A Preliminary Investigation into the Presence of Woozles in Applied Behavior-Analytic Publications

Inaccurate reporting of previous publications may seem innocuous in a publication that exhibits sound theories and results; however, consistent, inaccurate reporting of an original body of work runs the risk of establishing false conclusions. In publications, a woozle is a misguided or misrepresented belief or claim, which, if accumulated, can lead to an inaccurate theory or conclusion. Previous literature in other fields have noted the existence of woozles and their effect. This study was a preliminary investigation into the presence of woozles in current applied behavior analytic publications. The first phase of the study identified 20 experimental research articles from The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) and 25-75 citing research articles. Phase two consisted of examining articles and extracting relevant quotations. In the final phase of the study, quotations from applied behavior analytic (ABA) journals were examined to determine the presence of woozles. Results from 242 ABA articles indicated more than 30% of articles and 20% of quotations were woozles, and the presence of woozles in the past ten publishing years exhibited an unclear trend. Data collected indicates that woozles are present in ABA literature, and further research is warranted to examine this topic further

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well