Apologia Theory

Apologia theory, or theories of apology, was developed from rhetorical theory. It describes a specific form, class, or genre of communication behaviors and messages that occur after a crisis or following an accusation of wrongdoing. The accusation of wrongdoing may involve an individual, group, or organization. An apology is a general expression of regret and remorse and often includes a request for forgiveness. These communication behaviors seek to explain what happened and improve, repair, or restore a damaged image or reputation. Theories of apology are associated with crisis communication, public relations, and political communication. This entry describes several different theories of apology.

As theories, these frameworks seek to explain phenomena, predict outcomes, and inform practice. Apology theories explain when apologetic messages are likely to be offered and by whom, and what form the messages will take. They also help explain which strategies of apology will likely be successful under what circumstances. In some cases, theories of apology have been designed to describe forms of communication that go beyond a simple apology.

B. L. Ware and Wil A. Linkugel were among the first communication scholars to describe apology as a distinct type of public address. Their theory was developed from an examination of a variety of political speeches as well as arguments made in courtrooms. Their rhetorical theory of apology was based on an earlier theory of belief-dilemma developed by psychologist Robert Abelson that described four strategies: (1) denial, (2) bolstering, (3) differentiation, and (4) transcendence. Denial may involve a simple claim that the person being accused didn’t do what is claimed. Bolstering is designed to reinforce an image so that accusations seem less plausible. Differentiation involves changing the perception of the particular action that requires apology by distinguishing it from other acts. Finally, transcendence is a strategy using abstraction to consider the act within a larger context or perspective.

Halford Ross Ryan described kategoria (“speeches of attack”) and apologia (“speeches of apology and defense”) as linked forms of rhetoric. Understanding apologetic discourse required the rhetorical critic to also understand the speech of attack because the apology is a response to the attack.

William Benoit’s theory is the most developed of the rhetorical theories. He first described his formulation as a theory of image restoration and later renamed it a theory of image repair. He suggested that simply restoring the image may not be possible or, in many cases, desirable. Image repair theory involved a reordering of earlier theories into five categories of strategies: (1) denial, (2) evading responsibility, (3) reducing offensiveness, (4) corrective action, and (5) mortification. He described two forms of denial: (1) simple denial and (2) shifting blame. Evading responsibility includes giving as excuses provocation, being pushed to do something, defeasibility, not having sufficient information, and accident (that the act was unintended). Reducing offensiveness, the third category, includes bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence. Corrective action involves making amends. Finally, mortification involves admitting wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness.

W. Timothy Coombs’s situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) is grounded in psychological theories of attribution and is more in line with the social sciences than with rhetorical approaches to discourse. In addition, SCCT is explicitly described as a theory of crisis communication and thus focuses on attacks directed toward organizations. SCCT is used within the context of public relations and is widely applied to cases of corporate accidents and misdeeds. This theory seeks to match specific apologetic strategies to the conditions of the attack, including the level of threat, the crisis type, the history, and prior relationships. SCCT, therefore, can be understood as a contingency theory in that the appropriate response is contingent on the conditions of the crisis.

SCCT organizes strategies into four general clusters or postures of defense: (1) denial strategies, (2) diminishment strategies, (3) rebuilding strategies, and (4) bolstering strategies. As with earlier theories, denial strategies remove the connection between the accusation and the organization being accused of wrongdoing. Diminishment strategies are designed to reduce the perception that the action was caused wholly or in part by the target of accusations. These may involve, for example, shifting or diffusing blame. Third, rebuilding strategies improve the reputation, and finally, bolstering strategies seek to improve the relationships between the accused organization and its stakeholders. Organizations may use multiple strategies or combine strategies in formulating their responses. An organization, for example, may diminish its role in a crisis while seeking to bolster its reputation.

According to SCCT, a critical step in responding to a threat is to evaluate the reputational threat by assessing crisis type, crisis history, and prior reputation. Three major categories based on the level of responsibility for the crisis types are described: (1) the organization may be a victim, (2) the event may be an accident, or (3) the crisis may be caused by intentional acts. Crisis history concerns previous events that may have occurred, and prior reputation concerns the reputational resource available. These elements contribute to the perceived degree of responsibility for the event. If an organization has been associated with previous crises and has a negative reputation, there will be less stakeholder support. After considering the context, it is possible to select a crisis response strategy. SCCT describes 13 possible responses to a reputational threat following a crisis. The appropriate strategy is a function of the level of real or perceived responsibility for the crisis, the level of reputational resources available to the organization, and the level of consistency between strategies.

Theories of apology have been criticized as emphasizing communication strategies and approaches that may be considered deceptive and manipulative. Both Benoit and Coombs have argued that their theories do not promote deception and have advocated for honesty in responses to accusations of wrongdoing and to crises.