When politics means having to say you're sorry: An empirical test of the effectiveness of political apologies

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/291607
Title:
When politics means having to say you're sorry: An empirical test of the effectiveness of political apologies
Author:
Wabnik, Alisa Ilene, 1970-
Issue Date:
1993
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Politicians are notorious for finding themselves in the middle of scandals that endanger their reputations and careers. How do they get out of it? This study tested four account strategies politicians could use: denials, excuses, justifications, and apologies. Language expectancy theory was applied to test several hypotheses. Results partially supported the concept of apologies as positive expectancy violations, but did not reveal differences among account types in terms of voters' positive impressions, blame attributions, and intent to vote for the politician. Situation, which was not expected to be a relevant factor, did result in large variability. The implications of this study for future research were also explored.
Type:
text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Speech Communication.; Political Science, General.
Degree Name:
M.A.
Degree Level:
masters
Degree Program:
Graduate College; Communication
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Kenski, Henry C.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleWhen politics means having to say you're sorry: An empirical test of the effectiveness of political apologiesen_US
dc.creatorWabnik, Alisa Ilene, 1970-en_US
dc.contributor.authorWabnik, Alisa Ilene, 1970-en_US
dc.date.issued1993en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractPoliticians are notorious for finding themselves in the middle of scandals that endanger their reputations and careers. How do they get out of it? This study tested four account strategies politicians could use: denials, excuses, justifications, and apologies. Language expectancy theory was applied to test several hypotheses. Results partially supported the concept of apologies as positive expectancy violations, but did not reveal differences among account types in terms of voters' positive impressions, blame attributions, and intent to vote for the politician. Situation, which was not expected to be a relevant factor, did result in large variability. The implications of this study for future research were also explored.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeThesis-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectSpeech Communication.en_US
dc.subjectPolitical Science, General.en_US
thesis.degree.nameM.A.en_US
thesis.degree.levelmastersen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineCommunicationen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorKenski, Henry C.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest1353118en_US
dc.identifier.bibrecord.b27687843en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.