Models of Communication

Overview

Models of communication exist to understand and enable the effective interaction and transference of information from sender to receiver or from the encoder to the decoder. Historically, such models have been classified into three general types—linear, interactive, and transactional—however, many researchers have argued against the very foundation upon which those initial depictions of communication were built because of its simplistic, linear construct. As the implications of its multidisciplinary impact become more apparent and complex in nature, it is critical to note the significance of the impact of various nuances that affect both the encoding and decoding of a message. For example, cultural bias embedded in mainstream communication models and theory that are primarily developed by North American and European scholars may have an impact on applicability elsewhere in the world.

Studied by various disciplines, the depth and breadth of communication theory is as wide in scope as its many theoretical applications. However, across the disciplines, going as far back as Aristotle and the origins of philosophy to linguistics and semantics, to mathematics and technology, models of communication exist for several reasons. Chief among them is to understand and enable the effective interaction and transference of information (or messages) from one source (sender) to the other (receiver) or from one encoder to another decoder. The modern origin of models of communications is arguably attributed to one first proposed in 1948 by Claude Shannon in “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” written for The Bell System Technical Journal. In 1949, the seminal article was expanded and published as The Mathematical Theory of Communication, with an explanatory introduction by Warren Weaver. The Shannon–Weaver model, as it came to be known, remains widely used yet just as widely challenged.

Models of communication can be classified into three general types: linear, interactive, and transactional. Bowman and Targowski (1987) argue that the linear Shannon–Weaver model, rooted as it is in a mathematics, is too simplistic and reduces all human communication to that of a one-way radio, with no mention of feedback. Such a linear depiction of communication reduces communication processes to the receiver’s simply replicating the sender’s original message upon receipt. However, this does not consider the different the ideas, or “semantic reactions,” between the sender and receiver.

Shortly after the Shannon–Weaver model of communication was introduced, Harold Lasswell proposed his model of communication. According to Sapienza, Iyer, and Veenstra (2015), despite varying definitions of the word communication, depending on the discipline or theoretical framework, all models include the following five components first suggested by Lasswell (Sapienza et al., 2015, p. 615):

• An initiator – Who is sending the message?
• A receiver – Who is receiving the message?
• A mode or vehicle – How is the message being transmitted from the initiator to the receiver?
• A message – What information is being transmitted from the initiator to the receiver?
• An affect – How effective was the communication? Did the receiver, in fact, receive the correct message from the initiator?

Such terminology introduced a significant shift in the previous verbiage (and implications of technology via a two-way radio) used in the Shannon–Weaver model that referenced the writer/sender and reader/receiver. Additional variations of the linear model then emerged to address specific applications and, equally important, issues plaguing the existing models of communication. The adjustments included opinion change and relationship change, a marketing channel, and a transactional element to account for the “centrality of the psychological system,” as suggested by Bowman and Targowski (1987, p. 24).

Building on the work of his predecessors, all of whom worked from the foundation of the mathematical model introduced by Shannon and Weaver, Wilbur Schramm added encoding and decoding to the transmission of a message and included the idea of a “shared field of experience,” thus birthing the interactive model of communication. According to Bowman and Targowski (1987), Schramm introduced the notions of social context and feedback. In other words, every message is part of a continuing interaction between two communicators (the initiator and the receiver), each of whom then take turns serving as the sender or receiver. Schramm also proposed that information transmission involved three key areas previously ignored in the communication process—syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic aspects—thereby acknowledging that communication models have a multidisciplinary foundation. However, this did not account for factors well beyond the simple exchange of information, as another researcher, Lee Thayer, pointed out in his communication model. According to Bowman and Targowski (1987), Thayer was at the forefront of researchers who acknowledged the fact the message that is received is rarely the exact message initially intended by the sender due to a host of factors.

Another variation introduced to the Shannon–Weaver mathematical model of communication was devised by David Berlo and known as the sender-message-channel-receiver, or SMCR, model of communication. Berlo not only identified each of the said components of the communication process but also how each affects the process, especially the nature of the source. Communication implies assigning value or meaning to the information (message) exchanged, as opposed to data, thereby distinguishing the technological reference from human communication. Still, the field of communication theory had to yet to embrace many crucial elements of the communication process in the existing models up until that point. However, Dean Barnlund’s proposed model was yet another advancement.

Barnlund introduced the transactional model, which, according to Bowman and Targowski (1987), acknowledged a “total personality” in the communication process, suggesting the importance of self-communication, as it “influences meanings and actions” (p. 28). As implied by Barnlund, such behavioral components further add to the complex nature of the communication process. Still, Barnlund’s transactional model did not quite address the inherent pragmatic element of communication that involves the semantics of the decision to communicate in the first place, which goes beyond the initial perceptions that many have described. Such semantics are crucial, as they give rise to the variations of distortion that exist in human communication (Bowman & Targowski, 1987, p. 30).

Researchers David Campbell and Dale Level further advanced the communication model by treating the act as a goal-directed and highly complex process to which they added “black boxes.” The mechanism described by each box may or may not be known, suggesting it is inferential. However, as other researchers have point out, such inferences can impact the accuracy of the meaning. Although Campbell and Level’s contribution has been heavily debated, according to Bowman and Targowski (1987) it did serve to progress communication theory by way of models of communication that had real-world applicability across multiple disciplines, including business, before the digital age presented new challenges.

Further Insights

Since the introduction of twentieth-century models of communication, many researchers have argued against the very foundation upon which those initial depictions of communication were built. This speaks more to the evolution of the complexity of the subject matter than the actual contribution of those researchers or their models upon closer inspection. For instance, Sapienza, Veenstra, Kirktiklis, and Giannino (2016) contend that originating models of communication theory are “conceptually flawed and outdated communication models” (p. 322) because of their linear constructs. That is, they reference a one-way, radio-style of communication that does not account for feedback and mass communication.

Raymond Gozzi (2004) took his assessment further regarding what he referred to as the “telephone-based Shannon–Weaver model” of communication. He argued it is not applicable to interpersonal communication when the message only exists upon delivery, once the reader/listener decodes it. At which point, variations in the intention versus the reception can and do occur. Gozzi further argued that there is still a fundamental issue with the overreliance on the metaphor as the message when, in fact, there are as many messages as there are writer/speaker and reader/listener parties in the act of communication. Thus, the flaw in existing models stems from the originating mathematical-based communication theories and models.

Still, some researchers contend that all is not lost with the early communication models. According to Sapienza et al. (2016), unlike the linear-focused early communication models, the theoretical approach of transmission models does not promote the notion of a passive audience as a potential instrument of exchange but rather it is a conceptual metaphor that uses technology as part of the multifaceted communication process. As such, the content of communication is determined by the writer or speaker, who acts as an encoder of a specific meaning to be delivered via a channel, while the reader or listener then decodes the message upon delivery. In doing so, consideration of contextual cues, experience, and active interpretation facilitate the determination of what the decoded message will include. Therefore, unlike earlier models of information theory, transmission models are more likely attributable to earlier work in general semantics and linguistics, which gives the models broader applicability (Sapienza et al., 2016).

Marco Cruciani (2018) argues that there is an additional component as well as the syntactic and semantic roles of decoding the meaning in communication, and that is the intention of the speaker and the context of their assumptions. In particular, there is a “context-dependence of meaning,” which then results in an explicit model of communication, determined by the addressee’s acknowledging the speaker’s nonverbal goals or intention. Such is derived from the speaker’s nonlinguistic interests, according to Cruciani (2018), which has roots in pragmatism and semantics. Notable pragmatists and semanticists have long debated the “what is said” versus “what is implicated” distinctions (p. 52).

However, it is apparent that researchers are careful not to fully distance models of communication from their origins in technology/mathematics because of the conceptual partnership with technological change and the advent of digital age innovations, especially the internet and later social media, Sapienza et al. (2015) contend that developments in communication technology have meant significant change in the field of communications and thus the associated methodological approaches and theories. Such rapid change has naturally tested the quality and validity of existing models and theories in communication.

Discourse

As the implications of its multidisciplinary impact become more and more apparent and complex in nature, it is still critical to note the significance of the impact of various nuances that affect both the encoding and decoding of the message. For instance, it is important to note the potentiality of cultural bias of mainstream communication models and theory as primarily developed by North American and European scholars, which may have an impact on applicability elsewhere in the world.

Relational-framing theory, which not only derives from the individual’s goals but also the content in which they “experience relational uncertainty, interdependence, relational communication, and hurt,” (McLaren, Solomon & Priem, 2012, p. 956) says that in interpreting the meaning of messages exchanged in relational communication, dominance–submission (the degree of power) and affiliation–disaffiliation (degree of liking) are the filters through which the sender and receiver exchange information with each other (p. 954).

Lister and Fay (2017) argue that it is possible to establish effective, efficient, and shared communication across a range of contexts, such as language and culture, thereby bridging the gap across the multidisciplinary study of communication theory and its resulting models. In doing so, they propose three processes must exist among human communication systems: motivated signs, behavioral alignment, and sign refinement. Such a theoretical model in consideration of a diverse range of studies that is not bound to any single modality represents the trend in communication models since the advent of the digital age.

In their interactive communication process, Manchón and Rodero (2018) not only address the fragmented knowledge-based communication theories, which lack cohesiveness in academic tradition because of their sheer volume and expertise and are technology-centered to a fault, but also suggest a model in which can satisfy all these areas. In doing so, they have created an interactive communication model that, though not time-tested, has introduced a cohesive, multidisciplinary approach involving human communication that considers each individual’s psychological, social, and cultural conditioning. Such growing consensus among the many complex facets that make up the communication process through more accurate depictions mean the ultimate survival of the field of communication theory.

Terms & Concepts

Channel: The vehicle or mode in which the information (or data) is communicated from the sender to the receiver.

Decoder: The individual on the receiving end of the message being communicated, who as a result of a host of factors, may or may not receive the message as intended.

Encoder: The individual who initiates the communication process by sending the message, with the intentions of specificity.

Interactive Model of Communication: Attributed to Schramm, this model of communication involves a delivery of messages that consists of continuing interaction between the communicators, which includes a shared field of experiences.

Linear Model of Communication: Attributed to Shannon and Weaver, also known as the Shannon–Weaver model, this model of communication involves a one-way communication of information (the message) from the writer/sender to the reader/receiver as depicted in a one-way radio.

Reader/Receiver: The initial terminology used to describe the individual on the receiving end of the one-way communication process through a specific channel.

Transactional Model of Communication: Attributed to Barnlund, this model of communication involves the introduction of behavioral aspects or the “total personality” for its influence on the intended meaning.

Writer/Sender: The initial terminology used to describe the individual who initiates the one-way communication process by transmitting the information to a reader/receiver through a specific channel.

Bibliography

Bowman, J. P., & Targowski, A. S. "Modeling the Communication Process: The Map Is Not the Territory." Journal of Business Communication, vol. 24, no. 4, 1987, pp. 21–34. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=5761639&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

Cruciani, M. "Explicit Communication: An Interest and Belief-Based Model." Linguistic & Philosophical Investigations, vol. 17, 2018, pp. 50–70. Communications & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=129781904&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

Gozzi, R., Jr. "Where Is the 'Message' in Communication Models?" ETC: A Review of General Semantics, vol. 61, no. 1, 2004, pp. 145–146. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=12965517&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023

Lister, C. J., & Fay, N. "How to Create a Human Communication System: A Theoretical Model." Interaction Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, 2017, 314–329. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=126707483&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

Manchón, L. M., & Rodero, E. "The Interactive Communication Process (ICP): A Model for Integrating Science, Academia, and Profession." Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, vol. 43, no. 2, 2018, pp. 173–207. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cms&AN=130100117&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

McLaren, R. M., Solomon, D. H., & Priem, J. S. "The Effect of Relationship Characteristics and Relational Communication on Experiences of Hurt from Romantic Partners." Journal of Communication, vol. 62, no. 6, 2012, pp. 950–971. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=84187601&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

Sapienza, Z. S., Iyer, N., & Veenstra, A. S. "Reading Lasswell’s Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions." Mass Communication & Society, vol. 19, no. 5, 2015, pp. 599–622. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=109420872&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

Sapienza, Z. S., Veenstra, A. S., Kirktiklis, K., & Giannino, S. S. "The Transmission Model of Communication: Toward a Multidisciplinary Explication." ETC: A Review of General Semantics, vol. 73, no. 4, 2016, pp. 321–341. Communication & Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=132137466&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.