---
title: "Woozle effect"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:46:21.411609+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

The Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation, occurs when a source is widely cited for a claim that the source does not adequately support, giving said claim undeserved credibility. If results are not replicated and no one notices that a key claim was never well-supported in its original publication, faulty assumptions may affect further research.
The Woozle effect is somewhat similar to circular reporting in journalism, where someone makes a questionable claim, and a journalist unthinkingly accepts the claim and republishes it without realizing its dubious and unreliable origins. In turn, other journalists and the public then continue to repeat and duplicate the unsupported claim.

== Origin and definition ==
A Woozle is an imaginary character in the A. A. Milne book Winnie-the-Pooh, published in 1926. In chapter three, "In which Pooh and Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle", Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet start following tracks left in snow believing they are the tracks of an imaginary animal called a woozle. The tracks keep multiplying until Christopher Robin explains to them that they have been following their own tracks in circles around a spinney.
Prior to the introduction of the specific term "Woozle effect", the underlying concept dates back over 60 years. Bevan (1953), writing about scientific methodology and research errors in the field of psychology, uses the term "scientific woozle hunters". Wohlwill (1963) refers to a "hunt for the woozle" in social science research, and Stevens (1971) cautions readers about woozles in the study of a misquoted letter.
The term "woozle effect" was coined by Beverly D. Houghton in 1979 during a panel discussion, in order: "...to critique the burgeoning belief in a myth/archetype [of] the batterer emerging from the [then] virtually nonexistent literature and the popular press." More recently she described the effect as "reification-by-accretion". Other researchers have attributed the term to Richard Gelles (1980), and to Gelles and Murray A. Straus (1988). Gelles and Straus argue that the woozle effect describes a pattern of bias seen within social sciences and which is identified as leading to multiple errors in individual and public perception, academia, policy making, and government. 
A woozle is also a claim, made about research, that is not supported by original findings. According to Donald G. Dutton, a woozle effect, or a woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals, groups and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and non-facts become urban myths and factoids. The creation of woozles is often linked to the changing of language from qualified ("it may", "it might", "it could") to absolute form ("it is"), firming up language and introducing ideas and views not held by an original author or supported by evidence.
Dutton sees the woozle effect as an example of confirmation bias and links it to belief perseverance and groupthink. Because in the social sciences empirical evidence may be based on experiential reports rather than objective measurements, there may be a tendency for researchers to align evidence with expectation. According to Dutton, it is also possible that the social sciences may be likely to align with contemporary views and ideals of social justice, leading to bias in favor of those ideals. Gambrill (2012) links the woozle effect to the processes that create pseudoscience. Gambrill and Reiman (2011) also link it with more deliberate propaganda techniques; they also identify introductory phrases like "Every one knows ...", "It is clear that ...", "It is obvious that ...", "It is generally agreed that ..." as alarm bells that what follows might be a Woozle line of reasoning.