Comparing the influence of interpretive and sanction signs on visitors' attention, knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions

Abstract

This study examines the impact of interpretive and sanction signs in recreation settings. A quasi-field experiment was designed to compare the effectiveness of two types of signs at a county beach in Northern California. Questionnaires were presented to a total of 240 people, randomly assigned to one of three treatments (sanction, interpretation or control). Both sign treatments included messages about keeping dogs under voice control and proper disposal of litter. The control (or no treatment) group did not view a sign. Observations and survey data were collected regarding visitor’s on-site experiences and impact of the signs. Subjects in the three groups filled out questionnaires pertaining to their knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions towards keeping dogs under voice control and littering. Questionnaires used a combination of multiple choice and Likert-scale questions to elicit responses. Quantitative analysis revealed that the interpretive sign was more effective than the sanction sign at capturing attention and imparting knowledge than the sanction sign. In five of the six measures used to assess attitudes, there was no difference between groups. In the sixth measure, the interpretive group was the superior intervention. Although there was no significant difference between the three groups in their stated behavioral intentions, members of the interpretation group were more likely to say that their sign would be effective at getting other beach-goers to stop littering.