How we change what others think, feel, believe and do

Apologia Models

Techniques > Conversation techniques > Excuses > Apologia Models

An 'apologist' is a person who is accused and seeks to defend or excuse him- or herself. The process of doing so is sometimes called 'apologia'. Several academics have studied high-profile apologia such as from Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods, and have produced several models and explanations.

Ware and Linkugel's Apologia

Based on the work theory of belief-dilemma resolution by Robert Abelson (1959), Ware and Linkugel (1973) described a set of four key methods by which we excuse ourselves and show that we are not to blame. These are:

Denial: I didn't do it.
Bolstering: I'm a nice person. I can't have done it.
Differentiation: Distancing oneself.
Transcendence: A higher purpose.

Denial and bolstering are seen as reformative, as the speaker neither invents the identification in them nor tries to change the audience’s meaning. On the other hand, differentiation and transcendence are considered to be transformative, in the way the speaker tries to change the situation.

The authors noted that in practice two or more of these are often used together.

Benoit's four postures

Benoit (1995), describes five strategies and further sub-strategies for image restoration:

Strategy	Subcategory
Denial	Simple denial
Denial	Shifting the blame
Evading of Responsibility	Provocation
	Defeasibility
	Accident
	Good Intention
Reducing Offensiveness of Event	Bolstering
	Minimization
	Differentiation
	Transcendence
	Attack accuser
	Compensation
Corrective Action
Mortification

Four postures that use pairs of Ware and Linkugel's methods are also described:

Absolutive: Denial and Differentiation
Vindictive: Denial and Transcendence
Explanative: Bolstering and Differentiation
Justificative: Bolstering and Transcendence.

Rosenfield’s rhetorical model

Rosenfield described four aspects in apologia:

Short, sharp controversy
Verbal counterattack on the critics
Data and facts
Composition of earlier statements

Ryan's kategoria and apologia

Halford Ryan suggests that accusing (katagoria) and defending (apologia) have to be understood as a linked pair.

Downey's historical model

Sharon Downey notes that the tactics of apologia have changed through history with the changing situation (hence supporting Ryan's necessity of pairing).

In medieval times apologists 'adjusted to the futility of the argument' and, over time, the drama of the classical situation gave way to 'audience alienation, ambiguous accuser, and aversive apologist'. More recently, charges have become 'implied and not explicit, often emanating from rumors and innuendo'. Also, both admission and counter-attack are more prevalent in modern times.