Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reading Lasswell's Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions
Reading Lasswell's Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions
Reading Lasswell's Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions
net/publication/282854000
CITATIONS READS
54 63,208
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Zachary Sapienza on 15 October 2015.
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
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
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
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
INTRODUCTION
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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:
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
‘‘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
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
‘‘DEFINITION’’ CONCEPTIONS
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
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
(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 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
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