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 ofthem, 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 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").