INTRODUCTION
The study of communication models offers valuable insight into how information is created, transmitted, and interpreted across different contexts. From early linear models like Shannon-Weaver to interactive and transactional approaches, these frameworks help explain the complexities of human and mass communication. Each model, be it Lasswell’s, Berlo’s SMCR, Schramm’s, or Gerbner’s, brings a unique perspective, emphasising various elements such as sender, message, channel, feedback, and noise. By exploring a comprehensive list of communication models, learners, researchers, and professionals can better understand the dynamics of effective message exchange in personal, organisational, and media-driven environments.
| S. NO | Model | Year | Proponent(s) | Model Type | Key Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aristotle’s Model | Before 300 B.C. | Aristotle | Linear | Classical rhetoric; speaker-focused |
| 2 | Lasswell’s Model | 1948 | Harold Lasswell | Linear | Message effects; propaganda model |
| 3 | Shannon & Weaver Model | 1949 | Shannon & Weaver | Linear | Transmission-focused with noise element |
| 4 | Newcomb’s ABX Model | 1953 | Theodore Newcomb | Interactive | Focus on social equilibrium and mutual orientation |
| 5 | Osgood-Schramm Model | 1954 | Osgood & Schramm | Interactive | Encoding-decoding loop; feedback enabled |
| 6 | Johari Window | 1955 | Luft & Ingham | Interactive | Based on interpersonal feedback and self-disclosure |
| 7 | Gerbner’s Model | 1956 | George Gerbner | Linear | Focused on content perception and media channels |
| 8 | Westley & Maclean Model | 1957 | Westley & Maclean | Interactive | Adds gatekeeping, feedback, multiple message sources |
| 9 | Riley & Riley Model | 1959 | Riley & Riley | Interactive | Social context of communication in families/systems |
| 10 | SMCR Model | 1960 | David Berlo | Linear | S-M-C-R: extension of Shannon-Weaver |
| 11 | Roman Jakobson’s Model | 1960 | Roman Jakobson | Functional / Semiotic | Not Linear in nature; describes six language functions |
| 12 | Meletzke’s Model | 1963 | Gerhard Meletzke | Psychological / Mass Comm | Deals with mass communication effects and audience psychology |
| 13 | Helical Model | 1967 | Frank Dance | Transactional | Communication as continuous, cumulative, evolving |
| 14 | Mosaic Model | 1968 | Sam Becker | Transactional | Media input from multiple sources; fragmented audience processing |
| 15 | DeFleur’s Model | 1970 | Melvin DeFleur | Interactive | Focuses on decoding, effects, and feedback in mass media |
| 16 | Barnlund’s Model (Transactional) | 1970 | Dean Barnlund | Transactional | Simultaneous sender-receiver exchange; overlapping fields |
| 17 | DeVito’s Model | 2003 | Joseph A. DeVito | Interactive | Interpersonal, Emphasizes noise, context, and feedback |
| 18 | Sadharanikaran Model | 2003 | Nirmal Mani Adhikari | Cultural | Rooted in Hindu philosophy; receiver-centric model |
CONCLUSION
Understanding the full spectrum of communication models is essential for grasping how messages function in both theory and practice. These models not only serve as academic tools but also as practical guides for enhancing clarity, minimizing misinterpretation, and adapting communication to diverse audiences. As technology advances, new models will emerge to address digital interaction, cross-cultural messaging, and AI-mediated communication—expanding beyond traditional frameworks while building on foundational theories. A well-rounded knowledge of these models equips communicators with the analytical skills needed to navigate and shape today’s complex information landscape.
