Abstract
The Man Behind the Theory
     "Four Fathers" Influence
     Schramm’s Accomplishments
The Evolution of Schramm’s Communication Theories
     From Aristotle to Shannon-Weaver
Communicating the Meaning of "Communication"
Schramm’s Transliteration of the Shannon-Weaver Model
     Impact of the Field of Experience
     Perpetual Communication
The Osgood-Schramm Circular Model
     Feedback
     Osgood-Schramm Versus Shannon-Weaver
     "Communication" as Defined by Osgood and Shannon
Bullet Theory of Communication
Interpersonal Communication to Mass Communication
     Mass Communication Defined
     Brief Historical Overview
     The Schramm Model of Mass Communication
Individual Response to the Influx of Information
     Fraction of Selection
From Mass Communication to Society Communication
In conclusion
     Accomplishments and Criticisms
References

This paper will present the evolution of communication models advanced by Wilbur Lang Schramm, from linear to circular processes, and from interpersonal communication to circumstances involving mass audiences. First, the Shannon-Weaver linear model will be introduced followed by Schramm’s transliteration of this technical model to one that addresses interpersonal communication. Next, the Osgood-Schramm circular model will be presented, followed by Schramm’s application of this circular approach to mass communication. By synthesizing the communication research performed by scholars in a variety of disciplines and introducing pivotal theories of his own, Schramm defined the field of communication.

However, Tankard (1988), among many others, believes Schramm himself deserves the highest accolades. Schramm likened communication research to an oasis "...where many have passed, but few have tarried." According to Tankard, unlike the aforementioned individuals, Schramm was the first to live his life in the undefined territory of the oasis that he would eventually come to concretize (Tankard, 1988).

In her article, "On Windwagons and Sky Bursters: Final Regrets of a Mass Communications Pioneer," Keever highlights just three of Schramm’s numerous contributions:

(1) Schramm founded the first mass communication doctoral program in the country. In addition, he established three research institutes at the University of Illinois, Stanford University, and the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii from 1948 to 1973, thereby legitimizing communication and communication research as bona fide areas of academic study (Keever, 1991, Mc Anany, 1988).

As defined by Schramm, communication research is the study of how the expression of ideas conveys comprehensible messages, how the mass media is utilized in general and as a benefit to society, and how communication can foster international understanding (Schramm, 1963).

(2) Schramm was instrumental in the initial publication of Claude E. Shannon’s The Mathematical Theory of Communication, the later translation (1949) of which was authored by Shannon and Warren Weaver (a mathematician who explained the theory in layman’s terms). Keever notes that Krippendorff (1989) considers this work monumental to the field of communication research in that it "...marked the transition from an industrial to an information society" (Keever, 1991). By definition, information theory reflects a mathematically based method of quantifying information, the existence of which minimizes uncertainty (Tankard, 1988).

This behavior exemplifies Schramm’s decisive role in furthering the field by bringing to the forefront meaningful discoveries of others (Tankard, 1988). Further, his transliteration of the Shannon-Weaver transmission model became a permanent fixture in the landscape of research and mass communication. Schramm’s model reflected a process termed "source-encoder-signal-decoder-destination" (Keever, 1991).

(3) Schramm was the first to examine television’s potential as an educational tool. Further, he explored the effects of television on national development (Keever, 1991).

As noted previously, the mathematician Claude Shannon is recognized for his role in developing the significant "mathematical paradigm" (Berlo, 1960). In actuality, Shannon erected this model during his tenure at Bell Telephone Laboratory to answer such electronic communication questions as "how much of transmitted signal will be destroyed by noise under way from transmitter to receiver" (McQuail and Windahl, 1981)? In fact, this Information Theory model reflected prior studies in statistical mechanics and electronic communication from Bell Labs in the 1920’s, as well as Wiener’s cybernetics. Despite Shannon’s intended technological purpose, behavioral scientists valued its applicability to the process of human communication (Schramm and Porter, 1982). In making this leap, one must be cognizant that the transition from technical to human communication requires a different mind-set; theories of signal transmission emphasize the accuracy of the relayed signal, as opposed to the human communication focus on the signal’s impact (Schramm and Porter, 1982). The Shannon-Weaver model delineates five communication elements: the source, transmitter, signal, receiver and destination. Interestingly, the Aristotelian model forms the backbone of Shannon’s theory; the source represents the "speaker," the signal, the "speech," and the destination, the "listener." The model is extended, however, to include a transmitter to relay the message, and a receiver to collect it for the destination (Berlo, 1960).

In addition, Shannon introduced the concept of feedback, or a message sent back to the source (Schramm, 1973b). Further, the idea of "noise" is introduced. Noise refers to those elements not intentionally introduced by the sender that impede the communication channel (Schramm, 1971). This interference can potentially disrupt the process by altering the message signal transmitted to the receiver (McQuail and Windahl, 1989). This disruption could result in a different meaning. Consequently, McQuail and Windahl (1981) refer to noise as a "dysfunctional factor." Thus, it is not surprising that, in both electronic and human communication, a high signal-to-noise ratio is preferable (Schramm, 1971).

The following is a representation of the Shannon-Weaver model as depicted in McQuail and Windahl (1981):

(1) The information source develops a message or message chain.

(2) A transmitter transforms the message into signals.

(3) These signals are "...adapted to the channel leading to the receiver."

(4) "The receiver [then] reconstructs the message from the signal."

(5) Finally, the "...received message...reaches the destination" (McQuail and Windahl, 1981).

McQuail (1981) comments that failed communication is often indicative of a dissimilar received message than the intended one; the information source is typically unaware of this development (McQuail and Windahl, 1981).

Up to this point, this paper has attempted to provide an understanding of the angle, in this case angles, from which Schramm advanced and defined the field of communication. In so doing, we arrived at Shannon’s pivotal mathematical model discovered and later translated by Schramm. As stated previously, Schramm renamed the functions to reflect the terms: source, encoder, signal, decoder and destination. Further, he advanced his model to students of mass communication (Keever 1991).

The following is a representation of Schramm’s adaptation of Shannon’s electronic communication model to human communication as depicted in Schramm (1965):

(1) The source must possess intelligible information.

(2) The encoder must represent the message in signs that can be clearly transmittable.

(3) The signal must be relayed quickly and precisely in light of potential interference and competing messages.

(4) The message must be decoded in accordance with the encoding.

(5) The destination must manage the decoded message to effect the sought after response (Schramm, 1965).

Paramount to Schramm’s model of human communication is that, just as the electronic transmitters and receivers must be in sync, all engaged in the process of communication must be capable of understanding one another. A representation of this critical aspect of the communication process as depicted in Schramm (1965) follows:

As a consequence, in order to increase the likelihood that the communication will be successful, the source attempts, whenever possible, to encode the message in a manner that capitalizes on those experiences most familiar to both parties. The area formed by the overlapping of the field of experience circles in the above diagram represents this desirable area of "common ground" (Schramm, 1965). Schramm states that, "if two people are going to communicate effectively, their stored experiences...against which they interpret the signals that come to them and decide how to respond to them...have to intersect over some topic of common interest" (Schramm and Porter, 1982).

The source utilizes signs, or signals that represent experiences, to formulate the message. However, a sign will elicit different reactions than the actual object it represents. For example, the word "cat" evokes a different response than the presence of the cat itself. Further, Schramm cautions that language is simply an abbreviated sign system that people must be able to write and read. However, the system is not universally consistent; what one person codes as "cat" may differ markedly from the decoder’s perception of that same sign (Schramm, 1965). Finally, the message is a separate entity in the communication process that attains its meaning only through the potential application of individual experience (Schramm, 1963).

The human communication system proceeds ad infinitum as individuals perpetually engage in decoding and interpreting signs, and then encoding information in response. Thus, the sender and receiver must each possess the ability to record and decipher shorthand. As one receives a signal in sign format, the response is influenced by both learned experience with the specific sign, and one’s present emotional/physical state; this is termed the mediatory response. This reaction will, in turn, precipitate encoding that reflects this personal meaning derived from the message, the particular situation surrounding it, and the presence of any obstacles (Schramm, 1965).

The prior discussion reflects the circular process of communication inherent to the Osgood-Schramm model, originated with U.S. psychologist, Charles Egerton Osgood, and presented by Schramm in 1954. Osgood’s accomplishments include writings on meaning and language behavior, work at the Institute of Communications Research and the Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois, and pioneering efforts as a psycholinguist, to name a few. In an effort to explain the intricacies of human language behavior, Osgood divided human information processing into 4 categories:

(1) "Sensory Recoding" or "Perceiving"

(2) "Decoding" or "Interpreting"

(3) "Encoding" or "Intending to Act"

(4) "Motor Recoding" or "Responding" (Tanaka, 1989)

The following is a representation of the Osgood-Schramm model as depicted in McQuail and Windahl (1981):

Central to Osgood’s basis for the model is the above-mentioned concept of the mediated response, where psychologically-based internal responses to specific signs define the meaning to the individual, and consequently, dictate the action she takes (Tanaka, 1989). Schramm’s powerful book, The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, featured Osgood’s stimulus-response approach to communication (Lyle, 1974). In addition, Schramm drew on Osgood’s discussion of "encoding" and "decoding," and the resultant "meaning." Recognition of these concepts segued the development of interpersonal communication models to those of mass communication (McQuail and Windahl, 1989).

A major distinction between the Osgood-Schramm model and the Shannon-Weaver model is their respective circular and linear structures. Further, Shannon-Weaver’s approach is "channel-centric," whereas Osgood-Schramm concern themselves with senders and receivers. In addition, Shannon-Weaver depict the information source and transmitter, receiver and destination as separate entities performing unique roles. Despite no mention of transmitters, etc., the Osgood-Schramm model essentially performs similar functions to Shannon-Weaver’s. However, the actors are considered equal and fulfill like roles: encoding, interpreting and decoding. Overall, though, Shannon-Weaver’s transmitting, source/destination and receiving resemble Osgood-Schramm’s encoding, interpreting and decoding, respectively (McQuail and Windahl, 1981).

McQuail (1981) states that the Osgood-Schramm model represents a radical departure from the traditional one-way approach promoted by Shannon-Weaver. He praises its merits with respect to interpersonal communication, but questions the model’s application to mass communication situations characterized by little, if any, feedback. Interestingly, he takes exception to the Osgood-Schramm assumption of equality, claiming the communication process is typically not equitable; one participant usually maintains the upper hand with regard to time, power and resources (McQuail and Windahl, 1981).

Thus far, we have explored the paradigms that form the foundations of the field of communication study. However, one cannot truly appreciate the sophistication of Osgood and Shannon’s revolutionary definitions and the attendant Schramm models without a firm grasp of the historical happenings that framed beliefs about communication during that time. In the early 1950’s, people were plagued by Nazi propaganda, following German propaganda disseminated during World War I. Their insecurities were exacerbated by the infiltration of a new and far-reaching mass media. Propaganda was viewed in the pejorative as terrified individuals assumed mere exposure to it would practically reduce one to a hypnotic state at the mercy of the all-powerful media, hence the term Bullet Theory. "Irresistible" communication was likened to a magic bullet shooting through people’s minds and simultaneously altering their beliefs. Thus, at that point in time, communication was believed to be a thought transfer as opposed to a message transfer between the sender and receiver. Furthermore, the audience was portrayed as submissive and unable to fend against the hateful media (Schramm, 1971).

McQuail and Windahl (1981) note Janowitz (1968) defines mass communications as "...the institutions and techniques by which specialized groups employ technological devices (press, radio, films, etc.) to disseminate symbolic content to large, heterogeneous and widely dispersed audiences." Essentially, the source in mass communication is a communication organization such as a newspaper, book publishing company, broadcasting station, etc. Likewise, an institutionalized person, such as a newspaper editor, serves as a source. This individual is backed by the power of her respective institution. Like interpersonal communication, the organization performs the functions of decoding, interpreting and encoding. However, a group as opposed to one person executes these three actions. Contrary to the individual communicator, the communication organization has the capacity to encode vast numbers of the same message at one time. To do so, these institutions have developed channels that are both complex and effective (Schramm, 1965).

These establishments of mass communication spurred a concern for accountability, especially with regard to broadcast media. This heightened sense of media responsibility resulted from a variety of factors. First, radio and television were already subject to some form of public regulation in terms of frequency and channel assignments. Second, there existed a pervasive feeling of negativism directed at America’s mass institutions following the Depression of the 1930’s. Third, social scientists began to research the social effects of mass communication in response to inquisitive public agencies and the media itself; both institutions sought to disseminate information in the most effective manner. As the scientists revealed the results of their study to these interested parties, they found themselves instrumental in transforming the mass communication process itself (Chaffee, 1977).

The following is a representation of the Schramm Model of Mass Communication as depicted in McQuail and Windahl (1981):

McQuail and Windahl (1981) comment that although the Osgood-Schramm model reflects "two-way" communication, there exist varying degrees of circularity. In the case of mass communication, the process is less circular. The reason for the less than optimal flow relates to feedback. Unlike the Osgood-Schramm model where interpersonal communication was characterized by a direct response from the receiver, the Schramm Model of Mass Communication reflects inferential feedback (McQuail and Windahl, 1981). Individuals represent the destinations of the mass communication process. Further, these very individuals around the globe might be changing the television channel, perusing a magazine, or reading the newspaper, activities that allow for less feedback than a face-to-face interaction (Schramm, 1965). As a consequence, the media organization must evaluate whether the reaction is positive or negative by observing the receivers’ collective behavior. For instance, the receivers do not inform the sender about their dislike of a new magazine, they simply stop purchasing it (McQuail and Windahl, 1981).

To account for the feedback available in interpersonal communication and lacking in mass communication, considerable audience research is conducted (Schramm, 1965). This research is aimed at "big picture" rather than individual results. In personal communication, the message can be adapted as the communicator observes the individual’s response. The mass communicator, on the other hand, constructs the message so that it will appeal to the largest body of receivers. In so doing, the mass communicator does not possess the individual communicator’s ability to continually reform and adapt the message. An error cannot be corrected immediately. As a result, such experimentation can have serious ramifications and is typically not pursued by the organization (Schramm, 1965).

Central to the Schramm Model of Mass Communication is the media organization that, like the Osgood-Schramm model, engages in decoding, interpreting, and encoding. In terms of a newspaper business, these three processes are exhibited as employees evaluate news items for release to the public. They read the incoming information, assess its value, and decide which information will be released and whether editing is warranted. Thus, these "gatekeepers" determine the fate of every potential message. According to Schramm, a possible occurrence associated with his model is the dissemination of the media messages from the individual receiver herself to persons in surrounding groups (McQuail and Windahl, 1981). In fact, Schramm states that a notable difference between mass and personal communication is that in mass communication, the individuals involved experience minimal direct contact. However, they do associate with various groups of people such as family, friends and professional affiliations. Schramm suggests that this "secondary influence" in which the mass media message is conveyed from the individual to her personal network of consultants is one of the most, if not the most powerful force in mass communication (Schramm, 1965). We live according to the norms and beliefs that the groups we respect and associate with perscribe. As a result, the opinions of our peers exact a tremendous influence on how we respond to communication (Schramm, 1971).

In response to this model, McQuail and Windahl (1981) note that, in actuality, the process is more complex. The decoding-interpreting-encoding process is enriched by a series of sub-processes which repeat many of the same functions. Further, they comment that Schramm’s reference to the interaction that occurs when the receiver evaluates the mass media messages with other groups of people might reflect an attempt to counter perception of an impersonal and detached mass society, where defenseless individuals are methodically targeted and controlled by the looming mass media (McQuail and Windahl, 1981).

                                                 Expectation of Reward

Fraction of Selection     =     ____________________

                                                      Effort Required

Essentially, the chances that one will select an offering of mass communication over comparable communications intensify as the reward increases, or the corresponding effort one must exert to obtain the information decreases. For example, in a situation where an individual would like to purchase a magazine, but is not concerned about any one in particular, the nearest newsstand is a likely, convenient option since little effort will be expended. This person will not be amenable to traveling a great distance since the type of magazine acquired is of low importance; the reward will not be great. However, if an individual is contemplating the purchase of new golf clubs, and the nearest newsstand does not carry specialty magazines on golf, the additional effort will be perceived as worthwhile since the information will aid in the buying decision. Thus, a host of decisions such as these are made everyday in which people evaluate their communication options. Consequently, the mass communication audience depends upon all of these individuals and their respective assessments of the benefits derived relative to the effort expended for a certain communication (Schramm, 1965). Schramm cautions, however, that situations do arise in which communication is selected on the basis of chance alone (Schramm, 1971).

Schramm contends that the process of mass communication has far reaching implications. In fact, these mass messages have come to reflect the voice of society. As a communication unit, society decodes or examines the opportunities and dangers existing in our environment. It then interprets these positives and/or negatives to enact policies that reflect the general opinion and benefit society as a whole. Finally, messages are encoded to promote international relationships and understanding. Further, these messages, representing the attitudes and beliefs that form the fabric of our society, are conveyed to new members (Schramm, 1965).

Communication is an indispensable element of society. It is the means by which relationships between people, groups and countries are propagated. Without communication, society cannot effect change or attempt to achieve a harmonious existence. On the individual level, communication affords people the tools to deal with one another in an effective manner and, thus, maintain quality of life (Schramm, 1963).

This paper has attempted to highlight Wilbur Lang Schramm’s role in defining this most fundamental process. Through Schramm, one learns key prerequisites to successful communication. To name a few, in a society inundated with information, first and foremost, the message must attract the interest of the desired destination. Also, in order to convey the intended meaning, the message must be in the form of signs that draw on the field of experience shared by both the source and destination (Schramm, 1965). In addition, Schramm mentions that to be effectual, the message must appeal to the destination's personality needs such as the desires for love and understanding. Finally, these needs must be met in a manner appropriate to the group one identifies with. Therefore, for the message to achieve its intended response, one must consider the implications of all of these factors (Schramm, 1971).

Many of the sources utilized in this paper are authored by Schramm and comprise the required body of texts that delineate the field of mass communication. Tankard (1988) states that representative of the integrated nature of the field, Schramm’s Mass Communication (1949) became the first standard text and contained essays by sociologists and psychologists. Schramm’s major contributions to the field consist of his models, fraction of selection equation, the Bullet Theory, and his role in synthesizing and discovering the work of others to formulate a solid theoretical foundation to the field of mass communication (Tankard, 1988).

Although his initial models reflected a linear approach to communication, Tankard points out his later models revealed a circular process. Critics of Schramm have trivialized the Bullet Theory, claiming it discredited a belief in an all-powerful mass media that never truly existed. However, Tankard defends Schramm on the grounds that the Institute for Propaganda Analysis would have never materialized in the 1930’s had there not existed genuine fears of the mass media (Tankard, 1988).

Finally, the provocative comments of Timothy Glander (1996) are worthy of mention. Glander notes that Christopher Simpson in his 1994 book, Science of Coercion Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960, raises some valid points about the origins of communications research. According to Simpson, it was World War II which originally fostered studies into communications, but for the purpose of swaying public opinion during the war effort. These "propaganda" studies involved large agencies, which were further utilized during the Cold War. However, the term "propaganda" had taken on a negative connotation, and thus the field of "mass communications" was born. While much of this research remains classified, Simpson argues that we should be cognizant of the origins of mass communications research, which in effect began as studies of mass persuasion. Schramm was an integral part of these efforts, receiving the majority of his funding from federal sources during his tenure at the Institute of Communications Research, where many of his theories were born (Glander, 1996).

Despite these questions, Wilbur Schramm remains the founding father of communication studies, one of the fastest growing academic fields in the U.S. for several decades. His approach to the study of mass communications remains a cornerstone of communications research; his multidisciplinary approach has retained both relevance and impact since its inception over 50 years ago (Glander, 1996).

Click here for References