Communication Models: A Historical Overview, Schemes and Mind Maps of Communication

Download Communication Models: A Historical Overview and more Schemes and Mind Maps Communication in PDF only on Docsity! October 2020 Prepared for: Strategic Multilayer Assessment Integrating Information in Joint Operations (IIJO) Dr. Lawrence A. Kuznar, NSI Ms. Mariah Yager, NSI POC: Dr. Lawrence A. Kuznar, NSI, lkuznar@nsiteam.com The Development of Communication Models Quick Look T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n M o d e l s 1 The Development of Communication Models Introduction In July 2019, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) endorsed a list of specific actions for the Operations in the Information Environment (OIE) DOTMLPF-P1 Change Recommendation (DCR). A requested action under item 1b asks for a “process to develop a baseline understanding of the IE (Information Environment) and subsequently modify the model of relevant actor perceptions, attitudes, and other elements that drive behaviors.” To that end, Lt. Gen Mark Kelly, Operations (AF/A3), requested Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) initiate an effort to better understand and integrate information and influence into operational-level planning, execution, and assessment activities across the competition continuum. Information influences behavior through the process of communication, and so this report provides a review of formative communication models that underly the baseline SMA Effective Communication Framework (Modeling Effective Communication), developed in support of the A3 request. That generic model of communication establishes a baseline understanding of the information environment (IE), as well as the role of relevant actor perceptions and attitudes that drive behavior. The models reviewed in this report are considered key developments in the theory of communication that undergird that model, and each provides a critical insight into operating in the IE. Models are essential in the sciences for focusing attention on relevant variables and exposing 1 Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy predictive, or when possible, causal relationships (Bankes, Lempert, & Popper, 2002; Cioffi-Revilla, 2014). The models reviewed here are essential for decomposing the communication process into its constituent elements, and the lines, arrows, and shapes in the models described below represent different communication interactions. These interactions provide hypotheses to be tested when thinking about and conducting IO, and the elements define what aspects of the communication process need to be measured in order to provide measures of effectiveness (MOEs), not just measures of performance (MOPs). The history of models of communication reveals that as new models were created, the concept of the information environment was expanded; that is, more variables contributing to communication and their interactions were considered. The report begins with a review of linear models that describe communication as a process of transmitting a message from a sender to a receiver. A review of transactional models that describe how the exchange and interpretation of messages between communicators creates meaning follows. Subsequent Quicklook reports describe how strategic communication models build upon this basis to model how communication can be done effectively. T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n M o d e l s 4 receiver (van Ruler, 2018). Both the source and receiver are influenced by their communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, social system, and culture. Relevant aspects of the message include its structure, content, treatment, and code. The channel is characterized by its sensory elements such as visual, audial, or other senses. Berlo’s model highlights four vital elements in the communication process, each of which can be points of message failure. A sender can misidentify a receiver’s interests, the right channel could be used at the wrong time, the receiver may be more influenced by his or her background than the sender thought, or even the wrong word choice could alienate or confuse the receiver. Bruce Westley and Malcom MacLean (1957) provided a more detailed model of how environmental influences and feedback would occur between journalist media and the public that preserved the linear connection between sender and receiver, but added the role of gatekeepers (people fulfilling editorial functions), with sensory experiences (the medium), the fields of experience senders and receivers bring to communication, and feedback from the receivers to the gatekeepers and senders (Figure 7 above). When operating in the IE, it is important to pay attention to gatekeepers who may block, amplify, or distort a message. As with the Schramm and Osgood model, this model also provides for feedback from the receiver. Effective communication requires monitoring feedback from the audience in order to gauge how well the message is received, its effect, and if need be, how to adapt a message to an audience. Moving Beyond Linear to Transactional and Interactive Models of Communication Transactional and interactive models fully embrace the feedback between sender and receiver. With the following reciprocal models of communication, senders and receivers are renamed as communicators because messages Figure 7: Westley and Maclean Model of Communication T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n M o d e l s 5 are sent and received by all actors. This reciprocation furthermore can be unintentional and sub-conscious. Paul Watzlawick’s first axiom of his interactional view is, “one cannot not communicate” (cited in Griffin, 2006, p. 177); everything humans do relays meaning, from words and actions, to lack of action, silence, or appearance. This reinforces the fact that communication does not only involve the intentional words and deeds, but also the unintentional. For instance, the US may not intend on communicating a message by stationing a bomber wing in an allied country, but an adversary may perceive the wing as a threat and a provocation that exceeds a critical escalation threshold. Wilbur Schramm’s initial model was essentially linear, but he also built upon Charles E. Osgood’s theory of meaning to produce a cyclical model (Figure 8) in which sender and receiver both encode and decode one another’s messages in a continuous loop that constitutes a conversation (Schramm, 1954). The conversation creates meaning between the communicators. Such mutual meaning is created during political and military crises when an action provokes an aggressive response from an adversary, which in turn leads to further escalation on the part of the initial communicator. John Riley and Matilda Riley (1959) provided an interactive, reciprocal model of sender-receiver messaging in which close social networks (friends, coworkers) influence senders and receivers within their larger social settings, and the act of communication alters senders, receivers, and their messages in a reciprocal process (Figure 9). This model emphasizes how a communicator’s social context influences how a message is perceived. For instance, a leader under political pressure at home may be pressured to respond to a provocation by escalating a crisis, or alternatively, if a leader’s constituents are not in favor of a conflict, a leader may be pressured not to act when provoked by a foreign threat. Figure 8. Schramm's Cyclical Model of Communication Figure 9. Riley and Riley Communication Model T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n M o d e l s 6 Finally, the trend in seeing communication as a reciprocal system in which participants or communicators interact with and influence one another is continued in Dean Barnlund’s transactional model of simultaneous and cumulative interaction of cues (Figure 10). An interaction is marked by an innumerable set of private, public, and nonverbal cues available to both individuals, but only a subsection (enclosed by the “/\/\/\” lines in the model) will be available or perceived at a given time. Meaning becomes cumulative with each new cue that is perceived (Barnlund, 1970, p. 59). Barnlund writes that communication is the evolution of meaning, as it is dynamic, circular, continuous, complex, unrepeatable, and irreversible (Barnlund, 1970). The interactive creation of meaning between communicators is a key theme in constructivist approaches such as those used by George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer, and Erving Goffman. George Herbert Mead’s work in social psychology recognized that communication occurs through symbols and focused on the interaction of the symbols people used in communication (Mead, 1934). This is why it is important to recognize the symbolic value of religious sites or nationalistic symbols when communicating with others. Mead proposed that it is through the interaction of symbols that meaning is socially created, the idea and label of which was fully developed by Herbert Blumer (1969) as the “symbolic interaction approach.” Erving Goffman produced a number of works that Communication, Messaging, and Information: An Information Theorist’s Definition of Information • Information theorist Christoph Adami (2016) argues that the way the term information is used in information theory has a useful analogy for theories of human communication. • To begin with, while there is no universally accepted definition of communication, a starting point for defining communication in general is “social interaction through messages” (Cioffi-Revilla, 2014; Fiske, 1990; Kuznar, 2006). Messages are the signals that are exchanged in an act of communication. • Adami (2016), following Shannon and Weaver (1949), defines information as that which decreases entropy (uncertainty about the state of the world). Information is generated when a message reduces uncertainty about the state of the world by creating meaning. Knowledge is produced when the meaning information creates impacts the receiver’s understanding of the world. • From this perspective, information is a quality of a message, not the content of the message itself. Whether or not messages convey information, and whether or not the information is what the communicator intends, is the subject of strategic communication. Assessing the extent to which messages effectively convey information requires underlying models of the communication process. Figure 10. Barnlund's Transactional Model of Communication