IMAGE REPAIR

Final Project: Image Repair

Charlie Rocco, Kristina Savchenkov
University of Kansas
December 15, 2016

IMAGE REPAIR

Introduction
For this research we have conducted a survey in order to answer the
original question whether or not Ryan Lochte should use a mortification strategy when
discussing his transgression in Brazil. We have surveyed 65 students at the University of
Kansas. For the gender of participants we used a central tendency of mode and came up
with 26 males, and 38 females with one answer of gender neutral. According to the
results of the survey, we think that using a mortification strategy would generally be
beneficial for Ryan Lochtes image repair. The results of our study have indicated that
mortification is the most effective strategy for regaining reputation after a crisis.
However, our survey showed that the use of the mortification strategy is not related to the
likelihood of showing support by sports fans on social media. Conferring with our results,
we would suggest Ryan Lochte to use a mortification strategy when discussing his
transgression in Brazil, though it will not affect the way sports fans support him using
social media.

Literature Review
Conceptualizing Image Repair
Image repair refers to the strategies that may be used as a response to a crisis in
order to restore perceived image of a person or an organization. In this study we are going
to particularly focus on the use of the mortification strategy to restore an athletes image,
which, in other words, is apologizing, admitting that the crisis was the individuals fault,
and asking for forgiveness. In their study, Benoit & Drew (1997) conceptualize the
variable as: excuses reduce responsibility for the act, justifications reduce the

IMAGE REPAIR

offensiveness of the act, denials (or refusals) deny committing the alleged offensive act,
and apologies (or concessions) express remorse for committing the act. While Brown
(2016), says that apology strategies are the ways in which we regain our image or
reputation after a crisis. He also states that the use of the mortification strategy is
specifically beneficial when attempting to restore athlete's image after transgression. The
two articles are very similar in their conceptualizations of the variable; types of apology
strategies. Brown even used Benoit & Drews (1997) research to solidify the points being
made.

Conceptualizing Athletes Image

An athlete's image is a perceived representation of a particular athlete related to
his/her personal characteristics, behavior, and performance, as viewed by other people.
This study is particularly focused on an athletes perceived image after a crisis. According
to Brown (2016), athletes reputation after a crisis depends on the image repair strategy
they use during this crisis. He states that apology is the best strategy that is the most
effective in restoring an athletes image. In addition, Brown, Anderson, and Dickhaus
(2016) study the impact of the same image repair strategies on endorser trustworthiness,
attitudes toward a brand, and purchase intention. These two articles are similar because
they both examine perceive image of athletes before and after using image restoring
processes, and also focus on which strategies would be the most effective.

Conceptualizing Responses on Social Media

IMAGE REPAIR

When people participate in online discussions or publicly comment on anything

on social networks they engage in responding on social media. People hear about specific
events happening to, in this case, their favorite teams and respond by posting opinions on
their personal social media accounts. In their study Brown, N., and Billings, C. (2012)
examined the tweets posted by self-identified top university fans, which were coded in
one of the nine reputation repair categories: 1) ingratiation, 2) reminder, 3) attack the
accuser, 4) divert attention, 5) denial, 6) justification, 7) scapegoat, 8) excuse, and 9)
apology, along with a tenth classification: 10) other. The keywords used in the
identification of the fans on Twitter included the name of the school and the schools
athletics team name. Only users who identified themselves as the schools fans in their
Twitter bio were selected for the analysis. The results were compiled and found that the
strongest response was ingratiation, which is closely related to the mortification strategy.
Ingratiation associated with the humanistic nature that the mortification strategy relies so
much on. Brown and Billings (2012) have a strong conceptual fit, the measure allows
students/participants to voice their opinion in an unbiased way giving valid responses.

Hypothesis 1: As use of a mortification strategy increases, an athletes image

improves.
Hypothesis 2: The use of the mortification strategy by athletes might be related to
the likelihood of using social media to show support by sports fans

Method

IMAGE REPAIR

When deciding to test our hypothesis, we chose to conduct a cross-sectional

survey. This made sense to use because we were looking at the level and types of
responses in social media at one point in time. We were looking at an instance where a
person in a position of social power made a mistake and how that specific mistake could
be reconciled. There was no claim to causation in our hypothesis. We also were only
able to survey our classmates/participants once so the cross-sectional format made the
most sense.
We picked a survey over an experiment for obvious reasons. We were looking at
people and texts, not places and other times. If we were to observe some type of
behavior and try and replicate that somewhere else then an experiment would be the best
option. This was not the case, we structured our assignment in a way that allowed us to
look at multiple transcripts, texts, and records to see how they affected people. The
survey method fit very well with what we were trying to accomplish as we have learned
in class.
After deciding on a survey method to conduct our research we needed to decide
how we wanted that survey to be done. As our class helped us along we landed on the
digital option. This made the most sense because it was the least time consuming, while
still providing adequate responses. To determine how well we completed this survey, we
must look at our internal and external validity. Internal validity is the measure of how
well we attribute cause to our findings. This means that if we find new data, we want to
be sure that it was our test that produced those results and not some outside factor. While
internal validity deals with the inner workings of the research, external validity is
concerned with the relation to the outside world. External validity is usually used with

IMAGE REPAIR

experiments and specifically looks at how results found in a lab or scientific setting could
be applied to the real world. This means that if a behavior is observed in a lab, how
likely will that behavior be recreated in a non-lab setting?
Since we ran a survey there is only one aspect of external validity to look at so we
will start with that. When looking at the external validity of a survey we are only
concerned with repeating our findings in other texts or groups of people. With our
specific project we found that the use of mortification, was in-fact the most effective
strategy in raising the level of acceptance of an athlete; this is the strength of our external
validity. While mortification is an external strength we found that relating it to our made
up variable created an external weakness. Although we could recreate the effects of the
mortification strategy we could not recreate the social media emotions and posts that we
found in our data.
Moving into internal validity we have more ground to cover. For internal validity
we look at 4 possible threats. The first being history, here we are looking at the past and
how it could affect the data. Our validity here is only ok, this is because people are aware
of the transgression they are assessing. In the case of Ryan Lochte the history threat is
greater due to possible previous knowledge people may have about him. Being able to
choose the athlete gives the participant the ability to give in-depth response because they
will be more attentive to someone they are familiar with. The next threat to look at is
sensitization, this is when the initial measurement of a study affects the subsequent
measure. The sensitization threat is weak because the participants choose their own
athlete, giving them a clean slate to answer the questions. The third threat is selection
bias, our validity here is weak. We only sampled students from our class, this entails

IMAGE REPAIR

young adults who are more likely to be on social media sites for longer periods of time.
Because we are concerned with the use of social media after the mortification strategy is
implemented, we should be worried that our sample is not an accurate representation of
the overall population. The final threat to look at is diffusion of treatment. Due to the
survey being conducted on-line, we as researchers did not have the chance to talk with
participants. Because we had no contact with the participants out validity here is good.
Overall our internal validity is acceptable, the main issue is with our sample, which we
did not have control over.
We used a nonprobability sample for our respondents. Our class was used as the
sample, which as we know from lecture is not random and somewhat biased. Using our
classmates was great in the sense that they were engaged in the process, because they
knew what was being done. For the same reason this could be construed as bad by
researchers; it is sometimes a detriment to the study if the participants know what is
being measured. Another weakness of using classmates was mentioned previously as it
pertained to our specific research about social media. We had 65 participants respond to
our survey, 59% were female, 40% were male and less than 1% were gender neutral. We
had no freshmen in our class, less and 1% sophomores, 21% were juniors and 78% were
seniors.
To begin our survey we had participants think of an athlete or a person in social
power, that had publically stained their reputation. We then asked questions about how
this person dealt with the transgression. Asking first if they had apologized or not, then
going into depth about how they apologized. We then gave a list of contradicting words
such as (wise/unwise, likeable/unlikeable) and had a scale in-between asking which word

IMAGE REPAIR

and to what degree did they feel about that athlete. Lastly we asked questions related to
social media use on a 1-5 scale. Starting with I use social media to express support of
this athlete, moving to a few questions that were specific to different types of social
media and ending with I use social media to express my personal opinion. We took out
the last response option because it did not fit well and proved to be unimportant.
Our first measure was use of mortification strategy, this measure looked at a
type of apology strategy and what is entailed. For an apology to constitute as
mortification it must be asking for forgiveness along with taking the responsibility. The
person delivering the apology must show regret and some degree of humility. For our
survey we only needed to know it the strategy was used or not. We measured this by
creating 4 items that we felt would capture the strategy and put them on a 5 point scale
from strongly agree to strongly disagree, one of the items we used was the athlete
has expressed remorse. After running this measure we found that the mean was 3.7, the
standard deviation was 1.1 and cronbachs alpha was .95.
Our second measure was athlete image, this variable looked the perceived
image of an athlete from the publics eye. We were looking at if that image was positive
or negative. To assess this we contrasted words as mentioned previously and put a 1-5
scale in-between those words. Looking at the data we found that the mean was 2.96, the
standard deviation was .83 and cronbachs alpha was .86.
The last measure, the one we created, was support on social media. We were
looking at how people would respond and post to social media in relation to the
mortification strategy. We measured this by asking questions like I use Facebook to
show my support on a 1-5 scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

IMAGE REPAIR

This was all mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Running this variable we found the
mean to be 1.93, the standard deviation to be .99 and cronbachs alpha was .83.

Results
Once all of the measures were computed we needed to run our Pearson correlation
tests. The first test pertained to the hypothesis we were given at the beginning of the
semester. The one-tailed hypothesis of, As use of mortification strategy increases, an
athletes image improves is not significant. After running the correlation tests we found
that (Pearsons r = -.082, p = .26). From these numbers we can conclude that the the
relationship is not significant.
The second test we ran dealt with the hypothesis we created, use of the
mortification strategy by athletes might be related to the likelihood of using social media
to show support by sports fans. This two- tailed hypothesis was looking at the
correlation between use of mortification and support on social media. After running
the test, (Pearsons r = -.042, p = .74), we concluded that this correlation was not
significant either.

Discussion/Conclusion
As discussed throughout this study, athletes perceived image is crucial because
not only it affects the athlete directly, but also the image and popularity of the team the
athlete is on. The support of the fans is crucial because it affects the endorsement deals
and the overall financial status of the team and the athletes. Though, the level of support
shown on social media cant be considered the only valid measure of a sports team

IMAGE REPAIR

10

popularity, it is still very important considering the possibilities and opportunities

available through the Internet, especially in recent years of technology development. The
key finding of our study was that we discovered no relationship between the use of
mortification strategy by athletes and the use of social media by sports fans to show
support. The results of the conducted survey showed no significant effect apologizing by
the athlete had on the sports fans opinions expressed through social media. Therefore the
Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
The data we have collected through our survey has shown the results
contradictory to our original expectations, as well as to the study conducted by Brown
and Billings (2012), in which they have discovered that the use of ingratiation by athletes
is related to the increase of support on social media. The reason we argue that
mortification strategy and ingratiation are closely related is because they appeal to similar
human values. Ingratiation is a strategy that attempts to manipulate other peoples
opinions by becoming more likable and attractive to their target. And the mortification
strategy implies apologizing and showing remorse in order to appear more sincere and
likable. The results of our survey contradict Brown and Billings (2012) findings, because
they show no significant correlation between the use of mortification strategy and the
support shown on social media.
The results we got when testing the original hypothesis that was given to us (As
use of mortification strategy increases, an athletes image improves) also didnt show
significant relationship between the two variables. This means that, again, our study
showed results contradictory to the original article we were assigned. As previously
mentioned, Brown (2016) stated that apology is the best strategy meaning that the

IMAGE REPAIR

11

mortification strategy was the most effective way to repair athletes image. In
comparison, our results didnt show a significant relationship between the two given
variables.
One of the strengths of our study is that, due to its relatively small size, it was
easy and quick to conduct. The study was designed in the way that the participants were
able to complete the questionnaire at a convenient for time and place for them. One of the
biggest advantages of online surveys is that it is very low-cost and time-saving.
In our opinion, the limitations of our study could include the length and the
format of the survey. The questionnaire itself wasnt too long, but the completion of the
whole survey was very time consuming, which might have caused some of the
participants to get distracted or disengaged while answering the questions. This could
have caused some of them to not read the question thoroughly. Another limitation of our
study could be the number of participants. As already mentioned above, the study was
relatively small, which could have affected its statistical significance. Even though the
results of our study were different from what we expected, and our hypotheses were not
supported, we still discovered some interesting information that could be used in the
future researches.
Understanding how the mortification strategy is used and perceived can provide
insight to future mishaps and scandals. Looking at the past with a new perspective has
allowed us to develop the ability to understand actions and emotions on a higher level.
Although our data on social media was not significant we are excited for the future of
social media studies and how they will affect our understanding of this concept.

IMAGE REPAIR

12

Cited Materials

Brown, K. A., (2016). Is Apology the Best Policy? An Experimental Examination of the
Effectiveness of Image Repair Strategies During Criminal and Noncriminal Athlete
Transgressions. Communication & Sport, Vol. 4 (1) 23-42.
doi:10.1177/2167479514544950.

Benoit, W L., Shirley D. (1997) Appropriateness and effectiveness of image repair strategies,
Communication Reports, 10:2, 153-163, DOI: 10.1080/08934219709367671.

Brown, N., Billings, C. (2012), Sports fans as crisis communicators on social media websites.
Journal of Public Relations Review, 39(1), 74-81. Doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.012

Brown, K. A. & Anderson, M. L. & Dickhaus, J., (2016). "The Impact of the Image Repair
Process on Athlete-Endorsement Effectiveness." Journal of Sports Media, vol. 11 no. 1,
2016, pp. 25-48. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jsm.2016.0004.

Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in
media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1939. doi: 10.1111/j.14602466.2008.01402.x

IMAGE REPAIR

13

Appendix
Students at the University of Kansas are interested in understanding how
sports fans show support on social media for athletes who have engaged in
any illegal and unethical behavior. For this survey, you will be asked
questions related to your opinion about athletes image and social media.
Your responses will be anonymous and your data will not be shared with
anyone apart from the researchers who are conducting the study.

SECTION ONE: Provide some information about the athletes image

repairing strategy
Read each of the statements below and indicate whether you strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly
disagree with each statement. Circle one number per row.
Strongly
Agree

Somewha
t
Agree

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree

Somewha
t
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

The athlete has

apologized
The athlete has
expressed remorse
The athlete has
requested
forgiveness
The athlete has
voiced regret

SECTION TWO: When thinking about the athlete to which degree you think
they are
For each of the word pairs below, select whether you think the athlete are
more like the word on the right, the word on the left, or somewhere in
between. Circle one number per row.
Wise
Pleasant
Likable
Can be trusted
Sophisticated

1
1
1
1
1

I consider the athlete to be:

2
3
4
5
Unwise
2
3
4
5
Unpleasant
2
3
4
5
Unlikeable
2
3
4
5
Cannot be trusted
2
3
4
5
Unsophisticated

IMAGE REPAIR

14

SECTION THREE: Provide some information about your use of social media
to show support
Read each of the statements below and indicate whether you strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly
disagree with each statement. Circle one number per row.

I use social media to

express support for
this athlete
I use Twitter to show
my support
I use Facebook to
show my support
I use Instagram to
express support
I use social media to
express my personal
thoughts

Strongly
Agree

Somewha
t
Agree

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree

Somewha
t
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Thank you for your participation!