COMMUNICATION REPORTS, Volume 10, No. 2, Summer 1997

Appropriateness and Effectiveness of ImageRepair Strategies

WILLIAM L, BENOIT and SHIRLEY DREW

This study investigates utterances designed to restore a damaged reputation. A typology ofimage repair strategies is described and perceptions of the appropriateness and effectiveness ofthese strategies in face-threatening interpersonal situations are investigated. Specifically, thisstudy helps to correct a limitation of previous studies. Rather than compare accounts at a generallevel (excuses, justifications) using examples of particular strategies, this study comparedfourteen specific image restoration strategies. Mortification (apologies, concessions) andcorrective action were perceived as more effective and appropriate than other strategies.Bolstering, minimization, provocation, and denial were rated as least effective and appropriate.

• A recurrent mode of discourse at-tempts to restore face, image, or reputation after suspected wrong-doing.Brown and Levinson (1978) explain that "people can be expected to defendtheir faces if threatened" (p. dG). As Cupach and Metts (1990) conclude, "asan embarrassing incident becomes increasingly offensive to others, theembarrassed actor is obligated to redress the face of others in order tomitigate negative attributions" (p. 341), Goffman (1967) observes that theaccount process moves through four phases: challenge or reproach, offeringor account, acceptance (by the recipient), and thanks (from the personproviding the account). Many researchers (e.g., Cody & McLaughlin, 1990;Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Gonzales, 1992; Hale, 1987; Holtgraves, 1989;McCleary, 1983; McLaughlin, Cody, & French, 1990; McLaughlin, Cody, &Rosenstein, 1983; Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Riordan, Marlin, &Gidwani, 1988; Riordan, Marlin, & Kellogg, 1983; Schonbach, 1990; Schwartz,Kane, Joseph, & Tedeschi, 1978; Shields, 1979) have studied the fourth phase,exploring the extent to which the nature of the account influences thelikelihood that the recipient will accept the account.

While these studies are individually helpful, our understanding of howaccounts function to restore one's image is unfortunately hampered byconcerns that limit comparison of the results of these studies. We begin bybriefly reviewing the literature on image repair strategies (accounts) in orderto identify our research problem.

William L. Benoit (Ph.D. Wayne State University, 1979) is a Professor in the Department ofCommunication at University of Missouri and Shirley Drew (Ph.D. Bowling Green StateUniversity, 1985) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at PittsburghState University. Professor Benoit would like to acknowledge the support of the University ofMissouri Research Board and the Summer Research Fellowship programs for their generoussupport of this research.

154 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

Previous Research

An accusation (challenge, reproach) has two parts: the target is alleged tohave committed an act (blame or responsibility) and that act is characterizedas reprehensible (offensiveness). Research on image repair focuses ongeneral image repair strategies: excuses reduce responsibility for the act,justifications reduce the offensiveness of the act, denials (or refusals) denycommitting the alleged offensive act, and apologies (or concessions) expressremorse for committing the act. While research on the effects of accounts hasbeen rich and rewarding, it is difficult to compare results from differentstudies for four reasons.

First, there is no generally accepted typology of account forms. Differentstudies use different typologies as their departure point. Lists of options varyfrom that of Sykes and Matza (1957) with five options, to the theory of Scottand Lyman (1968) with ten kinds of accounts, to Schonback's (1990) list ofapproximately 150 options. Thus, some writers use a very general typology(with 2-A general categories: excuse, justification, refusal, concession), whileothers proliferate over hundreds of specific categories, Benoit (1995) arguesthat his list of fourteen image repair strategies is a desirable compromise witha moderate level of abstraction: it includes fourteen options so as to berelatively exhaustive (and to permit comparison with other studies), but it iseasier to conceptualize and more practical to study than, say, Schonbach's(1990) typology.

Second, research on image repair strategies (accounts) tends to includeonly selected strategies. For example, Riordan, Marlin, and Kellogg (1983)compared excuse and justification. Riordan, Marlin, and Gidwani (1988)studied excuse, justification, and denial. Shields (1979) investigated excuse,justification, and confession. Hale (1987) examined excuse, justification,concession, and apology, McCleary (1983) investigated denial and bolstering.While each study is a useful contribution to the literature, none included thesame options. This piecemeal approach inevitably makes integration of thevarious results problematic.

Third, as Holtgraves (1989) points out, specific verbal image repairutterances (tactics) are used in studies, but conclusions are drawn at a moregeneral level (strategies). For example. Hale (1987) found justification to beeffective, whereas Holtgraves (1989) found justification to be ineffective.However, Holtgraves operationalized justification as denying barm (onetactic), while Hale operationalized it as appealing to bigber loyalties (adifferent tactic). Given obvious differences between these tactics of justifica-tion, it would not be surprising to find different effects. Nevertheless, studiestend to generalize from specific tactics as if they reflect the entire generalcategory or strategy.

Finally, it is important to note that some research is concerned with theproduction of accounts. Here, the subjects invent accounts (or recallaccounts they used in the past). The primary purpose of this research is todiscover how actors (i.e., sources) try to account for problematic events (e.g..

SUMMER, 1997 155

Cupach & Metts, 1990, 1992; Garrett, Bradford, Meyers, & Becker, 1989;Gonzales, Pederson, Manning, & Wetter, 1990; Gonzales, Manning, &Haugen, 1992; McLaughlin, Cody, & O'Hair, 1983; McLaughlin, Cody, &Rosenstein, 1983; Modigliani, 1971; Metts & Cupach, 1989; Schlenker &Darby, 1981; Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987), Although thisresearch makes a useful contribution to our understanding of the accountingprocess, it relates to an earlier phase (offering) of the account sequence. Theconcern of the present investigation is with the acceptance phase, orreception of accounts. The primary purpose of this type of investigation isunderstanding how recipients (i.e., audiences) react to accounts they receive.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study is twofold. First, we proposea typology of account strategies designed to be relatively exhaustive whileavoiding the detailed lists of accounts that are impractical to study. Weinclude fourteen basic verbal image repair forms (some strategies, likemortification, have no subforms; while others, like evade responsibility, haveseveral specific tactics). This typology was derived from the literature incommunication and sociology, and has been used in research on publicimage restoration efforts (Benoit, 1995),

Second, this study employs specific repair tactics (when there aresubforms) rather than general forms like excuse and justification. Thus, itavoids the problem of generalizing from a specific tactic to a general strategy.We intend our analysis to help clarify the distinction between studies ofaccount production (offering phase) and those like this one concerned withaccount reception (acceptance phase),

A Typology of Image Restoration Strategies

The literature reveals three key approaches to image restoration: Burke(1970), Ware and Linkugel (1973), and Scott and Lyman (1968) (see alsoBeach 1990/1991; Buttny, 1993; Cody & McLaughlin, 1990; or Morris, 1985).Benoit (1995) synthesizes these typologies into a comprehensive model withfive general options: denial, evasion of responsibility, minimization, correc-tive action and mortification. Three of these general strategies have specifictactics. The resulting typology of fourteen specific options provides a balancebetween the extremes of too few options (e,g,, two to four) and too manyoptions (e,g,, over 100), It includes the major forms of image repair but it isnot so extensive as to make empirical research practically impossible,Benoit's typology is described below (see also Table 1).

Denial. One accused of wrong-doing may simply deny that the actoccurred or that he or she committed it. This strategy is sometimes termedrefusal. One may also shift the blame for the offensive act from self to anotherperson, claiming that he or she performed the act.

Evade Responsibility. One may also evade or reduce responsibility for anoffensive act ("excuse"). Provocation suggests that the accused performedthe act in question in response to another, prior, wrongful act, whichunderstandably provoked the undesirable reaction, Defeasibiiity pleads a

156 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

TABLE 1Image Restoration Strategies and Tactics

Strategy Tactic

Denial

Evade Responsibility for Event

Reduce Offensiveness of Event

Corrective ActionMortification

Simple DenialShift Blame

ProvocationDefeasibiiityAccidentGood Intentions

BolsteringMinimizationDifferentiationTranscendenceAttack AccuserCompensation

lack of information or control over events. An excuse based on accidents mayreduce or absolve an actor of responsibility. Finally, we are sometimeswilling to forgive a wrongful act if done with good intentions.

Reduce Offensiveness of Event. A person who is accused of misbehaviormay attempt to reduce the degree of ill feeling associated with the act("justification"). Bolstering may be used to mitigate the negative effects of theact on the actor by strengthening the audience's positive affect for the actor. Itmay be possible to minimize the perceived offensiveness of the act inquestion. The actor may try to differentiate a wrongful act from other lessdesirable, but similar actions. An actor can employ transcendence, attempt-ing to place the act in a larger, more desirable context. It is possible to attackone's accuser, suggesting that the victim deserved what happened to them, tolessen the impact of the attack. Compensation may be made through offers ofpositive reinforcements (cash, goods, services) to help offset the negativefeeling associated with a wrongful act.

Corrective Action. Those accused of wrong-doing may offer to takecorrective action. The speaker may offer to repair existing damages and/or totake steps to prevent recurrence of the offensive act.

Mortification. Finally, the accused may admit the wrongful act and ask forforgiveness ("concession" or "apology"). Mortification may include expres-sions of regret (for one's role in the offensive act, or for the consequences ofthe act, or both), and requests for forgiveness.

Based on the conceptual distinctions among the categories in Benoit'stypology and the findings of previous research (e.g.. Hale, 1987; Riordan,

SUMMER, 1997 157

Madin, & Kellogg, 1983; Riordan, Madin, & Gidwani, 1988; Shields, 1979), weoffer two hypotheses:

HI: There will be significant differences in perceived appropriateness of the fourteen imagerestoration forms.

H2: There will be significant differences in perceived effectiveness of the fourteen imagerestoration forms.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 202 students with a variety of majors enrolled in basiccommunication courses at mid-western universities. Of this total, 99 werewomen and 103 were men; most were freshmen and sophomores (meanage = 19.4 years).

Procedures

Five different face-threatening interpersonal situations were developed'to minimize concerns over language-as-fixed-effect (see Jackson & Jacobs,1983; Jackson, O'Keefe, & Jacobs, 1988; cf Burgoon, Hall, & Pfau, 1991) andenhance the generalizability of the results obtained. Fach of the fourteenimage repair forms was operationalized on all five scenarios (although agiven respondent reacted to each form on only one scenario). The Appendixillustrates one scenario and its image repair utterances.

Respondents were told to assume a friend had engaged in objectionablebehavior and a defensive utterance was attributed to the friend (seeAppendix for examples). Respondents then assessed the remark's appropri-ateness and effectiveness (items measuring each variable were derived fromCanary and Spitzberg, 1987), These two important dimensions of communi-cative competence reflect whether the recipients of the accounts wereoffended or not (appropriateness) and whether the recipients were per-suaded to restore the face of the transgressor (effectiveness).

Participants were instructed to read each scenario and then respond tothe questions while imagining themselves in such a situation.

Because participants rated each of the fourteen forms, a repeatedmeasures analysis of variance was used in the data analysis (a givenrespondent rated eacb of the fourteen forms on one of the five scenarios).The order of the items was varied systematically to avoid order effects.

RESULTS

The first hypothesis was confirmed, indicating that there are differencesin perceived appropriateness of image restoration forms (F = 43.96, p <.0001). The Duncan Multiple Range post hoc test revealed where thesedifferences occurred (see Table 2). The groupings established by the Duncantest were remarkably clean, with two strategies (mortification and corrective

158 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

TABLE 2Appropriateness of Image Restoration Strategies

Image Repair Form Mean Duncan Group

Mortification 5.73 ACorrective Action 5.60 AGood intentions 5.05 BAccident 4.82 B CCompensation 4.74 CDefeasibiiity 4.66 CTranscendence 4.33 DShift Blame 4.32 DDifferentiation 3.95 ESimple denial 3.63 FProvocation 358 FMinimization 340 FBolstering 338 FAttack accuser 3.38 F

TABLE 3Effectiveness of Image Restoration Strategies

Image Repair Form Mean Duncan Group

Mortification 4.24 ACorrective Action 4.10 ACompensation 3.15 BAccident 3.15 BGood intentions 3.09 BTranscendence 307 BDefeasibiiity 2.88 B CShift Blame 2.77 CAttack accuser 2.72 CDifferentiation 2.36 DSimple denial 2.14 D EProvocation 2.13 O EMinimization 2.09 D EBolstering 2.06 E

action) rated as more appropriate than any other forms, and five forms ratedas least appropriate (denial, provocation, minimization, bolstering, andattack accuser). Differentiation was rated as more appropriate than theseaccount forms, and less appropriate than the next most appropriate group(transcendence and shift blame). The only cluster with overlap was thesecond most appropriate grouping— good intentions, accident, compensa-tion, and defeasibiiity—^with good intentions rated as more appropriate thandefeasibiiity.

Analysis for the second hypothesis, on perceived effectiveness of theforms, also detected significant differences {E = 29,95, p < ,0001), The

SUMMER, 1997 159

Duncan Multiple Range post hoc test indicates that mortification andcorrective action were rated as more effective than any other forms (see Table3), We grouped the other forms into two clusters, based on the results of theDuncan test. Differentiation, denial, provocation, minimization, and bolster-ing were perceived as the least effective image restoration strategies, with nodifferences between any of these strategies except differentiation andbolstering. In between these groups were compensation, accident, goodintentions, transcendence, defeasibiiity, shift blame, and attack accuser. Theonly differences here were that the last two tactics (shift blame and attackaccuser) were rated as less effective than the first four tactics in this group,

DISCUSSION

Participants reported clear preferences among the founeen potentialimage restoration utterances. Ratings for appropriateness and effectivenesswere generally consistent. Mortification and corrective action were rated asmore effective and appropriate than any other option. The effectiveness ofapologies is consistent with most of the previous work in this area(Blumstein, et al,, 1974; Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Holtgraves, 1989; Ohbuchi,Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Schwartz, Kane, Joseph, & Tedeschi; cf Hale, 1987).Thus, apologies are likely to be effective in dealing with problematicsituations. If a person is responsible for an offensive act, we expect thatperson to apologize and we are often willing to forgive them when theapology seems sincere. As Cupach and Metts (1990) explain, "mitigating thenegative attributions ascribed by others is essential to restoring one's ownface" (p. 341). Clearly, some strategies are better at accomplishing this goalthan others.

Corrective action was perceived as more effective and appropriate thanmost image restoration options. However, this option is not generallyincluded in typologies of accounts (e,g., Scott & Lyman, 1968) or studied inresearch on evaluations of accounts (it does occur in research on productionof accounts; see, e.g., Cupach & Metts, 1992; Metts & Cupach, 1989). As such,it aptly illustrates the problem discussed above, that most studies of accountreception are incomplete. This is an important and unfortunate oversight inwork on effects of accounts, given the favorable reactions it engenders. Itseems reasonable that an offer to correct (and/or prevent future occurrencesof) the problem could create favorable reactions.

Denial, provocation, minimization, bolstering were reported to be leastappropriate and effective, with differentiation in the least effective groupingand in the second least appropriate grouping. These forms have beenreported to be effective in previous research. For example, Riordan, Marlin,and Gidwani (1988) found denials to be effective; Gonzales (1992) foundexcuses to be effective, as did McLaughlin, Cody, and Rosenstein (1983); andHale (1987) found justifications to be effective. Why were these tacticsperceived to be ineffective in the current study? Two explanations arepossible.

160 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

First, not every instance of, for example, excuse would be equallyeffective. Indeed, McLaughlin, Cody, and French (1990) report that for trafficoffenses denials with evidence/logical reasoning are more effective thandenials that challenge the officer. Thus, particular accounts might differ ineffectiveness from one study to another because they varied in quality.

Second, each study uses a different offense scenario, which couldinfluence the options' effects. For example, if the description of the situationused in a study leads respondents to believe that the accused did commit theoffense, denial cannot be expected to be an effective account. On the otherhand, if the description of the situation leaves doubt as to whether the offenseactually occurred (or whether the accused was responsible for it), then denialmight well be an effective image restoration strategy. Thus, a study's offensescenario could make some accounts appear more or less plausible.

The concern Holtgraves (1989) raised concerning the tendency to testdifferent tactics of excuse and justification, but then generalize to the entirecategory, appears to be justified. Consider the effects of excuse andjustification on appropriateness. This study tested four tactics of excuse(evading responsibility) and six tactics of justification (reducing offensive-ness). Several differences occurred among the various tactics of excuse:provocation differed from defeasibiiity, accident, and good intentions;defeasibiiity differed from good intentions. Likewise, differences occurredamong the various tactics of justification: differentiation, transcendence, andcompensation were significantly different from every other form of justifica-tion; bolstering, minimization, and transcendence were not different fromeach other, but they all differed from the other three forms. Differences werefound on perceived effectiveness as well. Thus, it is a grave mistake to test asingle tactic of excuse or justification and then generalize to the entirestrategy.

What does this study tell us about the dependent variables, effectivenessand appropriateness? First, it is clear that in this data set, these variables arenot totally discrete. While there are some differences in the groupings (e.g,,attack accuser was in the lowest group for appropriateness, but not foreffectiveness), in general, those strategies that were considered appropriatewere also considered effective. Similarly, the strategies that were ratedinappropriate were also rated ineffective. If this relationship holds up in otherresearch, this is good news for those wishing to repair their images: it wouldhave been problematic if the most effective strategies (one's most likely torestore one's face) were the least appropriate (and might have offended theother party).

Finally, evidence suggests that those who attempt to restore their image attimes use multiple image repair forms (Garrett et al., 1989; Holtgraves, 1989;Metts & Cupach, 1989). Some combinations of forms might be more effectiveor appropriate than single forms or than other combinations, A limitation ofthis study is that it did not test combinations; future research ought to do so, Asecond limitation is that we did not assess severity of reproach in our five

SUMMER, 1997 l 6 l

scenarios; McLaughlin, Cody, and O'Hair (1983) suggest that severity ofapproach influences accounting behavior. Future research may wish to varysystematically the severity of reproach,

ENDNOTE

1. The five potentially face-threatening situations employed in this study were: failure topick-up roommate after work, mistake in a card game, failure to clean shared apartment, a coatruined from a spilled drink, and losing another's cassette tape. We included three items on thedependent measure to assess realism. The composite realism scores on all five topics were nearthe mid-point of the scale from 1-7 (Work: 3.45; Cards: 3.07; Mess: 2.38; Spill: 3.31; Tape: 3.09),which was considered satisfactory.

APPENDIXSAMPLE IMAGE RESTORATION UTTERANCES, SPILL SCENARIO

The spill scenario was described on the questionnaire this way: Yourfriend spilled something on your favorite coat. You accuse them of ruiningyour clothes, and your friend replies , One of the following utteranceswas inserted into the blank (without the account label):

Denial. "Don't blame me! I didn't do that."

Shift Blame: "John bumped into me. It wasn't my fault."

Provocation: "If you hadn't yelled at me, I wouldn't have spilled."

Defeasibiiity: "I didn't know that this bottle was full."

Accident: "I slid on the rug. It wasn't my fault."

Good Intentions: "I didn't mean to spill it. I was trying to be careful."

Bolstering: "Don't forget I let you borrow my notes for that class. I have some good qualities."

Minimization: "It's not that bad. When it dries, it will blend in. Even now you can hardly see it."

Differentiation: "At least this coat doesn't have to be dry-cleaned."

Transcendence: "I was trying to be nice and bring you a drink. Lighten up, O.K."

Attack Accuser: "I can't believe you are yelling at me. You ripped my sweater last month. Giveme a break."

Compensation: "It's my fault. I know, I'll take you to a basketball game—will that make up for it?"

Corrective Action: "I'll have your coat cleaned foryou."

Mortification: "I'm sorry, it's my fault."

REFERENCES

Beach, W. A. (1990/1991). Avoiding ownership for alleged wrongdoings. Research on languageand Social Interaction, 24, 1-36.

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies.Albany: State University of New York Press.

Blumstein, P. W., et al. (1974). The honoring of accounts. American Sociological Review 39551-66.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-310).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

162 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

Burke, K. (1970). Rhetoric of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.Burgoon, M., Hall, J., & Pfau, M. (1991). A test of the "Messages-as-fixed-effect fallacy" argument:

Empirical and theoretical implications of design choices. Communication Quarterly, 39,18-34.

Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London: Sage.Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of

conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson

(Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 227-55). Chichester: JohnWiley.

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1990). Remedial processes in embarrassing predicaments. In J. A.Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 323-52). Newbury Park: Sage.

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1992). The effects of type of predicament and embarrassability onremedial responses to embarrassing situations. Communication Quarterly, 40, 146-61.

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children's reactions to apologies./ourna/ of Personalityand Social Psychology, 43, 742-53.

Garrett, D. E., Bradford, J. L., Meyers, R. A., & Becker, J. (1989). Issues management andorganizational accounts: An analysis of corporate responses to accusations of unethicalbusiness practices, fournal of Business Ethics, 8, 507-20.

Goffman, E. (1967). On face work. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior (pp. 5—45).Chicago: Aldine.

Gonzales, M. H. (1992). A thousand pardons: The effectiveness of verbal remedial tactics duringaccount episodes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 133-51.

Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Influencingoffender accounts and anticipated victim responses./ourna/ of Personality and SocialPsychology, 62, 958-71.

Gonzales, M. H., Pederson,J. H., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W. (1990). Pardon my gaffe: Effectsof sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 58, 610-21.

Hale, C. L. (1987). A comparison of accounts: When is a failure not a failure?/o«ma/ of Languageand Social Psychology, 6, 117-32.

Holtgraves, T. (1989). The form and function of remedial moves: Reported use, psychologicalreality, and perceived effectiveness. Journat of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 1—16.

Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design andanalysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9,169-81.

Jackson, S., O'Keefe, D. J., & Jacobs, S. (1988). The search for reliable generalizations aboutmessages: A comparison of research strategies. Human Communication Research, 15,127-42.

McCleary, K. E. (1983). Audience effects of apologia. Communication Quarterly, 31, 12-20.McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & French, K. (1990). Account-giving and the attribution of

responsibility: Impressions of traffic offenders. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.),The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 244—67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Somecontextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9,208-24.

McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Rosenstein, N. E. (1983). Account sequences in conversationbetween strangers. Communication Monographs, 50, 102-25.

Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Situational influence on the use of remedial strategies inembarrassing predicaments. Communication Monographs, 56,151-62.

Modigliani, A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: Testing a theory of embarrass-ment./oMrna/o/"/'ersona/!()'fl«d5ocia//'.syc^o/ogy, 17, 15-24.

Morris, G. H. (1985). The remedial episode as a negotiation of rules. In R. L. Street & J. N. Capella(Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative hehavior (pp. 70-84). Edward Arnold.

Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role inmediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 56, 219-27.

SUMMER, 1997 163

Riordan, C. A., Marlin, N. A., & Kellogg, R. T. (1983). The effectiveness of accounts followingtransgression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 213-19.

Riordan, C. A., Marlin, N. A., & Gidwani, C. (1988). Accounts offered for unethical researchpractices: Effects on the evaluations of acts and actors. Journal of Social Psychology, 128,495-505.

Schlenker, E. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 44, 271-78.

Schonbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, G. S., Kane, T R., Joseph, J. M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). The effects of post-transgression remorse on perceived aggression, attributions of intent, and level ofpunishment. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 293-97.

Scott, M. H., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.Shields, N. M. (1979). Accounts and other interpersonal strategies in a credibility detracting

context. Pacific Sociological Review, 22, 255-72.Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.

American Sociological Review, 22, 664—70.Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic

criticism oi apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-83.Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, F. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of

excuse-giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 316-24.