Editing Barnlund's model of communication

{{short description|Transactional model of communication}}
[[File:Barnlund's model of interpersonal communication.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Diagram of Barnlund's model of interpersonal communication|Barnlund's model of interpersonal communication. The orange circles represent the communicators. The other colored areas symbolize different types of cues. Communication takes place by decoding cues (orange arrows) and encoding behavioral responses (yellow arrows).]]
'''Barnlund's model''' is an influential transactional [[model of communication]]. It was first published by Dean Barnlund in 1970. It is formulated as an attempt to overcome the limitations of earlier models of communication. In this regard, it rejects the idea that [[communication]] consists in the transmission of ideas from a sender to a receiver. Instead, it identifies communication with the production of [[Meaning (philosophy)|meaning]] in response to internal and external cues. Barnlund holds that the world and its objects are meaningless in themselves: their meaning depends on people who create meaning and assign it to them. The aim of this process is to reduce uncertainty and arrive at a shared [[understanding]]. Meaning is in constant flux since the [[Interpretation (philosophy)|interpretation]] habits of people keep changing. Barnlund's model is based on a set of fundamental assumptions holding that communication is dynamic, continuous, circular, irreversible, complex, and unrepeatable. 

Cues are of central importance in Barnlund's model. A cue is anything to which one may attribute meaning or which can trigger a response. Barnlund distinguishes between public, private, and [[Human behavior|behavioral]] cues. Public cues are available to anyone present in the communicative situation, like a piece of furniture or the smell of antiseptic in a room. Private cues are only accessible to one person, like sounds heard through earphones or a pain in one's chest. Behavioral cues are under the direct control of the communicators, in contrast to public and private cues. They include verbal behavioral cues, like making a remark about the weather, and [[Non-verbal communication|non-verbal]] behavioral cues, such as pointing toward an object. Barnlund's model uses arrows going from the communicators to the different types of cues. They represent how each person only gives attention to certain cues by [[Code|decoding]] them while they encode and produce behavioral cues in response. Barnlund developed both an [[Intrapersonal communication|intrapersonal]] and an [[Interpersonal communication|interpersonal]] model. The intrapersonal model shows the simpler case where only one person is involved in these processes of decoding and encoding. For the interpersonal model, two people participate. They react not just to public and private cues but also to the behavioral cues the other person produces. 

Barnlund's model has been influential as the first major transactional model of communication. This pertains both to its criticism of earlier models and to how it impacted the development of later models. It has been criticized based on the claim that it is not effective for all forms of communication and that it fails to explain how meaning is created.

== Background ==
Dean Barnlund found that previous communication models were missing key components that are part of the communication process and believed communication to be a continuous and simultaneous process challenging long held beliefs of the [[Models of communication#Linear transmission|Linear Model of Communication]]. This belief led to the creation of his most well known contribution to the field of communication: the Transactional Model of Communication.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web |title=Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies |url=https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781501304712 |access-date=2024-12-10 |website=www.bloomsburycollections.com |language=en |doi=10.5040/9781501304712}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last=Barnlund |first=Dean C. |date=1963 |title=TOWARD A MEANING-CENTERED PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42582225 |journal=[[A Review of General Semantics]] |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=454–69 |via=JSTOR}}</ref>

Barnlund understands models as attempts to create a simplified picture of an underlying complex reality.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Bergman |first1=Mats |last2=Kirtiklis |first2=Kęstas |last3=Siebers |first3=Johan |title=Models of Communication: Theoretical and Philosophical Approaches |date=16 October 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781351864954 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CfW2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT60 |language=en}}</ref> This is especially relevant for such a complex process as [[communication]].<ref name="Boynton2015">{{cite book |last1=Boynton |first1=Beth |title=Successful Nurse Communication Safe Care, Health Workplaces & Rewarding Careers |date=26 August 2015 |publisher=F.A. Davis |isbn=978-0-8036-4661-2 |page=9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ljdyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA9 |language=en}}</ref> A good model manages to portray the most salient features at a single glance and may thus assist researchers in their empirical studies. However, this form of simplification also comes with risks like overlooking or distorting factors present in real life.<ref name="Watson2015"/>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=45-6}} Barnlund's model aims to present the main components of communication in terms of the functions they have.<ref name="Nicotera2019">{{cite book |last1=Nicotera |first1=Anne M. |title=Origins and Traditions of Organizational Communication: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Field |date=2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781138570306 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=books&pg=PT21 |chapter=1. Organizing the Study of Organizational Communication}}</ref>

Barnlund formulated his transactional [[model of communication]] as a response to the simplifications and limitations found in various earlier models that take the form of [[Models of communication#Linear transmission model|linear transmission models]] and interaction models.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Minnesota2016b">{{cite book |title=Communication in the Real World |date=29 September 2016 |publisher=University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing |isbn=9781946135070 |url=https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/1-2-the-communication-process/ |language=en-us |chapter=1.2 The Communication Process}}</ref> Linear transmission models, like the [[Shannon–Weaver model]], see communication as a linear process: a sender [[Code|encodes]] their idea in the form of a [[message]] and transmits this message through a [[Communication channel|channel]] to a receiver. The receiver has to decode the message in order to understand it.<ref name="Minnesota2016b"/><ref name="Kastberg2019">{{cite book |last1=Kastberg |first1=Peter |title=Knowledge Communication: Contours of a Research Agenda |date=13 December 2019 |publisher=Frank & Timme GmbH |isbn=9783732904327 |page=56 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=esLDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA56 |language=en}}</ref> However, as many subsequent [[Communication theory|communication theorists]] have pointed out, linear transmission models are too simple to account for all forms of communication. In regular face-to-face conversation, for example, there is usually no designated sender and receiver. Instead, both participants send and receive messages. This problem is partially resolved by interaction models, like [[Schramm's model]].<ref name="Nicotera2019"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Steinberg1995">{{cite book |last1=Steinberg |first1=S. |title=Introduction to Communication Course Book 1: The Basics |date=1995 |publisher=Juta and Company Ltd |isbn=9780702136498 |pages=18 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VPs3kidEqXYC&pg=PA18 |language=en}}</ref> For interaction models, communication is a two-way process. They include a [[feedback]] loop through which messages are exchanged back and forth. They are not linear but circular and both participants take turns in encoding and decoding messages. Both linear transmission models and interaction models have in common that they understand communication as the transmission or exchange of [[Meaning (philosophy)|meaning]].<ref name="Nicotera2019"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/>

Barnlund tries to overcome the limitations of these approaches by emphasizing the complexity of communication.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Powell2010"/> He agrees with interaction models that all participants act both as sender and receiver. But he goes beyond them by pointing out that encoding and decoding are not two distinct processes but two simultaneous and interdependent aspects of the same process. He rejects the idea that meaning exists prior to communication. He sees it instead as a product of communication that the communicators assign to the world around them.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b">{{cite book |last1=Littlejohn |first1=Stephen W. |last2=Foss |first2=Karen A. |title=Encyclopedia of Communication Theory |date=18 August 2009 |publisher=SAGE Publications |isbn=9781412959377 |pages=175–6 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2veMwywplPUC&pg=PA176 |language=en |chapter=Constitutive View of Communication}}</ref><ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Emilien2017">{{cite book |last1=Emilien |first1=Gerard |last2=Weitkunat |first2=Rolf |last3=Lüdicke |first3=Frank |title=Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits |date=14 March 2017 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9783319505305 |page=163 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ag9hDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA163 |language=en}}</ref> In his words, communication "is the production of meaning, rather than the production of messages".{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=48}}

== Nature of communication ==
=== Communication and meaning ===
For Barnlund, the world and its contents by themselves are meaningless. They only become intelligible and significant because meaning is assigned to them.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Lawson2019"/> This ordering process does not happen automatically but is a product of the [[mind]] and has to be learned. Barnlund uses the term "communication" in a very wide sense referring to "those acts in which meaning develops within human beings".{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=47}} This involves typical forms of [[verbal communication]], like talking to a friend about an event that just occurred. It also includes [[non-verbal communication]] such as pointing somewhere or grimacing in pain. However, since the processes of meaning-making are not restricted to exchanges with other people, there are also forms of communication taking place when a person is all by themselves. The reason is that they decode internal and external stimuli and encode the corresponding behavioral responses.<ref name="Watson2015">{{cite book |last1=Watson |first1=James |last2=Hill |first2=Anne |title=Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies |date=22 October 2015 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing USA |isbn=9781628921496 |pages=20–22 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IdGBCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Minnesota2016a"/> Since these processes do not stop during [[sensory deprivation]] and sleep, Barnlund includes even these cases as forms of communication.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=48}}

For Barnlund, the aim of communication is to reduce uncertainty, to act efficiently, and to arrive at some form of shared [[understanding]] of a phenomenon by negotiating its meaning.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Emilien2017"/> He emphasizes the active nature of this process: "meaning is something 'invented', 'assigned', 'given', rather than something 'received'."{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=47}}<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/> It follows that meaning is not an [[intrinsic property]] of sounds and gestures but is ascribed to them. For example, some cultures assign to nodding the meaning of "yes" but it means "no" in other cultures. In this case, the meaning of the nod arises only as it is interpreted.<ref name="Lawson2019"/> This applies equally to national flags or traffic signs, which do not contain meaning by themselves. Instead, anything gets its meaning because it is interpreted in certain ways.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/> In this regard, Barnlund understands communication as the production of meaning and not as the mere production or exchange of messages.<ref name="Lawson2019"/> Meaning is in constant flux because the practice of [[Interpretation (philosophy)|interpretation]] is continuously evolving, both on the individual and the [[Society|societal]] level. So what meanings are assigned to the same thing may change a lot as time passes. For example, by learning a new word, a person starts to ascribe a new meaning to the corresponding sound. On the societal level, many new phrases were introduced with the rise of online communication and the meaning of some preexisting phrases also changed as a result. For this reason, the different interpretations are never fully consistent with each other.<ref name="Lawson2019"/>

=== Fundamental assumptions ===
Barnlund's model is based on a set of fundamental assumptions: communication is dynamic, continuous, circular, irreversible, complex, and unrepeatable.<ref name="Nicotera2019"/><ref name="Dwyer2012"/> Communication is ''dynamic'' in the sense that it is not a static entity but an everchanging process.<ref name="Emilien2017"/> It is ''continuous'' because the process of assigning meanings to objects in the world happens all the time.<ref name="Emilien2017">{{cite book |last1=Emilien |first1=Gerard |last2=Weitkunat |first2=Rolf |last3=Lüdicke |first3=Frank |title=Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits |date=14 March 2017 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9783319505305 |page=163 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ag9hDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA163 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Dwyer2012"/> This process has no clear beginning or end and goes on even under sensory deprivation.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=48-9}} By seeing communication as ''circular'', Barnlund rejects the idea found in linear transmission models that messages pass in a linear process from a sender to a receiver. Instead, all participants act both as sender and receiver.<ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Emilien2017"/> In the widest sense, this even happens when there is only one person present who is making sense of the world around them.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=49}}

Communication is ''irreversible'' in the sense that the effects it has on the communicators cannot be undone. In this regard, communication influences and changes the participants in various ways. So after a conversation, there is usually no way to go back and restore the state of the communicators prior to it.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Lawson2019"/> Communication is ''complex'' for many different reasons: it has many components, there are many types of communication, and many factors determine how the communicative process unfolds.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Powell2010"/> For this reason, it is also ''unrepeatable''. This means that there is no easy way to have the same communicative exchange again since this would mean controlling all the factors affecting how it plays out. It is often possible to have the same message on two different occasions, as when retelling a joke or a news report. But this will usually not have exactly the same effects.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/> This implies that the same person may interpret the same message at two distinct occurrences very differently depending on the situation, context, and personal changes in between.<ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Emilien2017"/><ref name="Lawson2019"/>

== Model and main components ==
Barnlund's model of communication is one of the most well-known transactional models of communication. It was published by Dean Barnlund in his 1970 article ''A Transactional Model of Communication''.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Lawson2019">{{cite book |last1=Lawson |first1=Celeste |last2=Gill |first2=Robert |last3=Feekery |first3=Angela |last4=Witsel |first4=Mieke |title=Communication Skills for Business Professionals |date=12 June 2019 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781108594417 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fIOWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA77 |language=en |pages=76–7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Barnlund |first1=Dean |editor1-last=Sereno |editor1-first=Kenneth K. |editor2-last=Mortensen |editor2-first=C. David |title=Foundations of Communication Theory |date=1970 |publisher=Harper & Row |isbn=9780060446239 |page=83 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4ExiAAAAMAAJ |language=en |chapter=A Transactional Model of Communication}}</ref> It is based on the idea that there are countless external and internal cues present. Communication consists in decoding them by ascribing meaning to them and encoding appropriate responses to them. This happens both for [[intrapersonal communication]], when no other person is present, and for [[interpersonal communication]], when communicating with others.<ref name="Chandler2011f"/><ref name="Chandler2011g"/>

=== Cues ===
Cues are any objects, [[sign]]s, or aspects to which one "may attribute meaning" or which "may trigger interpretations or reactions of one kind or another".{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=54}} Barnlund understands communication as a response to cues.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Dwyer2012">{{cite book |last1=Dwyer |first1=Judith |title=Communication for Business and the Professions: Strategie s and Skills |date=15 October 2012 |publisher=Pearson Higher Education AU |isbn=9781442550551 |page=12 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xhHiBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12 |language=en}}</ref> There is always a vast number of cues present at any moment but people interpret and react only to some of them.<ref name="Watson2015"/> There are many ways in which communicators may respond to cues and what influence they have. Explicitly talking about a cue is only one way to respond and many cues influence the process in other ways.<ref name="Lawson2019"/> 

Barnlund distinguishes three types of cues: public cues, private cues, and [[Human behavior|behavioral]] cues.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Nicotera2019"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/> Public cues belong to the environment and are not under the direct control of the communicators. Some of them are natural cues, which were not created by human intervention. Examples of natural cues are atmospheric conditions, the visual properties of minerals, or the shape of vegetables. They contrast with artificial cues resulting from human manipulation of the environment, such as processed wood, a pile of magazines, or the smell of antiseptic in a doctor's waiting room.<ref name="Watson2015"/> Public cues are accessible to anyone in the environment. Private cues, by contrast, are only accessible to the specific individual. They include listening to a podcast through earbuds and the coins hidden in one's pocket.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Powell2010"/> Many private cues are internal, such as [[thought]]s, [[emotion]]s, or feeling sudden pain in one's chest.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Powell2010"/>

The communicators' behavior is also a source of cues, such as non-verbal cues in the form of gestures or verbal cues when talking or writing.<ref name="Powell2010"/> Public and private cues are outside the direct control of the communicators, in contrast to behavioral cues, which are controlled by the communicators and constitute reactions to other cues.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Nicotera2019"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/> Behavioral cues include both [[Intention (philosophy)|deliberative]] acts, such as picking up a magazine, and unconscious mannerisms, such as moving the eyebrows in response to an unexpected event.<ref name="Watson2015"/>

The central aspect of verbal communication concerns the encoding and decoding of verbal behavioral cues.<ref name="Watson2015"/> However, they are not the only cues relevant and their interpretation usually depends on the other cues present. For example, a different meaning may be assigned to a remark depending on whether it was made at a clinic or a golf course (public cue) and whether the speaker enunciates it with a stern face or flushes at the same time (non-verbal behavioral cue). This way, the communicators interpret all kinds of cues to reduce the ambiguity of the situation.<ref name="Watson2015"/>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=58-9}}

An important aspect of the different types of cues is that they can be transferred from one type into another type. For example, a private cue in the form of thought is transferred into a verbal behavioral cue when it is expressed in speech. And public cues may be changed into private cues, for example, when a book is closed to hide its contents from other communicators.<ref name="Watson2015"/>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=60}}

Because of the vast number of cues available at any moment, communicators have to select which ones they want to [[Attention|attend to]]. Different communicators focus on different cues in their decoding: some give special weight to non-verbal cues and some focus more on private cues.<ref name="Powell2010"/> This selection also depends on the valence of the cue, i.e. the positive or negative meaning the communicator ascribes to it.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=55-6}} For Barnlund, the aim of communication is to reduce uncertainty.<ref name="Watson2015"/> For it to be successful, as many relevant cues as possible have to be interpreted. In this process, the communicators should try to keep an open mind about the different potential meanings of each cue. The goal is to arrive at a coherent picture of the meaning of all or most of the interpreted cues since the interaction of all of them shapes understanding.<ref name="Powell2010">{{cite book |last1=Powell |first1=Robert G. |last2=Powell |first2=Dana L. |title=Classroom Communication and Diversity: Enhancing Instructional Practice |date=10 June 2010 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781135147532 |pages=10–11 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=86KMAgAAQBAJ |language=en}}</ref>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=60}}

=== Intrapersonal model ===
[[File:Barnlund's model - intrapersonal communication.svg|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Diagram of Barnlund's model of intrapersonal communication|Barnlund's model of intrapersonal communication. The green, blue, and grey areas symbolize different types of cues. The orange arrows represent that the person decodes certain cues. The yellow arrow is their behavioral response.]]
Intrapersonal communication is a special form of communication since it does not involve a second person. In certain respects, it is similar to other forms of communication: the person decodes internal and external stimuli in trying to make sense of themselves and the world around them and then encodes neuro-muscular reactions in response.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Minnesota2016a">{{cite book |title=Communication in the Real World |date=29 September 2016 |publisher=University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing |isbn=9781946135070 |url=https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/1-1-communication-history-and-forms/ |language=en-us |chapter=1.1 Communication: History and Forms}}</ref><ref name="Chandler2011f">{{cite book |last1=Chandler |first1=Daniel |last2=Munday |first2=Rod |title=A Dictionary of Media and Communication |date=10 February 2011 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=9780199568758 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C&pg=PA225 |language=en |chapter=intrapersonal communication |page=225}}</ref>

Barnlund first discusses the case of intrapersonal communication since fewer elements are involved.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Minai |first1=Asghar T. |title=Architecture as Environmental Communication |date=20 March 2017 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG |isbn=9783110849806 |pages=102–3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=35VsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102 |language=en}}</ref> For this reason, it is easier to understand than interpersonal communication. In his diagram, the circle in the middle represents the person and the areas around it symbolize the different types of cues currently present. The person is engaged in the activity of decoding cues (orange arrows) and encoding responses to these cues (yellow arrow). The orange arrows point toward the cues to express that meaning is actively assigned to them and not just received or read off. The spiral inside the person indicates that the activities of encoding and decoding are not distinct processes but different and interdependent aspects of one and the same process.<ref name="Watson2015"/>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=53-4}}

Barnlund uses the example of a person waiting alone in the reception room of a clinic. This person is confronted with various cues and assigns meaning to them. Some of them are public cues, like the furniture, the magazines on the table, and the rainstorm outside the window. Others are private, like the person's memory of their last visit here or the mint taste from their chewing gum. But they also include behavioral cues in the form of the person's awareness of their bodily movements, as when flipping a page of the magazine or altering their position in the chair. It may change from one moment to the next which cues are present, which ones the person attends to, and how the person responds to them.<ref name="Watson2015"/>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=53-4}}

=== Interpersonal model ===
[[File:Barnlund's model - interpersonal communication.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Diagram of Barnlund's model of interpersonal communication|[[Barnlund%27s_model_of_communication#Interpersonal_model|Barnlund's model of interpersonal communication]] involves two people who decode some of the cues available to them (orange arrows) and respond by encoding verbal and non-verbal behavioral responses (yellow arrows).]]
Interpersonal communication is the paradigmatic form of communication. It happens when two or more people interact with each other.<ref name="Minnesota2016a"/><ref name="Chandler2011g">{{cite book |last1=Chandler |first1=Daniel |last2=Munday |first2=Rod |title=A Dictionary of Media and Communication |date=10 February 2011 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=9780199568758 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C&pg=PA221 |language=en |chapter=interpersonal communication |page=221}}</ref> It can take the form of a regular face-to-face conversation but includes many other forms, such as phone calls, [[texting]], or slipping someone a note. For Barnlund, interpersonal communication is significantly more complex because more people and more cues are involved.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Powell2010"/> There is no clear division between sender and receiver since the communicators play both roles at the same time.<ref name="Powell2010"/> As shown in the diagram, there are two sets of private cues, one for each communicator, just like there are two sets of non-verbal behavioral cues. In addition, there are now also verbal behavioral cues present. They correspond to the linguistic exchange taking place, such as what the speaker says or what the teacher writes on a blackboard. The yellow arrows show how each participant generates both verbal and non-verbal behavioral cues. The orange arrows represent the activity of decoding cues. For interpersonal communication, each communicator is also aware of the verbal and non-verbal behavioral cues generated by the other party. But how they react to these cues depends on all the other cues as well.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=57-60}}

Barnlund uses the example of a doctor entering the waiting room to greet their patient. The different public cues discussed before, such as the furniture and the magazines, are still present. But they may be slightly different from person to person. For example, a watch hanging on the wall behind the patient is only visible to the doctor but not to the patient.<ref name="Watson2015"/>{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=57}} The doctor's well-hidden fatigue is a private cue to them of which the patient is not aware. When the doctor greets the patient and extends their hand, they produce both verbal and non-verbal behavioral cues, of which the patient becomes aware and has to decide how to respond to them. Their response will again generate verbal and non-verbal behavioral cues. Many of the other cues influence how this exchange unfolds. For example, a private cue in the form of a fond memory the patient has of the doctor may have a positive impact. But a public cue in the form of an unpleasant smell in the waiting area may have a negative impact, even if this smell is never mentioned in their exchange.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=57-8}}

Barnlund points out that, for interpersonal communication, the participants usually pay more attention to their own behavior than otherwise. The reason is that they are aware that the other person interprets them and therefore exercise more control of the behavioral cues they produce. This form of self-regulation happens as soon as the other person is present, often before any verbal communication has taken place.{{sfn|Barnlund|2013|p=57-8}}<ref>{{cite book |last1=Anne |first1=Hill |last2=James |first2=Watson |last3=Danny |first3=Rivers |title=Key Themes In Interpersonal Communication |date=1 November 2007 |publisher=McGraw-Hill Education (UK) |isbn=9780335220533 |pages=26 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iL5qPpHVtNoC&pg=PA26 |language=en}}</ref>

== Influence and criticism ==
Barnlund's objections to earlier models of communication have been influenced various subsequent theorists. Barnlund’s scholarship introduced theorists to new perspectives on the diverse ways communication occurs.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Lewis |first=William J. |date=1969 |title=A Measure for Other Works |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/42576335 |journal=[[A Review of General Semantics]] |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=93-95 |via=JSTOR}}</ref> This pertains specifically to his focus on the complexity of communication. This complexity is often missed in the attempt to simplify the process in the form of a compact model.<ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/><ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Dwyer2012"/> Another influential element is his idea that meaning is constructed by the communicators and attributed to cues rather than merely received and sent around in the form of messages.<ref name="Watson2015"/><ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Dwyer2012"/> Barnlund's emphasis on the role of interpretation, personal meaning ascriptions, and their constant flux has been adopted by many subsequent theorists.<ref name="Lawson2019"/><ref name="Akin2013">{{cite book |last1=Akin |first1=Johnnye |last2=Goldberg |first2=Alvin |last3=Myers |first3=Gail |last4=Stewart |first4=Joseph |title=Language Behavior: A Book of Readings in Communication. For Elwood Murray on the Occasion of His Retirement |date=5 July 2013 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=9783110878752 |page=19 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dhvpBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 |language=en}}</ref> His transactional model is often seen as the origin of constitutive models of communication.<ref name="Nicotera2019"/><ref name="Littlejohn2009b"/> It has been applied to fields such as teaching, [[market research]], and [[business communication]].<ref name="Powell2010"/><ref name="Dwyer2012"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Emilien |first1=Gerard |last2=Weitkunat |first2=Rolf |last3=Lüdicke |first3=Frank |title=Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits |date=14 March 2017 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9783319505305 |page=163 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ag9hDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA163 |language=en}}</ref>

Barnlund's model has been criticized in various ways. For example, it has been argued that it is effective for face-to-face and [[group communication|small-group communication]] but not for reading and writing or for [[mass communication]] since the role of the specific environment is less pronounced in these cases. Another objection is that Barnlund's model fails to explain how meaning is created. For example, it does not take into account how [[communicative competence]] may help the participants take conscious control over how meaning is created and changed.<ref name="Lawson2019"/> Nevertheless, Barnlund’s communication model were still viewed positively, as some saw his contribution to communication could be applied to different fields of studies such as business, hospitality, healthcare, and education.<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal |last=Lewis |first=William J. |date=1969 |title=A Measure for Other Works |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/42576335 |journal=[[A Review of General Semantics]] |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=93-95 |via=JSTOR}}</ref> His new findings helped improve other communication scholarships, such as the study of communication styles in different cultures. His findings also had implications for the study of small group communication in regard to factors involved and how it can improve our communication within them.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Goldberg |first=Alvin |date=1962 |title=Group Communication |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42573949 |journal=[[A Review of General Semantics]] |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=221-24 |via=JSTOR}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

=== Bibliography ===
{{cite book |last1=Barnlund |first1=Dean C. |editor1-last=Akin |editor1-first=Johnnye |editor2-last=Goldberg |editor2-first=Alvin |editor3-last=Myers |editor3-first=Gail |editor4-last=Stewart |editor4-first=Joseph |title=Language Behavior |date=5 July 2013 |publisher=De Gruyter Mouton |isbn=9783110878752 |pages=43–61 |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110878752.43/html?lang=en |language=en |chapter=A Transactional Model of Communication|doi=10.1515/9783110878752.43 }}

[[Category:Communication studies]]
[[Category:Communication theory]]
[[Category:Conceptual modelling]]
[[Category:Human communication]]