Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807996›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

A magical experience or a puzzle: how do people watch conjuring tricks?

Dawson von Stein, Richard Wiseman, David C Watson, Rodney Schmaltz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dawson von SteinDepartment of Psychology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Richard WisemanDepartment of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
David C WatsonDepartment of Psychology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Rodney SchmaltzDepartment of Psychology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conjuring tricks often contain two components: The effect (an apparently impossible happening) and the method (the secret of the trick). Prior scales have assessed individuals' general liking for magic, but not examined their interest in the effect and method. This paper validates a new scale (Method-Effect Scale; MES) measuring people's preference for these two components and examines its relationship with several variables including a general liking for magic, wonder, pseudoscientific beliefs and thinking style. Adult participants (

Indexed as

MagicAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesThinkingYoung AdultAweBeliefConjuringIntuitionMagicParanormalPerceptionPsychometricsRationalWonder

Identifiers

PMID42807996
PMCPMC13618447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.