, T., & Schinke, R. (2010). Perceived psychosocial benefits associated with perceived restorative potential of wilderness river rafting t rips 1. Psychological Reports, 107(1), 213226. Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: A skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 906925. Gill, J. K., Bowker, J. M., Bergstrom, J. C., & Zarnoch, S. J. (2010). Accounting for trip frequency in importanceperformance analysis. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration , 28(1). Graefe, A. R., Thapa, B., Confer, J. J., & Absher, J. D. (2000). Relationships between trip motivations and selected variables among Allegheny National Forest visitors. In USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS P 15 (Vol. 4, pp. 107113). Harrison, P., & Shaw, R. (2004). Consumer satisfaction and post purchase intentions: an exploratory study of museum visitors. International Journal of Arts Management, 6 (2), 23 32. Hood, M. G. (1991). Significant issues in museum audience research. Paper presented at the Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice: Proceedings of the 199 J Visitor Studies Conference. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design, 1823. Hood, M. G. (2004). Staying away: Why people choose not to visit museums. Anderson, G. (Ed.). (2004). In Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 150157) . Rowman Altamira . Hooper Greenhill, E. (Ed .). (1999). The educational role of the museum . Psychology Press. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisc iplinary Journal, 6(1), 1 55.

PAGE 125

125 Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2001). Testing competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences, 23(3), 145163. Hudson, S. (2000). The segmentation of potential tourists: Constraint differences between men and women. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 363368. Hudson, S., Hinch, T., Walker, G., & Simpson, B. (2010). Constraints to sport tourism: A crosscultural analysis. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 15(1), 71 88. Hudson, S., & Shephard, G. W. (1998). Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: An application of importanceperformance analysis to an alpine ski resort. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7 (3) , 6177. Iso Ahola, S. E. (1989). Motivation for leisure. Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future, 247279. Iso Ahola, S. E. (1999). Motivational foundations of leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty first century (pp. 35 51 ) . State College, P a : Venture Publishing. Jackson, E. L. (1994). Constraints on participation in resourcebased outdoor recreation. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 19(3), 215245. Ja ckson, E. L. (1997). In the eye of the beholder: A comment on Samdahl & Jekubovich (1997)," A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings". Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 458468. Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey , G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 15(1), 1 11. Jackson, E. L., & Henderson, K. A. (1995). Gender based analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17(1), 31 51. Jackson, E. L., & Rucks, V. C. (1995). Negotiation of leisure constraints by junior high and highschool students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 85105. JansenVerbeke, M., & Van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors: Urban tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 364375. Jun, J., Kyle, G. T., & Mowen, A. J. (2009). Market segmentation using perceived constraints. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(1), 3555. Jun, J., Kyle, G., & O’Leary, J. T. (2006). Perceived constraints to art museum attendance. Northeastern Recreation Research Symposiu m , 14(2) , 459466.

PAGE 126

126 Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5(2), 145162. Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004). Cultural capital and the extracurricular activ ities of girls and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics, 32(2), 145168. Kay, T., & Jackson, G. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 301313. Kim Lian Chan, J. (2009). The consumption of museum service experiences: Benefits and value of museum experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2 3), 173196. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological bulletin, 125(6), 701. Loker, L. E., & Perdue, R. R. (1992). A benefit based segm entation of a nonresident summer travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 31(1), 30 35. MacKay, K. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Measuring the quality of recreation services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 8 (3), 4756. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review , 50(4), 370. McGuire, F. A., OLeary, J. A., Alexander, P. B., & Dottavio, F. D. (1987). A comparison of outdoor recreation preferences and constraints of black and white elderly. Activities, Adapta tion & Aging, 9(4), 95 104. McIntosh, A. J. (1999). Into the tourist's mind: Understanding the value of the heritage experience. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 8(1), 4164. National Endowment for the Arts. (2009, November). 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. ( Research Division Re port #49. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Analysis . Nimrod, G. (2007). Retirees' leisure: Activities, benefits, and their contribution to life satisfaction. Leisure Studies, 26(1), 65 80. Nyaupane, G . P., & Andereck, K. L. (2008). Understanding travel constraints: Application and extension of a leisure constraints model. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 433439.

PAGE 127

127 Nyaupane, G. P., Morais, D. B., & Graefe, A. (2003). A comparison of leisure constraints among three outdoor recreation activities: Whitewater rafting, canoeing, and overnight horseback riding. In Proceedings of the 2002 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 152157). Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Packer, J. (2008). Beyond learning: Exploring visitors' perceptions of the value and benefits of museum experiences. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51 (1), 33 54. Papadimitriou, D., & Gibson, H. (2008). Benefits sought and realized by active mountain sport tourists in Epirus, Greece: preand post trip analysis. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 13 (1), 37 60. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of marketing, 49(4). Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers' experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 1 6 20. Pennington Gray, L. A., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2001). What do university educated women want from their pleasure travel experiences?. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 4956. Perry, D. L. (1993). Beyond cognition and affect: The anatomy of a museum visit. In Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice: Collected papers from the 1993 Visitor Studies Conference (Vol. 6, pp. 4347). Philipp, S. F. (1997). Race, gender, and leis ure benefits. Leisure Sciences, 19(3), 191207. Prentice, R. (1994). Perceptual deterrents to visiting museums and other heritage attractions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 13(3), 264279. Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learn ing at a heritage attraction: A case study of “Discovery” as a media product. Tourism Management, 19(1), 5 23. Prince, D. R. (1990). Factors influencing museum visits: An empirical evaluation of audience selection. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(2), 149168. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & von Eye, A. (1993). Nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15(2), 99113. Reussner, E. M. (2003). Strategic management for visitor oriented museums: A change of fo cus. The International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 95 108.

PAGE 128

128 Rounds, J. (2006). Doing identity work in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(2), 133150. Ryan, C., & Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 169184. Samdahl, D. M., & Jekubovich, N. J. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 430452. Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art (2013). FiveYear Strategi c Plan 20132018. Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art: HOME PAGE . http://www.harn.ufl.edu/visit/info.php. Scott, D., & Jackson, E. L. (1996). Factors that limit and strategies that might encourage people's use of public parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(1), 1 17. Scott, D., & Mowen, A. J. (2010). Alleviating park visitation constraints through agency facilitation strategies. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 535550. Shannon, D. M., & Bradshaw, C. C. (2002).A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 179192. Shaw, S. M., & Henderson, K. A. (2005). Gender analysis and leisure c onstraints: An uneasy alliance. In Jackson, E. L. (Eds.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 2334), State College, Pa: Venture Publishing Inc. Shoemaker, S. (1994). Segmenting the US travel market according to benefits realized. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 8 21. Slater, A. (2007). ‘Escaping to the gallery’: Understanding the motivations of visitors to galleries. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(2), 149162. Sterry, P., & Leighton, D. (2004, July). The benefits of visitor and nonvisitor research in the shaping of sustainable tourism. In Sustainability an d Mass Destinations: Challenges and Possibilities. Business Enterprises for Sustainable Travel Education Network Think Tank IV Conference Proceedings, Esbjerg, Denmark June (Vol. 30). Tepper, S. J. (2000). Fiction reading in America: Explaining the gender gap. Poetics, 27(4), 255275.

PAGE 129

129 Thyne, M. (2001). The importance of values research for nonprofit organizations: The motivationbased values of museum visitors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 116130. Tian, S., Crom pton, J. L., & Witt, P. A. (1996).Integrating constraints and benefits to identify responsive target markets for museum attractions. Journal of Travel Research, 35(2), 34 45. Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism . Channel View Publications. Tinsley, H., Teaff, J., Colbs, S. & Kaufman, N. (1985) . A system of classifying leisure activities in terms of the psychological benefits of participation reported by older persons . Journal of Gerontology, 40(2): 172 178. Tinsley, H. E., & Johnson, T. L. (1984). A preliminary taxonomy of leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(3), 234244. Tinsley, H. E., & Eldredge, B. D. (1995). Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A taxonomy of leisure activities based on their needgratifying properties. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 123132. Tinsley, H. E., & Kass, R. A. (1978). Leisure activities and need satisfaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Leisure Research, 10(3), 191202. Tinsley, H. E., & Kass, R. A. (1979).The l atent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 278291. Tomas, S. R., Crompton, J. L., & Scott, D. (2003). Assessing service quality and benefits sought among zoological park visitors. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(2), 105124. Um, S. & Crompton, J. (1992) . The Role of Perceived Inhibitors and Facilitators on Pleasure Travel Destination Decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 30(winter): 18 25. Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D. (1995). D evelopment, reliability and validity of a scale to measure intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4), 379400. Woodside, A. G., & Jacobs, L. W. (1985). Step Two in Benefit Segmentation: Learning the Benefits Realized by Major Travel Markets. Journal of Travel Research, 24(1), 7 13.

PAGE 130

130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jaehyun Kim has been interested in and studied sports and leisure studies for his undergraduate program. He received his Bachelor of Science in sport and leisure studies f rom Korea University in August 2008. A fter that, he decided to study abroad to study more indepth on leisure studies. Since 2012, he has been studying for a m aster ’ s d egree in the Dep artment of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management at the University of Florida, majoring in recreation, parks and tourism . He received his Master of S cience degree in recreation, parks and tourism from the University of Florida in August 2014. While studying at Korea University and the University of Florida, he has been interested in social psychology of leisure, which led him to focus more on sociopsychological factors, such as leisure constraints, negotiationefficacy, leisurerelated benefit, motivation, social support, and so forth. One of the goals of his research is to make research finding more practical in order to apply those finding to the field or real situations. On the basis of his academic interests and goals, he explored constraints, benefits sought and realized by visitors to the Harn Museum of Art located at University of Florida for his master’s thesis. His unending interests in leisure studies made him decide to do a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Beginning in the fall of 2014, he will s tart his doctoral program in the Department of Recreation, Par k and Tourism Management at Penn State University .