Models of Communication

1. The Rileys' model

2. Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric
3. The Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model, 1949
4. Westley and MacLean’s Conceptual Model
5. Newcomb’s model of communication
6. George Gerbner’s model
The Rileys' model

The Rileys' model

John W. and Matilda
White Riley, a husband and wife team of sociologists, point out the importance of the sociologica

l view in communication in another way. The two sociologists say such a view would fit together the
many messages and individual reactions to them within an integrated social structure and process. The
Rileys developed a model (Figure 3) to illustrate these sociological implications in communication.5
The model indicates the communicator (C) emerges as part of a larger pattern, sending messages in
accordance with the expectations and actions of other persons and groups within the same social
structure. This also is true of the receiver (R) in the communications process.
In addition, both the communicator and receiver are part of an overall social system. Within such an all-
embracing system, the communication process is seen as a part of a larger social process, both affecting it
and being in turn affected by it. The model clearly illustrates that communication is a two-way
proposition.
The important point the Rileys' model makes for us is that we send messages as members of certain
primary groups and that our receivers receive our messages as members of primary groups. As you
likely can visualize, group references may be a positive reinforcement of our messages; at other times
they may create a negative force.

Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric.

Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric. Ehninger, Gronbeck and Monroe: One of the earliest definitions of
communication came from the Greek philosopher-teacher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.).
a. “Rhetoric” is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”
(Rhetoric 1335b).
b. Aristotle’s speaker-centered model received perhaps its fullest development in the hands of Roman
educator Quintilian (ca. 35-95 A.D.), whose Institutio Oratoria was filled with advice on the full training
of a “good” speaker-statesman.
Aristotle’s model of proof. Kinnevay also sees a model of communication in Aristotle’s description
of proof:
a. Logos, inheres in the content or the message itself
b. Pathos, inheres in the audience
c. Ethos, inheres in the speaker
Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation. Lloyd Bitzer developed described the “Rhetorical Situation,” which, while
not a model, identifies some of the classical components of a communication situation (“The Rhetorical
Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1 (Winter, 1968):1-15.).
Bitzer defines the “rhetorical situation” as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting
an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into
the situation, can so constrain human decision or action so as to bring about significant modification of
the exigence.”
The Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model, 1949
a. Background

i. Claude Shannon, an engineer for the Bell Telephone Company, designed the most influential of all
early communication models. His goal was to formulate a theory to guide the efforts of engineers in
finding the most efficient way of transmitting electrical signals from one location to another (Shannon
and Weaver, 1949). Later Shannon introduced a mechanism in the receiver which corrected for
differences between the transmitted and received signal; this monitoring or correcting mechanism was the
forerunner of the now widely used concept of feedback (information which a communicator gains from
others in response to his own verbal behavior).

Westley and MacLean’s Conceptual Model, 1957

a. Background

i. Westley and MacLean realized that communication does not begin when one person starts to talk,
but rather when a person responds selectively to his immediate physical surroundings.

ii. Each interactant responds to his sensory experience (X1 . . . ) by abstracting out certain objects of
orientation (X1 . . . 3m). Some items are selected for further interpretation or coding (X’) and then are
transmitted to another person, who may or may not be responding to the same objects of orientation
(X,b),

A conceptual model of communication. (Reprinted with permission from Westley and

MacLean, Jr., 1957.)

(a) Objects of orientation (X 1 ... X) in the sensory field of the receiver (B) are
transmitted directly to him in abstracted form (XZ ... X 3) after a process of selection
from among all Xs, such selection being based at least in part on the needs and
problems of B. Some or all messages are transmitted in more than one sense (X3m, for
example).

(b) The same Xs are selected and abstracted by communicator A and transmitted as a
message (x') to B, who may or may not have part or all of the Xs in his own sensory
 field (X1b). Whether on purpose or not, B transmits feedback (fBA) to A.

(c) The Xs that B receives may result from selected abstractions which are transmitted
without purpose by encoder C, who acts for B and thus extends B's environment. C's
selections are necessarily based in part on feedback (fBC) from B.

(d) The messages which C transmits to B (x") represent C's selections both from the
messages he gets from A (x') and from the abstractions in his own sensory field (X3c,
X 4), which may or may not be in A's field. Feedback moves not only from B to A (fBA)
and from B to C (f BC) but also from C to A (fCA). Clearly, in mass communication, a
large number of Cs receive from a very large number of As and transmit to a vastly
larger number of Bs, who simultaneously receive messages from other Cs.

Strengths

i. Accounts for Feedback

ii. Accounts for a sensory field or, in Newcomb’s (1953) words, “objects of co-orientation.”

iii. Accounts for non-binary interactions—more than just two people communicating directly.

iv. Accounts for different modes. E.g. interpersonal vs. mass mediated communication.

Weaknesses

i. Westley and MacLean’s model accounts for many more variables in the typical communication
interaction. It is, however, still two-dimensional. It cannot account for the multiple dimensions of the
typical communication event involving a broad context and multiple message.

New comb’s ABX model

Theodore Newcomb (1953) developed a Co orientation Model as a helpful tool in relational analysis of
dyadic pairs. This simple yet insightful model consists of two communicators, A and B, and their
"orientation" toward some "object of communication", X. The object of communication could be an
actual physical object (such as a house which the couple is considering purchasing or a painting in a
museum), an event (such as baseball, a rock concert or a christening), an activity (such as playing cards or
watching football on television every Sunday), an attitude (such as loving action movies or being opposed
to abortion), or a behavior (such as selling Aunt Molly's antique quilt without conferring about it first or
donating uniforms to the local little league baseball team). Any subject, behavior, attitude, belief, event, or
object, which is the focus of communication for the two participants, has the potential to be the "object of
communication". Each communicator, A and B, has a simultaneous co orientation toward his or her
communication partner (usually the level of attraction and feelings toward the
partner) and toward the object of communication (the degree of positive or negative attitude about X).
Newcomb (1953) - ABX Model – is based on psychological view of communication. Newcomb saw
communication as a way in which people orient to their environment and to each other. Base on the
concept of balance between one's attitudes and beliefs and those that are important to an individual. If the
balance is disturbed, communication is used to restore it.
Newcomb is the one that introduces us to fundamentally different shape. It is triangular. Its main
significance, however, lies in the fact that it is the first of our models to introduce the role of
communication in society or a social relationship. For Newcomb this role is simple – it is to maintain
equilibrium within the social system, The way the model works is this, A and B are communicator and
receiver; they may be individuals, or group. X is part of their social environment. ABX is a system, which
means that its internal relations are interdependent: if A changes, B and X will change as well; or if A
changes her/his relationship to X, B will have to change his/her relationship either with X or with A.
If A and B are friends, and X is something or someone known to both of them, it will be more important
that A and B will be under pressure to communicate until the two friends arrive at broadly similar
attitudes to X. The more important a place X has in their social environment, the more urgent will be their
drive to share an orientation towards him or it. Of course, X may not be a thing or a [person: it may be
any part of their shared environment. A May be the government, B the labour, and X pay policy: in this
case we can see, to oversimplify for the sake of clarity, that a labour government (a) and the labour (B),
who in theory ‘like’ each other, will be under pressure to hold frequent meetings to try and agree on X,
the pay policy. But if A is Anti labour government who is not friendly with the b, the Labour, there will be
less pressure for them to agree on x. If the AB relationship is not of liking they can differ over X: the
system is till in equilibrium.
Another example of the way equilibrium increases the need to communicate can be seen when X changes.
Immediately A and B need to communicate to establish their co-orientation to the new X. In time of war,
people’s dependence on the media is increased, and so too is the government’s use of the media. This is
because the war, X, is not only of
crucial importance but is also constantly changing. So government and people (A and B) need to be in
constant communication via the mass media.
This model assumes, though does not explicibly state, that people need information. In a democracy
information is usually regarded as a right, but it is not always realized that information is also a necessity.
Without it we cannot feel part of the society, We must have adequate information about our social
environment in order both to know how to react to it and to identify in our reaction factors that we can
share with the fellow members of our peer group, subculture, or culture. In simpler terms this model
suggests the interaction between sender and receiver for any common goal or cause. Both sender and
receiver are at the same level but their interpretation for the common goal or cause may or may not differ.
Newcomb sees four basic components of this relational system: (1) A's attitude toward X, (2) A's
attraction to B, (3) B's attitude toward X, and (4) B's attraction to A. According to the model, both A and
B have a natural propensity toward balance in their coorientation toward X and their partner. If A has a
negative attitude toward smoking (X) and a very positive attraction toward B, but B has a positive attitude
toward smoking (X) and toward A, then A will experience an imbalance resulting in a push toward
revision of attitudes to regain balance. This "strain toward balance" can be resolved by one or a
combination of (1) A decreasing the amount of liking for B, (2) A changing his attitude toward X, and (3)
A changing B's attitude about X to align with A's. A's actions are dependent on A's own orientations as
well as A's perceptions of B's orientations, and vice versa for B. Thus, both communicators are
continually making predictions or estimates of their partner's orientations. A has perceptions of what B is
thinking and feeling, just as B has perceptions of what A is thinking and feeling. Based on this model,
Wilmot (1987) concludes that at the very minimum, any thorough index of a dyadic relationship should
include the following two items of information: (1) each person's orientation (that is, their attitude toward
the object of communication and their attraction toward their communication partner) and (2) what each
person perceives their partner's orientations to be.

Gerbner's General Model

Gerbner's General Model emphasizes the dynamic nature of human communication. It also, in common
with other models, gives prominence to the factors, which may affect fidelity.
The model shown diagrammatically is to be read from left to right, beginning at E - Event. Please click on
the model for further details. Gerbner: E & Perceptual dimension
‘E’ is an event, which takes place in the 'reality'. The event (E) is perceived by M (the man (sic) or
machine). The process of perception is not simply a matter of 'taking a picture' of event E. It is a process
of active interpretation (as Schramm & Osgood emphasize in their circular model). The way that the E is
perceived will be determined by a variety of factors, such as the assumptions, attitudes, point of view, and
experience of M. It draws our attention to the way that attitudes, knowledge level, communication skills,
culture and social position affect the encoding and decoding of messages. E can be a person talking,
sending a letter, telephoning, or otherwise communicating with M. In other words, E could be what we
conventionally call the Source or Transmitter. Equally, E can be an event - a car crash, rain, waves
crashing on a beach, a natural disaster etc. In this case, we could be applying the model to mass media
communication, say the reporting of news. It is this generality in the model, which makes it a useful
starting point for the analysis of wide variety of communication acts. Note that the model, besides
drawing our attention to those factors within E, which will determine perception or interpretation of E,
also draws our attention to three important factors:
Selection: M, the perceiver of the event E (or receiver of the message, if you prefer) selects from the
event, paying more attention to this aspect and less to that. This process of selecting, filtering is
commonly known as gate keeping, particularly in discussion of the media's selection and discarding of
events or aspects of them.
Context: a factor often omitted from communication models, but a vitally important factor. The sound
represented by the spelling 'hair' means an animal in one context,
something that's not supposed to be in your soup in another. Shouting, ranting and raving means this
man's very angry in one context, raving loony in another.
Availability: how many Es are there around? What difference does availability make? If there are fewer
Es around, we are likely to pay more attention to the ones there are. They are likely to be perceived by us
as more 'meaningful'. What sort of Es are there - for example, in the media house can be pro government
or anti government.
Gerbner: E1 and M
E1 is the event-as-perceived (E) by the man (sic) or machine M. In terms of human communication, a
person perceives an event. The perception (E1) they have of that event is more or less close to the 'real'
event. The degree of correspondence between M's perception of event E (E1) will be a function of M's
assumptions, point of view, experiences, social factors etc.
Gerbner: Means and Controls
In the next stage of the model, M becomes the Source of a message about E to someone else. M produces
a statement about the event (SE). To send that message, M has to use channels (or media) over which he
has a greater or lesser degree of control. [For comment on channels, see the Lasswell Formula.] The
question of 'control' relates to M's degree of skill in using communication channels. If using a verbal
channel, how good is he at using words? If using the Internet, how good is he at using new technology
and words? And so on? 'Control' may also be a matter of access - does he own this medium? can he get to
use this medium? Think of teachers in classrooms controlling the access to communication channels,
parents at home, owners of newspapers, editors of letters pages etc.
Gerbner: SE SE (statement about event) is what we would more normally call the 'message'. S stands for
Signal in fact, so in principle an S can be present without an E, but in that case it would be noise only. The
process can be extended ad infinitum by adding on other receivers (M2, M3etc.) who have further
perceptions (SE1, SE2 etc.) of the statements about perceived events.
McQuail and Windahl (1981) suggest that the generality of the model makes it useful both for the
analysis of interpersonal and mass communication. For example, on an individual-to-individual level,
it may......be useful to illustrate communicative and perceptual problems in the psychology of witnessing
before a court: How adequate is the perception of witness M of event E, and how well is E1 expressed in
SE and to what degree does the perception of SE1 of judge M2 correspond to SE? Where the mass media
are concerned, they suggest E could be potential news, M the mass media, SE media content and M2 the
media audience. That then allows us to ask: 'How good is the correspondence between reality and the
stories (between E and SE) about reality given by the media (M)?' and 'How well is media content (SE)
understood by the media audience (M2)?'
Gerbner adds in the contextual elements of perception, culture, the medium, and power.
Person #1 perceives an event, "E". This perception is filtered: (physical ability to experience the event,
personal and cultural selective perceptions), and is therefore one step removed from the original event
("E1").

NOTE: UPLOADED TO HELP YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR FEED BACK IN BELOW MENTIONED
EMAIL ID.

[email protected]