below are the instructions for this assignment. I’ve provided the links to the three apologies I chose to be evaluated as well.
Evaluation of Apologies (100 points | 4-5 Pages):
The overall goal of this assignment is to compare and evaluate different apology strategies and
determine whether they are effective for the type of crisis. Guided by theory, you will write a 4-5
page evaluation (Double-spaced, Times New Roman 12pt, 1 inch margins, APA style for in-text
citations) in which you compare and evaluate 3 different apologies from 3 different
organizations. First, choose 3 apology videos from D2L (“Apologies Tab”). Second, using
reliable online sources, research the crisis situations that involve the 3-apologies (what
happened? when did it happen? why did it happen? who apologizes? what does he/she apologize
for? who was affected?). Third, read the document titled “Theories for Evaluation of Apologies”
from D2L. Finally, follow the rubric below when writing your evaluation. Let the theories guide
your comparisons and evaluations and provide examples from the videos to support them.
Crisis Theories for Evaluations of Apologies:
Instructions
This document discusses crisis theories as analytic tools for your evaluation of apology
assignment. Use the crisis theories below to (1) identify, (2) compare, and (3) evaluate the
strategies used in the apologies.
The basic structure of apologies includes:
1. (Admission of guilt/responsibility)
2. Expression of concern and regret
3. (Asking for forgiveness)
4. Authenticity
5. (Promise not to repeat the crisis/corrective action)
A full apology includes all 5 steps and is appropriate for preventable crises, when the
organization intentionally caused the crisis. A partial apology is typically just an expression of
concern and regret. This is due to legal liability. Accepting responsibility often results in lawsuits
related to the crisis. The expression of concern and regret do not carry the serious liabilities. A
person must be careful when using the term apology. That is why full apology is specified and
treated as separate from an expression of regret and concern. Sometimes crisis managers
combine apologies with other strategies, explore the strategies below to see if the videos you
evaluate also include other strategies.
Corporate Apologia
Corporate apologia was the earliest communication-based approach to crises. Apologia is a
rhetorical concept involving self-defense. The origins of apologia flow from political
communication and the strategies politicians employed when they would defend their public
character from attacks. The essential elements of apologia were an actual attack on someone’s
public character, which could include accusations of wrongdoing, and a defense of that character.
The four strategies that could be utilized in apologia are denial (people claim they are not
involved in any wrongdoing), shifting blame/scapegoating (people claim others are
responsible) bolstering (the audience is reminded of the good things the people had done),
differentiation (remove the action from its negative context), and transcendence (place the
action in a new, broader context that is more favorable) (Ware & Linkugel, 1973).
Strategies: Characteristics: Examples:
Denial The organization claims
there is no crisis
(“Nothing to see here”);
or that despite certain
events a crisis does not
exist for the organization
“I never got a bad grade in this class. Yes, I came in late for
the final exam, but that doesn’t mean anything”.
In 2015, Volkswagen has denied allegations that VW’s
finance head Hans Dieter Poetsch knew about the
carmaker’s emissions scandal (diesel gate) almost three
months before US authorities made it public in September
of 2015.
Dr. Marco Ehrl | marcoehrl.com 2
Bolstering: The organization aims at
strengthening the
audience’s positive
feelings toward the
accused to reduce the
negative feelings arising
from the offensive act.
“I am a diligent and disciplined student. I always work
hard. Have I ever not worked hard in the past? Remember
when I became the valedictorian in High School?”.
In the 1990s, Dow Corning, a supplier of silicones, was
criticized for manufacturing dangerous breast implants. The
company attempted to bolster its image by showing a lot of
concern and support for women: “our overriding
responsibility is to the women using silicone implants”.
Differentiation:
(Separates two
things>>Opposite of
Transcendence)
The organization
distinguishes the
offensive act from
similar but more
offensive actions. Using
a comparison to reduce
the perceived
offensiveness of an act.
“At least earning a bad grade in this class is not as bad as
failing your SAT”.
“At least I did not cheat to get this grade, which would be
much worse than getting a bad grade”.
Reynolds Tobacco Company attempted to differentiate the
addictiveness of cigarettes by suggesting: “cigarette
smoking is more like drinking coffee and eating chocolate
then like using cocaine, heroin, or any truly addictive hard
drug”
Between 1990 and 1992, Sears overcharged customers by
doing unnecessary work at its auto repair shops. Sears
argued that the acts labeled unneeded or unnecessary
repairs were actually preventative maintenance. Clearly, its
actions sound much less offensive when understood as
preventative maintenance instead of as fraud.
Transcendence:
(Brings two things
together>>Opposite
of Differentiation)
The organization puts
the offensive act into a
bigger context that
lessens the offensiveness
of the act.
“I did not really get a bad grade. Instead, I got an
opportunity for self-assessment and self-improvement”.
“Getting a bad grade is another way for me to learn from
my mistakes and become a better human being for my
community”.
In response to consumer criticism regarding delays,
American Airlines said: “While American Airlines is
concerned with consumers, it is far more important to focus
on safety, on the preservation of life, and on avoiding
threats to national security”.
Dionisopolous and Vibbert (1988) presented the first published work that argued corporations
could engage in apologia thereby creating the concept of corporate apologia. Their position was
that corporations have public characters, what we would term reputations, just like individuals.
Reputations can be defined as how people perceive the organization. Reputations are evaluative
and are created from the accumulated information a person has about an organization (Carroll &
McCombs, 2003; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004; Meijer, 2004). Moreover, corporate character-
reputation can be attacked and require defense the same as individual character can. A crisis is an
example of wrongdoing that would threaten the corporate character-reputation and require
defense. Crisis communication strategies can be used to defend the corporate character-
reputation.
Hearit (1994, 1995, 2006) is the name most commonly associated with corporate apologia.
Hearit’s research refined and expanded our understanding of corporate apologia. Hearit argued
that a crisis was a threat to an organization’s social legitimacy. Social legitimacy is the
consistency between stakeholder and organizational values. Stakeholders will oppose
organizations that they do not believe possess social legitimacy; hence, a crisis can be a serious
threat if it erodes social legitimacy. Social legitimacy can be viewed as an element of reputation.
Dr. Marco Ehrl | marcoehrl.com 3
Reputation does include expectations of how organizations should behave (Fombrun & van Riel,
2004). Corporate apologia serves to protect reputations by restoring social legitimacy.
Hearit (1995, 2006) integrated dissociations into corporate apologia. Dissociations occur when
an idea is divided into two parts. Why should this matter to crisis communication? In crisis
communication, the dissociation tries to decouple the organization and the crisis (wrongdoing).
Crisis responsibility is the link between the organization and the crisis. Organizations suffer
harm from a crisis because stakeholders judge them as being responsible for the crisis. A
dissociation tries to redefine the crisis situation so that the organization is viewed as less
responsible for the crisis. Less crisis responsibility should reduce stakeholder anger and hostility
about the crisis (Hearit, 1995). Dissociations protect reputations by reducing the threat posed by
the crisis. A dissociation creates the perception that the crisis is a limited threat to social
legitimacy and reputation.
There are three dissociation strategies: opinion–knowledge, individual–group, and act–
essence. The opinion–knowledge dissociation attempts to remove any connection between the
organization and the crisis. The crisis managers claim that people only think the organization is
associated with the crisis. When people examine the facts (knowledge), they realize the
organization has no connection to the crisis. The individual–group dissociation seeks to reduce
the crisis responsibility attributed to an organization by identifying a subset of the organization
as responsible for the crisis. People should just blame one or a small group of people in the
organization for the crisis, not the entire organization. The organization then takes actions to
punish the bad employees and that should be enough to satisfy stakeholders—reduce stakeholder
anger toward the organization. The act–essence dissociation admits the crisis did occur and that
the organization is responsible. However, managers argue that the crisis was an isolated incident
and does not represent the true organization. Stakeholders should forgive the overall “good”
organization for a momentary lapse (Hearit, 1995).
