The purpose of this study was to investigate the impacts of first-person street theatre reenactments versus third-person interpretation at a recreated 1850s gold-rush heritage tourism site. Data collected from 357 visitors following 7 different interpretive activities indicated that third-person interpretation produced significantly higher mean respondent ratings than those activities that used first-person interpretation on 6 of 10 cognitive, affective, and behavioral indicators. Further scrutiny revealed that third-person interpretation resulted in higher levels of cognitive and affective outcomes for some visitor audiences when compared to first-person interpretation, but that there was no difference between first- and third-person interpretation on most behavioral outcomes. Both types of interpretation may be needed in order to achieve a full range of visitor outcomes. A multivariate analysis of covariance illustrated the potential implication of activity length in determining visitor outcomes; that is, the longer the activity, the greater impact of interpretation on measured outcomes. Isolating the effect of type of interpretation versus duration requires further research.
Journal article
To re-enact or not to re-enact? investigating the impacts of first- and third-person interpretation at a heritage tourism site
Visitor Studies, Vol.15(1), pp.48-61
2012
Metrics
34 File views/ downloads
60 Record Views
Abstract
Details
- Title
- To re-enact or not to re-enact? investigating the impacts of first- and third-person interpretation at a heritage tourism site
- Creators
- Pieter A Van Dijk - Monash UniversityLiam DG Smith - Monash UniversityBetty Weiler - Southern Cross University
- Publication Details
- Visitor Studies, Vol.15(1), pp.48-61
- Identifiers
- 1753; 991012820673802368
- Academic Unit
- School of Business and Tourism; Management; Faculty of Business, Law and Arts
- Resource Type
- Journal article