A Theory of Image Restoration
The assumptions of this theory are that (1) communication is best thought of as a goal-directed
activity and (2) maintaining a positive reputation is one of the central goals.
Communication is a Goal-Directed Activity: A communicator may have multiple goals and some
may not be compatible with each other. In other words, to accomplish one goal, another may
have to be left unmet. But we try to achieve goals that are important to us and work with the best
mix possible for us….to ensure they are not incompatible. Sometimes our goals are vague, illformed or unclear. To the extent that the goal is salient to communicators, they will pursue that
goals by enacting behaviors that they believe will likely achieve the goal and at a tolerable cost to
themselves.
Additionally, this theory claims that the basic concept of image restoration is that
maintaining a favorable image is of great importance. And we need some strategies to help us
maintain that image, because invariably we make mistakes that put our image under scrutiny and
subject to attack. Sometimes a shortage of limited resources (time, money, space, etc.) makes
us vulnerable to attack. And sometimes events beyond our control can prevent us from meeting
our obligations. And then sometimes we just make mistakes; either honest ones on by our own
self-interests. And finally, we may just differ over goals. This may be the most significant as
different goals often create dissention. So…four elements will insure actual or perceived wrongdoing in human behavior: (1) limited resources; (2) external events; (3) human error, and (4)
conflicting goals.
When we are faced with damage to our image for whatever reason, we look to repair it.
Maintaining high ethos has long been recognized as fundamental to our reputation.
Image Restoration Discourse:
Since communication is a goal-directed activity, it focuses on one particular goal in
discourse: restoring or protecting one’s reputation. This may not be the only goal or the most
important goal, but it is one of the central goals of communication.
Because our image/reputation is important to us, when attacked we will defend
ourselves; take action to alleviate the concern. This happens when (a) an act occurred which is
undesirable and (b) we are responsible for that act. But your reputation will only be at risk if the
audience believes both of those conditions are true, and only if you believe the salient (personally
important) audience perceives the charges to be true. If the audience is convinced or believes
that you are responsible for the wrongful act, the your reputation will suffer. We are unlikely to
take any action to restore our image/reputation if we have doubts that that our primary audience
believes we have committed some breach. In short, if we think we’re in the clear from our acts,
we won’t apologize or offer some other strategy to restore our image.
Image Restoration Strategies:
 Denial—you may deny that an act occurred or that you were not the one who did it; mistaken
identity is the idea here. Either way, if the audience accepts this claim, then your identity is
improved and you are absolved of any culpability. A popular defense strategy for criminals is
to offer an alibi; which is to basically have another witness say you were somewhere else and
could not have committed the breach. But when we deny that we committed a wrongful act,
any audience will wonder, “well, who did then?” As a result, the accused may choose to shift
the blame to another or others. This might be more effective than merely denying you did
something for two reasons: First, it provides a target for the audience to aim at; and second,
it answers the basic question of “who did it?”
 Evading Responsibility—if you can’t deny performing the act, you might be able to evade or
reduce the apparent responsibility for it. There are four variations on this general theme
posited by the research team of Scott & Lyman who discuss scapegoating, defeasibility,
accident, and motives/intentions.
(1)
Scapegoating or provocation—used as way of claiming the act was performed in
response to another wrongful act, which understandably provoked the offensive act
in question. As long as our audience agrees that we were provoked or goaded into
(2)
(3)
(4)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
doing the “wrong” thing, our image can be either totally or at least partly restored.
Defeasibility—is used when we plead that a lack of information or control over
important factors in the situation lead to the wrongful act. In essence, because we
didn’t know or had no control over an issue, we should be not be held fully
responsible for the act. If this worked, if accepted by the audience, should reduce
the perceived responsibility of the accused for the failure event.
Accidents—we tend to hold others responsible only for factors they can reasonably
be expected to control. Here the accused does not deny that the offense occurred ,
but rather attempts to provide information that may reduce his/her apparent
responsibility for the offensive act.
Motives or Intentions—here the wrongful act is not denied, yet the audience is asked
not to hold the person fully responsible because it was done with good, rather than
evil intentions. People who do bad while trying to do good are usually not blamed as
much as those who intend to do bad from the start.
Reducing Offensiveness—someone accused of misbehavior may attempt to reduce the
degree of ill feeling experienced by the audience. The six tactics to do this are bolstering,
minimization, differentiation, transcendence, attacking one’s accuser, and compensation.
Bolstering—used to mitigate the negative effects of the wrongful act by strengthening the
audience’s positive effect for the person. Specifically, the person accused of doing wrong
will try to show how their positive traits or positive actions they have taken in the past that
hopefully will lessen the mistakes made now. This works best if the positive traits or
actions appear to be relevant to the accusations or suspicions surrounding the
misbehavior.
Minimization—the accused tries to minimize the negative effects associated with the
wrong act by attempting to show that the misbehavior or act is not as bad as initially
thought or perceived by the audience. If an audience changes its opinion that the act
was not so bad after all, then the person’s image is restore (to some degree).
Differentiation—in this case the person attempts to distinguish the act performed from
other similar but less desirable actions. So in comparison, the wrongful act may appear
less offensive to the audience. This may have the effect of lessening the audience’s
negative feeling toward the person and the wrongful act performed.
Transcendence—places the act into a different, broader context. Or even just a different
context can work as well. For example, Robin Hood might suggest that his actions were
not really stealing or theft but rather assistance to the poor and down-trodden. So the
person accused of wrong-doing may direct our attention to other allegedly higher values
to justify the behavior in question. Another example could be a police officer justifies
illegally planting evidence on a defendant as the only way to protect society from a
danger but clever criminal who has evaded arrest and conviction. This positive context
may lessen the perceived offensiveness of the act and help improve the person’s
reputation.
Attacking the accusers—if the credibility of the source of the accusations can be reduced,
the damage to one’s image from those accusations may be diminished. If the accuser is
also a victim to the wrongful act, the apologist might create the impression that the victim
deserved what he got! And attacking the person who launched the accusations may also
divert attention away from the actual act, itself.
Compensation—in this case the person reimburses the victim to help offset the negative
feeling arising from the wrongful act. This would be done in goods, services, money, etc.
In short, compensation functions as a bribe. If the accuser accepts our inducement and it
has sufficient value, the negative effect form the undesirable act may be outweighed,
restoring reputation.
None of these 6 tactics for decreasing offensiveness denies that the person actually committed
the acts. Nor do they try to diminish the person’s responsibility for the act. But what they do
attempt to reduce the unfavorable feelings toward the person by the audience involved, and
thereby increase the esteem for the person by decreasing their (the audience’s) negative feelings
about the act.

Corrective Action—This attempts to restore image by trying to correct the problem. This
can be done by either restoring the situation to the state of affairs before the objectionable act
was performed; and/or promising to “mend one’s ways” and make changes to prevent this
from happening again. An apology with this might be helpful but it is not necessary (like
Johnson & Johnson did with the Tylenol deaths in the 1980s. The difference between this
and compensation (discussed earlier), is that corrective action addresses the actual source
of injury (offering to rectify past damage and/or prevent future injury or recurrence), while
compensation consists of a gift designed to counterbalance, rather than to correct the injury.

Mortification—the accused simply admits being guilty or responsible for the wrongful act and
asks forgiveness. If the audience believes the apology is sincere, we may pardon the
wrongful act. It may be wise to couple this strategy with plans to correct (or prevent
recurrence of) the problem. But this may be done independently.
Bottom line: the actor; the one who committed the wrongful acts must decide which strategy to
employ based on their own credibility, the audience’s perceptions, and the degree of seriousness
of the act, itself.