Why Some Apologies Don’t Work: Political Ideology, Entity Beliefs, and the Limits of Brand Trust
When a brand suffers a data breach, the standard playbook is clear: apologize, explain, reassure. It’s a trust-repair ritual—one that assumes consumers will respond positively to contrition and promises of change. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if some consumers don’t just reject the apology… they ignore it entirely?
In research published in Computers in Human Behavior, I explored how political ideology moderates consumer responses to brand apologies following data breaches. Across two studies—one in the U.S., one in the U.K.—we found a consistent pattern: liberal consumers responded positively to apologies, showing increased brand trust and purchase intentions. Conservative consumers did not. The apology had little to no effect.
The reason lies in a psychological distinction: entity vs. incremental beliefs.
Entity theorists (more common among conservatives) see traits and organizations as fixed.
Incremental theorists (more common among liberals) see them as capable of change.
So when a brand says, “We’re sorry, and here’s how we’ll do better,” liberals hear potential. Conservatives hear skepticism. They don’t believe the brand can—or will—change.
From Theory to Practice: What This Means for Brands
This isn’t just an academic insight—it’s a strategic imperative. If your brand’s audience skews conservative, a generic apology may not move the needle. You’ll need to rethink how you signal change and rebuild trust.
Let’s look at a few real-world examples:
Facebook’s 2018 Data Breach
When Facebook announced that 50 million accounts had been compromised, the response was vague and slow. For liberal users, the eventual apology and security updates may have helped restore some trust. But for conservative users—who may already view tech giants with suspicion—the apology likely rang hollow. Without clear, structural change, the brand’s credibility remained fractured.
Domino’s Australia
After a data breach, Domino’s issued a brief explanation but no apology. The backlash was swift. For liberal consumers, the lack of contrition may have felt dismissive. For conservatives, the absence of apology might not have mattered—what mattered was whether the brand could demonstrate competence and control. In both cases, the response failed to meet audience expectations.
British Airways
In 2018, BA acknowledged a breach affecting over 380,000 customers. They eventually apologized, but critics said it took too long. For liberal consumers, the delay may have eroded trust. For conservatives, the apology itself may have been irrelevant—what mattered was whether BA could prevent future breaches. The lesson: timing and perceived sincerity matter, but so does the audience’s belief in your capacity to change.
Strategic Takeaways for Brand Dummy Clients
At Brand Dummy, we help brands design trust-repair strategies that actually work—because we understand that trust isn’t universal. It’s filtered through belief systems, emotional expectations, and ideological lenses.
Here’s how we apply this insight:
Audience Mapping: We help clients understand the ideological makeup of their customer base. Are they more likely to hold entity or incremental beliefs?
Message Framing: For incremental audiences, we emphasize change, growth, and learning. For entity audiences, we focus on competence, control, and structural safeguards.
Crisis Simulation: We pressure-test apology strategies against different belief profiles—so you know how your message will land before it goes live.
Because resilience isn’t just about surviving a crisis—it’s about knowing how to speak when trust is on the line.
Reference Article
Chan, E. Y., & Palmeira, M. (2021). Political ideology moderates consumer response to brand crisis apologies for data breaches. Computers in Human Behavior, 121, 106801.