Schramm's model of

communication

Schramm's model of communication is an early and

influential model of communication. It was first published
by Wilbur Schramm in 1954 and includes innovations over
previous models, such as the inclusion of a feedback loop
and the discussion of the role of fields of experience. For
Schramm, communication is about sharing information or
having a common attitude towards signs. His model is
based on three basic components: a source, a destination,
and a message. The process starts with an idea in the mind
of the source. This idea is then encoded into a message
using signs and sent to the destination. The destination
needs to decode and interpret the signs to reconstruct
the original idea. In response, they formulate their own
message, encode it, and send it back as a form of
feedback. Feedback is a key part of many forms of
communication. It can be used to mitigate processes that
may undermine successful communication, such as external
noise or errors in the phases of encoding and decoding.

Schramm's model of communication includes a feedback loop and the processes

of encoding, decoding, and interpretation.
The success of communication also depends on the fields
of experience of the participants. A field of experience
includes past life experiences as well as attitudes and
beliefs. It affects how the processes of encoding,
decoding, and interpretation take place. For successful
communication, the message has to be located in the
overlap of the fields of experience of both participants.
If the message is outside the receiver's field of experience,
they are unable to connect it to the original idea. This is
often the case when there are big cultural differences.

Schramm holds that the sender usually has some goal they
wish to achieve through communication. He discusses the
conditions that are needed to have this effect on the
audience, such as gaining their attention and motivating
them to act towards this goal. He also applies his model
to mass communication. One difference from other forms of
communication is that successful mass communication is
more difficult since there is very little feedback. In the
1970s, Schramm proposed many revisions to his earlier
model. They focus on additional factors that make
communication more complex. An example is the relation
between sender and receiver: it influences the goal of
communication and the roles played by the participants.

Schramm's criticism of linear models of communication,

which lack a feedback loop, has been very influential. One
shortcoming of Schramm's model is that it assumes that
the communicators take turns in exchanging information
instead of sending messages simultaneously. Another
objection is that Schramm conceives information and its
meaning as preexisting entities rather than seeing
communication as a process that creates meaning.

Background
Schramm's model of communication was published by Wilbur
Schramm in 1954. It is one of the earliest interaction
models of communication.[1][2][3] It was conceived as a
response to and an improvement over earlier attempts in
the form of linear transmission models, like the Shannon–
Weaver model and Lasswell's model.[4][5] Models of
communication are simplified presentations of the process
of communication and try to explain it by discussing its
main components and their relations.[6][7][8]

For Schramm, a central aspect of communication is that

the participants "are trying to establish a 'commonness' "
by sharing an idea or information.[9][10] In this regard,
communication can be defined as "the sharing of an
orientation toward a set of informational signs" and is
based on a relation between the communicators.[11] So
when a person calls the fire department to report a fire
in their home, this is an attempt to share information
about the fire. This sharing happens through messages.[9][10]
For Schramm, messages are made up of signs. Each sign
corresponds to some element in experience, like the sign
"dog" which "stands for our generalized experience of
dogs". This sign is meaningless for someone who has never
experienced dogs before or who does not associate the
sign with their experiences of dogs.[12][13]

The theories of psychologist Charles Osgood were a

significant influence and inspired Schramm to formulate his
model. According to Osgood, meaning is located not just in
the message but also in the social context.[3] His
psycholinguistic approach focuses on how external stimuli
elicit internal responses in the form of interpretations.
These responses mediate between the stimulus and its
meaning.[14] Osgood's ideas influenced Schramm in two
important ways: (1) he posited a field of shared experience
acting as the background of communication and (2) he
added the stages of encoding and decoding as internal
responses to the process.[3] Because of these influences,
some theorists refer to Schramm's model as the "Osgood–
Schramm model".[2][5]

Most theorists identify Schramm's model with his 1954 book

The process and effects of mass communication and
present it as a reaction to earlier models developed in
the late 1940s.[2][3][15] However, marketing scholar Jim
Blythe argues that Schramm's model is of earlier origin
and was already present in Schramm's 1949[a] book Mass
Communication.[16][17]

Overview and basic

components
For Schramm, communication has in its most basic form
three parts: a source, a message, and a destination. The
source can be an individual or an organization, like a
newspaper or a television station. The same is true for the
destination.[18][10] The process starts in the sender's mind,
where the message originates in the form of an idea. To
share this information, the source needs to encode it first
into symbolic form since the idea cannot be transmitted
directly from mind to mind.[1][19][20] This can happen in
various ways: the signs can be linguistic (like written or
spoken words) or non-linguistic (like pictures, music, or
animal sounds).[16] They are then transmitted through a
channel, for example, as sounds for a face-to-face
conversation, as ink on paper for a letter, or as
electronic signals in the case of text messaging. At this
stage, noise may interfere with the transmission and
distort the message.[10][16] Once the message reaches the
receiver, the reverse process of decoding is applied: the
receiver attaches meaning to the signs according to their
own field of experience. This way, they try to reconstruct
the sender's original idea. The process continues when the
receiver returns a new message as feedback to the
original sender.[1][20]
The process of communication can fail in various ways. For
example, the message may be distorted by external noise.
But errors can also occur at the stages of encoding and
decoding when the source does not use the correct signs or
when the pattern of decoding does not match the pattern
of encoding. A further problem is posed if the original
information is faulty, to begin with. For effective
communication, all these negative influences need to be
avoided.[21][22]

Schramm's model is based on the Shannon–Weaver model.

According to the Shannon–Weaver model, communication is
an interaction of various components. A source translates
a message into a signal using a transmitter. The signal is
then sent through a channel to a receiver. The receiver
translate the signal back into a message and makes it
available to a destination. The steps of encoding and
decoding in Schramm's model perform the same role as
transmitter and receiver in the Shannon–Weaver
model.[5][23][24] Because of its emphasis on communication
as a circular process, the main focus of Schramm's model
is on the behavior of senders and receivers. For this
reason, it does not involve a detailed technical discussion
of the channel and influences of noise, unlike the
Shannon–Weaver model.[1][2][20]
Feedback

Schramm's model introduces a feedback loop between sender and receiver.[2]

The role of feedback is one innovation of Schramm's model

in comparison to earlier models.[3][25][16] Schramm sees
communication as a dynamic interaction in which two
participants exchange messages.[1][2][16] That means that
the process of communication does not end in the
receiver's mind. Instead, upon receiving a message, the
communicator returns some feedback: they formulate a
new message in the form of an idea, encode it, and convey
it to the original sender, where the process starts
anew.[2][5][20] Communication is an endless process in the
sense that people constantly decode and interpret their
environment to assign meaning to it and encode possible
responses to it.[5][20]

Models without a feedback loop, like the Shannon–

Weaver model and Lasswell's model, are called linear
transmission models. They contrast with interaction models,
also known as non-linear or circular transmission
models.[6][26] Schramm rejects the idea of a passive
audience present in linear models of communication. He
argues instead that the audience should be understood as
a full partner.[27] Feedback is a vital aspect of many
forms of communication. It can be used to confirm that
the message was received and to mitigate the influence of
noise. For example, the message may get distorted on the
way or the receiver may misinterpret it. In such cases, the
feedback loop makes it possible to assess whether such
errors occurred and, if so, repeat the message to ensure
that it is understood correctly.[16]

Paying attention to one's own message is also a form of feedback.[28][25]

Schramm also discusses another form of feedback that

does not depend on the other person. This happens when
the sender pays attention to their own message, for
example, when reading through a letter one just wrote to
check its style and tone.[28][25]
Field of experience

The concept of fields of experience plays a central role in Schramm's

model.[20] They are visualized in the diagram as colored circles and their
overlap is necessary for effective communication.[13]

Another innovation of Schramm's model is the role of

fields of experience.[13][11][16] A field of experience is a
mental frame of reference.[29] It includes past life
experiences as well as the attitudes, values, and beliefs
of the communicators.[13][16][30] Each participant has their
own field of experience. It determines how the processes
of encoding, decoding, and interpretation take
place.[20][30] For example, an American is unable to encode
their message in Russian if they have never learned this
language. And if a person from an indigenous tribe has
never heard of an airplane then they are unable to
accurately decode messages about airplanes.[13] The more
the participants are alike, the more their fields of
experience overlap. For communication to be successful,
the message has to be located within both fields of
experience, i.e. in their overlap.[13][20][30]

The bigger the cultural differences, the more difficult

effective communication becomes. This is especially
relevant for communication across national
boundaries.[16][30] Blythe cites this lack of overlap as an
example of failed communication in the case of foreign
advertisements, which may appear incomprehensible or
unintentionally humorous.[16] The lack of overlap can also
happen for people within the same culture, for example,
when an amateur tries to read specialist scientific
literature. In some cases, such problems can be avoided if
the sender is able to encode their message using an easy
expression that is accessible to the destination.[20][12][13]
The concept of a field of experience is similar to what
later models refer to as social and cultural contexts.[4][31]

Conditions of successful
communication
Communication is usually tied to some intended effect. So
putting an advertisement in a newspaper, scolding a child,
or engaging in a job interview are forms of communication
directed at different goals. Communication is not always
successful and the message may fail to achieve the
intended effect.[32][33] Schramm lists four conditions of
successful communication. The message must be designed (1)
to gain the attention of the destination and (2) to be
understandable to get the meaning across. Additionally, it
must (3) arouse needs in the destination, and (4) suggest a
way how these needs can be met.[34][35]

To get the attention of the audience, the message must

be accessible to them. When talking, for example, one
must talk loud enough to be heard. To ensure that the
message is understandable, the sender must be aware of
the field of experience of the audience in order to choose
words and examples that are familiar to them.[12][34][36]
Through the relation to the destination's needs, the
message can unfold its effect by motivating them to
respond.[37][38]

Depending on the message and the intended effect, it can

address needs like security, status, or love. This aspect
plays a central role in all forms of advertisement. A good
knowledge of one's audience's character is required to
understand which need to arouse and how to arouse it.
This depends also on the specific situation and the
circumstances, for example, whether the audience is in the
right mood and whether the intended response is socially
acceptable in the given situation. To unfold its effect,
there has to be some form of action that the audience
can perform to satisfy this need. There are usually many
actions available. The sender may use the message to
suggest the action that is most in tune with the effect
they intend to provoke. For example, a political party
may use a campaign event to spread fear of an external
threat in order to arouse the audience's need for security.
The party may then promise to eliminate this threat to
get the audience to act in tune with its intended goal: to
secure their votes.[39][40][41]
Application to mass
communication
For mass communication, the source is usually not an
individual but rather an organization like a newspaper or
a broadcasting network. The basic steps like encoding and
decoding are the same but they are not performed by a
single person but by a group of people, like the employed
reporters and editors. The destinations of mass
communication are individual people, like the readers of a
newspaper. The hallmark of mass communication is that
the message reaches a very large number of people. This
stands in contrast to face-to-face communication taking
place between two or a small number of people. Another
difference is that there is very little direct feedback in
mass communication. For example, it happens very seldom
that a viewer contacts a broadcast network or that a
reader writes a letter to an editor. Feedback is here
often more indirect: people may stop to buy a service or
to view a program if they are not satisfied with it, usually
without providing a reason to the sender for their decision.
This lack of feedback makes effective communication more
difficult since it is not directly obvious to the sender
whether their message had the intended effect. This is one
of the reasons why mass communication providers often
conduct audience research. This way, they can obtain vital
information about their target audience so they can
formulate their messages accordingly.[42]
Schramm's model of mass communication. The blue area is the mass audience.
The red circles represent the direct receivers of the message. The green circles
symbolize the people in their social field with whom they discuss the
message.[43]

It is very difficult to predict the effects of mass

communication since the effect differs a lot from person
to person based on their personality, mood, and current
situation. An additional factor in this regard is that the
effects are not restricted to direct effects on the person
receiving the message. Instead, they are also indirect: the
receiver is part of a social environment and may share,
criticize, and reflect on the message with the people in
their environment.[44][45]
Later developments
Schramm proposed revisions to his model in the 1970s.[16][27]
He explained that many developments in the field of
communication studies since his first model had shown that
communication is a very complex phenomenon. He agreed
that his initial model was too simple to do justice to this
complexity.[46][47] He tried to address these shortcomings
by developing a relational model of communication. These
changes were influenced by David Berlo's model of
communication and its focus on the effects of
communication. Berlo had argued that the goal of all
communication is to influence the behavior of the
audience.[48] Schramm's relational model focuses on the
relation between sender and receiver. The relation
includes the totality of the past experiences the
communicators have had with each other. It can be based
on past face-to-face contact with the other party, as
when meeting a friend for dinner, but need not be, as
would be the case when reading a newspaper article by a
reporter one has never met. But even in this case, past
experiences shape what the reader expects from the
newspaper and what the reporter expects from the
readership.[49]

For Schramm, the relation is a basic requirement of

communication since communication is about sharing
information or attitudes and, in this sense, being in tune
with each other.[11][50] It determines many aspects of
communication, like its goal, the roles played by the
participants, and the expectations they bring to the
exchange.[51] The goal is what the communicators intend to
achieve by communicating. In the instructional context, the
goal is to transmit information while performance arts are
about entertaining the audience. The relation also affects
the role of the participants. For instruction, this involves
the roles of teacher and student. These roles determine
how the participants are expected to contribute to the
communicative goal. For example, teachers may share and
explain information while students may listen and ask
clarifying questions. As the background of communication,
the relation also affects how the messages are
interpreted. For example, seeing a person as an actor on
a stage leads to one interpretation of their messages. But
interacting with them during business negotiations results in
a very different interpretation of the same
messages.[52][53]
Influence and criticism
Schramm's model has been influential both for its criticism
of linear transmission models and for its innovations in
trying to overcome them. Schramm was one of the first
scholars to challenge the Shannon–Weaver model of
communication.[4] According to him, the shortcomming of
the Shannon–Weaver model and other linear transmission
models is that they assume that the communicative
process ends when the message reaches its
destination.[1][5][20] He terms them "bullet theories of
communication" since communication is seen as a magic
bullet that goes from active senders to passive receivers
in the form of sending ideas to the receivers'
mind.[54][55][56] Schramm rejects the idea that the audience
is a passive receiver and assigns them a more active role:
the audience respondes by generates a new message and
sends it back to the original as a form of feedback. Many
scholars have followed Schramm's criticisms of linear
transmission models. They agree that communication is a
dynamic exchange involving an active audience and
feedback loops.[1][5][20] Schramm's other innovations have
also been influential, like his concept of the field of
experience and his development of relational models in his
later work.[16][27][57]

A common criticism of Schramm's model focuses on the fact

that it describes communication as a turn-based exchange
of information. This means that there is no simultaneous
messaging: first one participant sends a message, then the
other conveys their own message as a form of feedback,
later the first participant responds again, etc. However,
these processes often happen simultaneously for many
forms of communication.[2] For example, in face-to-face
conversations like a first date, the listener usually uses
facial expressions and body posture to signal their
agreement or interest. This happens while the speaker is
talking, the listener does not wait for the speaker to
finish before engaging in this form of non-verbal
communication.[7] This shortcoming of Schramm's model is
addressed by so-called transaction models, which allow
for simultaneous messaging. The weight of this objection
depends on the type of communication analyzed. For some
forms, like pen pals exchanging letters or instant
messaging, disregarding simultaneous messages has little
impact, but in other cases, it is an important factor.[2][7]
Another criticism of Schramm's model argues that, for
Schramm, the information and its meaning exist prior to
the communicative act. Communication itself is then just
understood as an exchange of messages or meaning. This
view is characteristic of transmission models but is
rejected by constitutive models. Constitutive models hold
that meaning does not exist before the communication but
is created in the process. In this regard, the dialog acts
as a cooperative process through which meaning is
constructed.[1][16] Such an approach is proposed by Everett
Rogers and Thomas Steinfatt. They elaborate Schramm's
interactive approach and combine it with the assumption
that the communicators create and share meaning with
the goal of reaching a mutual understanding.[4] Similar
approaches to communication focusing on the co-
construction of meaning are presented by S. A. Deetz and
G. Mantovani.[16]

A further limitation is that Schramm's model is restricted

to communication between two parties. However, there are
forms of group communication where more parties are
involved.[4][58]

References

Notes

a. Blythe cites it as 1948 but it is usually cited as 1949.

Citations

1. Littlejohn & Foss 2009, p. 176 (https://books.google.com/b

ooks?id=2veMwywplPUC&pg=PA176) .
2. Steinberg 1995, p. 18 (https://books.google.com/books?id=V
Ps3kidEqXYC&pg=PA18) .
3. Bowman & Targowski 1987, pp. 21–34.
4. Liu, Volcic & Gallois 2014, p. 38 (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=QfSICwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38) .
5. Schwartz 2010, p. 52 (https://books.google.com/books?id=
K92eBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA52) .
6. Ruben 2001, Models Of Communication (https://www.encyc
lopedia.com/media/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-a
nd-maps/models-communication) .
7. UMN staff 2016, 1.2 The Communication Process (https://o
pen.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/1-2-the-communica
tion-process/) .
8. McQuail 2008, Models of communication (https://www.wile
y.com/en-us/The+International+Encyclopedia+of+Communi
cation%2C+12+Volume+Set-p-9781405131995) .
9. Babe 2015, p. 128 (https://books.google.com/books?id=YAK
eCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA128) .
10. Schramm 1960, p. 3.
11. Ruben 2017, p. 12 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Fm5
QDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12) .
12. Babe 2015, p. 117 (https://books.google.com/books?id=YAK
eCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA117) .
13. Schramm 1960, p. 6.
14. Heath & Bryant 2013, p. 101 (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=xx_MG6BaDKEC&pg=PA101) .
15. Schramm 1960.
16. Blythe 2009, pp. 177–80 (https://books.google.com/books?
id=rPgQRbBLdYgC&pg=188) .
17. Schramm 1949.
18. Rogala & Bialowas 2016, p. 21 (https://books.google.com/
books?id=Ok4iDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA21) .
19. Schramm 1960, p. 4.
20. Moore 1994, pp. 90–1 (https://books.google.com/books?id=
icMsdAGHQpEC&pg=PA90) .
21. Schramm 1960, pp. 4–5.
22. Chandler & Munday 2011b, noise (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) .
23. Chandler & Munday 2011d, Shannon and Weaver’s model
(https://books.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) .
24. Shannon 1948, p. 381.
25. Schramm 1960, p. 9.
26. Chandler & Munday 2011e, transmission models (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) .
27. Narula 2006, pp. 11–44 (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=AuRyXwyAJ78C) , 1. Basic Communication Models.
28. Naidu 2008, p. 23 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sZQ
WMpiWy3IC&pg=PA23) .
29. Dwyer 2012, p. 10 (https://books.google.com/books?id=xhHi
BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA10) .
30. Meng 2020, p. 120 (https://books.google.com/books?id=b0
HWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120) .
31. Swift 2017, p. 195 (https://books.google.com/books?id=hRx
HEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA195) .
32. Schramm 1960, p. 12.
33. Babe 2015, p. 90 (https://books.google.com/books?id=YAK
eCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA90) .
34. Baker 2017, p. 401.
35. Schramm 1960, p. 13.
36. Schramm 1960, pp. 13–4.
37. Schramm 1960, pp. 14–5.
38. Babe 2015, p. 113 (https://books.google.com/books?id=YAK
eCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA113) .
39. Babe 2015, pp. 113–114, 117 (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=YAKeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA113) .
40. United States Naval Education and Training staff 1978,
p. 29.
41. Schramm 1960, pp. 14–7.
42. Chandler & Munday 2011a, mass communication (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C)

Moore 1994, pp. 90–1 (https://books.google.com/books?id=

icMsdAGHQpEC&pg=PA90)

Page & Parnell 2020, p. 165 (https://books.google.com/bo

oks?id=RHjqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT165)

Schramm 1960, pp. 18–9

43. Schramm 1960, p. 21.

44. Medoff & Kaye 2013, p. 4 (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=mo5X6niXB_wC&pg=PT17) .
45. Schramm 1960, pp. 20–1.
46. Iosifidis 2011, p. 94.
47. Schramm 1971, p. 6.
48. Narula 2006, pp. 11–44 (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=AuRyXwyAJ78C) , 1. Basic Communication Models

Schramm 1971, pp. 7–8

Chandler & Munday 2011c, relational models (https://boo

ks.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C)

Jandt 2010, p. 41 (https://books.google.com/books?id=3nqU

SY2C4wsC&pg=PA41)

Zaharna 2022, p. 70 (https://books.google.com/books?id=d

SxTEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA70)
49. Carney & Lymer 2022, p. 90

Babe 2015, pp. 113–115 (https://books.google.com/books?id

=YAKeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA113)

Varey & Lewis 2000, p. 284 (https://books.google.com/boo

ks?id=onuBdFC4Q7wC&pg=PA284)

Schramm 1971, pp. 14–5

Chandler & Munday 2011c, relational models (https://boo

ks.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C)

50. Schramm 1971, p. 14.

51. Chandler & Munday 2011c, relational models (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) .
52. Babe 2015, pp. 115, 128 (https://books.google.com/books?id
=YAKeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA115) .
53. Schramm 1971, pp. 17–9, 34–8.
54. Babe 2015, pp. 110 (https://books.google.com/books?id=YA
KeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA110) .
55. Paletz 1996, p. 259 (https://books.google.com/books?id=k
Wt8G2P59bIC&pg=PA259) .
56. Schramm 1971, pp. 8–9.
57. Schramm 1971, pp. 7–8.
58. Chandler & Munday 2011, group communication (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) .

Sources

Babe, Robert E. (2015). Wilbur Schramm and Noam Chomsky

Meet Harold Innis: Media, Power, and Democracy (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=YAKeCAAAQBAJ) . Lexington Books.
ISBN 978-1-4985-0682-3.
Baker, Michael J. (2017). Marketing Strategy and
Management (https://books.google.com/books?id=DSRIEAAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA401) . Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 401. ISBN 978-1-
137-34213-3.
Blythe, Jim (2009). Key Concepts in Marketing (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=rPgQRbBLdYgC&pg=188) . SAGE
Publications. pp. 177–80. ISBN 978-1-84787-498-6.
Bowman, J. P.; Targowski, A. S. (1987). "Modeling the
Communication Process: The Map is Not the Territory".
Journal of Business Communication. 24 (4): 21–34.
doi:10.1177/002194368702400402 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0
02194368702400402) . S2CID 145236749 (https://api.semantic
scholar.org/CorpusID:145236749) .
Carney, William Wray; Lymer, Leah-Ann (2022). Fundamentals
of Public Relations and Marketing Communications in Canada
(https://books.google.com/books?id=9ue1EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9
0) . University of Alberta. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-77212-651-8.
Chandler, Daniel; Munday, Rod (2011). "group communication".
A Dictionary of Media and Communication (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) . OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-
956875-8.
Chandler, Daniel; Munday, Rod (2011a). "mass communication".
A Dictionary of Media and Communication (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) . OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-
956875-8.
Chandler, Daniel; Munday, Rod (2011b). "noise". A Dictionary
of Media and Communication (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) . OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-956875-8.
Chandler, Daniel; Munday, Rod (2011c). "relational models". A
Dictionary of Media and Communication (https://books.google.
com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) . OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-
956875-8.
Chandler, Daniel; Munday, Rod (2011d). "Shannon and
Weaver's model". A Dictionary of Media and Communication (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) . OUP
Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-956875-8.
Chandler, Daniel; Munday, Rod (2011e). "transmission models".
A Dictionary of Media and Communication (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C) . OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-
956875-8.
Dwyer, Judith (2012). Communication for Business and the
Professions: Strategie s and Skills (https://books.google.com/
books?id=xhHiBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA10) . Pearson Higher
Education AU. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-4425-5055-1.
Heath, Robert L.; Bryant, Jennings (2013). Human
Communication Theory and Research: Concepts, Contexts, and
Challenges (https://books.google.com/books?id=xx_MG6BaDK
EC&pg=PA101) . Routledge. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-135-67706-0.
Iosifidis, P. (2011). Global Media and Communication Policy: An
International Perspective (https://books.google.com/books?id
=kaCHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94) . Springer. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-
230-34658-1.
Jandt, Fred Edmund (2010). An Introduction to Intercultural
Communication: Identities in a Global Community (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=3nqUSY2C4wsC&pg=PA41) . SAGE.
p. 41. ISBN 978-1-4129-7010-5.
Littlejohn, Stephen W.; Foss, Karen A. (2009). Encyclopedia of
Communication Theory (https://books.google.com/books?id=2v
eMwywplPUC&pg=PA176) . SAGE Publications. p. 176.
ISBN 978-1-4129-5937-7.
Liu, Shuang; Volcic, Zala; Gallois, Cindy (2014). Introducing
Intercultural Communication: Global Cultures and Contexts
(https://books.google.com/books?id=QfSICwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3
8) . SAGE. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-4739-0912-0.
McQuail, Denis (2008). "Models of communication". In
Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed.). The International Encyclopedia of
Communication, 12 Volume Set (https://www.wiley.com/en-us/T
he+International+Encyclopedia+of+Communication%2C+12+Vo
lume+Set-p-9781405131995) . Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-
4051-3199-5.
Medoff, Norman J.; Kaye, Barbara (2013). Electronic Media:
Then, Now, and Later (https://books.google.com/books?id=mo
5X6niXB_wC&pg=PT17) . Taylor & Francis. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-
136-03041-3.
Meng, Xiangfei (2020). National Image: China's Communication
of Cultural Symbols (https://books.google.com/books?id=b0H
WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120) . Springer Nature. p. 120. ISBN 978-
981-15-3147-7.
Moore, David Mike (1994). Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of
Visual Learning (https://books.google.com/books?id=icMsdAGH
QpEC&pg=PA90) . Educational Technology. pp. 90–1.
ISBN 978-0-87778-264-3.
Naidu, P. Ch Appala (2008). Feedback Methods and Student
Performance (https://books.google.com/books?id=sZQWMpiWy
3IC&pg=PA23) . Discovery Publishing House. p. 23. ISBN 978-
81-8356-284-3.
Narula, Uma (2006). "1. Basic Communication Models".
Handbook of Communication Models, Perspectives, Strategies
(https://books.google.com/books?id=AuRyXwyAJ78C) .
Atlantic Publishers & Dist. pp. 11–44. ISBN 978-81-269-0513-3.
Page, Janis Teruggi; Parnell, Lawrence J. (2020). Introduction
to Public Relations: Strategic, Digital, and Socially
Responsible Communication (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=RHjqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT165) . SAGE Publications. p. 165.
ISBN 978-1-5443-9202-8.
Paletz, David L. (1996). Political Communication Research:
Approaches, Studies, Assessments (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=kWt8G2P59bIC&pg=PA259) . Greenwood Publishing
Group. p. 259. ISBN 978-1-56750-163-6.
Rogala, Anna; Bialowas, Sylwester (2016). Communication in
Organizational Environments: Functions, Determinants and
Areas of Influence (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ok4iD
QAAQBAJ&pg=PA21) . Springer. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-137-54703-3.
Ruben, Brent D. (2017). Between Communication and
Information (https://books.google.com/books?id=Fm5QDwAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA12) . Routledge. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-351-29471-3.
Ruben, Brent D. (2001). "Models Of Communication".
Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (https://www.
encyclopedia.com/media/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-
and-maps/models-communication) .
Schramm, Wilbur, ed. (1949). Mass communications (https://psy
cnet.apa.org/record/1950-02563-000) . University of Illinois
Press.
Schramm, Wilbur (1971). "The Nature of Communication between
Humans". The Process and Effects of Mass Communication -
Revised Edition (https://books.google.com/books?id=112wAAAA
IAAJ) . University of Illinois Press. pp. 3–53. ISBN 978-0-252-
00197-0.
Schramm, Wilbur (1960) [1954]. "How communication works". The
Process and Effects of Mass Communication (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=z2aaAQAACAAJ) . University of Illinois
Press. pp. 3–26.
Schwartz, David (2010). Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management, Second Edition (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=K92eBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA52) . IGI Global. p. 52.
ISBN 978-1-59904-932-8.
Shannon, C. E. (July 1948). "A Mathematical Theory of
Communication". Bell System Technical Journal. 27 (3): 381.
doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x (https://doi.org/10.100
2%2Fj.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x) .
Steinberg, S. (1995). Introduction to Communication Course
Book 1: The Basics (https://books.google.com/books?id=VPs3ki
dEqXYC&pg=PA18) . Juta and Company Ltd. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-
7021-3649-8.
Swift, Jonathan (2017). Understanding Business in the Global
Economy: A Multi-Level Relationship Approach (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=hRxHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA195) .
Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 195. ISBN 978-1-137-60380-7.
UMN staff (2016). "1.2 The Communication Process".
Communication in the Real World (https://open.lib.umn.edu/co
mmunication/chapter/1-2-the-communication-process/) .
University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. ISBN 978-1-
946135-07-0.
United States Naval Education and Training staff (1978).
Journalist 1 & C. (https://books.google.com/books?id=0GAirbhY
rcwC&pg=PA29) Department of Defense, Department of the
Navy, Naval Education and Training Command. p. 29.
Varey, Richard J.; Lewis, Barbara R. (2000). Internal
Marketing: Directions for Management (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=onuBdFC4Q7wC&pg=PA284) . Psychology Press.
p. 284. ISBN 978-0-415-21317-2.
Zaharna, R. S. (2022). Boundary Spanners of Humanity: Three
Logics of Communications and Public Diplomacy for Global
Collaboration (https://books.google.com/books?id=dSxTEAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA70) . Oxford University Press. p. 70.
ISBN 9780190930271.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Schramm%27s_model_of_communication&oldid=1163703437"

This page was last edited on 6 July 2023, at 05:05 (UTC). •

Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.