Educational Administration: Theory and Practice

2024,30(4), 7243-7259
ISSN:2148-2403
https://kuey.net/ Research Article

Communication Concepts and Models: Exploring

Relevance for Community Development
Suresh Goduka1*, Amarendra Kumar Das2*
1*Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India, Department of Design, Guwahati, India 781039 Email: [email protected]
2*Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India, Professor, Department of Design, Guwahati, India 781039 Email: [email protected]

Citation: Goduka, S., and Das, A. K. (2024), Communication Concepts and Models: Exploring Relevance for Community Development,
Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(4), 7243-7259
Doi: 10.53555/kuey.v30i4.2544

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

This paper provides a comprehensive exploration of communication and mass
communication models. It discusses traditional models that assume a passive
mass audience and later shifts to models focusing on systematic receiver
differences. The paper explores various models, including Carey’s ritual model,
Nair and White’s participatory message development model, and Hall’s idea of
messages being open to multiple interpretations. It delves into the complexities of
measuring media effects, discussing models like Lasswell’s and Lazarsfeld’s two-
step flow model. The paper also covers the uses and gratifications theory, third-
person effects, and the uses and dependency model. It presents several models for
a more interactive understanding of person-situation factors. The paper
concludes with discussions on Gerbner’s cultivation theory, the reception models
of media texts, and the study of cognitive dissonance in mass communication. The
search for relevance of these discourses for the marginalized communities is the
core of this paper.

Keywords: Mass Communication, Communication Models, Communication

Research, Communication Design, Media Effects

This paper analyses existing concepts and models that can be found in different disciplines of communication,
which have relevance in communication for community development. The most pertinent features of these
concepts or models are extracted and synthesised.

Media Literacy
Media literacy, at its core, is the capacity to access, comprehend, and generate communications across diverse
contexts (Office of Communications, 2006). The swift progression of media technology has intertwined
traditional literacy and media literacy to the point of inseparability (Bazalgette, 2005). What we perceive as
traditional literacy is, in fact, media literacy, a concept defined in a bygone era that retains its relevance today
(Sobers, 2005).

Communication Variables
It is essential to recognise the role of and interaction among communication input variables and output
variables, which have been listed by McGuire (2001).

Communication input variables include:

• Source
• Message
• Channel
• Audience
• Outcomes
Communication output variables include:
• Exposure
• Attention

Copyright © 2024 by Author/s and Licensed by Kuey. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
7244 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

• Liking
• Comprehension
• Generating related cognitions
• Acquiring skills
• Attitude change
• Storing
• Retrieving
• The decision to act in accordance with the retrieved position
• Action
• Cognitive integration of behaviour
• Encouraging others to behave similarly

Potentially valuable output variables to consider include:

• Audience choice
• Social settings of media use
This model builds upon the conventional instrumental learning approach (Hovland et al., 1953). It introduces
several modifications to the simple communication/persuasion matrix (McGuire 2001), such as the
elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), selfpersuasion (McGuire, 1960), and alternate causal
chains (Bem, 1970).
Key variables for the source (or messenger) include credibility, attractiveness, and power. However, these
effects may vary in conjunction with other factors. For instance, attractiveness may be linked with the formality
of dress, and credibility may be associated with the similarity in gender or ethnicity between the source and
the audience.
At the most basic level, effective appeals usually link a valued (positive/negative) incentive with a high enough
probability that the promised/threatened outcome will materialize. Common incentives are related to health,
time/effort, economics, ideology, aspirations, social acceptance, and status. For instance, well-crafted fear
appeals can heighten a smoker’s perceived risk of social rejection, even though they may not bring the distant
likelihood of lung cancer to noticeable levels.

Channel variables (McGuire, 2001, Atkin, 2001) differ across different media in terms of:
• Reach
• Specialisation
• Informativeness
• Interactivity
• Modalities
• Cognitive effort
• Effect on agenda setting
• Accessibility
• Homogeneity of audience
• Efficiency of production and dissemination
• Context in which the audience uses the medium
Salmon and Atkin (2003) compared 25 channels across 6 major media features relevant to
campaign design and effectiveness. The media features are:
• Access
• Reach
• Ability to reach specific target
• Depth
• Credibility
• Agenda setting
Other relevant features include:
• Intrusiveness
• Safeness
• Participation
• Sensory modalities
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7245

• Personalisation
• Decodability
• Efficiency (in both production and dissemination)
Audience variables include:
• Risk
• Cognitive development
• Education
• Vulnerability to social influence
Central outcomes include:
• Beliefs
• Attitudes
• Behaviour
• Persistence of outcome
• Resistance to persuasion
McGuire (2001) explored the possibility of these elements being influenced by, or interacting with, other
variables. Atkin (2001) highlighted that the focus on different input and output variables would vary based on
the campaign’s objective depending on the nature of the campaign goal and type of message awareness,
instruction or persuasion.

Community Media
Different types of media are often created for various social classes, a trend that is becoming more pronounced
in the age of media fragmentation (Williams & Carpini, 2011). The global dimensions of community media
show that the effort to establish media systems that are both relevant and accountable to local communities is
a struggle that resonates across cultures and peoples (Howley, 2010). For those who have limited or no access
to mainstream media, community media offer the resources and opportunities to narrate their own stories, in
their own unique voices and idioms (Rodriguez, 2001).
However, the field of community media studies lacks clear definitions. The term
‘community media’ is just one of several phrases, including ‘participatory’, ‘alternative’, and
‘citizen media’, used to characterize media that is produced by, for, and about local communities (Carpentier,
2007).
Williams (1973) underscores the pivotal role of communication in shaping our individual and collective
understanding of the relationships of ‘significance and solidarity’ that constitute a community. Berrigan (1977)
highlights two key concepts for understanding community media: access and participation. His analysis
uncovers a shared aspiration to shift communication systems from top-down models of message
production/distribution towards a decentralized communication approach that fosters dialogue and exchange.
Both concepts reject one-way communication flow, centralized decision-making, and the perception of the
community as passive and non-contributing. Curtin (2004) posits that institutional forms and practices are
successful to the extent that they ‘capture and express the social experiences of their audiences’. Social
experience encompasses various aspects: the locale’s social history and physical environment, demographics
and migration trends, economic and regulatory conditions, and communication and transportation
infrastructures, as well as local traditions, customs, and sensibilities.

Development Communication
Development communication aims to improve living conditions through the application of communication
strategies, practices, and technologies. The initial approach to development communication was heavily
influenced by Shannon’s (1948) ‘transmission model of communication’, which prioritizes social control,
persuasion, and behavior modification. This model, with its focus on message design, production, and
distribution, and its relative disregard for audience feedback and response, favors the sender over the receiver
of a message. It imposes meanings on the audience members rather than allowing them to interpret and
construct meanings within their community.
Freire (1970) challenged the efficacy of development communication models that pinpoint problems and
propose solutions based on the observations and recommendations of external experts. Freire’s critique
highlights the issue with vertical or top-down communication approaches that prioritize information
transmission over the construction of local knowledge. In recent decades, the language, practices, and goals of
development communication have evolved in response to the proliferation of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) (Craig, 2007).
7246 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

Participatory Communication
The participatory methods in development communication emerged in the early 1970s. These methods aimed
to utilize communication resources to instigate change, involving the people affected by these changes (Boafo,
2002). Participatory communication holds several advantages over the long-standing transmission model in
development communication. It has been instrumental in crafting development messages that resonate with
the cultural context and appropriateness of a specific social setting. This approach has been effective in
overcoming resistance to development messages that were either overlooked or not aligned with local cultural
values, forms, and practices.
Participatory communication emphasizes the significance of the “process” over the “product” in the realm of
community communication (Higgins, 1999). The focus transitions from merely transmitting information to
the “organizational value of communication and the role of communicative efforts” in empowering individuals.
In other words, it’s about how communities can leverage information to mobilize themselves (Krishnatray et
al., 2006).
Carey’s (1988) ritual model perceives communication as a collective endeavor where participants (re)generate
knowledge, (re)formulate meaning, and (re)build communal relations and collective identity over time.
Nair and White’s (1994) model of participatory message development adopts the properties of dialogue as its
framework, where dialogue is seen as a horizontal exchange rather than a top-down command.
More progressive approaches to participatory communication empower community members by providing
them with the tools of media production - microphones, audio and video recorders, computers, and so on (e.g.,
Manyozo, 2003).

Mediated Communication
Traditional communication models posited that mass communication is a one-to-many process, assuming the
existence of a passive mass “audience” with uniform tastes regarding the transmitted information, rather than
diverse “users” seeking different experiences. Subsequent researchers endeavored to identify systematic
receiver differences as the central point of message design.
The classic Westley and MacLean’s (1957) model of mass communication, applicable to all artifacts to which
people assign meanings, introduces a ‘gatekeeper’ phase, a one-way filter for encoding from the source, but
lacks a filter for decoding at the destination.
Consequently, the processes by which communicators’ intentions are converted into artifacts are only loosely
linked to the processes by which users interpret those artifacts.
The impact of mediated messages on audiences’ intentions and behaviors is likely to be channeled through
their immediate perceptions (Grube, 2004).

Semiotic Analysis of Media

Images and narratives we encounter daily in the media often go unnoticed; they serve as a backdrop to our
social lives, a continuous stream of signs and symbolic content “that shape and inform a complex, unstructured,
and not fully articulated understanding of life and the world we live in” (Orgad 2014). Semiotic analysis aids in
examining the meanings of these media representations.
The idea that representations create rather than mirror reality is grounded in semiotics and other elements of
the constructionist approach (Hall, 1997; Orgad, 2014). This approach posits that any representation is
inherently a construction, a selective and specific portrayal of certain aspects of reality, which produces certain
meanings and omits others. This perspective is based on the understanding that: “we assign meaning by how
we represent them - the words we use about them, the stories we tell about them, the images of them we
produce, the emotions we associate with them, the ways we classify and conceptualize them, the value we place
on them” (Hall, 1997).
Media users react only to the events that become images in their minds. They construct symbolic meaning as
decoded from the media content (Bartsch et al. 2006; Scherer, 2001).
Lars’ alternative model (Lars, 2018) aims to emphasize the key communication entities and their
interrelationships, and potentially encompasses all possible types of meaning communication. It is designed
to account for both verbal and non-verbal meanings, the different roles played by minds and bodies in
communication, and the relationship between pre-semiotic and semiotic media features.
The visual diagram of this model includes 3 communication entities:
• What is being transferred: cognitive import.
• Two distinct locations where the transfer takes place: the producer’s mind and the perceiver’s mind.
• An intermediate stage facilitating the transfer: media product.
Moreover, it illustrates 4 crucial interrelationships among these entities:
• An act of production between the producer’s mind and the media product.
• An act of perception between the media product and the perceiver’s mind.
• Cognitive import within the producer’s mind and the perceiver’s mind.
• A transfer of cognitive import through the media product.
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7247

Hall rejects the notion that meanings are fixed in messages and wholly consumed by receivers. Instead, he
proposes that messages are always subject to multiple interpretations, even though there are intended
‘preferred readings’, thereby positioning audiences as active interpreters, creating their own meanings from
media texts. These audiences sometimes even resist preferred readings and substitute them with alternative or
oppositional ones (Hall & Jefferson, 1976; Hebdige, 1979).

Media Effects
The majority of mass communication research implicitly adheres to Lasswell’s model, where the ‘effect’ is the
central component. This effect signifies a visible and quantifiable change in the receiver, triggered by
identifiable elements in the communication process. Lasswell and others hypothesized that the dissemination
of information via mass communication directly influences attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Doob, 1935).
Over the years, the focus of media audience research has oscillated between “what do media do to audiences
versus what do people do with media” (Katz et al. 1974). The prevailing paradigm has been the pursuit of
specific, measurable, short-term changes in attitudes and behaviors resulting from media content (Arndt,
1968; Rosario, 1971). However, gauging the impact levels of any creative endeavor is a complex undertaking
(Buckingham et al., 2000).
Media effects research has primarily revolved around the relationship between input variables (e.g., media
information and its characteristics) and output variables (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, behavior), with minimal
attention to the cognitive processes that could mediate these relationships (Hawkins & Pingree, 1990; Reeves
et al., 1982).
To scrutinize the various social and psychological contexts of media use, researchers (Adoni, 1979; Dimmick et
al., 1979; Finn & Gorr, 1988; Hamilton & Rubin, 1992; Lull, 1980; Rubin et al., 1985; Windahl et al., 1986) have
explored the role of factors such as life position, lifestyle, personality, loneliness, isolation, need for cognition,
religiosity, media deprivation, family-viewing environment, and others. They have also evaluated how changes
in background variables, motives, and exposure influence outcomes (Carveth & Alexander, 1985; Garramone,
1984; Perse & Rubin, 1988; Rubin & McHugh, 1987).
A quantitative study by Lazarsfeld and colleagues on the radio’s influence on women voters’ choices
documented a two-stage opinion formation process (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944; Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). They
found that after listening to the radio, audiences discussed with friends whose opinions they valued and trusted
to evaluate the broadcast and form their own opinions. These friends were termed as ‘opinion leaders.’ This
process showed that direct short-term effects were limited, and it aimed to eventually demonstrate broader,
long-term effects. Their Two-Step Flow Model suggested that media messages reach people not directly, but
through the selective, partisan, complicating interpolation of ‘opinion leaders’ (Secord and Backman). This
perspective acknowledged that informal social relationships significantly modify how individuals react to a
message received via mass media. These perspectives were referred to as interpretive frameworks on how
people encounter the media. The psychosocial and other factors were incorporated into subsequent
communication models, leading to an array of increasingly sophisticated versions of the linear models of
stimulus-response or cause-effect.
Barcus labels certain influencers who tend to seek advice as ‘professional intermediaries’, who are some
institutionalized source, where the knowledgeable person has been formally appointed in that role. Newcomb
introduces a triangular model incorporating social relationships in the mass communications process and with
a simplistic indication of how people and systems in society attempt to maintain equilibrium. Troldahal
presents another conceptual model, the Two-Cycle Flow of Communication, which continues in much of the
communications literature also as a multi-step flow (Budd & Ruben, 1988).

Stimulus-Response
Effects are contingent on both the orientations of audiences and their exposure to media content, as
encapsulated in the O-S-O-R models (Markus & Zajonc, 1985).
• The initial ‘O’ symbolizes the orientations, which include the structural, cultural, cognitive, and
motivational traits that the audience brings to the reception situation. These traits, often termed as
individual differences, are likely socially determined and represent the person’s subjective responses to the
objective conditions of their community and world.
• ‘S’ signifies the stimulus effects or the impact of messages. The subjective orientations can modify effects
either by determining the extent of message usage or through interactions with message content, thereby
amplifying or reducing the effect’s strength (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
• The second ‘O’ represents the orientations, encompassing the various ways audiences may handle media
messages. This includes strategies people use to manage the information overload (Graber, 1988).
• ‘R’ denotes the subsequent response or outcome of the message (Hawkins & Pingree, 1986).

This framework acknowledges that numerous contextual, cultural, and motivational factors that people bring
to the reception experience influence how they process the message (McLeod et al., 1994).
The O-S-O-R framework has been revised to the orientation-stimulus-reasoningorientation-response (O1-S-
R1-O2-R2) model (Cho et al., 2009). This model merges insights from iterations of the communication
7248 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

mediation model (Friedland et al., 2007; Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001) and the cognitive mediation model
(Eveland et al., 2003). A notable strength of the communication mediation model is its integration of mass and
interpersonal communication into processes leading to civic engagement (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995).

Uses and Gratification

The uses and gratification perspective (Flanagin & Metzger, 2007; Stafford et al., 2004) posits that individuals
are purposeful and active, selecting and utilizing media based on their needs and motivations. It connects the
gratifications sought and obtained from media content. This viewpoint assumes the role of consistently active
and engaged consumers, which is often not the case. Katz (1959) proposed that a media message typically could
not influence an individual who found no use for it.
Klapper (1963) advocated for broadening the uses and gratifications inquiry. Some researchers incorporated
uses and gratifications into a social-cognitive framework (Peters et al. 2006). Others have suggested
transactional, discrepancy, and expectancy-value models of media uses and gratifications (e.g., Babrow &
Swanson, 1988; Galloway & Meek, 1981; Palmgreen et al., 1980).
Banning (2007) proposed that uses and gratifications might underlie third-person effects. Haridakis and Rubin
(2005) recommended expanding third-person effects research.
Some researchers suggested a merger of uses and gratifications and media effects research (e.g., Rosengren &
Windahl, 1972; Rubin & Windahl, 1986; Windahl, 1981). The primary distinction between the two traditions is
that a media effects researcher typically examines the mass communication process from the communicator’s
perspective, while a uses and gratifications researcher starts with the audience member (Windahl, 1981).
Another endeavor, the uses and dependency model, illustrated connections between an individual’s
communication needs and motives, information-seeking strategies, media uses and functional alternatives,
and media dependency (Rubin & Windahl, 1986).

Media-User Interaction
The US Surgeon General’s Commission on Television and Social Behaviours conducted a study where cameras
were attached to televisions in the homes of volunteer families to record their activities while the television was
on (Bechtel et al., 1972). This research highlighted the integral role of television in daily life and relationships,
a concept later termed as ‘embeddedness’ by Silverstone (1994). By the 1980s, American researchers began to
focus more on people’s interactions with television at home and elsewhere (Lindlof (ed.), 1987; Lull, 1990;
James & McCain, 1982), moving beyond the traditional uses and gratifications approach.
The newly established Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Bermingham employed
participant observation methods to explore how the British working class utilized mass cultural goods and
media to shape their own culture (Butsch, 2017). Television audience studies (Brunsdon & Morley, 1978) also
incorporated participant observation and in-depth interviews, allowing viewers to express their interpretations
of the shows.
These studies were categorized as audience ‘ethnographies’, a label that was later criticized for misrepresenting
their methods and lacking an anthropological approach (McGuigan, 1992; Nightingale, 1993).
Schramm (1977) emphasized the importance of understanding how mass audiences interpret messages. He
portrayed a multitude of individual ‘receivers’, each interpreting one of many identical messages. These
receivers, connected to a group, interact and respond to each other’s interpretations, leading to a
reinterpretation of the original message.
In Maletzke’s model of mass media, both the creators and interpreters of messages are depicted as having a
perception of the other party. This could influence the intentions held, the messages created, the media chosen,
and the interpretations formed (Maletzke, 1963).
Some communication researchers have argued that the media can only reinforce existing behavior styles but
cannot create new ones (Klapper, 1960). This view contrasts with a large body of evidence. Media influencers
can create personal attributes and modify existing ones (Bandura, 1986; Williams, 1992). The Proportional
Change Model, Accumulated
Information Model, Belief Certainty Model (Danes et al., 1978), Mass Persuasion Model (McGuire, 2001), and
Self-Efficacy Model (Bandura, 1986) have attempted to present a more interactive, integrated understanding
of person-situation factors (Bettinghaus, 1986).

Selective Exposure and Effects

Studies indicate that viewers tend to choose and interpret media messages that align with their existing
attitudes and beliefs. There are patterns of selective exposure or preferential attitudes towards certain types of
media and media platforms, which are not consistent across all viewers (Gunter, 1985). The way people
perceive various media platforms or the extent to which the audience gravitates towards or across certain
programs varies among different demographic groups. There is substantial evidence that people selectively pay
attention to information based on its relevance to them at a particular moment (Broadbent, 1977; Greenwald
& Leavitt, 1984; Krugman, 1988; Pechmann & Stewart, 1988; Tolley & Bogart, 1994).
Personal experiences are known to moderate the impact of exposure to media messages (Hawkins & Pingree,
1990). For instance, racial/ethnic stereotypes in the media have been found to have the most significant effect
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7249

on consumers when real-world experiences align with the media messages and/or when audience members
have little or no real-world contact to draw from to form their judgments (Fujioka, 1999; Tan et al., 1997;
Mastro et al., 2007). However, from the perspective of shared reality theory, reality itself is based on social
verification, as collective legitimization is the force that transitions the subjective into the objective (Hardin &
Higgins, 1996).
Research clarifies that consumer characteristics directly influence media effects. For instance, in her review of
consumer processing of advertising, Thorson (1990) identifies individual difference factors such as motivation
(or involvement), ability, prior learning, and emotion, among others, that influence how, and even whether,
consumers process advertising messages. The theoretical basis for these effects is selective exposure, the
proposition that consumers tend to see and hear communications that are favorable, congenial, or consistent
with their predispositions and interests (Zillmann & Bryant, 1994).
The analysis of survey data collected by the National Opinion Research Centre found that the effectiveness of
mass communication campaigns could not be enhanced merely by increasing the number of messages (Hyman
and Sheatsley, 1947). The selection of media also reflects the extent to which the viewer perceives the messages
as useful in achieving goals, informative, or consistent with or confirming of attitudes or beliefs.
Some models of media effects that explicitly employ individual differences as factors in their analyses
demonstrate that individual variations can serve as important moderating variables. In addition to moderating
the direction and nature of media influence, individual characteristics may also amplify or intensify media
influences, or may even provide a necessary condition for media influences to occur.

Cognitive Response
The theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) explains the tendency of individuals to select information
that aligns with their attitudes and beliefs, and to ignore or avoid information that contradicts them. This
theory has been widely applied in the field of mass communication. Extensive research on the effects of mass
media has demonstrated that while media messages can alter people’s knowledge or perceptions about a
certain subject, issue, or individual, the most enduring changes in attitudes and behavior occur when people
are motivated and capable of processing the information, and this processing leads to favorable thoughts and
ideas that are incorporated into the individual’s cognitive structure.
The cognitive response approach, which has several variations, posits that individuals are persuaded not so
much by the communication itself, but by their own thoughts in response to the communication. While this
approach offers valuable insights into the process of persuasion, it only focuses on situations where individuals
actively process the information provided to them. To address this limitation, the elaboration likelihood model
of persuasion (ELM) was proposed (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The ELM suggests specific characteristics of
communication receivers that influence the likelihood of a cognitive response. It posits that persuasion can
occur under conditions of high or low thought, but the processes and outcomes of persuasion differ in each
case (Petty & Wegener, 1999).
The ability to process a message is crucial. For instance, a complex or lengthy message may require more than
one exposure for optimal processing. However, repeatedly presenting the same message can lead to decreased
effectiveness, a phenomenon known as the “wear-out” effect (Sawyer, 1981). This effect occurs regardless of
whether the message pertains to a topic of high or low interest. The ELM suggests that a media campaign
should attempt different types of message variations depending on the recipient’s overall motivation to think
about the issue. According to the ELM, when the likelihood of elaboration is low (e.g., due to low personal
relevance or knowledge, message complexity, numerous distractions, etc.), individuals may recognize that they
do not wish to or are unable to evaluate the merits of the presented message, or they may not even make an
effort to process the message.
Early theories of attitude change, such as those proposed by Strong (1925) posited that effective influence
necessitates a series of steps (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984).
Watt and van den Berg (1978) explored various theories on the relationship between media communications
and public attitudes and behavior. They found that some attitudes are formed through a rigorous reasoning
process where external information is related to oneself and integrated into a consistent belief structure
(central route). In contrast, other attitudes are shaped by relatively simple cues in the persuasion environment
(peripheral route). If the aim of a mass media influence attempt is to create enduring changes in attitudes with
behavioral implications, the central route seems to be the preferred persuasion strategy. However, if the
objective is to immediately form a new attitude, even if it is relatively transient, the peripheral route could be
suitable.
Modern analyses of mass media persuasion have concentrated on identifying the factors that determine the
effectiveness of media and the underlying processes by which media induce change. For example, McGuire’s
(1985) communication/persuasion matrix model of persuasion delineates the inputs (or independent
variables) in the persuasion process that media persuaders can manipulate, as well as the outputs (or
dependent variables) that can be measured to determine the success of an influence attempt. The inputs in this
matrix are partly based on
Lasswell’s (1948) classic question: who says what to whom, when, and how [model diagram in Fig 3.4].
7250 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

McGuire pointed out that the probability of a message triggering each step in the sequence should be
considered as a conditional probability. It’s crucial to acknowledge that a single input variable can lead to
different output steps. Interestingly, some steps in the proposed information processing sequence are entirely
independent of each other, rather than being sequential (Greenwald, 1968; McGuire, 1985; Petty & Cacioppo,
1981).

User Involvement
Krugman (1965) introduced the idea of involvement as a counterpoint to the dominant models of mass
communication effects prevalent in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Users of mass media can perceive a media
environment in two distinct modes of reception: an involved mode and a distanced mode (Vorderer, 1993).
Users who are involved respond to media environments as though they were real, temporarily appearing
oblivious to the mediated nature of the media (Lee, 2004). If the media environment absorbs (Zillmann, 1988)
or immerses the user’s senses and offers pertinent and significant insights, involvement is probable.
Contrary to the earlier bullet or hypodermic needle models that perceived audiences as uniformly passive
targets absorbing information, the fundamental premise of the transactional model is that the effects of mass
media are relatively limited. Factors such as individual characteristics, attitudes, experiences, predispositions,
and so on, all mediate the effects of mass media. The conceptual shift was to alter the focus from "what media
do to people," to "what people do to mass media."

Media Framing and Priming

Three aspects of media framing are distinguished: first, the innate frames that provide initial structures to
visual experience, independent of social or other factors; second, the frames of society and culture, which,
although initially external to the viewer, become internal due to overt or covert conditioning; and third, the
frames of the media. All frames delineate a space, whether it’s a film, television, photograph, or picture frame.
However, it is most accurately reflected in the two-factor state of being, which comprises time and space.
Price and Tewksbury’s (1997) Model posits that constructs activated by the media and deemed relevant to the
current situation shape how the message is framed or interpreted. Conversely, constructs activated by the
media but deemed irrelevant to the current situation are not brought into working memory.
Media priming pertains to the short-term effects of media exposure on our subsequent judgments or behaviors.
It is conceptualized by the Network Model Of Memory. We perceive an image, listen to or read words, and
retrieve meanings from memory. However, each of these processes is intricate and constitutes only a part of
the mental work of comprehension. Numerous cognitive psychologists argue that constructing a mental model
is a fundamental component of the comprehension process (e.g., van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Zwann &
Radvansky, 1998).

Mental Representations
A mental model is a dynamic mental depiction of a situation, event, or object (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). These
mental models serve as tools for processing, organizing, and understanding incoming information (Radvansky
et al., 1998; Zwann & Radvansky, 1998), making social judgments (Wyer & Radvansky, 1999), formulating
predictions and inferences
(Magliano et al., 1996), or generating descriptions and explanations of a system’s operation (Rickheit &
Sichelschmidt, 1999). A fundamental concept of the mental model approach is the existence of some
correspondence between an external entity and our constructed mental representations of that entity
(Johnson-Laird, 1989; Norman, 1983).
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) is based on three assumptions (Mayer, 2001; Moreno,
2006):
• Humans process visual and auditory information through two distinct information processing channels.
• Each channel has a limited capacity for processing information at any given time.
• Active learning involves executing a coordinated set of cognitive processes during learning.

Given that multimedia or audio-visual presentations typically present information through more than one
modality (e.g., visual images and auditory narration), the model traces the processing of information elements
through the visual and auditory channels as they traverse the three classic cognitive structures of cognition and
memory:
• Sensory memory (responsible for the initial encoding of external stimuli)
• Working memory (where active information processing occurs)
• Long-term memory (where information is stored beyond a few moments).

The CTML proposes that when a user interacts with an instructional message via multimedia or audio-visual,
bits of visual and auditory information are encoded and processed separately, resulting in a pictorial mental
model of the visual information and a verbal mental model of the auditory information. These two models are
then integrated into a single representation where corresponding elements of the pictorial and verbal models
are mapped onto each other.
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7251

The Capacity Model (Fisch, 2000) shares several features with CTML. It suggests that understanding
educational content depends not only on the cognitive demands of processing the educational content itself
but also on the demands posed by the narrative in which it is embedded.
If the message design includes too much extraneous material or requires users to engage in too much
extraneous cognitive processing, then the demands will exceed the limited capacity of working memory, and
the material will not be well learned.
Comprehension is influenced by distance, i.e., the extent to which the information is integral to the narrative.
According to the Capacity Model, if this distance is large, the mental resources required for comprehension are
generally devoted primarily to the narrative, leaving fewer resources available for processing the information.
However, if the information is integral to the narrative, then the two complement each other rather than
compete; the same processing that allows for understanding the narrative simultaneously contributes to
understanding the information. Thus, comprehension of information typically would be stronger under any of
the following conditions:
1. When the processing demands of the narrative are relatively small (e.g., because few inferences are needed
to understand the story or the viewer’s language skills are sufficiently sophisticated to follow the narrative
easily)
2. When the processing demands of the information are small (e.g. because it is presented clearly or the viewer
has some prior knowledge of the subject)
3. When the distance between 1 and 2 is small.

Information Processing
Several models explain how individuals gather, retain, and utilize social information. The model by Wyer and
Srull (1989) is comprehensive in that it outlines specific mechanisms for all stages in the information
processing system, from input to output.
The heuristic/sufficiency principle (Carlston & Smith, 1996; Wyer, 1980) of social cognition research suggests
that when forming judgments, people do not search their memory for all relevant information. Instead, they
retrieve only a small subset of the available information. The criterion for retrieval is “sufficiency,” meaning
only the information necessary to form the judgment is retrieved (Wyer & Srull, 1989).
Constructs that are activated frequently tend to be easily recalled. The same general relationship applies to
recent activation: the more recent the activation of a construct, the easier it is to recall (Higgins et al., 1977;
Wyer & Srull, 1980). Like frequency and recency, vividness also has particular relevance to media effects. More
vivid constructs are more easily activated from memory than less vivid ones (Higgins & Kings, 1981; Nisbett &
Ross, 1980; Paivio, 1971).

Cultivation Effect
Gerbner (1969) initiated a research project, Cultural Indicators, aimed at offering an integrated method for
examining television policies, programs, and impacts. He formulated a theory of media effects, known as
cultivation, to comprehend the implications of being raised and living in a culture dominated by television.
Significant differences exist between cultivation theory and reception models of media texts (McQuail, 2000).
According to the reception viewpoint, other factors can intervene and neutralize the cultivation process. The
way viewers interpret texts is more crucial than the amount they watch (Swanson, 1979).
Potter (1986) and others have suggested that outcomes like cultivation are influenced by people’s varying
perceptions of the realism of media content. More potent cultivation effects were observed when media content
was perceived as realistic.
Some studies propose that the correlation between viewing and perceiving is not causal but stems from third-
variable influences, such as direct experience and available viewing time (Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Hirsch,
1980; Hughes, 1980; Wober & Gunter, 1988). Other research suggests that the causal relationship between
viewing and social perceptions may be reversed, meaning individual aspects (including pre-existing social
perceptions) may affect the quantity and content of viewing (Zillmann, 1980).
The process model for first-order effects, also referred to as the heuristic processing model of cultivation effects
(Shrum et al. 1998) and the accessibility model (Shrum, 2007), begins with general propositions based on the
principles of heuristic/sufficiency and accessibility. Besides the motivation to process information, the ability
to process information is also linked with processing strategies (Chaiken et al., 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

Technological Determinism
The prevailing media technology in a society at any given time significantly shapes the thoughts, actions, and
behaviors of its members (Nwanne, 2016). The broad introduction of technology for the general population
suggests that these systems must be user-friendly even for those with lower intelligence to fulfill their purpose
(Conrad, 1962).
From the perspective of technological determinism, McLuhan’s statement, “the medium is the message,”
implies that a medium conveys an image or produces effects independent of the individual messages it carries
(McLuhan & Fiore, 1967). Especially for interactive media, the perceived credibility or trustworthiness of the
medium (Shimp, 1990) is likely to significantly influence its impact on consumers.
7252 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

However, the idea that technology solely dictates how people interact with and respond to mass media is not
universally accepted (De Fleur and Rokeach, 1982).

Digital Media
Traditional communication models suggest that mass communication is a one-to-many process, leading to the
development of a passive mass ‘audience’ (Gitlin, 1978). However, the current technological and informational
environment is challenging many past assumptions, paradigms, and methods (Jones et al., 2004). Digital
technologies are introducing new voices into the media landscape and breaking down old economic barriers to
news production and distribution (Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2009).
Newsmakers, advertisers, start-ups, and notably, the people previously known as the audience, have been
granted new freedom to communicate both narrowly and broadly, beyond the traditional structures of
broadcast and publishing models (Anderson et al., 2015). While many barriers to previous mediums no longer
exist, this does not imply the disappearance of long-standing institutions, interests, and learned behaviours
(Benkler, 2006). The Internet is seen more as an additional delivery method and a supplementary channel for
traditional entertainment and media services. Research indicates that online media content is more likely to
be used as a functional supplement rather than a replacement for offline media content (e.g., Lin, 2001).
The International Society for Research on Internet Interventions defines Internet
Interventions as “treatments, typically behaviourally based, that are operationalised and transformed for
delivery via the Internet; usually, they are highly structured; self-guided or partly self-guided; based on
effective face-to-face interventions; personalised to the user; interactive; enhanced by graphics, animations,
audio, and video; and tailored to provide followup and feedback, but do not include sites that just provide
information” (Ritterband et al., 2006).
Understanding the role of new media in campaigns involves the concepts of interactivity, narrowcasting, and
tailoring. Revolutionary advances in interactive technologies provide the means to expand the reach and
impact of communication media.
Interactive media offers new capabilities (Burke, 1997). The most interesting and novel attribute of new media
is their capability for interactivity, which is becoming increasingly more pronounced with the introduction of
more advanced communication tools.
Communications can now be personally tailored to factors that are causally related to the behaviour of interest.
Tailored communications are viewed as more relevant and credible, better remembered, and more effective in
influencing behaviour than general messages (Kreuter et al., 1999). The CDC-sponsored Guide to Community
Preventive Services has emphasised the importance of tailoring to individual and/or targeted population
characteristics (Tufano & Karras, 2005). “Tailoring is a process of designing messages to reflect individual’s
needs, interests, abilities, and motivations” (Kreuter et al., 2000). Researchers have reviewed studies (Rimal
and Adkins, 2003) showing the positive outcomes (exposure, attention, use, recall, credibility, behaviour
change) of campaigns using tailored messages in general, and online or digital media-based tailored messages
in particular.
Compared to other modes of mediated communication channels, the relative advantage of the Internet as a
communication medium lies in its technology fluidity. As the source is empowered to directly publish or
broadcast content, the new media is becoming “a userfriendly mass media” (Morris, 1996). Communication
flows ‘inwards’ rather than in a left-toright manner (Holmes, 2005). The Internet, therefore, provides its users
with better control over the access, creation, distribution, and reception of information to and from other
online users than any other mediated communication channel.
New media necessitates new approaches to the measurement of mass communication as a non-linear system
of communication (Oleksandrivna, 2015). O’Sullivan and Carr (2018) introduced the Mass Personal
Communication Model, which states that users use technologies in ways that expand the intersection of
interpersonal communication and mass communication, calling for new frameworks. Other models of
Dominick (2006), Holmes (2005), Pavlik (1998), and Vivian (2006) account for the fact that even in a
computer-mediated communication environment, no matter what choices the users make within it, the outer
limits are always predefined. Hoffman and Novak (1998) suggest an alternative Model of Many-to-Many
Mediated Communication, in which information or content is not merely transmitted from sender to receiver,
but instead, mediated environments are created by the participants and then experienced.
With the advent of such overpowering new media, concepts such as communication design, media design, new
media design, and aesthetic design have emerged. The concept of communication design, closely related to
visual communication design and graphic design, includes the work of numerous scholars who use design as a
mode of media research, as well as media innovation and development outside of academia, particularly in the
media industries (Lovlie, 2016).

Communication, Culture, Context

A message is a compilation of signs that interact with receivers to generate meanings (Fiske, 2010). This
interaction or negotiation occurs when the receiver interprets the signs and codes of the message based on
their cultural beliefs and values.
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7253

Culture influences how individuals perceive the world, including their notions of right and wrong or
appropriateness and inappropriateness. It often provides the lens through which they perceive communication
and create messages (Sardi & Flammia, 2011; Varner & Beamer, 2010). Therefore, culture is a crucial aspect
for communication designers to consider, especially when developing informational and instructional
materials for audiences from different cultures.
Culture and language are closely linked. However, this connection involves more than just the language itself.
The concept of rhetoric, or how one structures or presents ideas in a given language, is often as important as
the vocabulary and syntax of the language itself. These rhetorical expectations can influence everything
(Driskill, 1996; Tebeaux, 1999; Woolever, 2001).
Blake and Haroldsen (1975) suggest that people with similar social and demographic characteristics exhibit
similar mass communications behaviour. Cultural groups that speak the same language can have their own
perceptions of what are considered expected, acceptable, or credible ways to convey ideas (Driskill, 1996).
Furthermore, individuals often use the rhetorical expectations of their native language and culture to assess
the credibility and effectiveness of messages in other languages and constructed by members of different
cultures (Ulijn, 1996).
Different cultures often have different expectations regarding visual communication. In some cases, these
differences can involve what an item or object should look like to be recognisable (Kostelnick, 1995; Gillette,
1999). In other cases, these differences can involve expectations of what constitutes an “appropriate” or a
“credible” visual depiction of an object or a person (St. Amant, 2005). The same item can represent different
qualities or traits depending on the culture of the related audience (Horton, 1993). Therefore, it is necessary to
understand the expectations members of that culture have regarding the overall design of different
communication materials (Yunker, 2003; Sun, 2012). Just because a given technology or communication
product exists in multiple cultures does not mean that item will be used in the same way(s) – or at all – across
cultures (Sun, 2012; Getto & St. Amant, 2014).
Foucault reminds us (Orgad, 2017) that the analysis of specific media images and narratives should always be
situated in broader historical, social, cultural, political, and institutional contexts within which they are
produced, disseminated, and consumed, and which they, in turn, shape. Research suggests that creating
communication materials for one specific culture and then trying to adapt them for others is not always an
effective approach. It is necessary to create materials that best address varying cultural expectations and
conditions of use (Langmia, 2011; van Reijswoud & de Jager, 2011; Sun, 2012; Getto & St. Amant, 2014). These
ideas of design and use are further complicated by the fact that no culture is a monolith. There are different
groups within a given culture, each with different expectations and needs that reflect different attitudes,
lifestyles, and situations (Yu et al., 2007; Getto & St. Amant, 2014). By identifying, understanding, and
addressing the context or cultural factors, one can design more effective – and ideally, more usable –
communication.

Communication Campaigns
Public communication campaigns can be broadly defined as (1) purposive attempts (2) to inform, persuade, or
motivate behaviour changes (3) in a relatively well-defined and large audience, (4) generally for non-
commercial benefits to the individuals and/or society at large, (5) typically within a given period, (6) by means
of organised communication activities involving mass media, and (7) often complemented by interpersonal
support (Rogers & Storey, 1987). The use of digital media in campaigns extends the traditional definition a bit.
The success of media campaigns depends in part on
(a) whether the transmitted communications are effective in changing the attitudes of the recipients in the
desired direction
(b)whether these modified attitudes in turn influence people’s behaviours.
Campaigns aimed at increasing public awareness on common issues necessitate personal involvement of the
audience in characters and content, combining perceived social norms with beliefs about the source's
normative expectations. Messages should convey specific information, understandings, and behaviors that are
accessible, feasible, and culturally acceptable (Rice & Atkin, 1989).
Understanding the general principles of communication, persuasion, and social change, along with the
relationships among campaign components, is crucial for proper campaign design and evaluation. Before
initiating campaigns, it is essential to review realities, sociocultural situations, and ethical considerations,
identify target audiences, media usage patterns, social factors, institutional constraints, and define meaningful
and acceptable change objectives. It also involves identifying whether the campaign objectives are essentially
creating awareness, instructing/educating, or persuading.
The new perspectives reconceptualize audience members as peers and collaborators in mutual and interactive
change efforts. These approaches differ from traditional campaigns by emphasizing audiences’ social and
cultural contexts, prioritizing audience-derived goals over expert goals, and using audience networks to
generate, frame, and share messages (Bracht, 2001; Dervin & Frenette, 2001).
In a comprehensive review of mass media programs addressing drug and alcoholrelated social problems,
Kinder, Pape, and Walfish (1980) found that while these programs successfully increased participants'
knowledge, there was limited evidence of their effectiveness in changing attitudes and behaviors.
7254 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

Mendelsohn (1973) emphasized the importance of placing potential media recipients along a continuum based
on their initial interest in a subject area to develop effective public information campaigns. Personal relevance
emerged as a critical determinant of interest and motivation to process media messages.
Recent research on attitude and behavior change sheds light on the inadequacies of some unsuccessful media
campaigns, where the acquisition of knowledge failed to result in attitudinal or behavioral shifts. They have
remained inadequate in context-based communication (Goduka & Das, 2021) that can effectively serve
necessary awareness and empowerment messages to the community development. One possible explanation
is that the acquired knowledge may have been perceived as irrelevant by the audience or could have triggered
unfavorable reactions. Another factor to consider is that even when favorable reactions occur, individuals may
lack confidence in these thoughts, leading to diminished reliance and a lower likelihood of change. The majority
of media messages are likely perceived as indirectly relevant, with few immediate personal consequences for
individuals. This study thus indicates that there is a need for a new method and approach for creating an
altogether different experience (Goduka & Das, 2023) of communication campaigns among the marginalized
communities.

References

1. Adoni, H. (1979). The functions of mass media in the political socialization of

adolescents. Communication research, 6(1), 84-106.
2. Anderson, C. W., Bell, E., & Shirky, C. (2015). Post-industrial journalism: Adapting to the
present. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 7(2), 32.
3. Arndt, J. (1968). A test of the two-step flow in diffusion of a new product, Journalism Quarterly, 47,
pp. 457-465
4. Atkin, C. K. (2001). Theory and principles of media health campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin
(Eds.), Public communication campaigns, 3, 49-68. CA: Sage.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
7. Bartsch, A., Mangold, R., Viehoff, R., & Vorderer P. (2006). Emotional gratifications during media
use an integrative approach. Communications, 31, 261-278.
8. Bazalgette, C. (2005). Media literacy for all? In Implementing media literacy: Empowerment,
participation and responsibility. London: Westminster Media Forum Seminar Series
9. Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks.
10. Benkler, Y (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and
Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11. Berrigan, F. J. (1977). Access: Some Western models of community media. Paris: UNESCO.
12. Bettinghaus, E. P. (1986). Health promotion and the knowledge-attitude-behavior continuum.
Preventive Medicine, 15, pp. 475-491
13. Blake, R.H. & Haroldsen, E.O. (1975): A taxonomy of concepts in communication. Hasting House,
New York.
14. Boafo, S. T. K. (2002). Participatory development communication: an African perspective. IN G.
Bessette (ed.) People, land and water: Participatory development communication for natural
resource management. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. 41-50.
15. Bracht, N. (2001). Community partnership strategies in health campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin
(Eds.), Public communication campaigns, 3rd ed., pp. 323-342. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Broadbent, D. (1977). The hidden pre-attentive processes. American Psychologist, 32(2), 109-118
17. Buckingham, D., Fraser, P., & Sefton-Green, J. (2000). Making the grade: Evaluating student
production in media studies. In J. Sefton-Green & R. Sinker (Eds.), Evaluating creativity, p. 129,
London: Routledge.
18. Budd, R.W., Ruben, B.D. (1988). Beyond media: new approaches to mass communication. 2nd edn.
Transaction Books, New Brunswick.
19. Burke, R. R. (1997). Do you see what I see? The future of virtual shopping. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 25(4), 352-360.
20. Carey, J. (1988). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York: Routledge.
21. Carlston, D. E., & Smith, E. R. (1996). Principles of mental representation. In E. T. Higgins & A. W.
Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, pp. 184-210. New York: Guilford
Press
22. Carpentier, N. (2007). The on-line community media database RadioSwap as a translocal tool to
broaden the communicative rhizome. Observatorio Journal, 1, pp 1-26.
23. Carveth, R., & Alexander, A. (1985). Soap opera viewing motivations and the cultivation process.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 259-273.
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7255

24. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press

25. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and
beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought, pp. 212-
252. New York: Guilford Press.
26. Cho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009).
Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an OSROR model of communication
effects. Communication theory, 19(1), 66-88.
27. Conrad, R (1962). The design of information. Occupational Psychology
28. Craig, G. (2007). Community capacity-building: Something old, something new? Critical Social
Polity, 27(3). Pp. 335-359
29. Curtin, M. (2004). Media capitals: Cultural geographies of global TV. In L/ Spigel & J. Olsson (Eds.),
Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition, pp. 270-302. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
30. Danes J.E., Hunter J. E. & Woelfel, J. (1978): Mass communication and belief change: a test of three
mathematical models, Human Communication Research. vol. 4 (3), pp. 243-252
31. De Fleur, M. L. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1982): Theories of Mass Communication (4th ed.), New York,
NY: Longman Inc.
32. Dervin, B., & Frenette, M. (2001). Applying sense-making methodology: Communicating
communicatively with audiences as listeners, learners, teachers, confidantes. In R. E. Rice & C. K.
Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 69-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Dimmick, J. W., McCain, T. A., & Bolton, W. T. (1979). Media use and the life span. American
Behavioral Scientist, 23(1), 7-31.
34. Dominick, J. (2006): Dynamics of mass communication: media in the digital age. New York, San
Fransisco, Toronto, London: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company
35. Doob L. W. (1935). Propaganda: Its psychology and technique. Henry Holt & Co.
36. Doob, A., & Macdonald, G. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimisation: Is the relationship
causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170-179.
37. Driskill, L. 1996: Collaborating across national and cultural borders. In D. C. Andrews (Ed.),
International dimensions of technical communication (pp. 23‐44). Alexandria, VA: Society for
Technical Communication.
38. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation
model: A panel study of motivations, information processing and learning during campaign 2000.
Communication Research, 30, 359-386.
39. Finn, S., & Gorr, M. B. (1988), Social isolation and social support as correlates of viewing
motivations. Communication Research, 15, 135-158.
40. Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content on
television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63-91.
41. Fiske, J. (2010). Introduction to communication studies. Routledge.
42. Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2007): Internet use in contemporary media environment, Human
Communication Research. 27(1), pp. 153-181
43. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
44. Friedland, L. A., Shah, D., Lee, N., Rademacher, M. A., Atkinson, L., & Hove, T. (2007). Capital,
Consumption, Communication, and Citizenship: The Social Positioning of Taste and Civic Culture in
the US.
45. Garramone, G. M. (1984). Audience motivation effect: More evidence. Communication Research, 11.
79-96.
46. Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward Cultural Indicators: The analysis of mass-mediated message systems. AV
Communication Review, 17, pp. 137-148.
47. Getto, G. & St.Amant, K. (2014). Designing globally, working locally: Using personas to develop
online communication products for international users. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(1), 24‐
46.
48. Gillette, D. (1999). Web design for international audiences. Intercom, 15–17.
49. Gitlin, T (1978). Media sociology: the dominant paradigm. Theory and Society 6 (2), pp. 205-253.
50. Goduka S., Das A.K. (2021): Design-audited mass communication model. In: Chakrabarti A., Poovaiah
R., Bokil P., Kant V. (Eds.), Design for Tomorrow, Volume 2. Smart Innovation, Systems and
Technologies, vol. 222. Singapore: Springer.
51. Goduka, S., Das, A.K. (2023). Awareness Campaign Design for Assam Tea Plantation Workers. In:
Chakrabarti, A., Singh, V. (Eds.), Design in the Era of Industry 4.0, Volume 3. ICORD 2023. Smart
Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 346. Singapore: Springer.
52. Graber, D. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide (2nd edn.). New York:
Longman
53. Greenwald, A. C., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: four levels. J. of
Consumer Research, 11(June), 581-592;
7256 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

54. Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change.
In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York:
Academic Press.
55. Grube, J.W. (2004). Alcohol portrayals and alcohol advertising on television: content and effects on
children and adolescents. Alcohol Health & Research World 17(1), 54-60.
56. Gunter, B. (1985). "Determinants of Television Viewing Preferences," in Dolf Zillmann and Jennings
Bryant (1985), Selective Exposure to Communication (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.), pp. 93-112.
57. Hall, S. (1997). Representation, Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage
58. Hall, S., and Jefferson, T. (1976). Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war Britain.
Hutchinson.
59. Hamilton, N. F., Rubin, A. M. (1992). The influence of religiosity on television use. Journalism
Quarterly, 69, 667-678.
60. Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1986). Activity in the effects of television on children. In J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects. pp. 233-250. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
61. Hawkins, R., & Pingree, S. (1990). Divergent psychological processes in constructing social reality
from mass media content. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions
in media effects research. pp. 35-50. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
62. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: the Meaning of Style. London and New York: Methuen.
63. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accesibility of social constructs: Information processing
consequemces of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.),
Personality, cognition and social interaction, pp. 69-121. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation.
J. of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
65. Higgins, J. W. (1999). Community TV and the vision of media literacy, social action and
empowerment. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43(4), 625–644.
66. Hirsch, P. (1980). The scary world of the non-viewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et
al.’s findings on cultivation analysis. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.
67. Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P. (1998). A new marketing paradigm for electronic commerce, The
Information Society. vol. 4, pp. 6-7.
68. Horton, W. (1993). The almost universal language: Graphics for international documents. Technical
Communication, 40, 682–93.
69. Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven. CT: Yale
University Press
70. Howley, K. (2010). Understanding Community Media, Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001946469002700304
71. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and
influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
72. Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A re-examination of some effects of television
watching. Public Opinion Research, 2, 1-15.
73. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Mental models.. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science,
pp. 469-499. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online
interaction spaces: a theoretical model and empirical investigation, Information Systems Research.
vol. 15(2), pp. 194-210
75. Katz, E. (1959). Mass communications research and the study of popular culture: An editorial note on
a possible future for this journal. Departmental Papers (ASC), 165.
76. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. (1955), Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass
Communication. The Free Press.
77. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The public opinion
quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
78. Kinder, B. N., Pape, N. E., & Walfish, S. (1980). Drug and alcohol education programs: A review of
outcome studies. International J. of the Addictions, 15, 1035-1054)
79. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
80. Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 27, 515-527.
81. Kostelnick, C. (1995). Cultural adaptation and information design: Two contrasting views. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication 38: 182‐96.
82. Kreuter, M. W., Strecher, V. J., & Glassman, B. (1999). One size does not fit all: The case for tailoring
print materials. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21(4), 276-283.
83. Kreuter, M., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., & Brennan, L. (2000). Tailoring health messages: Customizing
communication with computer technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7257

84. Krishnatray, P., Melkote, S. R., & Krishnatray, S. (2006). Providing care to persons with stigmatised
illness: Implications for participatory communication. J. of Health Management, 8(1), pp. 51-63.
85. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349-356.
86. Langmia, K. (2011). Traditional cultures and their effects on globalization: An African perspective. In
K. St.Amant & B. A. Olaniran (Eds.), Globalization and the digital divide (pp. 37–58). Amherst, NY:
Cambria Press.
87. Lars. E. (2018). A medium-centred model of communication. Semiotica 3 (2), pp. 72-87.
88. Lazarsfeld. P, Berelson. B., and Gaudet, H. (1944). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his
Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press
89. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27-50.
90. Lin, C. A. (2001). Audience attributes, media supplementation and likely online service adoption.
Mass Communication and Society, 4, 19-38.
91. Lovlie A.S. (2016). Designing communication design. J. Med. Inno., vol. 3 (2), pp. 72-87.
92. Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197-209.
93. Lull, J. (1990). Inside Family Viewing (Routledge Revivals): Ethnographic Research on Television's
Audiences. Comedia
94. Magliano, J. P., Dijkstra, K., & Zwann, R. A. (1996). Generating predictive inferences while viewing a
movie. Discourse Processes, 22, 199-224.
95. Manyozo, L. (2007). Community media: Local is focal. Community Develeopment Journal, 42(4),
pp. 459-469.
96. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 137-230). New York. Random
House.
97. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 31-48.
98. McGuire, W. J. (2001). Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive
communications. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp.
22-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
99. McGuire, W. J. (1960). A syllogistic analysis of cognitive relationships. In M. J. Rosenberg & C. I.
Hovland (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 65-111), New Haven, CT. Yale University
Press.
100. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.;
101. McLeod, J. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, D. M. (1994). The expanding boundaries of political
communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and
research (pp. 146-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
102. McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q (1967). The Medium is the Message. New York: Bantam Books
103. McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
104. Mendelsohn, H. (1973), Some reasons why information campaigns can succeed, Public
Opinion Quarterly, 11, 412-423.
105. Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15, 63-67.
106. Morris, M. (1996). The Internet as a mass medium. J. of Computer Mediated Com. 1 (4).
107. Nair, S. K., & White, S. A. (1994). Participatory message development: A conceptual
framework. In S. A. White, K. S. Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for
change and development, pp. 345-358. New Delhi: Sage.
108. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of human
judgements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
109. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens
(Eds.), Mental models, pp. 299-324. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
110. Nwanne, B.U. (2016). Journalism and new media in Nigeria: issues, challenges and prospects. Int. J.
of Academic Research and Reflection 4 (3), 86-92.
111. O’Sullivan, P.B., Carr, C.T. (2018). Mass personal communication: a model bridging the mass-
interpersonal divide. New Media and Society. vol. 20 (3), pp. 1161-1180
112. Office of Communications (OfCom) (2006). Media literacy audit: Report on media literacy amongst
children. Accessed from www.ofcom.org.uk in October 2023.
113. Oleksandrivna S. O. (2015): Approaches to new model of mass communication measurement,
European Science Review. doi: 10.20534/ESR-15-3.4-70-73
114. Orgad, S. (2014). Media representation and the global imagination. John Wiley & Sons.
115. Orgad, S. (2017). Media Sociology- a reappraisal, ed. Silvio Waisbord, Rawat Publications, Guwahati.
pp 149
116. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7258 Suresh Goduka, et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544

117. Pavlik, J. (1998): New media technology: cultural and commercial perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon
118. Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap
opera. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 368-375.
119. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary
approaches. Dubuque. IA: Brown.
120. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
121. Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. J. of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 30, 159-174.
122. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). New values and public opinion: A theoretical account of
media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication
sciences: Advances in persuasion, Volume 13, pp. 173-212. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.
123. Radvansky,, G. A., Zwann, R. A., Federico, T., & Franklin, N. (1998). Retrieval from
temporally organized situation models. J. of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition, 24, pp. 1224-1237.
124. Reeves, A. M., Chaffee, S., & Tims, A. (1982). Social cognition and mass communication
research. In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and mass communication, pp. 287-
326. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
125.Rice, R., & Atkin, C. (Eds.) (1989). Public communication campaigns, 2nd edition. London: Sage
Publications. P. 10.
126. Rickheit, G., & Sichelschmidt, L. (1999). Mental models: some answers, some questions,
some suggestions. In G. Richeit and C. Habel (Eds.), Mental models in discourse processing and
reasoning. Pp. 9-40, New York: Elsevier.
127. Rimal, R. N., & Adkins, A. D. (2003). Using computers to narrowcast health messages: The role of
audience segmentation, targeting, and tailoring in health promotion In T. L Thompson, A. M. Dorsey,
K. I. Miller, & R. Parrot (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 497-553). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
128. Ritterband, L. M., Andersson, G., Christensen, H. M., Carlbring, P., & Cuijpers, P. (2006).
Directions for the international society for research on internet interventions (ISRII). Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 8(3), e576.
129. Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the mediascape: An international study of citizens’ media.
Creeskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
130. Rosario, F. Z. (1971): The leader in family planning and the two-step flow model, Journalism
Quarterly. vol. 48. pp. 288-297
131. Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial television news viewing.
Human Communication Research, 12, 155-180.
132. Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships. J.
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 279-292.
133. Salmon, C., & Atkin, C. (2003). Using media campaigns for health promotion. In T. L.
Thompson A. M. Dorsey, K. L. Miller, & R. Parrott (Eds), Handbook of health communicat (pp. 449-
472).
134. Sardi, H. A.., & Flammia, M. (2011). Intercultural communication: A new approach to
international relations and global challenges. New York: Continuum.
135.Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking In K. R.
Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, Methods
Research (pp. 92-120), New York: Oxford University Press.
136. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Tech. J. 27,
379–423.
137. Shimp, T. A. (1990), Promotion Management and Marketing Communications (2nd ed.). Hinsdale,
IL: Drydn Press.
138. Shrum, L. J. (2007). Cultivation and social cognition: Theories and methods, pp. 245-272.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
139. Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption on
social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes. J. of
Consumer Research, 24, 447-458.
140. Sobers, S. (2005). Media literacy in community contexts, and sharing experience with the
mainstream. In implementing media literacy: Empowerment, participation and responsibility, pp.
84-86, London: Westminster Media Forum Seminar Series.
141. Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participation.
Political Communication, 18, 273-300.
142. Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R. & Schkade, L.L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for
the internet, Decision Sciences. vol. 35 (2), pp. 259- 288.
 Suresh Goduka et al. / Kuey, 30(4), 2544 7259

143. St. Amant, K. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international website analysis and
design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14, 73-91
144. Sun, H. (2012). Cross‐cultural technology design: Crafting culturesensitive technology for
local users. New York: Oxford UP.
145.Swanson, D. L. (1979). Political communication research and the uses and gratifications model: A
critique. Communication Research, 6, 37-53.
146. Tebeaux, E. (1999). Designing written business communication along the shifting cultural
continuum: The new face of Mexico. J. of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 49‐85.
147. Tufano, J. T., & Karras, B. T. (2005). Mobile eHealth interventions for obesity: A timely opportunity
to leverage convergence trends. J. of Medical Internet Research, 7(5): e58.
148. Ulijn, J. M. 1996: Translating the culture of technical documents: Some experimental
evidence. In D. C. Andrews (Ed.), International dimensions of technical communication. (pp.69‐86).
Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication.
149. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York:
Academic Press.
150. van Reijswoud, V. & de Jager, A. (2011). The role of appropriate ICT in bridging the digital
divide: Theoretical considerations and illustrating cases. In K. St. Amant & B. A. Olaniran (Eds.),
Globalization and the digital divide (pp. 59–87). Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
151. Varner, I. & Beamer, L. (2010). Intercultural communication in the global workplace 5th ed. New
York: McGraw Hill.
152.Vivian J. (2006): The media of mass communication (8th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
153.Vorderer, P. (1993). Audience involvement and program loyalty Poetics, 22
154.Westley, B.H., MacLean, M.S. (1957). A conceptual model of communications research. Journalism
Quarterly 34(1), pp. 31-38.
155. Williams, B. A., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2011). After broadcast news: Media regimes, democracy, and
the new information environment. Cambridge University Press.
156.Williams, R. (1973). The city and the country. New York: Oxford University Press.
157. Williams, S. L. (1992). Perceived self-efficacy and phobic disability. In R. Swarzer (Ed.) Self-efficacy:
Thought control of action, pp. 149-176. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.
158. Windahl, S., Hojerback, I., & Hedinsson, E. (1986). Adolescents without television: A study
in media deprivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 47-63.
159.Wober, M., & Gunter, B. (1988). Television and social control. Aldershot, England: Avebury.
160. Woolever, K. R. (2001). Doing global business in the information age: Rhetorical contrasts in
the business and technical professions. In C. G. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and
redefined. (pp. 47‐64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
161. Wyer, R. S. (1980). The acquisition and use of social knowledge: Basic postulates and representative
research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 558-573.
162. Wyer, R. S., & Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of social
information.
163. Wyer, R. S.. and Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
164. Yu, L, Chan, C., & Ireland, C. (2007). China’s new culture of cool: Understanding the world’s
fastest‐growing market. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
165.Yunker, J. (2003). Beyond borders: Web globalization strategies. Berkley, CA: New Riders.
166. Zillmann, D. (1980). Anatomy of suspense. In P.H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The entertainment
functions of television. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
167. Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In L. Donobew, H.
E. Sypher & ET. Higgins (Hrsg), Communication, social cognition, and affect, pp. 147-171. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
168. Zwann, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and
memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.