EDITORIAL

published: 16 September 2016

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01358

Editorial: The Psychology of Magic

and the Magic of Psychology
Gustav Kuhn 1*, Jay A. Olson 2 and Amir Raz 2
1
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK, 2 Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Psychiatry
Department, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Keywords: magic, science of magic

The Editorial on the Research Topic

The Psychology of Magic and the Magic of Psychology

BACKGROUND
Conjurors are masters of illusion and deception, and they have developed astonishing methods for
manipulating our experience. Intuitively, the link between magic and psychology seems obvious:
magicians use techniques such as misdirection to manipulate our attention, illusions to distort our
perception, and forcing to influence our decisions. Some of the early pioneers in Psychology (e.g.,
Binet, 1894; Triplett, 1900) recognized this close link between magic and psychology and published
fascinating scientific papers investigating conjuring techniques. Although some researchers have
used magic tricks to study cognition indirectly (e.g., developmental psychologists), few have
attempted to bind magic to the science of psychology.
Edited and reviewed by:
Erica Cosentino, In 2005, Kuhn and Tatler published one of the first recent papers on misdirection, which
Ruhr University Bochum, Germany illustrated how conjuring principles can be used to study visual attention (Kuhn and Tatler, 2005).
*Correspondence:
Whilst this paper attracted much popular interest, many scientists at the time were skeptical about
Gustav Kuhn the idea of using magic to explore the inner working of the mind. Although the relationship between
[email protected] magic and psychology is intuitive, this approach requires new paradigms and possibly new ways of
thinking about cognitive mechanisms. However, because few researchers have access to the secret
Specialty section: armamentarium of magical techniques, studying magic scientifically became the privilege of a small
This article was submitted to group of investigators with direct experience in conjuring. And yet, the last decade has seen a
Theoretical and Philosophical surge in research papers that have used magic to explore a wide range of topics in psychology.
Psychology, Concrete frameworks now explain how magic can be studied scientifically and the advantages that
a section of the journal
this direction may provide (Kuhn et al., 2008; Macknik et al., 2008; Demacheva et al., 2012). What
Frontiers in Psychology
was once a field restricted to a few scientists has rapidly grown into a vibrant research domain.
Received: 13 June 2016 Whilst much of the research has focused on misdirection (for review see Kuhn and Martinez,
Accepted: 25 August 2016
2012), the psychology of magic has expanded into fields such as decision making (Olson et al.,
Published: 16 September 2016
2015), problem solving (Danek et al., 2014), object permanence (Beth and Ekroll, 2014), pattern
Citation:
completion (Barnhart, 2010; Ekroll et al., 2013), belief formation (Parris et al., 2009; Subbotsky,
Kuhn G, Olson JA and Raz A (2016)
Editorial: The Psychology of Magic
2010), visualmotor action (Cavina-Pratesi et al., 2011), sense of agency (Olson et al., 2016), and
and the Magic of Psychology. perceptual anticipation (Kuhn and Land, 2006; Kuhn and Rensink, 2016).
Front. Psychol. 7:1358. Inspired by the number of magic-related articles published in recent years—as well as the group
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01358 of young researchers working in the field—we hoped to bring together different approaches that

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 September 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1358

Kuhn et al. Editorial: The Psychology of Magic and the Magic of Psychology

have used magic to investigate the mind. We had three main “phantom vanish,” in which assumptions can lead to erroneous
motivations for this research topic: perceptions of an object that was simply implied by the magician’s
action.
1. Collect a broad range of empirical papers that use magic to
Leveraging magic to investigate cognitive mechanisms is
explore areas of cognition.
another common theme. For example, Danek et al. focused on
2. Help bridge the gap between magic theory and scientific
the mental processes involved in discovering the secrets behind
theories of cognition.
magic tricks, in order to investigate insightful problem solving.
3. Explore ways in which science could improve magic.
Olson et al. studied how children and adults explain magic
While most the papers in this issue address the first two tricks differently and in particular how children provide more
objectives, our final paper (Williams and McOwan) directly supernatural explanations for simple effects. The sense of wonder
explores how science could potentially help improve magic—an generated from experiencing a magic trick is central to the
issue we discuss at the end of this editorial. psychology of magic, and Danek et al. investigated the neural
correlates of this unique sensation using fMRI. Another article
looks at individual differences and whether all spectators are
ORGANISATION equally influenced by conjuring techniques (Wilson and French).
The authors report how social influence and differences in
This issue showcases three papers that directly address the paranormal belief govern the accuracy of reporting an ostensibly
gap between magicians and scientists. Kuhn et al. present a paranormal event. Finally, Mohr et al. show how experiencing an
psychologically based taxonomy of misdirection which directly anomalous event (brought about by magic) can change cognitive
bridges the gap between magicians’ real-world knowledge markers associated with paranormal belief, in order to illustrate
of misdirection and the potential psychological mechanisms how magical beliefs are formed.
involved. The aim of this taxonomy is to organize magicians’ Becoming a professional magician requires thousands of
hands-on experience and make it more accessible for people with hours of practice and most magicians learn their skills through
little experience in magic. Smith et al. present a computational informal social networks, Rissanen et al. interviewed prominent
analysis of a conjuring trick that seeks to understand the magicians to discover the set of skills required to become a
experience of impossibility. Their approach highlights how professional and the process by which these skills are acquired.
magical effects are not simply achieved through discrete Phillips et al. explored part of this expertise in more detail
misperceptions and misattentions, but rather result from a by investigating how magicians are capable of deceiving their
trick’s whole structure of events. Rensink and Kuhn present a audiences through sleight of hand.
framework describing how magic can further our understanding The final paper in this collection begins to examine whether
of the mind. Their framework focuses on how magic methods science can help magicians. Williams and McOwan argue that
and effects can be used to study a range of cognitive processes. artificial intelligence can help to improve the effectiveness of
They also make the case for organizing magic tricks themselves a magic trick. How science can further assist magicians create
to create a science of magic, centered around the experience of stronger effects remains one of the ultimate challenges of this
wonder that results from experiencing the impossible. On the nascent field.
one hand, the methods of magic provide useful tools to study
cognitive processes. On the other hand, magic in itself might
offer too little structure to permit a systematic exploration of FUTURE DIRECTIONS
its components (e.g., Lamont). Thus, whereas some of us think
that studying magic is a worthwhile endeavor, others are more Developmental psychologists harbor a long tradition of
skeptical about this research area. The field of magic is complex, incorporating conjuring techniques into their experimental
multifaceted, and certainly difficult to place under a scientific designs (e.g., Baillargeon and Devos, 1991), but in recent years,
lens. It does follow some structure and overarching principles, conjuring techniques have also been used to study deception in
however, and many of the challenges raised by this new science adults. For example, magic techniques have been used to secretly
are hardly dissimilar to other burgeoning areas of psychology switch cards and induce choice blindness (Johansson et al.,
(Rensink and Kuhn). 2005), whilst others have used magic to convince people that a
This issue also features several empirical papers that use brain imaging machine could read or influence their thoughts
magic to study attention, memory, and reasoning. Barnhart (Olson et al., 2016). Conjuring techniques provide extremely
and Goldinger present an eye-tracking study that uses a new useful experimental tools that allow us to explore psychological
paradigm to study misdirection and in particular the relationship phenomena that would otherwise be difficult to study. We
between our visual experience and where we look. Similar to envisage that establishing firm links between magic and science
some previous studies, they revealed how misdirection can will enable more researchers to use magic tricks and techniques
prevent people from seeing a fully visible event. Smith presents to further enhance experimental designs.
an eye movement study that investigated the role of audience We also envision that studying magic tricks in their own right
participation on change detection, which demonstrated that may highlight new perspectives on cognition and likely uncover
participating in a task increases blindness for irrelevant features. novel cognitive mechanisms (see Rensink and Kuhn; Thomas
Tompkins et al. investigated a magic trick known as the et al., 2015). This area of research is young but promising.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 September 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1358

Kuhn et al. Editorial: The Psychology of Magic and the Magic of Psychology

For example, research on forcing unravels how it would be it involves asking questions that are evaluated with empirical
possible to tease apart decisions with and without conscious evidence. Magicians have acquired vast amounts of knowledge
awareness (Shalom et al., 2013; Olson et al., 2015). Similarly, about principles of deception, and they often generate this
some classical magic effects provide intriguing insights into information by informally reflecting on their performances
perceptual processes such as amodal completion (Ekroll et al., (see Rissanen et al.). This approach has lead to an impressive
2013), or the way in which we anticipate dynamic events (Kuhn wealth of professional wisdom, but research in psychology
and Land, 2006; Kuhn and Rensink, 2016). And the list goes on has taught us that introspection can be a rather unreliable
and on. method of evaluating behavior (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977).
Many magicians remain skeptical as to whether science can A more objective and scientific approach to evaluating magic
promote the magical arts (e.g., Teller, 2012). This skepticism performance may supplement and accelerate the richness of
may partly result from a misunderstanding of the scientific magical information. Williams and McOwan presented a rather
process and perhaps because the psychology of magic is radical way in which artificial intelligence may help improve
still in its early stages. Science has improved many aspects magic tricks—a similar approach has been used in mathematics
of our lives and no barriers prevent science from doing (Diaconis and Graham, 2011)—but more subtle ways are possible
the same to magic. We sketch out at least three ways in too. For example, simply varying performance parameters
which this trend may occur. Firstly, such a science could systematically (e.g., do you choose a card physically or do
transfer knowledge between our current understanding of you simply think of a card) combined with evaluations (e.g.,
cognition and conjuring practice. For example, understanding post-performance questionnaires) could advance magic through
the processing and perceptual limitations our visual system could systematic and rigorous explorations. Along these lines, magician
allow magicians to exploit these bottlenecks more effectively Joshua Jay and scientist Dr. Lisa Grimm have recently teamed
and thus create more powerful illusions (e.g., Kuhn et al.). up to investigate common assumptions held by the magic
Secondly, scientific investigations into how and why certain community. Their research project in progress, entitled Magic
tricks work will allow magicians to understand the cognitive by Numbers, is intended to provide magicians with more
mechanisms involved in these illusions and thus help further objective insights into how people experience magic. We trust
hone their effectiveness. For example, research on forcing that the continued interaction between conjurors and scientists
(Olson et al., 2012) has revealed that people are more likely will promote a fruitful crosstalk between psychology and the
to choose certain playing cards (e.g., the Queen of Hearts) magical arts. We look forward to further realizing this joint
over others (e.g., the Nine of Clubs). This kind of knowledge potential.
is relevant to both magicians and behavioral scientists. As
magicians and researchers continue to interact, scientists will AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
likely uncover more practical ways to assist performers. Thirdly,
we believe that the scientific method itself can help advance All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual
magic. Science is a method used to generate knowledge, and contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

REFERENCES Ekroll, V., Sayim, B., and Wagemans, J. (2013). Against better knowledge: the
magical force of amodal volume completion. iPerception 4, 511–515. doi:
Baillargeon, R., and Devos, J. (1991). Object permanence in young infants - 10.1068/i0622sas
further evidence. Child Dev. 62, 1227–1246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991. Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., and Olsson, A. (2005). Failure to detect
tb01602.x mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science
Barnhart, A. S. (2010). The exploitation of gestalt principles by magicians. 310, 116–119. doi: 10.1126/science.1111709
Perception 39, 1286–1289. doi: 10.1068/p6766 Kuhn, G., Amlani, A. A., and Rensink, R. A. (2008). Towards a science
Beth, T., and Ekroll, V. (2014). The curious influence of timing on the magical of magic. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 349–354. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.
experience evoked by conjuring tricks involving false transfer: decay of amodal 05.008
object permanence? Psychol. Res. 79, 513–522. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0584-2 Kuhn, G., and Land, M. F. (2006). There’s more to magic than meets the eye. Curr.
Binet, A. (1894). Psychology of Prestidigitation. Annual Report of the Board of Biol. 16, R950–R951. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.012
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Kuhn, G., and Martinez, L. M. (2012). Misdirection - past, present, and the future.
Printing Office. Front. Human Neurosci. 5. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00172
Cavina-Pratesi, C., Kuhn, G., Ietswaart, M., and Milner, A. D. (2011). The Kuhn, G., and Rensink, R. A. (2016). The Vanishing Ball Illusion: a new
magic grasp: motor expertise in deception. PLoS ONE 6:e16568. doi: perspective on the perception of dynamic events. Cognition 148, 64–70. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0016568 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.003
Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., von Müeller, A., Grothe, B., and Oellinger, M. (2014). Kuhn, G., and Tatler, B. W. (2005). Magic and fixation: now you don’t see it, now
Working Wonders? Investigating insight with magic tricks. Cognition 130, you do. Perception 34, 1155–1161. doi: 10.1068/p3409bn1
174–185. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.003 Macknik, S. L., King, M., Randi, J., Robbins, A., Teller., Thompson, J. (2008).
Demacheva, I., Ladouceur, M., Steinberg, E., Pogossova, G., and Raz, A. (2012). Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research. Nat. Rev.
The applied cognitive psychology of attention: a step closer to understanding Neurosci. 9, 871–879. doi: 10.1038/nrn2473
magic tricks. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 26, 541–549. doi: 10.1002/acp.2825 Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we know - Verbal
Diaconis, P., and Graham, R. (2011). Magical Mathematics: The Mathematical Ideas reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84, 231–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-
that Animate Great Magic Tricks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 295x.84.3.231

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 September 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1358

Kuhn et al. Editorial: The Psychology of Magic and the Magic of Psychology

Olson, J. A., Amlani, A. A., Raz, A., and Rensink, R. A. (2015). Influencing Subbotsky, E. (2010). Magic and the Mind. Oxford: University Press.
choice without awareness. Conscious. Cogn. 37, 225–236. doi: 10.1016/ Teller (2012). Teller reveals his secrets. Smithsonian Magazine.
j.concog.2015.01.004 Thomas, C. C., Didierjean, A., Maquestiaux, F., and Gygax, P. (2015). Does magic
Olson, J. A., Amlani, A. A., and Rensink, R. A. (2012). Perceptual and offer a cryptozoology ground for psychology? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19, 117–128.
cognitive characteristics of common playing cards. Perception 41, 268–286. doi: doi: 10.1037/gpr0000041
10.1068/p7175 Triplett, N. (1900). The psychology of conjuring deceptions. Am. J. Psychol. 11,
Olson, J. A., Landry, M., Appourchaux, K., and Raz, A. (2016). Simulated 439–510.
thought insertion: influencing the sense of agency using deception
and magic. Conscious. Cogn. 43, 11–26. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
04.010 conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Parris, B. A., Kuhn, G., Mizon, G. A., Benattayallah, A., and Hodgson, T. be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
L. (2009). Imaging the impossible: an fMRI study of impossible causal
relationships in magic tricks. Neuroimage 45, 1033–1039. doi: 10.1016/ Copyright © 2016 Kuhn, Olson and Raz. This is an open-access article distributed
j.neuroimage.2008.12.036 under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
Shalom, D. E., de Sousa Serro, M. G., Giaconia, M., Martinez, L. M., Rieznik, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
A., and Sigman, M. (2013). Choosing in Freedom or forced to choose? author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal
Introspective blindness to psychological forcing in stage-magic. PLoS ONE is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
8:e58254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058254 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 September 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1358