Accounts, Excuses and Apologies: Theory of Image Restoration
Introduction: Apologies and excuses are a basis part of human behavior. We often have to
restore our reputations for a number of reasons. First, the reality of scarce resources means we
will always be in competition with others over tangible and intangible goods and that invokes the
ire in others. Second, circumstances beyond our control sometimes make it impossible for us to
fulfill our responsibilities. Third, we make mistakes. Sometimes due to honest misunderstandings
but sometimes due to self-interests we know are wrong. And fourth, as people we often have
different priorities from others and such differences can produce conflict with competing goals.
When our behavior fails to conform to expected norms we must account for our actions.
We commonly use excuses, justifications, denial, or concessions.
Attacks on our reputations or images can be very serious and we are often compelled to
respond in some fashion. We will sometimes offer verbal responses to our damaged reputation.
We may employ image restoration strategies and discourse to restore ourselves in others’ eyes.
One strategy for avoiding blame is to deny the breach. Flat out saying that you didn’t do
something is a common defense. If the audience accepts the claim that the accusation is false,
damage to the person’s reputation from the attack should be diminished, if not eradicated.
Sometimes people will deny activity and then shift the blame onto someone else—who they claim
is the truly guilty party. Like above, if the audience accepts the claim that someone else is
responsible, then image is usually restored.
A second strategy for dealing with criticism is to respond in kind by attacking the
accusers. The goal here is to have this counter-attack undermine the credibility and impact of the
accusations. This can help restore the accused’s image. And this may also help shift the
audience’s attention away from the alleged wrong-doing of the original target to new prey.
Sometimes charges are hard or impossible to deny. If the injury from the offensive act is not as
serious or as damaging as initially perceived, the damage to the accused should be limited as
well.
A third strategy for dealing with charges of wrong-doing is to apologize for the
misconduct. It is possible for those who commit wrongful acts to attempt to repair their reputation
with a sincere apology. And in some instances our apology might include action to correct the
problem; to right the wrong. The accused wants to create the image that the wrongful acts will
not occur again and the person responsible for the act is no longer in a position to commit such
an offense again. Such corrective action can help restore one’s reputation.
In short, defensive utterances like justifications, excuses, and apologies are persuasive
attempts to reshape another’s beliefs, to change their beliefs that the act in question was
wrongful, or to shift their attribution of responsibility for that act.