No Excuses: An Empirical Case for Mortification and Corrective Action

The purpose of this study was to identify quantitatively which image repair strategies are perceived as the most effective, and in what ways mortification and corrective action strengthen an apology, by providing subscales for examination. A total of 534 participants responded to a survey and were randomly assigned to one of 14 groups aligning with one of 14 image repair strategies. An exploratory factor analysis resulted in five subscales, including learning, appropriateness, character, rectification, and sincerity. In nearly all instances, mortification and corrective action led to significantly stronger perceptions of apology. These two strategies are more forthright, open, and show a willingness to make change, and as a result are more palatable to audiences in most circumstances. On the contrary, strategies that attempt to justify, minimize or deflect blame, are easily discerned by audiences as weaker strategies, yet surprisingly, people continue to use them. Making more specific one-to-one connections between strategy and response can provide greater understanding for academics as well as practitioners about which image repair strategies fit best in unique cases.