Atoning vs. evading when caught transgressing: two multi-theory-based experiments investigating strategies for politicians responding to scandal

Abstract

Politicians tend to try deflecting scandals. Based on an attribution theory-driven perspective on persuasion, however, politicians should proactively confess. In a preregistered, multiple-message design, we conduct controlled, random assignment experiments. A mediation model is tested. Inspired by crisis communication’s change-of-meaning concept, the first variable appraises the extent to which voters perceive that the messaging indicates the politician is engaging in a cover-up. The second linkage is the politician’s credibility. The outcome variable is voters’ behavioral intentions. In Experiment 1 (N = 905 U.S. voters), stealing thunder and apologizing outperform stonewalling, changing the subject, sequentially apologizing plus deflecting, or silence. Experiment 2 (N = 277) finds that, in a sex scandal, stealing thunder and apologizing continue to perform equally well. Our theoretical contribution resides in enhancing the explanatory power of theories designed to explain image repair, as well as empirically testing the independent and combined role of apology and stealing thunder.