See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282854000

Reading Lasswell's Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly

Misconceptions

Article  in  Mass Communication and Society · June 2015

DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666

CITATIONS READS

54 63,208

3 authors, including:

Zachary Sapienza Aaron S. Veenstra

Grand Canyon University Florida Atlantic University
17 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   809 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intramedium Interaction View project

Bloggers and Blog Readers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zachary Sapienza on 15 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mass Communication and Society

ISSN: 1520-5436 (Print) 1532-7825 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcs20

Reading Lasswell's Model of Communication

Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions

Zachary S. Sapienza, Narayanan Iyer & Aaron S. Veenstra

To cite this article: Zachary S. Sapienza, Narayanan Iyer & Aaron S. Veenstra (2015) Reading
Lasswell's Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions, Mass
Communication and Society, 18:5, 599-622, DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666

Accepted online: 29 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 117

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmcs20

Download by: [Southern Illinois University] Date: 07 October 2015, At: 21:12
 Mass Communication and Society, 18:599–622, 2015
Copyright # Mass Communication & Society Division
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
ISSN: 1520-5436 print=1532-7825 online
DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666

Reading Lasswell’s Model

of Communication Backward:
Three Scholarly Misconceptions
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

Zachary S. Sapienza
Mass Communication & Media Arts
Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Narayanan Iyer
The Edward R Murrow College of Communication
Washington State University

Aaron S. Veenstra
School of Journalism
Southern Illinois University Carbondale

The year 2015 marks the 75th anniversary of the first known reference to
Harold D. Lasswell’s model of communication in 1940. In recognition of this
milestone, this paper revisits Lasswell’s famous construct, ‘‘Who, said what, in
which channel, to whom, with what effect?’’ by offering a textual analysis of its

Zachary S. Sapienza (M.S., Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2005) is a graduate

student in the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts at Southern Illinois University
Carbondale. His research interests include communication theory, concept formation, and
general semantics.
Narayanan Iyer (Ph.D., Indiana University, 2009) is an Assistant Professor in The Edward
R Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. His research interests
include advertising, new media, and content analysis.
Aaron S. Veenstra (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2009) is an Associate
Professor in the School of Journalism at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. His research
interests include online political communication and social influences on cognition.
Correspondence should be addressed to Zachary S. Sapienza, Mass Communication
& Media Arts, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901. E-mail:
zsapienza@siu.edu

599
 600 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

conceptual evolution over the last 75 years. Inspired by Eulau and Zlomke’s
(1999) study on Harold Lasswell’s legacy to the discipline of political science,
we pose a similar question to the field of communication: If one only knows
about Harold Lasswell by reading the citations or references to his model of
communication, what would his legacy seem to be? In doing so, this paper first
explicates the relationship between Lasswell’s legacy to the field and the role
his model of communication has played in it. Second, it tests the utility of
Lasswell’s model in light of a significantly changing media landscape, and
gauges its current value for communication scholars. Finally, we conclude that
Lasswell’s model is both a relevant and useful concept for the field today
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

despite several misconceptions surrounding it.

Paradoxical though it may seem, neglect of the past entails imperfect

understanding of the present. — Lasswell, Lerner, and Speier (1979)

INTRODUCTION

The field of mass communication offers scholars a multitude of theories and

concepts to work with. This diversity is partly attributable to the range of
theoretical interests housed within it, as well as to the nature of the field
itself. Compared to other social sciences, mass communication is signifi-
cantly more intertwined with technology and must be diligent to accommo-
date technological change. The relationship between communication and
technology offers both opportunities and challenges for the field. One
advantage is that it continually creates new and exciting areas of theoretical
development through technological innovation and change.
This conceptual partnership also requires an immense amount of paradig-
matic fluidity, as well as a variety of methodological approaches and theories
to accommodate technological change. Developments in digital communi-
cation technology, particularly the Internet and its attendant media, have
continually challenged the field for the last three decades. Not only have these
changes forced the field to pick up its pace, they have tested the quality of the
concepts, theories, and paradigmatic approaches the field utilizes. As bound-
aries between once distinct media dissolve and channels continue to blur in
new and unforeseen ways, scholars have been forced to discard outdated ideas
that are no longer relevant to today’s digital world.
The year 2015 marks the 75th anniversary of the first known reference to
Harold D. Lasswell’s model of communication in 1940—perhaps mass
communication’s oldest concept not borrowed from another discipline. Its
origins actually predate the field itself, as it was developed to assist in the forming
of mass communication into a legitimate academic field of study. Despite its
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 601

accomplishments and longevity as a concept, it is no more insulated from the

changing media landscape than any of the field’s other theories, concepts, and
approaches. To remain a relevant and useful concept, it must be able to accom-
modate technological change or risk fading into obscurity like many of the
concepts that followed it.
In recognition of its anniversary, this article revisits Lasswell’s famous dic-
tum, ‘‘Who, said what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect?’’ by offer-
ing a textual analysis of its conceptual evolution over the last 75 years. In doing
so, this article first tests the utility of Lasswell’s model in light of a significantly
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

changing media landscape and gauges its current value for communication
scholars. Second, it explicates the relationship between Lasswell’s legacy to
the field and the role his model of communication has played in it. Loosely
inspired by Eulau and Zlomke’s (1999) study on Lasswell’s legacy to the
discipline of political science, this article poses a similar question to the field
of communication: If one knows about Lasswell only by reading the citations
or references to his model of communication, what would his legacy seem to be?
Lasswell has been described as a ‘‘one-man university’’ (McDougal, 1979,
p. 676) and as a ‘‘Leonardo da Vinci of the behavioral sciences’’ (Rogers,
1986, p. 99) due to his contributions to a diverse range of disciplines
such as political science, communication, law, philosophy, psychology,
psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, and economics. He is considered to be
the founding father of political psychology (Post, 2001) and helped legitimize
the study of mass communication into a viable field of scholarly research
(Berelson, 1959; Eadie, 2011; Jansen, 2010; Malin, 2011; Rogers, 1986;
Wahl-Jorgensen, 2004). Lasswell was also a methodological innovator.
He is considered by many to be responsible for developing content analysis
into a legitimate methodology for the social sciences (Janowitz, 1968;
Kohlbacher, 2006; Schramm, 1957). Levyatan (2009) considered Lasswell to
be the founder of content analysis, and Janowitz (1968) argued that Lasswell
conducted the most comprehensive content analysis study during his time.
Despite Lasswell’s significant contributions in advancing a variety of
disciplines, his writings on communication have often been dismissed by
communication scholars as no longer relevant (see Schramm, 1962, 1983).
Even 35 years after his death, his contribution to the field of mass communi-
cation continues to be debated with fervor and ferment. At the heart of this
debate is his model of communication. Certain scholars consider it to be one
of the primary drivers behind current conceptions of mass communication
(Biagi, 2013; Brereton, 2001; DeFleur, 1998; Watson & Hill, 1997). Others
believe it to be conceptually dated due to its linear orientation (McQuail,
1985; Schramm, 1983; Westley & Maclean, 1985).
Although this debate might be seen as part of the traditional juxtaposition
between critical media studies and media effects, findings from this study
 602 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

suggest that there is more to this scholarly divide than positioning between rival
schools of thought. By tracing Lasswell’s model of communication from its initial
construction in 1940 (not 1948) to its multiple conceptualizations today, this
article postulates that Lasswell’s question of ‘‘Who, said what, in which channel,
to whom, with what effect?’’ allows for multiple conceptualizations ranging
from ‘‘an index to the elements of communication’’ (Schramm, 1983, p. 14)
to a graphic model of mass communication (Wilson, 2001). These vast inter-
pretations help explain variances in scholarly opinion regarding the relevance
of Lasswell’s model to the field, and simultaneously Lasswell’s legacy itself.
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

DEFINITIONS

This article utilizes the terms ‘‘Laswell’s construct,’’ ‘‘Lasswell’s model,’’

and ‘‘Lasswell’s graphic model’’ differently than previous scholars.
Lasswell’s construct is used as an umbrella term when referencing his
commonly quoted ‘‘Who, said what, in which channel, to whom, and with
what effect?’’ The intent behind this is to ensure that it covers the gamut of
possible interpretations of his construct of communication without referencing
any one in particular. When used in this way, it overcomes concerns pertaining
to specific manifestations such as ‘‘model,’’ ‘‘formula,’’ or ‘‘paradigm’’ and
helps simplify and synthesize the multiple and diverse interpretations possible
from a purely theoretical perspective. In essence, the term Lasswell’s construct
acts as an enabler to take the next step up the ‘‘abstraction ladder’’ in order
to move more freely between higher level and lower level abstractions based
upon the demands of the theoretical inquiry (Hayakawa & Hayakawa,
1990). Likewise, the terms Lasswell’s model and Lasswell’s graphic model are
used in this article to refer to specific manifestations of Lasswell’s construct.

READING LASSWELL BACKWARD

When communications scholars use the term ‘‘reading backward,’’ they are
making not a literal statement but a temporal one through the use of
metaphor. They are referring to the reading of an author or text from the
framework of the present backward, rather than from the past forward.
Generally speaking, scholars have a tendency to read an author in the
context of where their interests lie (reading the present backward), which
allows them to pick and choose what is relevant to their work instead of
reading the text from the author’s perspective (reading the past forward).
From a linguistic anthropological perspective, these can be considered
different ways of reading, and as such have different goals, intentions, and
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 603

practices. The ritual of reading backward, although routine in academic

scholarship, can have unintended consequences by ‘‘stretching’’ or ‘‘scrunching’’
the original concept in order to fit the interests of the new author (Gerring, 1999,
pp. 360–361). When this happens over a significant period and with enough
frequency, the concept will evolve to a point where the original form is barely
recognizable.
One reason for this potentially pervasive practice in the social sciences is
that it allows scholars more control over the mass amounts of research and
literature available. When considering the financial and time constraints
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

imposed on most scholars today, reading backward becomes a necessity

for frequent publication and, thus, advancement within academia. Why read
a whole book that may or may not be relevant to the particular concern in
question when one could read the relevant parts of three or four in the same
amount of time? Sometimes discriminatory reading practices are necessary
for accomplishing the goals of information seeking and gathering, especially
in larger scholarly undertakings with limited resources.
Eulau and Zlomke (1999) found reading Lasswell backward to be pervasive
in political science, due to a variety of reasons, such as his massive body
of academic work, his unusual writing style, and a multitude of theoretical
and methodological interests. Our findings suggest similar results for
communication scholarship, particularly in the field of mass communication.
Lasswell’s construct of communication, and his legacy to the field of mass
communication, has been a repeated victim of the scholarly practice of reading
backward. This sustained practice over several decades has had substantial
implications—most notably, the sheer amount of confusion and controversy
surrounding Lasswell’s construct.
Lasswell wrote somewhere between 4 million and 6 million published
words in his academic career (Almond, 1987; Rogers, 1986; Wallace &
Roberson, 2009) and is considered by many to be one of the primary founders
of mass communication scholarship. Yet ironically, his legacy in the field
seems to rest solely with the fate of 11 words written in an introduction
to an article on the function of communication. Our findings demonstrate
that Lasswell’s legacy in communication scholarship is inextricably tied to
his often quoted and frequently misunderstood construct of communication.
Eulau and Zlomke (1999) concluded that Lasswell’s contributions to the
field of political science have been ‘‘undervalued and underused’’ (p. 75).
Their review found that most references to Harold Lasswell are ‘‘perfunctory,’’
‘‘superficial,’’ ‘‘ornamental,’’ and often times ‘‘irrelevant’’ (p. 79). Indeed, this
did not come to a surprise to us, as Eulau and Zlomke reported in political
science scholarship that ‘‘the worst and most common offenders have simply
quoted what is taken to be Lasswell’s definition of politics ‘who, gets what,
when, and how’ and then blithely moved on to their particular concern’’ (p. 79).
 604 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

Not only is Lasswell’s construct often used superficially in communi-

cation scholarship, but there has been a tendency, especially by critical
theorists, to treat it as a baseline for comparison with more recent models.
When this happens, Lasswell’s construct often becomes the ‘‘before’’ for
comparison, and the author’s proposed model becomes the ‘‘after.’’ In these
situations, Lasswell’s construct is often trivialized, in part because it makes
authors’ advancements appear more significant than they might have
with a thorough and fair explanation of Lasswell’s construct. Indeed this
tendency reflects a growing indifference to Lasswell’s contributions and,
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

consequently, his perceived relevancy to the field. Tuchman’s (1980) article

on Lasswell’s construct perhaps best reflects this academic apathy with a title
of ‘‘Who cares who said what to whom . . . ?’’
Our findings suggest that there are multiple misconceptions regarding
Lasswell’s construct circulating in communication scholarship. Three
misconceptions in particular have significantly aided in the confusion
surrounding Lasswell’s legacy to the field of mass communication:

1. It has fixed and static categories.

2. Lasswell created a graphic replication of his construct.
3. It is just an outdated ‘‘model’’ of communication.

Although each of these misconceptions might seem insignificant on their

own, when coupled with the others we begin to see the synergistic effects that
these misconceptions have had on Lasswell’s construct and his legacy to the
field. We address each of these key misconceptions in the following passages,
but first we briefly present a historical overview of Lasswell’s construct.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Many scholars exclusively cite Lasswell’s 1948 article ‘‘The Structure and
Function of Communication in Society’’ when referencing his construct of
communication (e.g., Almaney, 1971; Duncan & Moriarty, 1998; R. G. Smith,
1968; Stern, 1994; Watson & Hill, 1997). However, a comprehensive review of
Lasswell’s writing indicates that he published multiple variations throughout
his academic career, including at least four that predate the 1948 version (Bryson
et al., 1940b; Lasswell, 1943, 1945; B. L. Smith, Lasswell, & Casey, 1946).
Lasswell’s construct first appeared in a 1940 Rockefeller Foundation committee
report, Research in Mass Communication, written on behalf of several fellow
committee members (Bryson et al., 1940b; Pooley, 2008; Rogers, 1986).
There were several notable scholars who participated on the committee,
with the following names specifically signed in alphabetic order on the
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 605

report: Lyman Bryson, Lloyd Free, Geoffrey Gorer, Harold Lasswell, Paul
Lazersfeld, Robert Lynd, John Marshall, Charles Siepmann, Donald
Slesinger, and Douglass Waples. In addition to those signed on the report,
it also credits R. J. Havighurst, Stacy May, I. A. Richards, and David
Stevens as regular contributors. Lyman Bryson is particularly worth
mentioning, due to his involvement in publishing Lasswell’s famous article
‘‘The Structure and Function of Communication in Society’’ in 1948.
The report’s primary intent was to identify and describe current research
efforts that were relevant to the study of public opinion and to argue for the
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

creation of an organization body that could synthesize communication

scholarship and research in general (p. 38). From a historical standpoint,
this report should be read as the precursor to arguments for an academic
field for the study of mass communication. As the committee writes, ‘‘In
brief, then, the job of research in mass communication is to determine
who, and with what intentions said what, to whom, and with what effects’’
(p. 17). It might surprise some to discover that the construct’s initial use was
applied generally to mass communication research rather than a specific act
of communication, per se, but as Buxton (1994) explained, ‘‘Lasswell’s
formula not only originated in the seminar but begun to serve as a frame-
work for ordering and systemizing research’’ (p. 189).
The committee quickly produced a follow-up memorandum in October 1940
entitled ‘‘Needed Research in Communication’’ (Bryson et al., 1940a) that
further demonstrated the necessity of mass communication research. Grounding
their argument on the premise that democracy requires two-way communi-
cation, the committee believed that mass communication researchers would help
close the communication gap between government and society by offering
an alternate channel not only for communication but also for the opportunity
for two-way communication in ways never seen before. They wrote,

It is the thesis of this memorandum that whatever form those measures take,
research will be essential to make communication a two-way process. More
effective communication from the government will require getting promptly
to the people adequate explanations of proposals or decisions which change
their lives . . . Research will also be essential to report how the people feel
themselves affected by proposals or decisions thus explained . . . Research, then,
will be doubly essential to two-way communication, first, to supply facts needed
to make explanation both prompt and adequate; and, second, to bring back from
the people an equally prompt and adequate response. With such research, the
present gap between the government and the people can be closed. (pp. 4–5)

Although it is true that the committee believed that most channels

of mass communication of their time (print, film, television, and radio) were
predominantly linear in nature, they recognized that communication in
 606 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

general was not. They also realized that they could complete the communi-
cation cycle by creating a new channel, one based in academic research,
which would serve as a platform for society’s voice. Not only was the
committee firmly grounded in conceptions of two-way communication, they
also believed it was their responsibility to find ways to complete the
communication cycle in instances when existing channels could not. Lasswell
shared a similar conception as the committee. In fact, Lasswell wrote about
the importance of two-way communication in his 1948 article:
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

Or to express it differently, two-way communication occurs when the sending

and receiving functions are performed with equal frequency by two or more
persons. A conversation is usually assumed to be a pattern of two-way
communication (although monologues are hardly unknown). The modern
instruments of mass communication give an enormous advantage to the
controllers of printing plants, broadcasting equipment, and other forms of fixed
and specialized capital. But it should be noted that audiences do ‘‘talk back,’’ after
some delay; and many controllers of mass media use specific methods of sampling
in order to expedite this closing of the circuit. (p. 220)

One major study in particular demonstrates Lasswell’s appreciation of

two-way communication. During World War II, Lasswell participated in
the War-Time Communications Project, where he headed an extensive study
that focused on Hitler’s speeches in relation to the audience. Levyatan (2009)
described the study as examining the speech model ‘‘in reference to its vocal
components and non-verbal communication elements—in terms of ‘how
spoken,’ rather than ‘what said,’ with an emphasis on audience feedback’’
(p. 55). The components examined in the study were speaker–audience
interaction, nonverbal activity, vocal mishaps, lapses, dialect, speed, tone,
expression, register, sound intensity, word output, and total time (p. 62). In
addition, Levyatan also reported that one of the study’s basic premises
was, ‘‘Given the active participation of the audience, the speech should be
considered a dramatic speaker-audience event, not as a monologue’’ (p. 59).
One of the more interesting debates surrounding Lasswell’s construct that
is often overlooked in the literature, in part due to the ‘‘ritual citing’’ of the
1948 article, is whether Lasswell is actually the originator of his construct.
William Buxton (1994) argued that John Marshall, a director with the
Rockefeller Foundation and member of the committee, was the creator,
after reviewing multiple Rockefeller memorandums, internal reports, and
officer’s diary entries for Marshall (p. 188). Although Buxton gives credit
to all committee members for their involvement with its construction, he
believes Marshall to be most responsible for its development. Perhaps there
is some truth to this, as Lasswell never claimed to be the creator of the
construct and avoided referencing it by any proper name.
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 607

Lasswell’s name is more than likely associated with it due to his first
publishing it in 1945, and for the fact that he refined it into a singular
mapping sentence similar to his construct of politics which reads, ‘‘Who gets
what, when, how’’ (Lasswell, 1936). Table 1 demonstrates that Lasswell
worked out the primary structure of the construct between 1940 and
1948, and seemed to modify it only later based on the theoretical need
at hand or for rhetorical purposes. If Buxton’s argument is given full
consideration one might conclude that it should be referred to as ‘‘Lasswell
et al.’s construct’’ in order to recognize John Marshall and the rest of the
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

committee’s involvement in the process of its construction.

Another point of contention surrounding Lasswell’s construct deals with
its theoretical range as a concept. Questions surrounding its scope can be
surmised as, Is Lasswell’s model limited to acts of mass communication
or can it be applied to all communication? Most of the confusion stems
directly from the 1948 article, in which Lasswell used the terms ‘‘communi-
cation’’ and ‘‘mass communication’’ interchangeably when referencing his
construct. Although Lasswell’s sloppy semantics can be blamed for much
of the confusion surrounding questions of its scope, simply moving beyond
the 1948 article quickly reveals that Lasswell applied his construct to all acts
of communication. Lasswell (1943) made this explicitly clear in another
Rockefeller report:

The questions that rise in connection with this incident are typical of those that
come up in any study of communication: What is said? Who says it? What
effects does it have on whom? In these three questions, the principle branches
of the science of communication are indicated. . . . The general science of com-
munication includes studies of private and of mass communication. When the
participants in communication exceed a selected number, the communication
ceases to be private and becomes a mass phenomenon. (p. 1)

TABLE 1
Multiple Variations of Lasswell’s Construct From 1940 to 1979

1940 Who, and with what intention, said what, to whom, and with what effects? (Bryson
et al., 1940b)
1943 What is said? Who says it? What effect does it have on whom? (Lasswell, 1943)
1945 Who says what, to whom, with what effect? (Lasswell, 1945)
1946 In what channels do communications take place? Who communicates? What is
communicated? Who is affected by the communication and how? (Smith et al., 1946)
1948 Who, says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect? (Lasswell, 1948)
1952 Who, says what, how, to whom, with what effect? (Lasswell et al., 1952)
1968 Who, with what intentions, in what situations, with what assets, using what strategies,
reaches what audiences, with what result? (Lasswell, 1968)
1979 Who=says what=in what channel=to whom=with what effect? (Lasswell et al., 1979)
 608 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

This demonstrates that, although the committee originally intended

Lasswell’s construct to be a classifying tool for mass communication scholarship,
Lasswell quickly turned it into a conceptual tool for all acts of communication.

MISCONCEPTION 1: IT’S A STATIC MODEL

WITH FIXED CATEGORIES

Lasswell’s construct is commonly misinterpreted as a static model with fixed

and rigid categories, which might be attributed in part to the practice of read-
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

ing Lasswell backward. In recent decades, several scholars have criticized

Lasswell’s selection of categories for inclusion. One reason commonly offered
is that Lasswell failed to incorporate feedback as a category directly into the
model (Berger, 1995). Yet another is that he conceptualized the medium as
a ‘‘channel,’’ which certain scholars consider a problematic metaphor due
to its connotation that media act as ‘‘pipes’’ or ‘‘conduits’’ (Shoemaker &
Reese, 1996, p. 30). Others simply criticize Lasswell’s construct as not going
far enough. Wilson’s (2001) critique captured many of these aspects:

Similarly, the Lasswell communication model (see Figure 1), created after
World War II, represents a simplistic broadcast conception of communication,
with one sender, one message, and one or more receivers, but no interaction.
The communication itself is mechanistic, with no box for how or why. In such
a model, the technical communicator has the status of conduit, with no
acknowledged or perceived impact on the communication other than to be
a source of error if the job is not done well . . . .The Lasswell model is certainly
primitive, and everyone today realized that the context of technical communi-
cation is far more complex. (pp. 76–77)

Wilson offered a blistering critique on Lasswell’s construct of communi-

cation, but its accuracy resides more in the use of hyperbole than that of
accurate observation. Lasswell’s construct might appear ‘‘primitive’’ to

FIGURE 1 A typical conception of Lasswell’s construct as a graphic model of

communication.
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 609

scholars that tend to read Lasswell backward; in actuality, Lasswell offered

a far more complex and rich vision when viewed in his entirety.
Arguments such as missing categories or ‘‘boxes’’ reflect the degree of
confusion surrounding Lasswell’s construct, in part because the categories
are meant to be modified by the theoretical inquiry at hand. Lasswell stressed
the necessity of category contextualization on multiple occasions (Lasswell,
1948; Lasswell, Lerner, & de Sola Pool, 1952; Lasswell et al., 1979). In 1948,
he wrote, ‘‘Whether such distinctions are useful depends entirely upon the
degree of refinement which is regarded as appropriate to a given scientific
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

and managerial objective’’ (p. 216). In 1952, Lasswell et al. wrote, ‘‘This
scheme has been useful, especially since it can be extended or condensed
to fit many scientific and policy aims’’ (p. 12). In 1979, Lasswell et al. stated
plainly, ‘‘Convenient as a starting point, these questions must be amplified if
they are to provide an explicit guide to some aspects of communication’’ (p. 7).
Lasswell did not just talk about modifying the actual categories but actu-
ally did this on multiple occasions. For example, in 1968 he contextualized
the construct for political communication: ‘‘Who, with what intentions,
in what situations, with what assets, using what strategies, reaches what
audiences, with what result?’’ (Lasswell, 1968, p. 62). In 1952, he and his
coauthors wrote, ‘‘Someone says something somehow to someone with
some effect. The fundamental questions, therefore, are: Who, says what,
how, to whom, with what effect?’’ (Lasswell et al., 1952, p. 12). Lasswell also
encouraged the use of supplemental questions relevant to the theoretical
focus. For example, Lasswell et al. (1979) proposed several additional ques-
tions for acts of political communication, including, ‘‘What value outcomes
are sought?’’ and ‘‘To what extent has the direction of change been toward
or away from preferred goals?’’ (p. 9). Not only Lasswell suggested the
incorporation of other questions or categories depending upon the
particular need; so have several other scholars. In fact, numerous additions
have been proposed for inclusion, with each to fill a particular theoretical
need or to further develop the construct’s conceptual capabilities.
Richard Braddock’s (1958) ‘‘An Extension of Lasswell’s Formula’’ was
perhaps the first article to suggest additional categories for Lasswell’s
construct. He advocated the inclusion of ‘‘under what circumstances’’ to
draw conscious attention to the attributes of time and setting, and how they
influence the communication process. He also proposed the category of ‘‘for
what purposes’’ to emphasize the meta aspects of communication. Forsdale
(1955) reported that Lennox Gray would add ‘‘in what situation,’’ and
Herbert Hyman would include ‘‘with what immediate response.’’ Glozman
and Tupper (2003) proposed ‘‘in what language’’ and ‘‘through which code’’
to highlight language considerations. Duncan and Moriarty (1998) suggested
a category for noise and switched the ‘‘effect’’ category with ‘‘feedback.’’
 610 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

Watson and Hill (1997) believed that feedback falls under the ‘‘effect’’
category but suggested ‘‘in what context (social, economic, cultural, political,
aesthetic)’’ for greater clarity. Through explicating new aspects of the
communication process, each of these suggestions help to expand the
theoretical range and flexibility of Lasswell’s construct as a concept.

MISCONCEPTION 2: LASSWELL CREATED A GRAPHIC MODEL

Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

Although many scholars credit Lasswell as the author of the graphic model
just represented, it is important to note that it was not developed by
Lasswell himself. An analysis of more than 35 articles, chapters, and
books written by Lasswell reveals that he did not create this graphic model,
nor was it offered in ‘‘The Structure and Function of Communication,’’
as commonly cited. Instead, ‘‘Lasswell’s graphic model’’ represents another
scholar’s interpretation of Lasswell’s construct, which over time has been
erroneously presumed to be Lasswellian in origin.
If Lasswell did not create the graphic model that many attribute to him, the
question then becomes, Who did? The earliest graphic model of Lasswell’s
construct comes from McQuail and Windahl (1981). In their book Communi-
cation Models, they offer a two-page section on ‘‘The Lasswell Formula’’ that
provides several visual diagrams, including what might be the first published
graphic version of Lasswell’s construct. Their rhetoric supports the notion that
they were the first to conceive of it as a graphic model. They wrote, ‘‘This has
ever since been known and cited as the Lasswell Formula, and if transformed
to a graphic model it gives the diagram as in Fig. 2.1.1.’’ (p. 10). McQuail and
Windahl’s only citation for the graphic model is Lasswell’s 1948 article,
which further suggests that they were the first.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE GRAPHIC MODEL

Kent (1962) provided a framework for the evaluation of graphic models and
diagrams. He was perhaps the first to recognize that models provide a means
of communication independent of language, and as a result have their own
structure and grammar external from those that govern the use of language.
One of his concerns is the lack of conceptual development for the
logic-systems and structures of visual models. In the passage provided next,
Kent highlighted some of the rules governing models:

As we have suggested, models use a language of their own. The graphic

elements of a model, its lines, blocks, arrows, etc., are its vocabulary, and its
rules of organization are its grammar. Just as is true with words, the elements
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 611

in a conceptual model do not have a direct and immediate relationship to

elements in the world of physical reality. Rather, they are abstractions of their
real-life entities, and thus cannot be expected to have all of their characteristics.
The common vocabulary of models is still small and crude. There are only
a few basic elements that are widely known: closed blocks, which indicate
discrete elements or subsystems; connecting lines, which indicate some
functional relationship between terminal elements; and arrows, which indicate
direction of flow. Similarly, very few rules of grammar in models have been
broadly accepted. One such rule is the notion that a model should, where
possible, ‘‘read’’ from left to right. (p. 336)
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

By applying Kent’s analysis to Lasswell’s graphic model, it illuminates

the concepts embedded within it that implicitly shape and influence the
user’s interpretations. There are two possible theoretical inconsistencies with
Lasswell’s graphic model when measured by Kent’s standards. The first
potential problem is the predictive nature of the arrows. Arrows all pointing
from left to right suggest linear communication prior to any channels
of communication being identified. What if one is attempting to apply
Lasswell’s graphic model to an act of communication occurring over the
Internet, which is commonly conceived as two-way communication? In this
context, the graphic model fails to provide any theoretical utility because of
inherent flaws embedded in the structure of the model itself. In other words,
the structure of the graphic model itself projects linear communication, not
necessarily Lasswell’s construct in general. A simple example demonstrates
that when utilizing Lasswell’s construct as a set of questions or categories,
there is no issue with linear communication:
Who: The wedding couple
Said What: Exchanged vows
In Which Channel: The Internet
To Whom: Each other
To What Effect: For state recognition of their marriage

The preceding example reveals that when Lasswell’s construct is

conceived of as a set of categories, there is nothing inherent to the structure
of the construct itself that requires linear communication.
The second conceptual flaw with the graphic model is that the range
allowed as a unit of measurement tends to be artificially restricted to microlevel
theorizing, in part due to the graphic model suggesting that the source is
singular. Several scholars have criticized Lasswell’s construct for this reason
(Stern, 1994; Wilson, 2001); however, these criticisms generally fail to
recognize the distinction between flaws in the graphic model and those in
the construct itself. Høyer (2007) disagreed with the critics, demonstrating
that Lasswell’s construct can also be utilized at the meso- and macrolevels.
 612 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

He stressed that at the microlevel, one is concerned with a single event of com-
munication. At the meso-level, its theoretical focus is concerned with changes
over time; at the macrolevel, its theoretical curiosity is generally occupied with
social institutions (p. 185). An examination of Lasswell’s writing supports
Hoyer’s claims. Lasswell often conceptualized the source from a macro
perspective and rarely used it for microlevel analysis. For example, Lasswell
et al. (1952) explained political myth using Lasswell’s construct. They demon-
strated how the sources (or the ‘‘who’’) of political myth generally originate
with political doctrines made up of ‘‘written constitutions, statutes, and
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

special declarations of policy’’ (p. 12). The Declaration of Independence and

the Virginia Bill of Rights are given as examples and serve as the source of
communication in political myth, or in layman’s terms the ‘‘who’’ (pp. 12–13).
The inherent flaws with the graphic model show why scholars should
be cautious of crediting Lasswell as its author. In essence, they have
contributed to the misinterpretation of Lasswell’s work by suggesting that
Lasswell proposed a graphic model of communication with an inherent
structure that only allows for linear communication, despite his insistence
that it was for communication in general. In this regard, we see that
Lasswell’s graphic model has been conceptually ‘‘stretched’’ to a point
where it is no longer recognizable from its initial form and intent.

MISCONCEPTION 3: IT IS NOTHING MORE

THAN AN OUTDATED MODEL

Lasswell’s construct is often considered to be a linear or outdated model

of communication. Indeed, multiple scholars have conceptualized it as such
for several decades now. However, when his construct is conceived beyond
a linear graphic model, it can be utilized for a diverse range of theoretical
and conceptual needs. In essence, our findings suggest that ‘‘model’’ is just
one of many multiple manifestations that it might take in the conceptuali-
zation process. One could be completely right that it is an outdated
model of communication, but another scholar could also be right that it
is a relevant definition of mass communication today.
The construct’s conceptual diversity is evident in its nomenclatural
description within the literature. Scholars have conceived it as a formula
(Lorge, 1955), paradigm (Forsdale, 1955), framework (Shoemaker & Reece,
1996), model (Jensen, 2002), index (Schramm 1983), question (Ellingsworth,
1965), definition (DeFleur, 1998), maxim (Debanjan, 2010), mapping
sentence (Marvick, 1980), and dictum (Tuchman, 1980). Although many
of these terms are used interchangeably by authors, and are treated
as conceptual synonyms, at a conceptual level there can be extremes where
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 613

significant differences in structure, scope, and function emerge. In other

words, an index is not the equivalent of a graphic model, and their con-
ceptual differences require explication for refined praxis. More important,
these conceptual differences can begin to explain the variation in scholarly
opinion regarding the relevance of Lasswell’s construct to the field.
Schramm (1983), who was acutely aware of this distinction, warned that
Lasswell’s model should be utilized only to identify and classify various
elements of the communication process, not as ‘‘a description of how the
process works’’ (p. 14). Although this article stops short of Schramm’s
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

suggestion, his warning highlights the necessity and importance of explicating

Lasswell’s construct as a concept.
Lasswell utilized several terms to describe his construct throughout the
years and almost always referred to it generally. In the 1948 article, he referred
to his construct in passing as ‘‘these questions’’ or ‘‘these categories.’’ In 1952,
Lasswell et al. referred to it as a ‘‘scheme.’’ In 1958, Lasswell referred to
it as a paradigm, writing, ‘‘We know the most minute studies of the motives,
aptitudes, and formative influences affecting the ‘‘who’’ of the communication
paradigm: ‘Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?’’’
(p. 250). In recognition of Lasswell’s preferred conceptions and terminology
for his construct of communication, this article now addresses each
of the primary conceptions found within the literature.

‘‘FORMULA’’ CONCEPTIONS

‘‘Lasswell’s model’’ has not always been its preferred name. In the late 1940s
and early 1950s, many scholars referred to it as ‘‘Lasswell’s formula.’’
During the construct’s infancy, it served dual conceptual purposes. It was
a way both to describe an act or acts of communication and of classifying
communication research. Jacobson (1961) defined Lasswell’s formula by
saying, ‘‘This analysis introduces five principal variables in any act of com-
munication as a means of classifying communication studies’’ (pp. 189–190).
This conception was highly popular with scholars and administrators
because it provided a blueprint to conceptualize the boundaries of a new
field of inquiry and a means to classify scholarship departmentally. Due
to the popularity of this conception, it was not until the mid-1950s that any
sort of scholarly resistance began. Klapper (1955) argued that it ‘‘may have
functioned as a strait-jacket’’ for scholarly research by emphasizing discrete
areas of study instead of promoting the interrelated aspects of the communi-
cation process (p. 96). Likewise, Katz (1956) criticized the field for ‘‘faithfully
adhering’’ to Lasswell’s formula and argued that its use often obscures both
‘‘theoretical and applied’’ problems that warrant consideration (p. 638).
 614 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

Forsdale (1955) also questioned the use of ‘‘formula’’ in describing

Lasswell’s construct. Although not the article’s primary intent, it explicitly
critiqued the formula label and instead suggested the use of ‘‘model,’’ ‘‘para-
digm,’’ or ‘‘construct’’ (p. 120). Forsdale was one the first to advocate a shift
from formula to model, even though he used the latter interchangeably
with paradigm and construct: ‘‘It can be seen now why Lasswell’s paradigm
is not really a formula. As a matter of fact, to miss that point is to miss much
of the significance of using a model such as this one’’ (p. 123). Forsdale’s
selection of the term ‘‘model’’ seems arbitrary when he admitted he settles
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

on the term solely because it was the most widely employed of the three
(p. 120). Considering that one of the primary purposes of the article was
to compare Lasswell’s construct with Shannon and Weaver’s model,
we believe it was also primarily used for conceptual purposes. His substi-
tution of ‘‘model’’ for ‘‘formula’’ allowed for the conceptual shift necessary
to compare both as models and on equal footing.
A few authors have continued to use the term ‘‘Lasswell’s Formula’’
(e.g., Clausen, 2007; Kashkin, 2012; Krippendorf, 1993) but generally use
it as a proper name for the construct. For example, Brereton (2001) called
it Lasswell’s formula but conceptualized it as a graphic model of communi-
cation. In these situations, the term is used to pay homage to its historicity
but otherwise bears little conceptual meaning.

‘‘MODEL’’ CONCEPTIONS

Scholars use the term ‘‘Lasswell’s model’’ interchangeably to refer to both

verbal and graphic conceptions of his construct, undoubtedly adding to the
confusion already present in the literature. It is one of the most commonly
utilized terms to describe Lasswell’s construct and is used by many scholars,
including Brereton (2001), Chaffee (2001), Clausen (2007), Høyer (2007),
Jensen (2002), Kashkin (2012), Schutte and Steinberg (1983), Shoemaker and
Reese (1996), Stern (1994), Wallace and Roberson (2009), Wilson (2001),
and others. Heath and Bryant (2000) simply referred to it as a linear model.
The model conception was first proposed in the mid-1950s by Forsdale
(1955) and Westley and MacLean (1957). Both used the term broadly,
referring more to a framework of communication overall and not to
a graphic model. Westley and MacLean purposely used quotation marks
around the term ‘‘model’’ to call attention to their broad use of term, and
Forsdale used the term interchangeably with ‘‘paradigm’’ and ‘‘construct.’’
In the last few decades this conception has become so prevalent—in large
part due to the graphic model—that it has helped to turn Lasswell into
a figurehead of linear models. Bryant and Myron (2004) reported that
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 615

Lasswell is most often associated with linear models of mass communication

by other scholars, writing,

The early models of mass communication processes and effects posited

a unidirectional flow of information from communicators through media to
the audience. Harold Lasswell (1948) is most commonly associated with the
classical pattern for studying mass communication: Who says what, in which
channel, to whom, with what effects. (p. 682)

Another potential concern with model conceptions is the perceived

Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

similarity between Lasswell’s construct and Shannon and Weaver’s

mathematical model of communication published in 1949. In many ways,
Lasswell’s graphic model looks like an earlier version of Shannon and
Weaver’s model, but as this article identified previously, Lasswell’s graphic
model was actually created decades later. Indeed, if our article is correct
that McQuail and Windahl (1981) are responsible for Lasswell’s graphic
model, it makes sense that they perceived it as linear, considering that they
also believe Shannon and Weaver’s model is linear (p. 17).

‘‘DEFINITION’’ CONCEPTIONS

Lasswell’s definition is perhaps the least explicitly utilized conception

of Lasswell’s construct, but it does have a couple of supporters in DeFleur
(1998) and Tan (1985). The primary function of this conception is to assist
in the formulation of definitions. DeFluer argued that Lasswell’s definition
‘‘sets forth the basic concepts that are at the heart of the study of the
processes and effects of mass communication’’ (p. 29) and helped to provide
the theoretical foundation necessary for establishing mass communication
as an academic field of study. He argued that, when conceptualized in this
manner, it is just as relevant today as when it was first published.
Both Watson and Hill (1997) and David Demers (2005) used Lasswell’s
construct when defining the term ‘‘communication’’ in their dictionaries.
Although Demers explicitly references Lasswell’s construct in his definition
of communication, Watson and Hill incorporate Lasswell’s construct
implicitly, writing,

While the definitions of communication vary according to their theoretical

frames of reference employed and the stress placed upon certain aspects of
the process, they all include five fundamental factors: an initiator, a receiver,
a mode or vehicle, a message, and effect. (p. 40)

When referencing Lasswell’s concept in this way, it acts as a meta-definition

allowing the researcher to conceptualize operational, lexical, and stipulative
 616 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

definitions of mass communication based on the elements of communication

embedded in Lasswell’s construct. For example, applying Lasswell’s
construct to DeFleur’s definition of mass communication:

Who: Professional communicators

Said what: Messages
In which channel: Media
To whom: Large and diverse audiences
With what effect: In attempt to influence them in a variety of ways
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

Another example of this is demonstrated with Lasswell’s (1936) construct

of politics, ‘‘Who gets what, when, how,’’ and is considered by many
scholars as a definition of politics (Eulau & Zlomke, 1999; Humble &
Bride, 2009). Schramm (1997), recognizing the similarity between the two
constructs, argued that it was not coincidental, but rather a version of
Lasswell’s mental shorthand (p. 28). Callaghan and Schnell (2009) argued
that Lasswell’s definition has provided a ‘‘rich source of ideas’’ for scholars
studying politics and political behavior (p. 24).

‘‘QUESTION’’ AND ‘‘CATEGORY’’ CONCEPTIONS

This article lumps conceptions of ‘‘questions’’ and ‘‘categories’’ together due

to Lasswell’s (1948) having utilized both terms to describe his construct, and
in part because of their conceptual overlap. Trying to explicate any
consistent distinguishing features between the two is problematic at best.
It is generally only a question mark that determines any conceptual differ-
ence between the terms ‘‘categories’’ and ‘‘questions.’’ Of the two, question
conceptions are significantly more prevalent than category conceptions.
Authors who utilize the term ‘‘question’’ include McQuail (1985), Almaney
(1971), Ellingsworth (1965), Hoyer (2007), Huesca (2001), Wallace and
Roberson (2009), Jacobson (1961), and Watson and Hill (1997).
Despite the category conception’s low usage, one can easily make
the argument that Lasswell’s construct should be conceptualized as the
primary categories of communication based on Lasswell’s involvement with
developing content analysis as a methodology for mass communication.
With content analysis, one identifies categories pertaining to the theoretical
objective in order to code and quantify relevant phenomena. Lasswell took
the five categories he thought were most relevant to an act of communication
and turned them into a construct similar to his definition of political science
written in 1931. It is important to note the similarity between Stempel’s (2003)
paradigm of content analysis, which reads, ‘‘Who, says what, to whom, with
what effect’’ (p. 209) and Lasswell’s construct of ‘‘Who, says what, in which
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 617

channel, to whom, with what effect?’’ The only noticeable difference is the
missing channel category in the former. The link between Lasswell’s extensive
training and use of content analysis as a methodology and its role in the
refinement of his construct should not be underestimated.
When conceptualized as a set of questions, it is generally utilized as a way
to investigate or brainstorm acts of communication. Forsdale (1955) showed
when conceived of as questions it can lead to the generation of many
additional questions through the process of brainstorming. He designed
a full-page table outlining additional questions that can be asked of each
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

category to further illuminate the communication act (p. 122). Similarly,

Schutte and Steinberg (1983) proposed that Lasswell’s construct can be used
in idea-generation for research reports (pp. 128–129).

FINAL THOUGHTS

Lasswell’s construct has a long history filled with many theoretical twists
and turns. It has seen a variety of labels, uses, and manifestations over
the course of its conceptual evolution, which has undoubtedly contributed
to confusion about it in the scholarly literature. Indeed, the multitude of
labels for it (Lasswell’s formula, Lasswell’s model, Lasswell’s maxim, etc.)
highlights the ‘‘etymological trail’’ to its conceptual evolution (Gerring,
1999, pp. 360–361) while demonstrating its diverse conceptual range (from
a classificatory tool for communication scholarship to a visual model to
describe an act of mass communication). The end result is a ‘‘highly complex
lexical terrain,’’ which further exacerbates the problem of reading Lasswell
backward (Gerring, 1999, p. 361). Scholars who dismiss it as a ‘‘linear
model’’ ignore the complexity of the construct and oversimplify its intent.
Given the drastically changing media landscape, perhaps the most
pertinent question surrounding Lasswell’s construct is the question of its
relevance: Is it still a relevant conceptual tool for today’s communication
scholars? From a conceptual standpoint, this article has demonstrated that
Lasswell’s construct is inherently flexible enough to meet the theoretical
needs of today’s scholars. Lasswell stressed the need for contextualization
and, as a result, encouraged the addition, subtraction, and modification
of categories as needed. Critics who claim that Lasswell’s construct is linear
fail to realize that the construct is meant to be modified in a variety of ways
that may alleviate their particular concerns. Two specific examples include
replacing the effects category with feedback, or rephrasing the construct so
that its focus is on the receiver rather than the sender. One could say, ‘‘Who
heard what . . . ’’ rather than ‘‘Who said what . . . ’’ to shift the focus to the
importance of dialogic interaction. Although these examples are not exhaustive,
 618 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

they do demonstrate that Lasswell’s construct is inherently more flexible than

generally assumed. In that way, Lasswell’s methodological ingenuity comes to
the forefront. Lasswell had enough insight to know that the construct would
need to remain flexible enough to accommodate future concerns.
From a literature perspective, this article reveals that Lasswell’s construct is
still a relevant conceptual tool today by highlighting its continued use in the
construction of mass communication definitions, as a modified paradigm in
content analysis, and as a general framework to identify and classify acts
of communication. Indeed, scholars such as Demers (2005), Watson and Hill
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

(1997), and Stempel (2003) empirically prove that Lasswell’s construct is alive
and well. Despite many claims to the contrary, it also reveals that Lasswell’s
construct remains silently influential in the field through a variety of applica-
tions. Its utilization in mass communication dictionaries and entry-level course
books ensures that Lasswell’s construct is being passed down to a new
generation of communication scholars. It also provides value for the field by
being a model frequently chosen for comparison. In these situations, it operates
similarly to a canonic text by offering a point from which to measure the
progress of the field, theory, or model. When used in this role, its value resides
in its ability to act as a marker and accurately measure the theoretical distance
traveled between the two concepts, models, or theories being compared.
Semantically, this article implicitly critiques the term Lasswell’s model
as the primary label for Lasswell’s construct. As this article demonstrates,
the term is conceptually problematic due to its ambiguity. The term
‘‘model’’ can be used in a variety of ways ranging from a more general
use of ‘‘an organized system of thought’’ to the significantly more restrictive
use of ‘‘a visual replication of reality.’’ Similarly, the same level of ambiguity
exists with the term Lasswell’s model. This can be seen in some scholars
using it broadly to refer to his construct in general, whereas others use
it more specifically to reference the graphic conception of his construct.
We believe this has caused confusion in the field, especially stemming from
claims that the construct is linear. Are they referring to the construct in
general or are they referring to the graphic model? Without further
clarification on the author’s part, it is often impossible to tell.
To alleviate the ambiguity surrounding the term Lasswell’s model, we
suggest a conceptually agnostic term such as Lasswell’s construct, recognizing
it does not imply one particular manifestation but rather acts as an umbrella
term that allows for multiple conceptions. At the very least, critics of the model
should specify as to whether their criticisms are applicable to both the model
and to the construct, or just the model specifically. In doing so, scholars will
take a significant step forward in explicating their desired meaning.
Whether scholars today believe the construct is linear, our research
has shown that the intent of the Rockefeller Committee was not to create
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 619

a linear model of communication. Both the committee and Lasswell himself

believed that two-way communication was necessary for the proper func-
tioning of a democracy. They identified their task as communication
researchers to find a way to facilitate two-way communication between
the general public and government. In essence, the intent behind establishing
mass communication as a field of study was to create a new channel that
could complete the communication cycle. Lasswell’s construct arises in this
context. Despite its original intent, Lasswell is known today as the figure-
head of linear models largely because his construct was reinterpreted as
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

a graphic linear model and then attributed to him. Scholars such as Wilson
(2001) empirically prove that Lasswell’s construct of communication, and
his vision of communication, are frequently misunderstood and, as a result,
mischaracterized in the literature. Ironically, the fate of Lasswell’s legacy to
the field might be most associated with a visual model that he did not create,
nor intended to be used in the manner most often associated with him.

REFERENCES
Almaney, A. (1971). Predicting message effect in written business communications: The need
for theoretical formulations. Journal of Business Communication, 8(2), 27–33. doi:10.1177=
002194367100800203
Almond, G. A. (1987). Harold Dwight Lasswell, 1902–1978: A biographical memoir. Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Berelson, B. (1959). The state of communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 1–17.
Berger, A. A. (1995). Essentials of mass communication theory. San Francisco, CA: Sage.
Biagi, S. (2013). Media impact: An introduction to mass media (10th ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Braddock, R. (1958). An extension of the ‘‘Lasswell formula’’. Journal of Communication, 8,
88–93. doi:10.1111=j.1460-2466.1958.tb01138.x
Brereton, P. (2001). Continuum guide to media education. London, UK: Continuum.
Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of
Communication, 54, 662–704. doi:10.1093=joc=54.4.662
Bryson, L., Free, L. A., Gorer, G., Lasswell, H. D., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Lynd, R. S., . . . Waples,
D. H. (1940a). Needed research in communication. A Rockefeller committee memorandum
(Oct, 1940). New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.
Bryson, L., Free, L. A., Gorer, G., Lasswell, H. D., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Lynd, R. S., . . . Waples,
D. H. (1940b). Research in mass communication. A Rockefeller committee memorandum
(Jul, 1940). New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.
Buxton, W. (1994). From radio research to communications intelligence: Rockefeller
philanthropy, communication specialists, and the American policy community. In S. Brooks
& A. G. Gagnon (Eds.), The political influence of ideas (pp. 187–209). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2009). Who says what to whom: Why messengers and citizens
beliefs matter in social policy framing. The Social Science Journal, 46, 12–28. doi:10.1016=
j.soscij.2008.12.001
Chaffee, S. H. (2001). Studying the new communication of politics. Political Communication,
18, 237–244. doi:10.1080=105846001750323573
 620 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

Clausen, L. (2007). Corporate communication challenges: A ‘negotiated’ culture perspective.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7, 317–332. doi:10.1177=1470595807083376
Debanjan, B. (2010). Mass communication: Trends, traits and theories. Journal of Media and
Communication Studies, 2, 118–121.
DeFleur, M. L. (1998). Mass communication theories: Explaining origins, processes, and effects.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Demers, D. (2005). Dictionary of mass communication & media research: A guide for students,
scholars, and professionals. Seattle, WA: Marquette Books.
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. E. (1998). A communication-based marketing model for managing
relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 1–13. doi:10.2307=1252157
Eadie, W. F. (2011). Stories we tell: Fragmentation and convergence in communication
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

disciplinary history. The Review of Communication, 11, 161–176.

Ellingsworth, H. (1965). Education in communication: A behavioral approach. Today’s Speech,
13(2), 17–20. doi:10.1080=01463376509368709
Eulau, H., & Zlomke, S. (1999). Harold D. Lasswell’s legacy to mainstream political science:
A neglected agenda. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 75–89. doi:10.1146=annurev.
polisci.2.1.75
Forsdale, L. (1955). Helping students observe processes of communication. Teacher’s College
Record, 57, 120–128.
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding
concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31, 357–393. doi:10.2307=3235246
Glozman, J. M., & Tupper, D. E. (2003). Communication disorders and personality. New York,
NY: Springer.
Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). Orlando,
FL: Harcourt.
Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (2000). Human communication theory and research: Concepts,
contexts, and challenges. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Høyer, S. (2007). Reminiscence of intellectual battles: Bygone in communications research.
Nordicom Review, 27, pp. 183–194.
Huesca, R. (2001). Conceptual contributions of new social movements to development
communication research. Communication Theory, 11, 415–433. doi:10.1093=ct=11.4.415
Humble, M. N., & Bride, B. E. (2009). HIV=AIDS in communities of color: A Lasswellian
analysis. Health & Social Work, 34, 267–272. doi:10.1093=hsw=34.4.267
Jacobson, H. B. (1961). A mass communications dictionary. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Janowitz, M. (1968). Harold D. Lasswell’s contributions to content analysis. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 32, 646–653. doi:10.1086=267652
Jansen, S. C. (2010). Forgotten histories: Another road not taken – The Charles Merriam-
Walter Lippmann correspondence. Communication Theory, 20, 127–146. doi:10.1111=j.1468-
2885.2010.01357.x
Jensen, K. (2002). Chapter 1: Introduction. Handbook of Media & Communication Research,
pp. 1–11.
Kashkin, V. (2012). Telementation vs. interaction: Which model suits human communication
best? Journal of Siberian Federal University, 12, 1733–1743.
Katz, E. (1956). Review of the book, the process and effects of mass communication, by Wilbur
Schramm. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 638–639.
Kent, G. (1962). Graphic conceptual models. Audio Visual Communication Review, 10, 334–337.
Klapper, J. (1955). Studying effects of mass communication. Teacher’s College Record, 57, 95–103.
Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Qualitative
Social Research, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/
article/view/75/153
 EXPLICATING LASSWELL’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATION 621

Krippendorf, K. (1993). Major metaphors of communication and some constructivist

reflections on their use. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 2(1), 3–25.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York, NY: Whitlesey House.
Lasswell, H. D. (1943). Analyzing the content of mass communication: A brief introduction.
A Rockefeller committee memorandum (Document No. 11). New York, NY: Rockefeller
Foundation.
Lasswell, H. D. (1945). The science of communication and the function of libraries. College &
Research Libraries, 6, 387–406. doi:10.5860=crl_06_04_part_2_387
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson
(Ed.), The communication of ideas: A series of addresses (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Institute
for Religious and Social Studies.
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

Lasswell, H. D. (1958). Communications as an emerging discipline. Audio Visual Communication

Review, 6, 245–254.
Lasswell, H. D. (1968). The uses of content analysis data in studying social change. Social
Science Information, 7, 57–70.
Lasswell, H. D., Lerner, D., & de Sola Poole, I. (1952). The comparative study of symbols: An
introduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lasswell, H. D., Lerner, D., & Speier, H. (1979). Introduction. In H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner, &
H. Speier (Eds.), Propaganda and communication in world history: The symbolic instrument in
early times (pp. 1–20). Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Levyatan, Y. (2009). Harold D. Lasswell’s analysis of Hitler’s speeches. Media History, 15,
55–69. doi:10.1080=13688800802583299
Lorge, I. (1955). How the psychologist views communication. Teacher’s College Record, 57,
72–79.
Malin, B. J. (2011). Not just your average beauty: Carl seashore and the history of communi-
cation research in the United States. Communication Theory, 21, 299–316. doi:10.1111=
j.1468-2885.2011.01383.x
Marvick, D. (1980). The work of Harold D. Lasswell: His approach, concerns, and influence.
Political Behavior, 2, 219–229. doi:10.1007=bf00990480
McDougal, M. S. (1979). Harold Dwight Lasswell (1902–1978). The Yale Law Journal, 88,
675–680.
McQuail, D. (1985). Sociology of mass communication. Annual Review of Sociology, 11,
93–111. doi:10.1146=annurev.soc.11.1.93
McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1981). Communication models. London, UK: Longman.
Pooley, J. (2008). The new history of mass communication research. In D. Park & J. Pooley
(Eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp. 43–69).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Post, J. (2001). Harold D. Lasswell: An appreciation. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological
Processes, 64, 197–201. doi:10.1521=psyc.64.3.197.18468
Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Schramm, W. (1957). Twenty years of journalism research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21,
91–107. doi:10.1086=266689
Schramm, W. (1962). Mass communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 13, 251–284.
Schramm, W. (1983). The unique perspective of communication: A retrospective view. Journal
of Communication, 33(3), 6–17. doi:10.1111=j.1460-2466.1983.tb02401.x
Schramm, W. (1997). The beginnings of communication study in America: A personal memoir.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schutte, W. M., & Steinberg, E. R. (1983). Communication in business and industry. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
 622 SAPIENZA, IYER, VEENSTRA

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass
media content (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Smith, B. L., Lasswell, H. D., & Casey, R. D. (1946). Introduction. In B. L. Smith, H. D. Lasswell,
& R. D. Casey (Eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion: A comprehensive reference
guide (pp. 74–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, R. G. (1968). Public speaking models: Process and response. The Southern Speech
Journal, 33, 316–327. doi:10.1080=10417946809371960
Stempel, G. H., III. (2003). Content analysis. In G. H. Stempel III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C.
Wilhoit (Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp. 209–219). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Stern, B. B. (1994). A revised communication model for advertising: Multiple dimensions
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 21:12 07 October 2015

of the source, the message, and the recipient. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 5–15. doi:10.1080=
00913367.1994.10673438
Tan, A. S. (1985). Mass communication theories and research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Tuchman, G. (1980). Who cares who says what to whom . . . ? In T. McCormack (Ed.), Studies
in communications: A research annual (Vol. 1) (pp. 143–158). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2004). How not to found a field: New evidence on the origins of mass
communication research. Journal of Communication, 54, 547–564. doi:10.1093=joc=54.3.547
Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2009). Written and interpersonal communication: Methods for law
enforcement (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Watson, J., & Hill, A. (1997). A dictionary of communication and media studies (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Arnold.
Westley, B. H., & MacLean, M. S. (1957). A conceptual model for communications research.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 34(1), 31–38.
Wilson, G. (2001). Technical communication and late capitalism: Considering a postmodern
technical communication pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15,
72–99. doi:10.1177=105065190101500104

View publication stats