MAR O 31983 Communications Extension Information • University of Missouri-Columbia • 1-98 Agriculture • Columbia, Missouri, 65211 Developing Effective Communications 1 Dick Lee Agricultural Editor

Most Americans probably do not cise to ask members of a group to write, separate courses rn composition or appreciate the importance of communi­ in a short paragraph, their meanings for speech." cations in their personal and work-day the term. Two things become apparent: Maybe that's not bad for devotees of lives. Hopefully, those of us in exten­ most individuals have difficulty writing Webster. But I would imagine that sion work recognize the importance of out their actual meaning for the term communication doesn't exactly have good, effective communications. communications and there is a great that meaning for any of us. It's wordy It's been estimated that many Ameri­ variation in meanings. and hard to understand. cans spend 70 to 80% of their time in One of the first places to look is in the We can look up the origin of the communications-writing, reading, old reliable history of word usage­ word . Communication comes from the talking, listening. This is certainly true Webster's Third New International Dic­ Latin communis, "common." When of extension faculty. This suggests that tionary Unabridged (1976). we communicate we are trying to estab­ communications may well be the key to lish a " commonness" with someone. success for an extension worker. That is, we are trying to share informa­ tion , an idea, or an attitude. It seems most everyone is talking com.mu-ni-ca-hon \L. .1 ,m)Un~'kilsh;m\ n -s [ME communi­ cacio,111. fr M F co1>1m un1ra1ion. fr L cumm;micat inn-. eom ­ about the need for communications­ m unicatin. fr comm1mica1u1 !r,ast part of ,· ommunicart 10 Looking further you can find thi s commun1ea te 1 .... -wn-. -icJ. -ion ) l: the a..:t o racu on of impart• in~ or 1ransmi1tin; ( the~ of the cOT!lmon colJ > ( the -.. good, effective communications. Uni­ o f po wer IO the m:ichind 2 a : fad~ 01 1nf.:nma1ion com­ type of definition: ''Communications mum..:ated b: :: k: ter. note. or other l!l~lJ. fl ~•! of wr1nc n 1n• form3n0n ( he haJ nnt )t'! re.1J 1hc sp) ·s ..._, 3 a o/>~ : cu-.­ which human versity faculty often complain of poor VfR<;..,11,,...__ T >. u ,;. b ,.ucl:,.iic : rC"rso:•a! d.-aL,i~s c archaic is the mechanism through : s1:. :i..:t "'- 1•. ~11: c,1( l('E 4 arciw1c : ,·0111m ~:version1 p.1rrn:1ra11on communications between administra­ 6 a : a c..:cs~ ~et·.,,·cn r,·rsuns Jr pL.n:cs: u ;•po~ tunity of com­ relations exist and develop." This municat1oi! • mJ11:ta1n111.; ~ betwecn :iu: rt'"< ".; ' Jrs a nd i.:uer­ rill..1 S ) b commun1caltons ::,I : m.-:rns ..-;f ,.,mmun,.:-:nin~ tors and the faculty; students complain ( \ ' : a ~_.:;1..::m ·as of tclephc,n,:s or ·.d..:gr,1 :1hs 1 fo{ com­ broad definition, found in a book writ­ mu n1 c.1 11n~ tnfur r;1.11,1"Jn a1;J 0r,J<:r5 ·,1s in J 11.1,al ~t'rvic:e l (2 \ : J sys1,:m \,( •0utt.'s for 111o•n,g n oor,s . snpp!i.:s. a nd , c­ about lack of communications between hic les in rr.1\ltJn <'Der.111nns • l , : the f., ,1,1,on 111 ,Ill mJustnai ten by a sociologist, takes in about o r.:: .1 111 1.i t:0n that tr., :1 ~11111s 11k.1\. p0h, 1,:s. a1 '. J ,•: der~ • 4 , J •J"1t'· the faculty and themselves. Parents 11 everything. ~~:":11~~~.;:h i:~·tl~~~n~;:r,~~.\\~~~1n1 \\ ,:~:~~~.~~1\~·' :~1f n~I; ~f m_.:d,~ n,dustr}"' 6 a : 10 11<:r.h:i.11_,. of !hou" '.1\s c ,· op1n10ns : a bemoan the lack of communication f'TOCCS~ ti:, \\ ni,:, n>C,lfl!Tl )S arc t'\l"h:i.n,:,:J t,,:;v.,•,:[l mJ1,,Juals In contrast, some people limit their t hrou ,; h a cornrnon s ~S !t'm o r sv·11 b,)iS , .;, !.111 _:u~!,!e. swn~. or ~..:sll~rc-s 1 b : ~L,sc or in:i:nJte r.1p;,,,rt 1!1.1 : 1~ so-n,:umes between themselves and their children. 1n:t'l1.::~· 1c1.:! :111d nfh'n Jff.:.:11·. .: 7 : :J \bson,,_ lo (1~e J":lCt'llll b definitions of communications rather R or c 0mrr1un1catio11s ;,/ rut Ji'!:;:,,,. ri i,r es,,!;t : :in .-irt that Young people voice the same thought deals ..,, ,h e,rre,:, ~11111: an~ t'uh:i.n <1. i11g: • j~,::J ; effcc-11 , ely 111 narrowly saying "communication is SPt't'dl v• ... ;.,;-. ,. :: r n,,,H'~h , .,,. l<'"I""'·, , ,_ 0 , -!ra~ ·1u.: .Jr!S an.! th:11 u ta u ,;: !-: .u .u1 1n1q;r:i.•c,I rro,~ra m .11 ·. ..i : ,.,,.~ ;. ,.:·, although from a different viewpoint. of eJu,.·Juun m J1•nin, tlo n rn tr a du ion.ii scp.ua ic ..:o urses 1n the process whereby one person tells eomi-n ~:! 1< H1 anJ sr.:ec- h Farmers say the farm story needs to be another something through the written told. Labor union members feel they or spoken word." This definition, from aren't understood. And, ironic as it may a book written by a journalist, seems seem, public relations experts fret over This definition, as is true with many reasonable for those in that field. the feeling that the public misunder­ dictionary explanations, almost pro­ Then, some definitions fall in be­ stands the objectives of their profes­ vides more information than needed . tween these two extremes. Carl s10n. Most people are surprised when they Hovland , a well-know psychologist of see its length. We do learn both old and a few years ago, said communication is What Is Communication? new meanings for the term . In fact, so " the process by which an individual much information is presented that it's (the communicator) transmits stimuli What is communication--or com­ likely to confuse our task of finding a (usually verbal symbols) to modify the munications? It's an interesting exer- " meaningful" meaning for communi­ behavior of the other individuals (com­ 1 Material Archivein this paper is drawn primarily from cation. municates) .'' a chapter in the author's doctoral dissertation: The last of Webster's definition is : This definition describes what many Lee, Richard L. "The Flow of Information to "An art that deals with expressing and extension workers hope to achieve . Disadvantaged Farmers," unpublished Ph.D. exchanging ideas effectively in speech You' II be trying to change behavior. dissertation , University of Iowa , I 967. However, Some object to this definition. Their the author has drawn from several sources. or writing or through the graphic or Contents are also used in an expanded oral dramatic arts and that is taught as an objections center on the phrase " mod­ presentation prepared primarily for extension integrated program at various levels of ify the behavior.'' They say there are workers and adapted for other groups. education in distinction to traditional , numerous occasions when they com-

CM 109 municate, in their family and social lives for example, with no intention of attempting to modify behavior. But, we most likely do modify others' behavior even though that may not be our inten­ ARISTOTLE'S MODEL tion! We could find many other definitions of communication. However, " mean­ ings are in people and not words'' and A Speaker it's not likely that we could get a group of any size to agree exactly on one meaning . Besides, an exact definition of the word isn't necessary. My goal is to illustrate that it's difficult for many A Message to formulate their own definition and that there is a wide range in meanings. A Listener The Communication Process To communicate effectively we need to be familiar with the factors involved in the communication process . If we are aware of them , these factors will Fig. 1-Aristotle's Model help us plan, analyze situations, solve problems, and, in general, do better jobs in our work no matter what our job might be . munication process reviewed ts also whether or not communication takes This leads to a discussion of the one of the oldest. place. communication process. Let's look at it Our failure to recognize what Aris­ part by part as viewed by several Aristotle's Model totle grasped thousands of years ago is a communication theorists. Communica­ primary cause, if not the primary one, Aristotle, writing 300 years before tion is of concern to a great many for communication failure. We fail to the birth of Christ, provided an expla­ people. So a lot of thought, work and recognize the importance of the audi­ nation of oral communication that is discussion has gone into different com­ ence at the end of the communication still worthy of attention . He called the munication situations. Man has been chain. study of communication "rhetoric" interested in communication since the We tend to be more concerned about and spoke of three elements within the time language was developed. Today, ourselves as the communications process. He provided us this insight: such people as psychologists, educa­ source, about our message, and even tors, medical doctors, sociologists, en­ Rhetoric falls into three divi­ the channel we are going to use. Too gineers , and journalists represent only a sions, determined by the three often, the listener, viewer, reader fails few of the professional groups whose classes of listeners to speeches. to get any consideration at all . members have developed ways of look­ For of the three elements in Aristotle's words underscore the ing at and talking about the communi­ speech-making-speaker, sub­ long interest in communication. They cation process in their specialized ject, and person addressed-it is also indicate that man has had a good fields. the last one, the hearer, that de­ grasp of what is involved in communi­ Several theorists have discussed the termines the speech's end and cation for a long while . So we might communication process in ways that object. 2 even wonder: If we know so much have important implications for those about the communication process, and persons involved in informal education Here, Aristotle speaks of a communi­ if we've known it for so long, why do programs such as extension work. Each cation process composed of a speaker, a we still have communications prob­ of the "models" that we review has a message, and a listener. Note, he points lems? point of vital interest. out that the person at the end of the It's unlikely we will ever achieve Communication models come in a communication process holds the key to perfect communication. The best we variety of forms, ranging from catchy 2W. Rhys Roberts, " Rhetorica," The Works of can hope for is to provide improved summations to diagrams to mathemati­ Aristotle, Volume XI. ed. W. D. Ross (London: communication. Hopefully, we'll be cal formulas. One model of the com- Oxford University Press, 1924) p. 1358 3 • more aware of the process and work

CM 109 harder to minimize problems with com­ munications. LASSWELL'S MODEL Lasswell's Model Harold Lasswell , a political scien­ tist, developed a much quoted formula­ tion of the main elements of communi­ Who says what cation: "Who says what in which chan­ nel to whom with what effect." 3 This In which channel summation of the communications pro­ cess has been widely quoted since the 1940's. To whom The point in Lasswell's comment is that there must be an ''effect'' if com­ munication takes place. If we have With what effect. communicated we've "motivated" or produced an effect. It's also interesting to note that Lasswell's version of the communica­ tion process mentions four parts-who, what, channel, whom. Three of four of Fig. 2-Lasswell's Model those parts parallel ones mentioned by Aristotle-speaker (who), subject You'll note that the Shannon and The "noise" concept introduced by (what), person addressed (whom), and Weaver diagram has essentially the Shannon and Weaver can be used to only channel has been added. Most same parts as the one formulated by illustrate "semantic noise" that inter­ modem-day theorists discuss the four Aristotle. It's true the parts have differ­ feres with communication. Semantic parts of the communication process but ent names , and a fourth component-in noise is the problem connected with use different terms to designate them . this case the transmitter-is included. differences in meaning that people as­ However, this model has an interest­ sign to words, to voice inflections in ing additional element. Shannon and speech, to gestures and expressions and The Shannon Weaver were concerned with noise in to other similar " noise," in writing. and Weaver Model the communications process. Noise, Semantic noise is a more serious Back in 1949 Claude Shannon, an Weaver said, '' .. . may be distortions problem-or barrier-to developing ef­ electrical engineer with Bell Telephone, of sound (in telephony, for example) or fective communications than most real- static (in radio) , or distortions in shape and Warren Weaver, of the Rockefeller 4Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Foundation, published their book The or shading of picture (television), or Mathematical Theory of Communication, (Ur­ Mathematical Theory of Communica­ errors in transmission (telegraph or bana, Ill.: The University of Illinois Press , 1964) tion .4 facsimile) , etc." p. 7. Shannon and Weaver attempted to do two things: I) reduce the communica­ tion process to a set of mathematical INFORMATION formulas and 2) discuss problems which SOURCE TRANSMITTER RECEIVER DESTINATION could be handled with the model. Shannon and Weaver were not par­ SIGNAL -_. 01--RE-C-EI_V_ED-,;,'>--i'-----'1~ ticularly interested in the sociological ~H~ SIGNAL - -~ MESSAGE 1, MESSAGE or psychological aspects of communi­ cation. Instead , they wanted to devise a communications system as nearly I 00% efficient as possible. NOISE SOURCE

3Harold D. Lasswell, "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society,'' The Fig. 3-Shannon's and Weaver's Model Communication of Ideas, ed. Lyman Bryson From The Mathematical Theory of Communication by Claude E. Shannon and Warren (New York: Institute for Religious and Social Weaver, University of Illinois Press. Copyright 1949 by the Board of Trustees of the University Studies, Jewish Theological Seminary of Ameri­ of Illinois. Manufactured in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catalog Card ca, 1948) p. 37. No. 49-11922.

CM 109 ize. It is a serious barrier for it is hard to detect that semantic noise has inter­ fered with communication. Too often Fi eld of ex perience the person sending a message chooses Field of experien ce to use words and phrases that have a certain meaning to him or her. Howev­ er, they may have an altogether differ­ ent meaning to individuals receiving ~ the message. In the interest of good communication we need to work to hold semantic noise to the lowest level possible. We should be aware that there is a Fig. 4-Schramm's Model semantic noise in face-to-face verbal From The Process and Effects of Mass Communication by Wilbur Schramm, University of communication just as there is static Illinois Press. Copyright 1954 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. noise, for example, in radio communi­ Manufactured in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 54-9666. cation. There are other kinds of noises cess is understandable. A large number as leader aides, nutrition assistants, involved in communication as well. of extension workers came from this paraprofessionals, and other like names. Keep the noise concept in mind. middle class, and there was a large overlap between the extension commu­ nicator and the middle-class audience. The Rileys' Model Schramm's Model However, in the I 960s, a period of John W. and Matilda White Riley, a growing social awareness, many exten­ Wilbur Schramm, a well-known husband and wife team of sociologists, sion workers were challenged-even communications theorist, developed a point out the importance of the socio­ mandated-to work with a "disadvan­ straightforward communications model logical view in communication in an­ taged" audience . Many of the in his book The Process and Effects of other way. The two sociologists say 5 middle-class extension workers found Mass Communications, published in such a view would fit together the many it difficult to communicate with a dis­ 1961. messages and individual reactions to advantaged audience. In many cases In Schramm's model he notes, as did them within an integrated social struc­ there was only a small overlap in the Aristotle, that communication always ture and process. The Rileys developed fields of experience of the source and requires three elements-the source, a model to illustrate these sociological the disadvantaged receiver. the message, and the destination. Ideal­ implications in communication. 6 ly, the source encodes a message, trans­ Extension met this communications mits it to its destination via some challenge to a degree by employing channel, where the message is received individuals from the target disadvan­ 6John W. Riley, Jr. , and Matilda White Riley, and decoded. taged audience, training them, and, in "Mass Communication and the Social System," Sociology Today, Volume II, eds. Robert K. tum, allowing them to provide the However, taking the sociological as­ Merton. Leonard Brown, and Leonard D . pects involved in communication into important communications linkage. Cottrell , Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) consideration, Schramm points out that Those employees are given such titles pp. 537-578. for understanding to take place between the source and the destination, they must have something in common. If the source's and destination' sfields of experience overlap, communication MESSAGES can take place. If there is no overlap, or only a small area in common, commu­ MESSAGES nication is difficult, if not impossible. For many years cooperative exten­ sion service agents developed a consid­ MESSAGES erable skill in communicating with the

large American middle class. That sue- OVER-ALL SOCIAL SYSTEM

5Wilbur Schramm, "How Communication Fig. 5-The Riley's Model Works," The Process and Effects of Mass Com­ From Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects, edited by Robert K. Merton , Leonard mu11icatio11 , ed. Wilbur Schramm (Urbana, Ill.: Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell , Jr., Copyright (c) 1959 by Basic Books, Inc. , New York. The University of Illinois Press , 1961) pp . 5-6. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

CM 109 The model indicates the communica­ tor (C) emerges as part of a larger pattern, sending messages in accor­ dance with the expectations and actions s M C R of other persons and groups within the SOURCE MESSAGE CHANNEL - RECEIVER same social structure. This also is true of the receiver (R) in the communica­ ~ 1 ~: SEEING 1 fi,,wwmml tions process. In addition, both the communicator ~ lerm.m:l!■ I and receiver are part of an overall social system. Within such an all-embracing ~ ~,J~2zz,u system, the communication process is I seen as a part of a larger social process, {3ffrSYSTl M I I~'-:SMELLING! fe,razm111 I both affecting it and being in turn affected by it. The model clearly illus­ ~ l,mzlllltl- trates that communication is a two-way proposition. The important point the Rileys' model Fig. 6-Berlo's Model makes for us is that we send messages From The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice by David Berlo. as members of certain primary groups Copyright (c) 1960 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Holt, and that our receivers receive our mes­ Rinehart and Winston, CBS College Publishing. sages as members of primary groups. As you likely can visualize group refer­ or toward any other factor pertinent to "receiving" each channel, the more ences may be a positive re-enforcement the situation. Knowledge of the sub­ effective your message. of our messages; at other times they ject, the audience, the situation, and Receiver becomes the final link in may create a negative force . other background also influences the the communication process. The receiv­ way the source operates. So will social er is the person or persons who make up background, education, friends, salary, the audience of your message. All of Berlo's Model culture-all sometimes called the the factors that determine how a source The final communications model socio-cultural context in which the will operate apply to the receiver. Think that we'll consider is the SMCR model, source lives. of communication skills in terms of developed by David K. Berlo, a com­ Message has to do with the package how well a receiver can hear, read, or munications theorist and consultant. to be sent by the source. The code or use his or her other senses. Attitudes Berlo, in his book The Process of language must be chosen. Generally we relate to how a receiver thinks of the Communication, 7 points out the im­ think of code in terms of the natural source, of himself or herself, of the portance of the psychological view in languages-English, Spanish, German, message, and so on. The receiver may his communications model. The four Chinese, and others. Sometimes we use have more or less knowledge than the parts of Berlo's SMCR model are-no other languages-music, art, gestures. source's knowledge. Socio-cultural con­ surprises here-source, message, In all cases look at the code in terms of text' could be different in many ways channel , receiver. ease or difficulty for audience under­ from that of the source, but social The first part of this communication standing. background, education, friends, salary, model is the source. All communica­ Within the message, select content culture would still be involved. Each tion must come from some source. The and organize it to meet acceptable will affect the receiver's understanding source might be one person, or group of treatment for the given audience or of the message. people, or a company, an organization, specific channel. If the source makes a Messages sometimes fail to accom­ or an institution such as the University poor choice, the message will likely plish their purpose for many reasons. of Missouri. fail. Frequently the source is unaware of Several things determine how a Channel can be thought of as a receivers and how they view things. source will operate in the communica­ sense-smelling, tasting, feeling, hear­ Certain channels may not be as effec­ tion process. They include the source's ing, seeing. Sometimes it's preferable tive under certain circumstances. Treat­ communication skills-abilities to to think of the channel as the method ment of a message may not fit a certain think , to write , to draw, to speak. They over which the message will be trans­ channel. Or some receivers simply may also include attitudes toward audience, mitted: telegraph, newspaper, radio, not be aware of, interested in, or capa­ toward the subject matter, toward self, letter, poster, or other media. ble of using certain available messages. Kind and number of channels to use may depend largely on purpose. Gener­ Summary 7 David K. Berlo , The Process of Communi­ cation . (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston , ally, the more you can use and the more Here is a summary of the important Inc .. 1960). you tailor your message to the people thoughts illustrated by each model.

CM 109 Model Thought Important to Effective Communications

Aristotle The receiver holds the key to success. Lasswell An effect must be achieved if communication takes place. Shannon and Semantic noise can be a major communication barrier. Weaver Schramm Overlapping experi ences makes it easier to communicate successfull y. The Rileys Membership in primary groups affect how messages are sent and received. Berlo Several important factors must be considered relating to source, mes­ sage , channel, receiver.

These are just a few of the many many everyday communication situa­ receiver doesn't get the message we views of the communication process tions . haven't communicated. that have been developed. There are For an ending thought let's return It's as Aristotle said 300 years before many other communication theorists­ again to the idea that successful com­ the birth of Christ "for of the three McLuhan , MacLean, Westley, Stephen­ munication depends upon the receiver. elements in speech-making-speaker, son, Gerbner, Rothstein, Osgood, John­ As a communications source we can subject, and person addressed-it is the son, Cherry, and others. Those de­ spend a lot of time preparing messages last one, the hearer, that determines the scribed here briefly are pertinent to and in selecting channels, but if the speech's end and object."

■ Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914 in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Leonard C. Douglas, Director, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Missouri and Lincoln University, Columbia, Missouri 65211. ■ An equal opportunity institution.

CM 109 1/83/2.SM University Libraries University of Missouri

Digitization Information Page

Local identifier CM0109-1983

Source information

Format Brochure Content type Text with images Source ID Gift Copy not added to the Collection Notes

Capture information

Date captured 11/5/2019 Scanner manufacturer Fujitsu Scanner model fi-7460 Scanning system software ScandAll Pro v. 2.1.5 Premium Optical resolution 600 dpi Color settings 24 bit color File types tiff Notes

Derivatives - Access copy

Compression Tiff: LZW compression Editing software Adobe Photoshop CC Resolution 600 dpi Color 8 bit grayscale File types pdf created from tiff Notes Images cropped, straightened, darkened