To Pick or to Name a Card – What is more effective?
By Gustav Kuhn and Radeck Wincza - Tuesday, April 29, 2025
The moment has arrived. You turn to a spectator and ask them to name any playing card. They pause for a second, considering their options, then confidently say, “The Queen of Hearts.” With a knowing smile, you pick up a deck, give it a subtle shake, and spread the cards between your hands. Every single one is face up – except for one. The audience leans in as the spectator reaches for the lone face-down card. They flip it over, and there it is – the Queen of Hearts. A perfect match.
Gasps ripple through the room. How could that be possible? No forces, no hesitation, just pure magic.
It is no wonder that variations of this effect have been a staple in magicians' repertoires for decades. The core concept of the Invisible Deck is simple: the spectator names a card, and that card is somehow different from the rest. It feels fair. It feels impossible. And that is why we always let them name the card freely.
But… what if we told you that is a mistake?
For the past 20 years, we have been delving into the science behind magic tricks. Why? Because studying magic scientifically can help us uncover some of the mysteries of the human mind. However, at times, these studies also have important practical implications for magicians. We have recently published a scientific paper exploring one such insight, and we are excited to share it with you through a series of blog posts.
Now, fair warning: the paper was written for scientists, not magicians, so some sections may feel a bit technical or less relevant to your craft. That said, we encourage you to check out the full study, as we will only be summarising the key takeaways here. But enough about us – let’s dive back into it!
Magicians have long believed that asking a spectator to name a card creates a stronger effect than having them physically pick one. It just feels more open, more impossible, right? To find out, we surveyed 201 magicians, asking them to rate how "free" a selection felt based on different methods. Unsurprisingly, verbal selections were consistently rated as feeling more free than physical ones. But do spectators feel the same way? In a previous study, we discovered something surprising: lay audiences did not see it that way. When we asked non-magicians how free they felt in their card selection, they actually reported feeling more freedom when physically picking a card from a face-down spread than when simply naming one. And we were not the only ones to notice this – The Jerx ran an independent study and found similar results.
This raised an intriguing question: Could it be that a trick where the spectator “freely” names a card is not actually more powerful than one where they physically choose a card? As scientists, we knew we could not rely on intuition alone. We needed hard data – and a well-designed experiment – to put this idea to the test.
The Invisible Deck provided the perfect way to put our theory to the test. With this trick, we could compare two conditions: one in which participants physically selected a card from a deck, and another in which they simply named a card before it was magically revealed.
To get meaningful results, we performed the trick for 42 groups, with a total of 134 participants, with group sizes ranging from two to five. Half of the groups experienced the effect with a physically selected card, while the other half saw it with a verbally named card. One common criticism of magic research is that tricks are often tested in artificial environments, far removed from real-world performances. To address this, Radek performed the effect in natural, everyday settings like cafés and parks, making sure the magic felt as authentic as possible.
After witnessing the trick, participants completed a questionnaire about their experience. We were particularly interested in two key factors: how free they felt in their selection and how much influence they believed the magician had over their choice. The results were striking. Participants reported feeling significantly more freedom when they physically picked a card compared to when they named one. Not only that, but they also believed the magician had more control over their verbal choice than their physical selection.
Not following? Look at the graph below, which will help you to visualise our findings: The blue line is for participants who chose the card, whilst the red one is for participants how watched someone else choose the card.
This completely contradicts the traditional thinking in magic that naming a card feels freer and fairer. But the most surprising result came when we asked participants about their emotional reactions. The trick, when performed with a physically selected card, was rated as feeling more impossible than when the card was named. While other emotional responses, such as surprise and enjoyment, remained similar across both versions (see the below table), this key difference raises an important question: could it be that magicians have been overestimating the power of a freely named card all along?
Like any scientific study, our research has its limitations, and it will take several more experiments to fully explore this hypothesis. But before rushing to critique the science, let’s take a step back and consider a possible psychological explanation for these findings.
In our paper, we suggest that this effect may stem from the way spectators perceive magicians – as mysterious, mind-bending figures who use psychological techniques to subtly influence their thoughts. Because of this, people may not feel entirely in control of their own minds during a trick. When they physically pick a card, the action feels like theirs – a concrete, deliberate choice, free from outside interference. But simply thinking of a card? Well, that is different. Without an observable action, the sense of agency is weaker. It feels more like something that could have been influenced, even if it wasn’t.
This idea aligns with well-established psychological theories on agency, which suggest that our sense of control over an event depends on a match between our intention and a visible action. When no physical action takes place – when a choice exists only in the mind – this match is missing, and the feeling of control diminishes.
Something to keep in mind for your next performance, perhaps?
In our next blog, we will explore another intriguing question: Are magic tricks that happen in a spectator’s hands always stronger than those that happen elsewhere? The answer might surprise you. We would love to hear your thoughts! If you have any insights, ideas, or even your own magic theories you’d like to test, feel free to reach out. And if the psychology of magic fascinates you, be sure to check out our latest book The Psychology of Magic – From Lab to Stage, where we dive into even more mind-bending psychological insights that can elevate your magic.
For now, that is all from the MAGIC-lab, but stay tuned!
Authors: Gustav Kuhn and Radeck Wincza
Reference to the research paper:
Wincza, R., & Kuhn, G. (2025). Challenging magicians’ intuitive insights: The role of audience participation in experiencing a magic trick. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication.
Back to blog homepage
Similar posts on the blog:
