COMMUNICATION MODELS

Models are abstractions and simplifications that clarify complex systems,

processes, techniques or strategies of communication. To Serene and
Mortensen (1970), a communication model is an idealised description of
what is necessary for an act of communication to occur. A model represents or
replicates in abstract terms the essential features and eliminates the
unnecessary details of communication in the real world. A model is a
symbolic representation designed to help us equalise the relationships among
various elements of a structure, system or process for the purpose of
discussion and analysis. The formulator of a model pays attention to the
aspects of reality that he finds most important for his purpose. Models are
useful in helping to visualise, analyse and discuss complex processes, which
would be otherwise difficult to explain. But they have this weakness that they
are highly selective and do not present a holistic picture of reality.
Communication models put together all the elements and activities involved
in communication. There are nonetheless models of communication as well
as models of mass communication. The models are of different categories.
There are linear, circu1ar, triangular, spiral, concentric and transactional
models.

Importance of Models
The importance of models has been succinctly discussed by Deutsch (1952)
to include organising, predictive, heuristic and serving as parameter for
measuring phenomena.

i. Models help to clarify the structure of complex events. They help us

identify the components and relationships of the communication process
being depicted and interpret these into a meaningful pattern. This they do by
reducing complexity to smaller, more familiar terms. Thus, the aim of a
model is not to ignore complexity or to explain it, but rather, to explain its
order and coherence.

275
ii. Models provide a frame of reference for scientific inquiry. They are
the vantage point from which researchers may establish the boundaries and
the substances of their investigations.

iii. Models are often heuristic stimulus. That is, they crystalise new
ideas and new ways of looking at things. They help in explaining by
providing in a simplified way, information which would otherwise be
complicated or ambiguous. This gives the model a heuristic function, since it
can guide the student or researcher to key points of a process.

iv. Models help make predictions about the real world. They do not only
describe the “what” of communication, but they help to explain the “why” in
such a way that we can talk about the future. The model may make it possible
to predict the course of events. It can at least be a basis for assigning
probabilities to various alternative outcomes.

v. They have an organising function by ordering and relating systems

to each other and by providing us with images of wholes that we might not
otherwise perceive. A model gives a general picture of a range of different
particular circumstances.

Disadvantages of Models

The following are some of the disadvantages of communication models:

a. Can Lead to Over-simplification: There is no denying the fact that

much of the work in designing communication models illustrates the oft-
repeated charge that anything in human affairs which can be modelled is by
definition, too superficial to be given serious consideration. Models can
miss important points of comparison.

b. Can Lead to Confusion of the Model between the Behaviour it

Portrays: Critics also charge that models are readily confused with reality.
The problem typically begins with an initial exploration of some unknown
territory. Then the model begins to function as a substitute for the event. In
short, the map is taken literally. And what is worse, another form of
ambiguity is substituted for the uncertainty the map was designed to
minimise. What has happened is a sophisticated version of the general
semanticist's admonition that “the map is not the territory.''

276
c. Premature Closure: The model designer may escape the risks of
oversimplification and map reading and still falls prey to dangers inherent in
abstraction. The danger is that the model limits our awareness of unexplored
possibilities of conceptualisation. We tinker with the model when we might be
better occupied with the subject-matter itself. In many areas of human
behaviour, our knowledge is on the level of folk wisdom; incorporating it in a
model does not automatically give such knowledge scientific status.

Types of Communication Models

Lasswell's Model (1948)

After analysing the functions of mass communication in the society, the
American political scientist, Harold Lasswell published his findings in which
he identified three major functions of the media in the society, namely:

i. Surveillance of the Environment: Collection and distribution of

information on events in the environment within and without the
operation of the media.

ii. Correlation: Interpretation of information about the environment

and prescription for conduct in reaction to these events.

iii. Transmission of Social Heritage: Communicating knowledge,

values and social norms from one generation to another.

A convenient way to describe an act of communication is to answer

the following questions. Who? Says what? In which channel? To whom? And
with what effect? Harold Lasswell's model has been seen to be useful mostly
in organising and structuring communication. Lasswell himself uses it to
point out distinct types of communication research. From the illustration,
who refers to the communicator, the source or the encoder of the message;
''what'' refers to the content or the message the communicator has to pass
across; the channel is the vehicle through which the message is conveyed to
the audience; whom refers to the target audience, while effect refers to the
impact of the message on the audience. Going by the model, communication
process has the encoder of the message who receives the stimuli and set the
communication in motion by passing or sharing ideas with someone or group
of people through some channels like radio, television, newspaper, magazine,
letter, face to face communication, etc. with the purpose of persuading the
receiver; in the communication process, the sender (who) can be an individual
or a communication organisation.

277
 The model has been criticised for several reasons: There are a lot of
assumptions such as taking for granted that the communicator or source has
some intent to influence the receiver. Also, the role of feedback is left out and
it is very important in the process of communication.

WHO? SAYS IN WHICH WITH WHAT

WHO? CHANNEL? TO WHO? EFFECT?

Lasswell’s Communication Model

Braddock's Model (1958)

Braddock's model of communication is an improvement on Lasswell's
formula. In his version of the model, Braddock added two more facets of the
communicative act, namely: the circumstances under which a message is
sent and for what purpose the communicator says something. This can be
represented in the following way.

WHO? SAYS WHO? TO WHICH?

Braddock stresses that the formula may be misleading in that it directs its
researchers to distinct field of study-Lasswell has been further criticised for
omitting feedback on the other hand, this is not surprising when we know that
Lasswell's interest at that time was political communication and propaganda.
Braddock contended that there was more consideration to work within
communication research than the five questions raised by Lasswell.
Braddock (1958) acknowledged the usefulness of Lasswell's model, but
pointed out its inadequacies. Lasswell's model was mainly criticised for its
failure to include two basic elements of the communication process- the
circumstances and the purpose under which the communication takes place.
This therefore implies that Braddock improved on Lasswell's model by
adding the circumstances and purpose under which the message was sent.

278
Shannon and Weaver's Mathematical Model (1949)
Of all single contributions to the widespread interest in models today,
Shannon's is the most important. For the technical side of communication
research, Shannon's mathematical formulations were the stimuli to much of
the later effort in this area. Claude Shannon was a television transmission
engineer and his interest was not in mass communication as such but, in the
understanding and improvement of telephone communication. He worked
for the Bell Telephone Laboratory and his theories and models primarily
applied to its particular field of communication, involving questions such as:
which kind of communication channel can bring through the maximum
amount of signals? How much of transmitted signals will be destroyed by
noise while travelling from transmitter to receiver? These are questions
mostly dealt with within the field of information theory. Thus, the main
concern was to measure the efficiency of communication channels and the
capacity of any one channel to carry information. The model describes the
problem of message transmission and what happened to the information in a
message from the time it was transmitted by a source until when it was
received at a destination.
Nevertheless, the graphical model made by Shannon and his co-
worker- Warren Weaver (1949) has been used analogically by behavioural
and linguistic scientists. Thus, the model describes communication as a
linear-one-way process, with five important elements- source, transmitter,
channel, receiver and destination, with one dysfunctional factor, noise. The
theorists stated five functions to be performed in the process with the
presence of noise, which is dysfunctional to the process. Unlike the previous
communication models, this model sees noise as a necessary element in the
communication process. Noise is an unwanted stimuli that can disrupt the
accuracy of the message that is transmitted. Noise can reduce the
effectiveness of the message that is passed from the sender to the receiver; it
is always present in the channel to be picked by the receiver along with the
message. Going by this model, the source has different means where
messages are generated, after which the messages are fed into a transmitter,
which encodes it into a signal that is sent through a channel to a receiver
where it is analysed and decoded into its original form to its destination with
the possibility of some noise, somewhere along the channel. His colleague,
Warren Weaver later added the element of feedback, the absence of which
was identified as a weakness of the initial Shannon's model. Another
weakness from the point of view of human communication was that the
model decidedly excluded meaning, which is a cardinal consideration in
human communication. Graphically, it may be presented as in the figure
below.

279
 Information Signal Receiver Signal Massage
Sources Transmitter Receiver Destination

Noise Sources

The model was criticised on the ground that it was developed for
engineering problems and it was never intended for human communication.
It is a general model. The model can be used to explainwhat takes place in
communication. If A is to a radio at home, A is thedestination. The model
can therefore be used to explain what takes place in communication. It is
therefore a general model of communication. The model has been of
heuristic value in that it, has generated more studies and encouraged the
development of other models and theories in communication. The model has
also provided a new and fruitful way ofviewing the communication process.
However, Shannon and Weaver specifically excluded meaning from the
definition of information. It also failed to see communication as a
transactional process occurring simultaneously. It ignores the tribute of the
source, message, channel and receiver, which are all important in the
communication process.
Only a fraction of the information conveyed in interpersonal
encounters can be taken as remotely corresponding to the teletype action of
statistically rare or redundant signals. Though Shannon's technical concept
of information is fascinating in many respects, it ranks among the least
important ways of conceiving what we recogniseas information. The model
is only formal, it does not account for content. Shannon and Weaver were
concerned only with technical problems associated with the selection and
arrangement of discrete units of information; in short, with purely formal
matters, not content. Hence, their model does not apply to semantic or
pragmatic dimensionsof language. Shannon's model has no mechanism for
distinguishing important ideas from pure non-sense. In much the same way,
in its newtechnical sense, information has come to denote whatever can be
coded for transmission through a channel that connects a source with a
receiver, regardless of semantic content.

280
 Encoded

Feed back

Osgood's Model
This model grew out of the criticism of Shannon and Weaver's model that was
developed for solving engineering problems. Osgood's model provides for
human communication, both the sending and receiving function within one
individual, taking cognizance of the meaning of symbols. While the Shannon
and Weaver's model implies separate sources, destinations, transmitters and
receivers, which are characteristic of mechanical system. It is not the same in
human communication system. Osgood's model is a model of interpersonal
communication. An individua1 functions as both a source and a destination.
The two persons involved operate simultaneously as encoder, interpreter and
decoder. One can be on either end. The source and the receiver carry out three
functions- encoding, interpreting and decoding. Osgood seems to have
rearranged the Claude Shannon's model into what he calls a communication
unit to send and receive messages. Osgood says each person in a speech
community is viewed as a complete communicating system. Each is creating
message and sending that message. The model is specific to interpersonal
communication so, there is instant feedback. When we are conversing, the
three functions are being performed. Osgood believes that any adequate
model must include at least, two communicating units- source unit (speaker)
and a destination unit (hearer). The model has succeeded in making a
distinction between non-technical communication from technical
communication of Shannon and Weaver.
Osgood's communication model is circular in nature. This shows that
communication is dynamic and ongoing. The arrows in the model show the
circular and continuous nature of the communication process. Going by the
model, both the sender and the receiver have important roles to play in the
communication process. The source and the receiver perform basically the

281
same functions of encoding, interpreting and decoding messages at different
points in the communication process. What this implies is that, in the
communication process, the source must assume the role of an encoder,
interpreter and decoder, just as the receiver must be an effective decoder,
interpreter and encoder. According to this model, communication is a two-
way traffic system where the role of the communicator and the receiver can
be interchanged. For example, in the process of communication, the sender
passes his ideas, notions and feelings to the receiver who interprets the
message and decides whether to take part in the communication process or
not. When the receiver decides to take part in the interaction, he responds by
interacting with the sender. As the receiver is responding to the message sent
by the sender, he is no longer the receiver; he automatically becomes the
sender while the initial sender becomes the receiver. It means that the
receiver receives the message, decodes and interprets it and as he is replying,
he performs the function of a sender while the person who initially sent the
message will become the receiver (as the receiver gives feedback to the
message received, he becomes the sender). Osgood's model, therefore,
shows the dynamic and transactional nature of communication with
participants playing dual and reciprocal purposes

Massage

Encoder
Interpreter
Decoder

Massage

Schramm's Model

Schramm (1954) as inspired by Osgood developed a series of models in

succession to answer Shannon and Osgood's models. Schramm began his
explanation of communication phenomenon with a simple human
communication to a more compacted model and explains the accumulated
experiences of two individuals trying to communicate and then, to a model
that considers human communication as interaction between two
individuals.

282
 The first model is similar to that of Shannon. Schramm introduced the
idea that only what is shared in the fields of experience of both the source and
the destination is actually communicated in the second level model. The third
model specifically concerns itself with communication as an interaction with
both participants encoding, interpreting, decoding, transmitting and
receiving signals. The model clearly reflects the presence of feedback and
continuous loop of shared information. Schramm developed a model that
emphasises the accumulated experiences of two individuals (A and B) trying
to communicate and interact. The model, which has as its components:
source, encoder, signal, decoder and destination are strikingly similar to
Shannon's model. Though Shannon and Weaver's model is linear; Osgood
and Schramm model is circular, whereas the process of communication is
dynamic. Osgood and Schramm's model is specific to interpersonal
communication. They, however, do not apply to mass communication. In
mass communication, the process is not simultaneous rather, it is delayed.
Schramm provided the additional notion of a “field of experience,” or
the psychological frame of reference. This refers to the type of orientation or
attitudes which interactants maintain towards each other. The model also
included Feedback. Communication is reciprocal, two-way, even though the
feedback may be delayed. It also included context. A message may have
different meanings, depending upon the specific context or setting. Shouting
“Fire!” on a rifle range produces one set of reactions- reactions quite different
from those produced in a crowded theatre. The model also showed the
relevance of culture in the communication process. A message may have
different meanings associated with it, depending upon the culture or society.
Communication systems, thus, operate within the confines of cultural rules
and expectations to which we all have been educated. However, Schramm's
model, while less linear, still accounts for only bilateral communication
between two parties. The complex, multiple levels of communication
between several sources is beyond this model.

Source Encoder Signal Decoder Designation

Field of Experience Fieldieoldf oE E

pexrpieniceence
Source Encoder Source Source
Source

Noise
message Decoder

Decoder Interpreter
message

283
Berlo's Model

Berlo (1960) developed the model. The model is commonly known as a

generic model in that it has four elements, which are source (S), message
(M), Channel (C) and Receiver (R) and how they affect communication.
David Berlo shows in the model that the source, which could be a person or
groups of people, is the originator of the message. The originator of the
message has a reason for engaging in communication. The message is the
symbolic code such as language or gestures. The channel is the medium
through which the message is carried and the receiver is the person (or group)
who is the target of communication.
There are some important features in the model. One of the features is
the presence of encoder in the communication process. The encoder
expresses the source's purpose in the form of a message. The model attempts
to separate the encoder from the source and the decoder from the actual
receivers. In face-to-face, group and public communication situation, the
model says the channel is the air through which sound waves travel. In mass
communication, the channels are television, radio, books, newspapers and
magazines. The model highlights some elements that may have effects on
social system and cultural environment of either the source or the receiver.
The model has been criticised for concerning itself with
interpersonal communication alone. Much is not said about feedback and the
simultaneous behaviour of people as sources and receivers. The model does
not also account for the dynamic nature of communication. The model has
limited utility in dealing with different contexts of communication.
The model is, however, distinguished from other models in that it
exposes the factors involved in communication. The factors relating to the
source of any message include: age, knowledge, skills, cultural environment
and social status. The model sees the source and the receiver as
complementary elements. Message is looked at in terms of structure and
element. Every message is a symbol of code with structure and content and
each is believed to have its treatment. Berlo's model clearly reveals how our
sense organs (ears, eyes, tongue, nose and skin) affect our communication. It
portrays the source and the receiver as human beings and they are both
viewed as the same variable. It depicts the elements of communication
simply as:

S M C R
Source Message Channel Receiver

Berlo's model

284
Hub's Model
Hub is the acronym of the authors of this model- Hiebert, Ungurait and Bohn
(HUB). The model looks at mass communication as a ripple and likens its
process and effect to the concentric circle formed when pebble is thrown into
a river or pool of water. The resultant ripples send out a number of waves from
the centre that is, the point at which the pebble makes contact with the water.
Going by the HUB's model, mass communication is a complete process of
communication. The model presents mass communication as a circular,
dynamic and on-ongoing process. According to the model, in mass
communication, it is almost impossible for an individual to be the sender.
This is because mass communication is a conglomerate or group of people
with every individual performing a special task
Audience
Filters
Regulations
Media
Gate Keeping
Codes

Hub’s Model

The model is made up of seven (7) rings with message transversing the circle
as shown above. There is noise or distortion in the process. The messages and
contents are susceptible to noise but there is feedback. In mass
communication, the communicators in the model work with some codes. The
communicator is an institution or an organisation and not an individual.
Every medium has its own codes. The language is different from each
medium. The model also emphasises the presence of gatekeepers who have
authority to control, add and subtract messages coming out of the
organisation. The gatekeepers are the reporters, editors and people who have
direct contact with the event. They can do anything with the message.
According to this model, the media are complex organisations. And outside
the media system are regulators. The regulators exist either as government

285
establishments, judiciary and professional bodies that control the media and
“whip” them to line if necessary. Such regulators in Nigeria include the
National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), Nigerian Press Council (NPC)
and Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ). The filters in the model are those
things in our brain that serve as preceptors. For example, psychological and
cultural variables that shape our thoughts. The audiences of mass
communication are the receivers of the messages. They are scattered,
heterogeneous and they are not known to each other.

Defleur's Model (1958)

This model is a generalised one, which seeks to explain various forms of
communication in one graphic construct. In addition, the model has taken
over some ideas from the work of the father of cybernetics, Nobert Weiner
(l948). What raises Defleur's model to a superior level of conceptualisation
is its depiction of the cyclical (or helical) nature of the communication
process. This underscores the interchangeability of the source/encoder and
receiver/ decoder roles. He also recognises that noise can emanate from any
of the key elements and not just from the channel or the source. Defleur
(1958) developed the Shannon and Weaver model further in a discussion
about the correspondence between the meaning of the produced and the
received message. He notes that in the communication process, meaning is
transformed into message and describes how the transmitter transforms
message into information, which then passes through a channel.
The receiver decodes the information as a message, which in turn is
transformed at the destination into meaning. If there is correspondence
between the meanings, the result is communication. But as Defleur says, this
correspondence is seldom perfect. The diagram below explains the model:
Mass medium device

Source Transmitter Charnel Receiver Designation

Noise

Designation Charnel Transmitter Source

Receiver

Feedback

Defleur's model allowing for feedl

286
Defleur's model is an extension of Shannon and Weaver's model. Defleur
added feedback to the original Shannon and Weaver's model to show that
communication is dynamic and on-ongoing. Defleur (1958) argues thatthe
source is different from the transmitter and that the receiver is also different
from the destination. This implies that the source initiates the message
which is fed into a transmitter through a channel to the receiver at a
destination. Communication as a process in this model is also seen as a two-
way traffic system, hence, the source and the receiver play dual roles, each
sending and receiving in an on-going process. Here, the channel is the
medium through which information is sent. The receiver functions as an
information recipient and decoder, transforming the physical elements of the
information into a message. The destination deciphers messages to give them
a receivers' interpretation. Feedback is the response of the destination to the
source. The major concern of the model is to attain the level of commonly
shared understanding of the meaning of the message between the source and
the destination (Isomorphism). The model accounts for feedback.

Dance's Helical Model (1967)

This model is seen as an interesting development of the Osgood and

Schramm circular model. In a discussion about linear versus circular
communication models, Dance (1967) notes that most people would regard
the circular approach as the most adequate for describing the communication
process. The model highlights the dynamic nature of communication.
According to Dance (1967), the scope and understanding of the actual topic,
message or issue continued to expand, depending on the intensity of the
communication situation. As more information is generated, more point of
view emerge, more knowledge becomes available and as the cognitive field
widens, the higher scope and level of understanding during the
communication process widens. But it also has its shortcomings as well. The
model suggests that communication comes back, full circle, to exactlythe
same point from which it started. This part of the circular analogy is
manifestly erroneous. The model directs one's attention to the fact that the
communication process moves forward and what is communicated now will
influence the structure and content of communication coming later on.
Most models in this volume give a sort of frozen picture of the
communication process. Dance's model underlines the dynamic nature of
communication. The communication process like all social processes
contains elements, relations and environments that are continually changing.
The model depicts communication as a dynamic process. The helix
represents the way communication evolves in an individual from his birth to

287
the existing moment. The helix gives geometrical testimony to the concept
that communication while moving forward is at the same moment coming
back upon itself and being affected by its past behaviour, for the coming
curve of the helix is fundamentally affected by the curve from which it
emerges. Yet, even though slowly, the helix can gradually free itself from its
lower-level distortions. The communication process, like the helix, is
constantly moving forward and yet is always to some degree dependent upon
the past, which informs the present and the future. The helical
communication model offers a flexible communication process. As a
heuristic device, the helix is interesting not so much for what it says as for
what it permits to be said. The helix implies that communication is
continuous, unrepeatable, additive and accumulative; that is, each phase of
activity depends upon present forces at work as they are defined by all that
has occurred before. All experience contributes to the shape of the unfolding
moment; there is no break in the action, no fixed beginning, no pure
redundancy, no closure. All communicative experience is the product of
learned, non-repeatable events, which are defined in ways the organism
develops to be self-consistent and socially meaningful. In short, the helix
underscores the integrated aspects of all human communication as an
evolving process that is always turned inward in ways that permit learning,
growth and discovery.
However, if judged against conventional scientific standards, the
helix does not fare well as a model. Indeed, some would claim that it does not
meet the requirements of a model at all. More specifically, it is not a
systematic or formalised mode of representation. Neither does it formalise
relationships or isolate key variables. It describes in the abstract but, does not
explicitly explain or make particular hypotheses testable. See the diagram
below.

288