Key Communication Models

Why This Matters

Communication models aren't just abstract diagrams you'll forget after the exam—they're frameworks that explain why misunderstandings happen, how relationships develop through interaction, and what makes some messages land while others fall flat. You're being tested on your ability to recognize which model best explains a given communication scenario, whether that's a one-way broadcast, a dynamic conversation, or the gradual evolution of how two people relate over time.

The key concepts these models demonstrate include linear vs. interactive processes, the role of feedback, noise and barriers, and how meaning is co-created. Don't just memorize the names and components—know what type of communication each model explains and when you'd apply it. If an exam question describes a scenario where context shapes interpretation or where both parties simultaneously send and receive, you need to instantly recognize which model fits.

---

Linear Models: One-Way Transmission

These models treat communication as a straight line from sender to receiver—like mailing a letter or broadcasting a radio signal. They're foundational but limited because they don't account for feedback or interaction.

Shannon-Weaver Model

• Introduced the linear process—sender encodes a message, transmits it through a channel, and receiver decodes it
• Noise is the central concept here, representing any barrier (physical, semantic, or psychological) that distorts the message during transmission
• Best for explaining technical communication failures—think static on a phone line or unclear writing that confuses readers

Lasswell's Model

• Framed as a question: "Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?"
• Focuses on effects and persuasion, making it ideal for analyzing mass media, propaganda, and political communication
• Power dynamics are central—this model asks who controls the message and how it shapes public opinion

---

Component Models: Breaking Down the Parts

These models identify the specific elements that must align for communication to succeed. They're useful for diagnosing where communication breaks down.

Berlo's SMCR Model

• Four components: Source, Message, Channel, Receiver—each must function properly for effective communication
• Source credibility matters—the sender's expertise, trustworthiness, and communication skills directly impact reception
• Channel selection affects clarity; choosing email vs. face-to-face vs. video changes how the message lands

Westley and MacLean's Model

• Introduces gatekeepers and multiple senders—recognizes that messages often pass through intermediaries before reaching audiences
• Designed for mass communication contexts, where editors, algorithms, or institutions filter what reaches the public
• Feedback loops connect audiences back to sources, but they're often delayed or indirect in mass media

---

Interactive Models: Adding Feedback

These models recognize that communication isn't one-way—receivers respond, and those responses shape subsequent messages. Feedback transforms transmission into conversation.

Schramm's Model

• Shared field of experience is the key concept—communication succeeds when sender and receiver have overlapping backgrounds, knowledge, and cultural contexts
• Feedback makes communication circular, allowing senders to adjust based on receiver responses
• Context and culture determine how messages are interpreted; the same words mean different things to different people

Osgood-Schramm Model

• Fully circular process—both parties continuously encode, decode, and interpret messages
• Emphasizes shared symbols—communication requires common language, gestures, or cultural references to create meaning
• Feedback is constant, not just an afterthought; each response immediately shapes the next message

---

Transactional Models: Simultaneous Exchange

These models reject the idea of separate "sender" and "receiver" roles entirely. Both parties send and receive simultaneously, and meaning emerges from the interaction itself.

Transactional Model

• Simultaneous sending and receiving—while you speak, you're also reading the other person's facial expressions, adjusting your tone, interpreting their silence
• Meaning is co-created, not transmitted; understanding emerges from the interaction, not from one person's intent alone
• Context shapes everything—physical environment, relationship history, and social dynamics all influence how messages are interpreted

Barnlund's Transactional Model

• Adds complexity with multiple cue systems—public cues (environment), private cues (personal thoughts), and behavioral cues (verbal and nonverbal)
• Communication is continuous and irreversible—you can't "unsend" a message, and every interaction builds on previous ones
• Cultural and social factors are explicitly recognized as shaping how participants construct meaning together

---

Developmental Models: Communication Over Time

These models view communication as an evolving spiral rather than a single event. Past interactions shape present communication, and skills develop through accumulated experience.

Helical Model

• Communication spirals forward—each interaction builds on previous ones, so you never communicate the same way twice
• Past experiences shape present behavior; how you handled conflict last time influences how you approach it now
• Growth is inherent—communication skills naturally develop and deepen through repeated practice and reflection

Dance's Helical Model

• Visualized as an expanding spiral—communication starts narrow (simple exchanges) and widens as understanding deepens
• Relational dynamics evolve; early conversations with a new friend differ fundamentally from exchanges years later
• Context accumulates—the more history you share with someone, the more efficiently you can communicate

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two models both emphasize feedback but differ in whether communication has a clear starting point? What's the key distinction between them?

2. A student sends an email to a professor, but the professor misinterprets the tone as rude due to cultural differences. Which model best explains this breakdown, and why?

3. Compare and contrast Lasswell's Model with Shannon-Weaver: How do their purposes differ even though both are linear?

4. If an FRQ asks you to explain how a 20-year friendship communicates differently than new acquaintances, which model provides the best framework? What specific concept would you emphasize?

5. You're watching a heated debate where both participants are simultaneously speaking, reading body language, and adjusting their arguments in real time. Which model category best captures this, and what would Barnlund's version add that the basic version doesn't?