Image restoration theory

Introduced by William Benoit, image restoration theory outlines strategies that can be employed to restore image in an event where reputation has been damaged. Image restoration theory can be applied as an approach for understanding personal or organizational crisis situations.

Benoit outlines this theory in Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies.

Two components must be present in a given attack to the image of an individual or organization:

Image restoration theory is grounded in two fundamental assumptions.

Perception is fundamental to image restoration, as the accused actor will not engage in a defensive strategy unless the perception exists that he is at fault. The actor who committed the wrongful act must decide on the strategy of best course based on their specific situation. Factors such as credibility, audience perceptions, and the degree of offensiveness of the act must be taken into account.

The theory of image restoration builds upon theories of apologia and accounts. Apologia is a formal defense or justification of an individual’s opinion, position, or actions, and an account is a statement made by an individual or organization to explain unanticipated or transgressive events.

Benoit claims that these treatments of image restoration focus on identifying options rather than prescribing solutions. He grounds image restoration theory on a comprehensive literature review of apologia and accounts theories.

Specific influences of image restoration theory include Rosenfield’s (1968) theory of analog, Ware and Linkugel's (1973) theory of apologia;Kenneth Burke's (1970) theory of goals and purification; Ryan's (1982) kategoria and apologia; Scott and Lyman's (1968) analysis of accounts; Goffman’s (1967) remedial moves; Schonbach's (1980) updated analysis of Scott and Lyman’s (1968) theory; and Schlenker’s (1980) analysis of impression management and accounts.

Provocation: the actor may claim that the act was committed in response to another wrongful act.
Defeasibility: the actor pleads a lack of knowledge or control about important factors related to the offensive act
Make an excuse based on accidents: the actor may make an excuse for factors beyond their control
Suggest the action was justified based on good intentions: the actor asks not to be held fully responsible based on their good, rather than evil motives in committing the act.

Bolstering: used to mitigate the negative effects by strengthening the audience’s positive idea of the accused. They may remind the audience of previous good acts or good reputation.
Minimization: attempts convince the audience that the act in question is less serious as it appears.
Differentiation: the act is distinguished from other more offensive acts to lessen the audience’s negative feelings by comparison.
Transcendence: the act is placed in a broad context to place it in a different, less offensive frame of reference.
Attacking accuser: the actor attacks their accusers, to question the credibility of the source of the accusations
Compensation: the actor offers to redress the victims of their action to offset negative feelings towards them.

...
Wikipedia