Image restoration theory

Basic concepts of image restoration theory

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

1. The accused is held responsible for an action, and

1. the act is considered offensive.

Image restoration theory is grounded in two fundamental assumptions.

1. Communication is a goal directed activity. Communicators may have multiple goals that are not collectively compatible, but people try to achieve goals that are most important to them at the time, with reasonable cost.
2. Maintaining a favorable reputation is a key goal of communication. Because face, image, or reputation is valued as important, individuals or organizations are motivated to take action when it is compromised.

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.

Theoretical framework

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.

Case studies by Benoit

Based on several case studies by Benoit and his colleagues, Coombs (2006) cited a number of prescriptive recommendations for the use of crisis strategies (Benoit, 1995; Brinson & Benoit, 1996, 1999). 1) The dominant recommendation is for an organization to immediately admit fault/accept responsibility, 2) Corrective actions should be taken and an organization need to publicize those actions, 3) Bolstering, which is directly related to the charge, is the most effective strategy, and 4) If the organization was innocent, Denial is an effective strategy. “Image restoration theory is the dominant line of research generating these recommendations. The most common recommendations suggest using the mortification and corrective action crisis response when an organization is guilty.” (Coombs, 2006, p. 191)

Here representative case studies by Benoit and his colleagues are introduced.

Limitation of Image repair theory – Coombs

Even though image restoration theory represented the use of mortification (accepting responsibility) and corrective action, there might be alternative recommendation. For instance, his studies using situational crisis communication theory found no support for always using mortification and corrective action. Also, the mortification and corrective action strategies had no greater effect than a simple bolstering strategy in a criminal violation crisis such as racial discrimination (Coombs, 2006).

Additionally, in terms of the limitation of case studies in image restoration theory, Coombs (2006) argued that closer scrutiny with insights should be taken before offering strategies to crisis managers as facts. In order to gaining additional insights into the use of crisis responses, he pointed out many similar crises should be examined for patterns of strategy use and effect and “a large number of cases could be coded and subjected to loglinear analysis in order to identify patterns.” (Coombs, 2006, p. 191-192)

The Cola Wars

Coca Cola and Pepsi’s longstanding competition reached its peak when Coke and Pepsi placed advertisements in Nation’s Restaurant News with unmistakable attacks from both sides.

Benoit analyses advertisements from both companies from 1990-1992 to address the persuasive strategies of Coke and Pepsi to determine recommendations for image restoration following an attack. He advises that companies should avoid making false claims, provide adequate support for claims, and develop themes throughout a campaign, and avoid arguments that might backfire.