2024/12/16 by Traci Hong, Zilu Tang, Jiaxi Wu +3 · 1 voice
Decision Sciences · Social Sciences · #Academic integrity and plagiarism #Ethics in Business and Education #Misinformation and Its Impacts
paper · doi:10.1080/10810730.2024.2427943
openalex publication_date 2024/12/16 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
= 265,326) tested for differences in CDC sentiment across four stages: 1) baseline; 2) CDC guidance change; 3) CDC retraction of the prior guidance change; and 4) CDC reversion to a tempered form of the initial guidance change. The results show that sentiment toward the CDC increased from Time 1 to Time 2, then decreased for Time 3 with the "posted in error" retraction, but then increased for Time 4 back to a level similar to Time 2. That public perceptions of the CDC could improve after these changes in scientific guidance may be attributed to its self-report of the retraction and reporting that the retraction was a result of unintentional error. This study connects theories of reputation management and trust repair with the growing empirical research on retractions of published scientific research to provide a theoretical explanation for how a major public health organization can mitigate damage to its reputation in the short term.