↓ Skip to main content

A psychologically-based taxonomy of misdirection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A psychologically-based taxonomy of misdirection
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01392
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustav Kuhn, Hugo A. Caffaratti, Robert Teszka, Ronald A. Rensink

Abstract

Magicians use misdirection to prevent you from realizing the methods used to create a magical effect, thereby allowing you to experience an apparently impossible event. Magicians have acquired much knowledge about misdirection, and have suggested several taxonomies of misdirection. These describe many of the fundamental principles in misdirection, focusing on how misdirection is achieved by magicians. In this article we review the strengths and weaknesses of past taxonomies, and argue that a more natural way of making sense of misdirection is to focus on the perceptual and cognitive mechanisms involved. Our psychologically-based taxonomy has three basic categories, corresponding to the types of psychological mechanisms affected: perception, memory, and reasoning. Each of these categories is then divided into subcategories based on the mechanisms that control these effects. This new taxonomy can help organize magicians' knowledge of misdirection in a meaningful way, and facilitate the dialog between magicians and scientists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 46%
Computer Science 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2023.
All research outputs
#750,480
of 25,386,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,544
of 34,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,202
of 364,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#30
of 371 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 371 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.