Many seemingly complex magic tricks rely on a simple mix of old-fashioned slight-of-hand and misdirection. Some magicians talk to the audience as a form of misdirection, which sounds like a logical strategy, at first glance. Even the most skeptical viewer may be susceptible to the distractions of a particularly charismatic or chatty illusionist, right?
It actually seems that both magicians and their fans have been deceived. According to a psychological study recently published in the journal Scientific Reports, conversation or “patter” has virtually no effect on misdirecting people during the classic card trick known as Three-Card Monte.
Variations of this classic ruse are documented around the world, dating back centuries.But the general premise to Three-Card Monte goes something like this: a magician (or, in many cases, a con artist) bets their mark that they cannot identify a specific card after it’s repeatedly shuffled between two other facedown cards. If the person successfully follows the chosen card’s trajectory, then they win. Failure hopefully only ends with a bit of embarrassment—although sometimes the duped mark also loses a significantly large wager.
A good magician will often lull their target into a false sense of confidence through a combination of slight-of-hand and stage banter, but cognitive neuroscientists at the New York Institute of Technology now believe the chitchat usually isn’t necessary.
In a series of tests, the researchers tasked study participants to win rounds of Three-Card Monte after following a performer as they shuffle a facedown red card between two other decoys. They then recorded the trick as completed during three different conditions: one in which the performer tells the participant a story related to the cards, one with the performer telling an unrelated story, and one variant that included no story whatsoever.
However, there was an additional twist. The target card also included a visible water stain, meaning eagle-eyed volunteers would have an easier time following it during successive shuffles. The team then recorded the Three-Card Monte performances while employing eye-tracking cameras to measure gaze patterns in each scenario.
In theory, shuffled cards with accompanying patter should boost the chances of volunteers losing sight of their target thanks to the psychological effect known as inattentive blindness. But like any good trick, the finale surprised the researchers. The study’s authors noted “no differences across conditions” when it came to patter distraction.
“Our results suggest that patter does not significantly misdirect audiences’ attention in the Three-Card Monte, and possibly neither does it in some other close-up magic routines,” the team wrote in their study.
There are some caveats to their findings. Just because patter didn’t influence Three-Card Monte participants doesn’t mean it is a completely useless tactic across all magic tricks. They also conceded that the magician’s stories simply may not have been interesting enough to distract the volunteers. What’s more, conversations during illusions may still serve other benefits for both the performer and their audience.
“This doesn’t mean patter is irrelevant—it likely shapes something else, such as viewer engagement, rapport, or emotional experience,” study co-author and neuroscientist Robert Alexander said in a statement. “That is, it might not control where you look, but how you feel while looking.”
The post All that magician chitchat? It’s not fooling your brain. appeared first on Popular Science.
