↓ Skip to main content

Magic and Misdirection: The Influence of Social Cues on the Allocation of Visual Attention While Watching a Cups-and-Balls Routine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Magic and Misdirection: The Influence of Social Cues on the Allocation of Visual Attention While Watching a Cups-and-Balls Routine
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00761
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Hergovich, Bernhard Oberfichtner

Abstract

In recent years, a body of research that regards the scientific study of magic performances as a promising method of investigating psychological phenomena in an ecologically valid setting has emerged. Seemingly contradictory findings concerning the ability of social cues to strengthen a magic trick's effectiveness have been published. In this experiment, an effort was made to disentangle the unique influence of different social and physical triggers of attentional misdirection on observers' overt and covert attention. The ability of 120 participants to detect the mechanism of a cups-and-balls trick was assessed, and their visual fixations were recorded using an eye-tracker while they were watching the routine. All the investigated techniques of misdirection, including sole usage of social cues, were shown to increase the probability of missing the trick mechanism. Depending on the technique of misdirection used, very different gaze patterns were observed. A combination of social and physical techniques of misdirection influenced participants' overt attention most effectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Student > Bachelor 8 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 54%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,865,807
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,912
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,593
of 340,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#146
of 441 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 340,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 441 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.