Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Image Restoration

No description
by

Jonathan Holtby

on 18 January 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Image Restoration

1968 pre-1970s Rosenfeld identifies "a brief, intense controversy, attacks on the opponent, a concentration of data in the middle third of the speech, and a recycling of arguments from other speeches" as "constants of the apologetic equation A case study in speech criticism: the Nixon-Truman analog (Rosenberg, 1968) 1973 1970 Ware and Linkugel's theory of Apologia identifies four factors in rhetorical self-defense. They are "denial", "bolstering", "differentiation", and "transcendence". They also declare there to be four postures one can take when defending oneself: "absolutive", "vindicative", "explanative", and "justificative" They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of Apologia (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) denial dissociation from the offense bolstering building up your good qualities differentiation taking some aspect of the offense, and reducing its offensiveness by changing the context, surroundings, or relation to the offender somehow. Eg. murder vs. euthanasia transcendence taking the offense or some element of it out of its negative context, so that it can be reframed. IE re-telling the story. absolutive denying wrongdoing and differentiating aspects of the offense vindicative denying wrongdoing and transcending beyond definitions of the offense explanative bolstering one's image and transcending beyond definitions of the offense justificative bolstering one's image and differentiating aspects of the offense stances further developed in: Motivational factors in non-denial apologia (Kruse, 1977)
The scope of apologetic discourse (Kruse, 1981b)
Failure of apology in american politics: Nixon on Watergate (Harrel, Ware & Linkugel, 1975)
a number of speech analyses, see Benoit, p. 14-17 1973 Burke, in writing about Drama and the nature of plays and such, declares there to be two ways to restore reputation: Victimage and Mortification. Victimage is "playing the victim" in all its forms, and is the most natural action. Mortification is moving beyond an accusation and accepting consequences. The philosophy of literary form (3e) (Burke, 1973) - also, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric (Foss, Foss & Trapp, 1985) and Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations (Rueckert 1963 & 1982)
- other applications can be found in Benoit, pp 19-20 1970
& 1987 Ling uses the pentad: act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose. They analyze the Chappaquiddick address. A pentadic analysis of Senator Kennedy's address to the people of Mass. July 25, 1969 (Ling, 1970) - also, the 1984 Campaign Rhetoric of Representative George Hansen: a Pentadic Analysis (Kelley, 1987) 1982 1980 Ryan identifies Kategoria and Apologia as the independent characteristics that need to be considered by image repair critics. Kategoria is the challenge that demands an account, and the Apologia is the account that responds to it. Kategoria and Apologia: on their rhetorical criticism as a speech set (Ryan, 1982) As he did, he expanded the genre to also include attacks on policy as Kategoria, as well as attacks on character. "...he clearly sees a relationship between Ware and Linkugel and his own approach." Kategoria & Apologia attacks on policy
attacks on character further developed in: Baldwin vs. Edward VIII: A case study in kategoria and apologia (Ryan, 1984)
Oratorical encounters: Selected studies and sources of twentieth-century political accusations and apologies (Ryan, ED, 1988a) 1982 Benoit looked at Nixon's Watergate strategies, and identified an emphasis on investigation, shifting blame, refocusing attention, indicting attackers, emphasizing confidentiality, emphasizing his mandate, emphasizing cooperation, using his executive privilege, and quoting transcripts. Benson studied Johnson and Johnson's Tylenol crisis, and identified successful use of flexibility (tentative language, ambiguity, trial balloons, positive portrayal) and proaction (frequent communication, visible spokespeople, positive motive portrayal) as reasons for its success. 1988 1991 1990 Benoit's Theory of Image Restoration. criticisms does not examine attacking the accuser
is not exhaustive in its categorization of apologies. "...their purpose is to discover those factors which characterize the apologetic form. ...this is valuable, but clearly incomplete." (Benoit, 1995, 28)
is too much of a "descriptive theory" than a "prescriptive theory" criticisms "...while Burke has been published and warmly embraced, it is not clear that he is best characterized as belonging to the speech communication field." (Benoit, 1995, pp 28)
is too much of a "descriptive theory" than a "prescriptive theory" This examination also "concludes that attacking one's accuser appears to be a constant feature of this genre (self-defense)." (Benoit, 1995, pp 28) criticisms also does not examine attacking the accuser
is too much of a "descriptive theory" than a "prescriptive theory" criticisms theories guiding work to this date are too descriptive, not offering instruction about the effectiveness of strategies they are also entirely disconnected. an integrated analysis of them is needed. summary of why some accounts fail... Nixon's Watergate failed b/c he did not give the impression of being in control, and did not have support for his claims (Harrel, Ware, Linkugel, 1975)
Nixon's Resignation failed b/c it was not equal to the severity of his offenses (Wilson, 1976)
Blanton's discourse failed b/c he seemed insincere and hyopcritical (Hoover, 1989)
Chrysler failed b/c internal inconsistencies and a negative image undermined the attempt (Foss, 1984) no analyses of the effectiveness of apologies relate to the use of the theories of self-defense themselves "Of course, there is no question that the appearance of sincerity and a positive image (credibility), adequate support (evidence), and consistency are important..." (Benoit, 1995, pp30) 1961 Excuses arise "where someone is said to have done something which is nad, wrong, inept, unwelcome, or in some other of the numerous possible ways untoward. Thereupon he, or someone on his behalf, will try to defend his conduct or get him out of it." (Benoit, 1995, pp32) This is consistent with the previous work by Heider (1944), Dewey (1922, 1939) and Mills (1940). Social Perception and Phenomenal causality (Heider, 1944)
"Human Nature and Conduct" and "Theory of valuation" (Dewey, 1922 & 1939)
Situated actions and vocabularies of motive (Mills, 1940) 1957 5 Techniques of Neutralization:
Denial of Responsibility
Denial of Injury ("that didn't hurt!")
Denial of Victim (no one was hurt)
Condemning Attackers
Appeal to Higher Loyalty (for the good of the company) Techniques of Neutralization: A theory of delinquency (Sykes and Matza, 1957) notable, for the possibility of pre-emption (which is strange in accounts theories) 1968 Scott and Lyman's identification of excuses and justifications. The first is that the thing is bad, but its not my fault. The second is that its my fault, but it's not bad. Accounts. (Scott and Lyman, 1968) 4 types of excuse Accidents (unanticipated occurrences)
Defeasibility (lack of knowledge or will - like Sykes/Matza Denial of Responsibility)
Biological (incapability)
Scapegoating 4 types of justification Denial of injury
Denial of victim
Condemning the condemners
Appeals to loyalty 1971 Goffman's five remedial moves in conversation:
traverse/rejoinder (a denial)
admit occurrence, deny offensiveness
admit occurrence, but deny the offensiveness was foreseeable
admit occurrence and claim reduced competency
admit carelessness (not that noone could have foreseen the consequence, just that you did foresee them) Remedial Interchanges (Goffman, 1971) In addition, he recognizes the apology - as opposed to the account (these are not yet widely discussed). Apologies are:
Symbolic splitting of the self into the "bad" who committed the act, and the "good" who seeks redemption.
Complete apologies need:
expression of regret
acknowledgment of expected behaviour, with sympathy for the reproach
repudiation of the behaviour and the "bad self" that committed it
promise to behave differently
atonement/compensation 1980 Schonbach writes an update to Scott and Lyman's Accounts that includes obligations omitted as a "failure event" with commissions. He then updated the Sykes/Matza and Scott/Lyman taxonomies, to include concessions and refusals. A category system for account phases (Schonbach, 1980)
Accounts of men and women for failure events: Application of an account phase taxonomy (Schonbach, 1987) 4 types of excuse Accidents
Defeasibility
introduction of subcategories
Biological
Scapegoating 4 types of justification Denial of injury
Denial of victim
Justifying based on victim's qualities
Justifying based on victim's actions
Condemning the condemners
Appeals to loyalty concessions full or partial admissions of guilt, expressions of regret, and offers of compensation. refusals denials that the event even happened
scapegoating
suggesting the accuser has no right to attack 1980 Schlenker also adds to Scott and Lyman. He defines predicaments as being negative situations, which actors attempt to avoid, but sometimes have to try and remedy. This is done using defenses of innocence, as well as excuses and justifications. Defenses of innocence are just denials - either that the event never happened, or had nothing to do with the offender. He also further defines excuses and justifications in ways that expand upon Scott and Lyman, but bear similarities to Schonberg. The use of apologies in social predicaments (Schlenker, 1980) 1981 Tedeschi and Reiss add to Scott and Lyman's definitions of excuses and justifications, adding new excuses and justifications. Excuses (complete)
"not fully informed"
"misinformation"
"intoxication"
"lack of intent"
"failure to foresee consequences"
"distraction by other events"
"no time to think" (crisis)
"drugs"
"coercion"
"hypnosis"
"brainwashing" Justifications
Six new types of "self-fulfillment"
Four different sorts of "loyalties"
Appeal to higher authority (God told me to)
Reputation building (I was trying to make you like me) 1983 Semin and Manstead review all "Accounts" literature. Despite ignoring Schlenker and reviewing Schonberg but not including Refusals or Concessions "this is the most complete discussion of accounts to date." (benoit, 1995, pp38) Verbal strategies in impression management (Tedeschi and Reiss, 1981) The accountability of conduct: a social psychological analysis (Semin and Manstead, 1983) 1967 Goffman suggests that there are 4 stages to an account: challenge, offering, acceptance and thanks. On face work (Goffman, 1967) 1980 Schonbach improves on Goffman's understanding of account phases, declaring the 4 to be: a failure event, a reproach, an account, and an evaluation of the account. A category system for account phases (Schonbach, 1980) 1985 Cody and McLaughlin argue that there are at least three basic moves: request for repair, remedy, and acknowledgment Models for the sequential construction of accounting episodes (Cody & Mclaughlin, 1985) 1987 Buttny noted that there doesn't need to be an overt reporach - sometimes people just apologize. He said: problematic event, account, and evaluation. Sequence and practical reasoning in accounts episodes (Buttny, 1987). See also Morris, 1985. 1990 Gonzales, Pederson, Manning, and Wetter show that there are two response categories: mitigating and aggravating. Mitigating responses are more likely when accidents are 'contrived'. Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status and consequence severity on accounts (Gonzales et al., 1990) mitigating responses concessions
excuses justifications
refusals aggravating responses 1992 The order goes: Concessions, then Excuses, Justifications, and Refusals Explaining our sins: Influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses (Gonzalez et al., 1992) Note that, in 1989, a study of corporate managers conducted by phone interview produced different results: 72% Justifications, 13% denials, 11% excuses, and 5% concessions Issues management and organizational accounts: An analysis of corporate responses to accusations of unethical business practices (Garrett et al., 1989) 1989 Then, in 1990, Schonbach's case studies showed the following account types were used: situation constraints (as excuses and justifications), expressions of regret for the role they played and for the victim, and - least often - expressions of concern and pleas for pardon. Account episodes: The management of and escalation of conflict. (Schonbach, 1990) 1990 Finally, when Mclaughlin, Cody and O'Hair added Silence to the 4 major types of accounts, they noted to following when they asked people to recall accounts that people had given in the past: 63% were excuses, 30% were concessions, 22% were justifications, 13% were refusals, and 5% were silence. The management of failure events: some contextual determinants of accounting behaviour (Mclaughlin, Cody, O'Hair, 1983) 1983 1981 Schlenker and Darby report how the complexity of the account increases as the severity of the crime does The use of apologies in social predicaments (1981, Schlenker and Darby) Mclaughlin, Cody and O'Hair show that Concession is likely when the offense is serious, and when the accused feels guilty about what happened. Refusals and Silence are likely when they feel little or no guilt The management of failure events: some contextual determinants of accounting behaviour (Mclaughlin, Cody, O'Hair, 1983) 1983 Mclaughlin, Cody and Rosenstein find that using concession, justification, and excuse don't depend at all on the type of reproach - so the severity of the offense, the guilt of the actor affect what will be said, but not the type of reproach that causes them to account. Account sequences in conversations between strangers (Mclaughlin, Cody and Rosenstein, 1983) 1983 This work also states that accounts will not be accepted if they are deemed illegitimate or unreasonable. Additionally, if offenses are more serious than the account explaining them, or if they concern "motives not acceptable to the audience" then they will be considered illegitimate. 1974
1978
1992 Accounts must outweigh the offense they explain in order to be legitimate to demander. The Honoring of Accounts (Blumstein et al., 1974)
The effect of post-transgression remorse on perceived aggression, attribution of intent, and level of punishment (Schwartz et al, 1978)
Explaining our sins: Influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses (Gonzalez, Manning, Haugen, 1992) Found effective in response to accusations of unethical behaviour in Psychologists (Riordan, Marlin and Gidwani, 1988)
Found better at improving image and decreasing blameworthiness than 'bolstering' was (McClearey, 1983)
Found less likely to be believed to repeat an offense than those who Justify (Riordan & Marlin, 1987)
Found to be believed to be less guilty, and less likely to be penalized when caught speeding/running a red light, than other options (when supported by logic or evidence) (McLaughlin, Cody, and French, 1990)
Is associated with Honoring, where Justification and Concession are associated with retreat (partial honoring, withdrawal, or excuse-making) (McLaughlin, Cody & French, 1990)
Associated with greater remorsefulness than justification or confession (Shields, 1979)
Along with Concessions, creates more positive impressions of the offender than refusals (Gonzalez, 1992)
Shown to create the impression of reduced awareness of negative consequences, and less intent to produce those consequences, than do Justification techniques (Riordan, Marlin, Kellogg, 1983)
Shown to reduce the perceived wrongness of an act LESS than do Justifications (Riordan, Marlin, Kellogg, 1983) Justifications produced the greatest perception of wrongfulness of an offense in unethical psychologists (Riordan, Marlin, and Gidwani, 1988). They produced fewer positive evaluations of the actor than did denials.
However, Justifications created a more favourable impression of the actor than excuses, concessions, or apologies in (Hale, 1987)
Those offering justifications are believed more likely to repeat an act than those offering other accounts (Riordan and Marlin, 1987)
Justification is associated with partial honoring, withdrawal, or excuse-making by the victim, on behalf of the offender (McLaughlin, Cody and Rosenstein (1983)
Those using Justifications were seen as less remorseful than those using excuses (Shields, 1979)
Justifications are rated as more justifiable/understandable than excuses (Schonbach, 1990)
Justifications are seen to produce less wrongfulness surrounding an offense than do excuses, but they increase perception of foreknowledge of an act and perceived intent to cause wrongful consequences (Riordan, Marlin and Kellogg, 1983) ... Excuses, and Denials "Shields (1979) found that there were no differences in perceived responsibility, for excuses, justifications, or confessions" (Benoit, 1995, pp 45) Justifications Concessions Refusals Fewer positive impressions of the offender are created using Refusals than are using excuses and concessions (Gonzales, 1992) Apologies Apologies cause more favourable impressions of actors, and less aggression from victims (Ohbuchi, Kameda, Agarie, 1989)
In working with children, more complex apologies incl. attempts to compensate, reduced blame, increased forgiveness, and increased liking more than less developed ones (Darby and Schlenker, 1982)
The order of most to least satisfying requested by hearers of response option in: Full Apology, Regret and Excuse, Partial Apology, Regret, Excuse, Regret and Justification, then Justification (Holtgraves, 1989)
Accounts are more likely to be accepted if they express repentance and low likelihood of reoffence (Blumstein et al, 1974) "There is consistent support for the effectiveness of apologies in managing threats to face" (Benoit, 1995, pp 45)
(exception is Hale, 1987) 1977 Perceived freedom, aggression, and responsibility and the assignment of punishment (Kane, Joseph, Tedeschi, 1977) Kane, Joseph and Tedeschi find that those perceived to have a choice were seen less favorably, held more responsible, believed to be more likely to have committed the offense, and deserved harsher punishment, than those who did not. Rothman and Gandossy find that offensiveness is more influential than apparent responsibility to an account. Regardless, "apparent responsibility for the wrongful act influences the effectiveness of accounts for that act." (Benoit, 1995, pp 47) Sad tales: The accounts of white-collar defendants and the decision to sanction (Rothman & Gandossy, 1982) 1982 1987 Accounts citing preference of the offender (ie free will) and negligence were reported to be more likely to create anger than those of transportation, work responsibilities, other commitments or ailments. Accounts are more likely to be accepted when external, uncontrollable, and unintentional, than internal, controllable, and intentional. An attributional analysis of excuse-giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion (Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes & Verette, 1987) Hale elaborates, saying that accounts showing "sensitivity to not only the instrumental but the identity and interpersonal dynamics of the encounter" were more effective, regardless of type or form. A comparison of accounts: When is a failure not a failure? (Hale, 1987) Accounts showing "sensitivity to not only the instrumental but the identity and interpersonal dynamics of the encounter" were more effective, regardless of type or form. (Hale, 1987) Severity of offense is inversely related to effectiveness, and normativeness plays a role in the acceptability of excuses. (Benoit, 1995, pp 47) Only apology is generally found to be an effective form of account. (Benoit, 1995, pp 47) Accounts are more likely to be accepted when the offensive act is less severe and the actor less responsible for the act. (Benoit, 1995, pp 47 Fraser outlined four assumptions made about the person who apologizes: they believe an act happened before what they're saying, they think that act offended the listener, they feel at least somewhat responsible, and they feel at least somewhat remorseful. On apologizing (Fraser, 1981)
also, "Poison to your soul": Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed (Coulmas, 1981)
and, On saying you're sorry (Edmondson, 1981) 1981 Work on speech acts was continued by Owen (1983) and then in a model by Abadi (1990) which briefly applied to a few speeches of the time. 1983 1990 Apologies and remedial interchanges: a study of language use in social interaction (Owen, 1983)
also, The speech act of apology in political life. (Abadi, 1990) Summary: 1960-1995 Phases Taxonomy Excuses Scott and Lyman Justifications Accidents
Defeasibility
Biological
Scapegoating Denial of injury
Denial of Victim
Condemning condemners
Appea lto higher loyalty Challenge
Offering
Acceptance
Thanks Goffman Phases Taxonomy Apologia Ware and Linkugel Burke Denial
Bolstering
Differentiation
Transcendence Victimage
Mortification no change Goffman Goffman Apologies Honoring Blumstein 60s 70s Phases Taxonomy Apologia Burke Victimage
Mortification failure event
reproach
account
evaluation Schonbach Schonbach Justifications
Excuses
Concessions
Refusals Honoring account > offense 80s Ryan Kategoria
Apologia (Tedeschi & Ross) account complexity likelihood of various kinds more... Key assumptions A Theory of Image Restoration William L. Benoit, 1995 All communication is goal-oriented
Maintaining a favorable reputation is a key communication goal
Perception is everything, so attacks and their responses must be understood from the correct perspectives Fundamental constructs The way image restoration can be understood is through an analysis of attacks, complaints, or reproaches
Attacks have only two components: an undesirable action in the broadest sense, and believed responsibility for that action
Typology: Denial - Evading Responsibility (provocation, defeasibility, accidentalism, intent) - Reducing Effectiveness (bolstering, minimization, differentiation, transendence, attacking the accuser, compensation) - Corrective Action (restoration, or prevention for the future) - Mortification "Because our face, image, or reputation is so important to us, when we believe it is threatened, we are motivated to take action..." Roots Ryan's Kategoria and Apologia, 1982 Phases (broadly) Taxonomy Honoring Structure Image restoration is about protecting reputation, and can be explained by understanding the attacks themselves Goffman, 1967
to
Schonbach, 1980
to
Buttny, 1987 problematic event
reproach
evaluation Buttny (accusation not necessary) NONE DEVELOPED
loosely:
Undesirable action
Perceived Responsibility "...the workings of...image restoration strategies can be explained through an analysis of the essential nature of reproaches or attacks." (pp 74) myriad. see:
Ware & Linkugel, 1973; Goffman, 1971; Schonbach, 1980; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981; Semin & Manstead, 1983; Burke, 1970; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Sykes & Matza, 1957; Benoit & Lindsay, 1987) Denial
Evading Responsibility (provocation, defeasibility, accidentalism, intent)
Reducing Effectiveness (bolstering, minimization, differentiation, transcendence, attacking the accuser, compensation)
Corrective Action (restoration, or prevention for the future)
Mortification criticisms criticisms INTEGRATING TRUTHFULNESS
Has anyone yet examined the relationship between an accounts' effectiveness and its truthfullness? ie What happens to the effectiveness of a "denial" if it's used and then exposed as a lie - would something else have been a better option then? Key assumptions Strategies are the connection between the goals (reputation restoration) and actions undertaken by a rhetor.
They may be consummatory (seeking to immediately solve an issue) or instrumental (creating effects that mean to achieve that goal) or both.
The rhetor's perspective and that of their audience must duly be considered in any strategy.
The rhetor themselves may also be considered an audience, for the effects on self-esteem of an account.
Two types of attack: against Policy and Character, and three Stases of fact: Definition, Quality, and Jurisdiction. Roots Bowers, Ochs & Jensen, 1993 Strategies Festinger, 1957
or
Fotheringham, 1966 IS ANYTHING REALLY SUCCESSFUL CATEGORICALLY
So many tactics could have multiple applications in different settings or different means by which they can be accomplished. Is it possible for any one strategy to be categorically defined successful in a given situation, or does it all depend on the rhetor, the audience, the implementation, and the circumstance? "...there are myriad ways to bolster one's reputation..." "...the rhetor's perceptions of the audience's image of the rhetor may or may not correspond to the audience's actual perceptions of the rhetor's image." Snyder & Higgins, 1988
or
McFarland & Ross, 1982 Strategies Redefine the attack
Shift focus from the issue
Focus on some points only Ryan, 1982 Huxman & Linkugel, 1988 or Benoit, 1988 Heisey, 1988 or Benoit, 1982 Friedenberg, 1988 Friedenberg, 1988 Challenges Rosenfield's ideas are incomplete, but are a good starting point.
Burke's Victimage and Mortification are both valid but are insufficient to explain everything. Also, Victimage is more like a Denial than a Mortification, and this model ignores Brummett's Transcendence
Ware and Linkugel's Apologia and everything following it are good, but they ignore attacking the opponent, shifting the blame, mortification, minimization, and compensation. Also, their postures or stances seem wrong (see Benoit, 1995, pp 89). Finally they limit their scope to attacks on character, and not attacks on policy.
Theories of Accounts are often too limited (including only some image restoration option) or too specific (their complexity in comparison to rhetorical criticism makes them unwieldy. Roots Rosenfield, 1968 Burke, 1980
and
Brummett, 1981 Ware & Linkugel, 1973
and
Nelson, 1984
and
Kruse, 1981 "Reputation" is the reason why we redeem our image, and the thing we try to improve.
Maybe there are other reasons to give account (Redemption, or Access to things only available to the honest?)
Maybe there are things besides our "perceived reputation" that can help improve our situation. (Could credibility be granted to those who account, even if reputation remains unchanged? Maybe there are other things)
More examination of Benoit, 1995 would be needed to satisfy this
Omits "silence" and "ignoring/avoidance" as a defense technique. See McLaughlin, Cody & O'Hair, 1983.
Strategies used can be ambiguous - how do we really know what someone is trying to pull? (A: "...common knowledge and experience critics, rhetors, and audiences share makes identification of utterances possible" (Benoit, 1995).
Even if perspective is everything, is there something to be gained from "sticking to your guns" - ie believing earnestly that what you're doing is right (whether or not you are perceived as such)? Maybe it grants you more conviction, or something...
Benoit's Theory of Image Restoration may serve to compliment and in some ways bolster existing rhetorical criticism, it cannot supplant it (ie work on Rhetorical Criticism can and does still stand alone). Benoit, 1995, pp 92)
There is no typology of the attack offered in this theory
No general theory for the validity of these options by way of the likelihood of their being honored is presented. Scott & Lyman, 1968
and
Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981
and
Schonbach, 1980 & 1990 Journals 1. Communication Monographs
2. Public Relations Review
3. Media, Culture, and Society
4. Communication Research
5. Organization
6. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
7. Journal of Applied Communication Research
8. Communication Theory
9. Journal of Communication
10. Political Communication

11. American Sociological Review
12. European Sociological Review Authors Image Restoration Strategies
Corporate Crisis Communications
Political Crisis Communications 1. William L. Benoit
2. W. Timothy Coombs
3. Keith Michael Hearit
4. R.R. Ulmer
5. Matthew W. Seeger
6. Timothy Sellnow
5. Taylor and Kent
6. Turner
7. Palenchar and Heath
8. Sherry J. Holladay
9. Burns & Bruner Other options Benson
Caillouet
Hobbs
Ice
Zaremba
Full transcript