IPOP Model of Visitor Preference

Most typologies of museum visitors tend to categorise visitors by demographics, motivation, or a mixture of both. The IPOP model, developed by Andrew Pekarik and colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution (Pekarik et al, 2014), is a little different in that it categorises visitors according to their preferred interests. Developed through years of research with visitors across the Smithsonian sites, the IPOP model is based on four key experience preferences:

  • Ideas – a liking for abstract concepts and facts
  • People – attraction to stories, emotional connections and social interaction
  • Objects – appreciation for objects, aesthetics and craftsmanship
  • Physical – attraction to sensory experiences, movement and physicality (this P was a later addition to the model as it evolved).

These are indicative of overall preferences rather than being absolute and mutually exclusive categories. Scores are based on responses to a self-administered questionnaire that is based on agreement to statements such as: I like to know how things are made, or I like to bring people together. The full version comprises 38 items, with shorter 20 and 8 item versions also used. Using responses to these statements, 79% of visitors show a clear preference for one of the IPOP dimensions: 18% Idea, 18% People, 19% Object, 23% Physical. The remaining 21% tend to show a combination of two dimensions (rarely three) rather than a single clear preference*.

By combining self-report IPOP preferences with tracking and timing data, Pekarik and his team have shown that it is possible to predict what exhibits a given visitor will attend to (or indeed, which exhibits they will avoid) based on their IPOP preference. People tend to seek out experiences that suit their preferences and match their expectations. When people see what they expect, they report being satisfied with their experience. However, sometimes visitors are engaged by something unexpected and different from their usual preferences. This phenomenon, described by the authors as “flipping”, can lead to more memorable and meaningful experiences.

The exhibition Pekarik et al (2014) use to illustrate the predictive value of IPOP is Against All Odds, an exhibition at the National Museum of Natural History about the rescue of trapped Chilean miners in 2010. I happened to see this exhibition on my 2012 study tour of Washington DC, and while I recall seeing it, I don’t have any specific memories of it (a consequence of breezing through dozens of exhibitions for days on end). Although I was amused to observe that the two photos I took of the exhibition are very similar to those in the Curator article!

SI-NMNH Chilean miners exhibit
My photo of the entrance / introductory graphic
SI-NMNH Chilean miners exhibit 2
The rescue capsule. The image in the Curator article takes a wider view which encompasses a tactile drill bit on the left and a video on the right. The rescue capsule was the largest and most distinctive object in the display. Whether that is why I photographed it as a way of recording the exhibition, or whether this says something about my IPOP preference I’m not sure.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Either I intuitively grasped which views best encapsulated the exhibition, or I have the same IPOP preference as the person who selected the images. . .

UPDATE 2/5/2014: I’ve just found out that the Pekarik et al article is available online for free. Happy reading!

*Interestingly, the research team categorised themselves according to the IPOP typology and found they had preferences in three of the four dimensions (none of the team was a People person). It strikes me as an interesting exercise for exhibition development teams to conduct at the outset of the project, giving individuals an insight into their own preferences as well as an appreciation of those of their differently-preferenced colleagues – there is more on this point in Pekarik and Mogel (2010).

References

Pekarik, A., & Mogel, B. (2010). Ideas, Objects, or People? A Smithsonian Exhibition Team Views Visitors Anew. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(4), 465–482. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.2010.00047.x

Pekarik, A., Schreiber, J. B., Hanemann, N., Richmond, K., & Mogel, B. (2014). IPOP: A Theory of Experience Preference. Curator: The Museum Journal, 57(1), 5–27. doi:10.1111/cura.12048

2 Replies to “IPOP Model of Visitor Preference”

  1. In this particular case I think it’s likely that the capsule was the ‘iconic’ object for the development team (“Brilliant. We’ve only got the actual flippin’ CAPSULE!”), the Curator article photographer, you, and almost all visitors. IPOP is probably more subtle a tool than is needed to explain that, for almost everyone who followed the developing rescue as it happened (and is thus motivated to visit the exhibition), the capsule was the highly-charged physical manifestation of the story. While many observers would also have empathised with the miners and their families, in the context of an exhibition (where no miners are avaliable as exhibits) the capsule really is going to be the ‘one big idea’ exhibit that delivers loads of messages about the tenuous connection between the trapped miners and the outside world, about being confined in a tiny space, the precariousness of their situation, and all.
    Thinking practically, there’s also a danger of becoming overwhelmed by different ways of characterising visitors. If we’re not careful – by trying to characterise by S-E, demographics, paying or free, mother tongue, group dynamics, in a hurry, Falk, IPOP – we’ll atomise the audience into a very large horde of individuals. OK, we know that’s what they are, but to proceed beyond theory into practice the need is to arrange them into relatively few manageable, somewhat generalised, classes so we can design for as large a number of visitors as possible.

    1. Hi John,

      You’re right not to read too much into the photography – I was being a little facetious! (BTW my understanding is that it’s not THE capsule, but one they used for testing before the actual rescue. But I digress). When it comes to different visitor typographies, I think it’s a case of horses for courses. Some typologies (like Falk or Culture Segments) are probably more useful for audience development purposes (how to get people through the door in the first place), whereas IPOP may be more useful at the level of individual exhibitions. The data collected by the Smithsonian do seem to show that IPOP preferences are useful for predicting and understanding visitor behaviour. You might also find the 2010 paper I referenced interesting, considering the IPOP model as an *internal* tool. By getting different staff to understand their own IPOP preferences, it helped them appreciate that they can’t simply extrapolate from their own viewpoint to divine what visitors might want. As a mechanism for getting ALL museum staff more audience focused, I think it’s a good idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *