The Zone of Tolerance: What If They Don’t “Get It”?

Let’s be honest, every interpreter has had that moment. You pour your heart into crafting a thoughtful, thematic experience. You build suspense, drop the perfect metaphor, maybe even used the sound of distant thunder. And then someone approaches you after and says something wildly off-key like, “That was great. I never realised the Romans invented quinoa.” 😶‍🌫️

It’s in moments like these that Sam H. Ham’s concept of the Zone of Tolerance becomes not just relevant, but essential.

Understanding our personal and institutional zone of tolerance isn’t just philosophically important. It’s also an essential lens for design, evaluation, and ethical self-awareness.

In Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose, Sam Ham explores what it really means to succeed as an interpreter, and it’s not about having everyone recite your whole theme or remember every single fact you shared. It’s about how broad a range of meanings you’re okay with your audience walking away with, and what to do when their takeaways aren’t even close to what you expected.

The Zone of Tolerance is, in essence, the range of personal meanings and takeaways that you, as the interpreter (or the organisation you represent), are happy for people to walk away with, after an interpretive experience.

So, let’s unpack this idea of the Zone of Tolerance. Because whether you’re interpreting ancient ruins or pop culture, chances are your audience won’t all leave with the same takeaway, and that’s not necessarily a problem.

First: Let’s Redefine Success

Most of us (whether we admit it or not) still carry some residue of the educational paradigm: the idea that success means people “get the message.” But Ham flips that. His model prioritises provocation over instruction (see also Tilden's Principles), and understands meaning not as something delivered, but as something co-constructed.

In this view, interpretation succeeds not when audiences repeat our themes word by word, but when they begin their own inner conversation. When, as George Herbert Mead put it, they “talk to themselves” about what it all means. What you’re aiming for is a cluster of personally meaningful responses that resonate somewhere in the orbit of your theme.  If you’re hearing things that make you nod or smile, chances are they fall within your zone.

But if that’s the endgame, then we must ask: What kinds of meanings are we actually willing to accept? And that’s where zone of tolerance come in.

Why Do People Interpret the Same Thing So Differently?

Short answer? Schemas. (No, not a trendy coffee shop name, the psychological kind.)

Schemas are those intricate mental frameworks shaped by our life experiences, cultural contexts, knowledge, values, and even our mood that day. They influence what we notice, what we care about, and how we connect new information to what we already know.

That’s why you can deliver a beautifully crafted programme and still have one person interpret it as deeply spiritual, another as a call to action, and a third as mildly amusing. They’re each bringing their own baggage, and their own lens.

Schemas are the "lens" people bring to the interpretive setting

• Schemas shape what individuals notice, pay attention to, or ignore.

• Schemas influence what they find interesting, boring, useful or irrelevant.

• Because schemas vary from person to person, so do the personal themes they take away from the same interpretive experience.

  
  

As interpreters, we put a lot of effort into shaping content that connects with the audience’s existing ways of thinking. But the truth is, their schema always has the final say. It’s the filter everything we present gets run through. Different interpretations are not just inevitable, sometimes, they’re exactly what we want.

We must acknowledge: interpretive divergence is inevitable.

Ham’s Three Types of Tolerance Zones

Depending on your goals, you may consciously or unconsciously be operating in one of the following interpretive zones:

1. Unrestricted Zone

. Unrestricted Zone: Your role here is not as an explainer, but as a provocateur of reflection. 

This is the anything goes playground. Here, the primary goal is to provoke thought, not to deliver a particular point of view. You’re happy (even delighted), if your audience leaves with wildly diverse, unexpected interpretations.

This zone is ideal for contentious topics, philosophical questions, or experiences meant to challenge assumptions. Think debate-style presentations, or storytelling that invites introspection rather than delivers answers.

🗨️ Example theme: “This is a complex issue. What does it mean to you?”

2. Wide Zone

Wide Zone: Gently guiding toward care, connection, and stewardship

Ah, the sweet spot for most interpreters... particularly in heritage, conservation, and tourism contexts. You want your audience to draw their own conclusions, yes, but preferably ones that fall within a positive, appreciative, or values-aligned framework.

You’re open-minded, but not that open-minded. You’re gently guiding their thinking toward care, connection, and stewardship, even if you never say so directly.

🗨️ Example theme: “This landscape holds stories worth protecting.”

3. Narrow Zone

Narrow Zone: Aiming for one clear message, when accuracy matters most

Here, you’re laser-focused. You want your audience to leave not just thinking but thinking a specific thing. This often happens in educational settings, safety messaging, or behaviour-change campaigns.

You’ve got learning objectives to meet or management goals to hit. And while critical thinking is welcome, so is correct understanding, especially when safety, resources, or institutional credibility are at stake.

🗨️ Example theme: “Improper food storage puts bears (and you) at risk.”

An interpreter would probably have many ZOTs, depending on what s/he hopes to accomplish with a particular interpretive product. Sam Ham.

But What If They Walk Away with the Wrong Message?

It’s going to happen. Interpretation is like when your mum calls you by the dog's name, your sibling’s, the neighbour’s daughter, and then yours. Mixed messages happen. But Ham reminds us: that’s not failure, it’s feedback. And hey, I’m still learning to take it with grace, you’re not alone.t me, I’m still a work in progress when it comes to receiving it. You’re not alone.

Ham suggests a super simple but effective method called thought listing. No fancy tools required, just ask people, “What are you thinking about after that?” or “What stood out to you most?”

Their answers give you a glimpse into the real impact of your interpretation. If most of what they say fits within your zone of tolerance, great! You’re on track. If not, it might be time to revisit your theme, tweak your framing, or figure out what signals might have directed them in an unintended direction.

The Ethics Bit (Don’t Skip This)

Now, here’s where it gets even more interesting. The tighter your Zone of Tolerance, the closer you get to the persuasion territory. And that means confronting some ethical questions.

Ham mentions a reality: interpreters often have agendas. We want people to care, to act, to understand. But that comes with responsibility. If you’re crafting your narrative to direct people's thinking, you need to be sure you’re doing it in service of the resource and the public, not your ego (mic drop).

Yes, you know what are talking about: “interpreganda”, when your interpretive work starts preaching instead of provoking. At best, it’s ineffective. At worst, it breeds distrust or resistance.

So, keep asking: Am I guiding, or dictating? Persuading, or interpaganding?

Final Thoughts From the Zone

The truth is, we’re not just theme-builders or information-sharers. We’re curators of context, facilitators of meaning, and, when we do it well, we’re genuine thought provokers.

Sam H. Ham’s Zone of Tolerance reminds us that success isn’t always about getting people to see what we see, it’s about helping them see something that matters.

So go ahead, craft your theme with care. Define your zone with intention. And then... let people surprise you.

---

Ham, S.H., 2013. Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose. Fulcrum Publishing.

Larsen, D., 2003. Meaningful Interpretation. U.S. National Park Service.