A study conducted across several suburban art galleries noted that after the galleries installed soft ambient background music in their exhibition halls, average visitor dwell time increased by 35 percent compared to the previous year. Based on this observation, the gallery management concluded that playing ambient background music directly caused visitors to spend more time viewing the art. Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate in order to assess the strength of the gallery management's conclusion?
- Whether the galleries concurrently hosted several major, highly anticipated special exhibitions during the period after the music was introducedAnswer
- BWhether visitors who naturally spend longer viewing artwork are more likely to prefer ambient background music over silence
- CWhether playing background music at high volumes in retail environments decreases overall customer satisfaction
- DWhether major metropolitan art museums attract a higher total number of annual visitors than suburban galleries
- EWhether a minor fraction of surveyed visitors reported that they did not consciously notice the background music during their visit
Answer
Evaluating whether the galleries concurrently hosted several major, highly anticipated special exhibitions provides critical information about whether an alternative factor caused the increase in visitor dwell time.
The argument leaps from a sequence of events (installing music, followed by an increase in dwell time) to a direct causal claim. To evaluate this causal reasoning, one must determine whether an alternative explanation (confounder) was present during the same timeframe. If the galleries hosted major special exhibitions during this period, the exhibitions likely caused visitors to stay longer, weakening the causal link to the music. If no such exhibitions took place, the causal claim regarding the music is strengthened.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Evaluating Causal Arguments and Alternative Explanations
Estimated Time:1m 50s