Image Restoration Theory

Image restoration theory was crafted to understand the communication options available for those, whether organizations or persons, who face threats to their reputation. This theory is particularly relevant to crisis response. It integrated (and elaborated) previous work on apologia by B. L. Ware and Wil A. Linkugel (1973); on accounts, by scholars such as Marvin H. Scott and Sanford M. Lyman (1968); and on guilt redemption, by scholars such as Kenneth Burke (1970).

A person's image or reputation is extremely important. Accusations or suspicions of wrongdoing have a variety of adverse effects. Corporations can lose business, politicians can lose support and elections, people can lose friends and attract hostility; and at times legal or other sanctions can be applied. Because credibility is important to persuasion, threats to image can damage one's ability to communicate effectively. People and organizations have important reasons to maintain a favorable image.

Image repair messages are needed whenever an image is threatened. You must determine (1) what accusation(s) or suspicion(s) threaten the image, and (2) who is or are the most important audience(s). You cannot hope to successfully counteract an accusation unless you know the nature of the accusation. Vague rumors or whispers may arouse your concern, but you must know the problem to repair it. If there are multiple accusations, you must know them all to deal with them all (and to avoid ignoring an allegation). The audience must be kept in mind here. If the audience is not aware of an accusation, that accusation can safely be ignored (unless you think they will hear it later). In fact, the act of responding to an accusation will inform your audience of a potential problem. The accusations that really matter are those known to your audience.

Identifying the audience is important. For example, consider a company accused of polluting the environment. There are many potential audiences in this situation: the accusers (environmentalists and/or reporters), people who live near the polluting facility, customers, stockholders, and government regulators. The company must decide which audience matters (it may need to prioritize several audiences). First, some groups have more power over the company. It should be obvious that shareholders cannot be ignored. Depending on the nature of the alleged pollution and laws relevant to the actions, government regulators may be another group that cannot be ignored. Second, these groups have different interests. Stockholders would surely be concerned about the company's profitability; government regulators would presumably be most interested in the level of pollution and the relevant law. Environmental groups might want the company to reduce pollution to zero; however, the law is probably not that extreme and completely eliminating pollution may be prohibitively expensive (and possibly technically impossible). So, the company must decide which audience is most important (or it must prioritize audiences), and which audiences to try to persuade.

It is important to ascertain what the audience knows. For example, if the company considers government regulators to be important, the key question is whether they consider the alleged problem serious enough to warrant action. If regulators believe pollution is at acceptable levels, the company may not need to develop messages for them (or perhaps just messages to reassure them). On the other hand, if regulators think that there is a serious violation of the law, the company will need to deal forcefully with that concern.

...