Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Transactional model

The transactional model of communication is a theoretical framework that conceptualizes communication as a dynamic, simultaneous process in which all participants act as both senders and receivers of messages, continuously influencing and being influenced by one another within shared social, relational, and cultural contexts.^[1] Introduced by communication scholar Dean C. Barnlund in 1970, the model shifts away from linear representations of communication—such as the sender-message-receiver paradigm—by emphasizing reciprocity, feedback loops, and the co-creation of meaning through ongoing interactions. This approach highlights how nonverbal cues, environmental factors, and personal experiences shape the exchange, making communication an adaptive and context-dependent phenomenon rather than a one-directional transmission.^[1] Key components of the model include the interplay of public, private, and behavioral cues, where individuals draw from their internal states (private cues like thoughts and emotions) and external observations (public cues like others' actions) to encode and decode messages in real time. Unlike earlier models that treated noise or barriers as external disruptions, Barnlund's framework integrates these elements as integral to the process, underscoring how misunderstandings arise from mismatched interpretations rather than mere technical issues.^[2] The model has proven influential in fields like interpersonal dynamics, organizational behavior, and intercultural studies, providing a foundation for understanding how communication builds relationships and fosters mutual understanding.^[1] In contemporary applications, the transactional model remains relevant amid digital transformations, adapting to asynchronous platforms like social media where feedback is delayed yet still reciprocal, though it requires extensions to account for algorithmic influences and multimodal content.^[3] Its emphasis on simultaneity and context continues to inform therapeutic practices, educational strategies, and conflict resolution, promoting views of communication as a collaborative construction of reality.^[1]

Overview

Definition

The transactional model of communication conceptualizes the process as a simultaneous and ongoing transaction in which participants function concurrently as both senders and receivers, collaboratively co-creating meaning through their interactions.^[2] This approach views communication not as a discrete exchange of isolated messages but as a dynamic, relational process shaped by the mutual influence of the involved parties. Introduced by Dean Barnlund in 1970, the model represents a fundamental shift from earlier one-way transmission perspectives, such as the linear Shannon-Weaver model, to a relational framework that emphasizes reciprocity and interdependence. Barnlund argued that communication occurs within a circular system of feedback, where actions and reactions unfold in real time, altering the context and outcomes of the interaction.^[2] Central to this model is the concept of shared fields of experience, which encompass the overlapping physical, psychological, and cultural backgrounds of the communicators that influence how messages are encoded, interpreted, and responded to. These shared elements—such as personal histories, environmental cues, and relational dynamics—facilitate mutual understanding while also introducing potential barriers if experiences diverge significantly.^[2]

Historical context

The foundations of the transactional model trace back to early linear models of communication, which emphasized unidirectional flow from sender to receiver. Aristotle's rhetoric, developed in the 4th century BCE, provided one of the earliest frameworks by focusing on the speaker's persuasive elements—ethos, pathos, and logos—directed toward an audience without reciprocal exchange. This perspective influenced subsequent theories, culminating in the mid-20th century with Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver's 1949 mathematical model, which conceptualized communication as a linear process of encoding a message, transmitting it through a channel, and decoding it, primarily to address technical noise in signal transmission.^[4] By the 1960s, communication theorists began incorporating interactivity to address limitations in linear approaches. Wilbur Schramm advanced this shift with his model, introduced in the 1950s and refined through the 1960s, which introduced feedback loops to represent communication as a circular process where sender and receiver roles overlap based on shared fields of experience.^[5] Schramm's emphasis on mutual encoding and decoding laid groundwork for viewing communication as dynamic rather than static. The transactional model crystallized in 1970 with Dean C. Barnlund's seminal publication, "A Transactional Model of Communication," which expanded Schramm's ideas by portraying communication as a simultaneous, ongoing process where participants co-create meaning through cues in a shared environment. This work marked a departure from sequential models, highlighting the inseparability of sending and receiving. Building on influential 1960s works like Paul Watzlawick's 1967 book, Pragmatics of Human Communication, co-authored with Janet Beavin and Don D. Jackson—which outlined axioms of interaction that underscored communication's contextual and relational nature, influencing extensions of transactional theory by emphasizing paradoxical and symptomatic exchanges in human systems—subsequent developments in the 1970s and 1980s further integrated transactional perspectives into relational and pragmatic theories.^[6] These evolutions drew heavily from mid-20th-century systems theory and cybernetics, pioneered by figures like Norbert Wiener in the 1940s, which viewed communication as feedback-regulated processes within open systems, promoting holistic views of interdependence over isolated transmission.

Core principles

Bidirectional interaction

In the transactional model of communication, bidirectional interaction emphasizes that participants function simultaneously as both senders and receivers, engaging in a continuous exchange without distinct turns or a defined beginning and end.^[1] This simultaneous role positions individuals as co-senders and co-receivers, where each person encodes and decodes messages in real time, shaping the interaction dynamically.^[7] The process, rooted in Dean Barnlund's foundational work, rejects sequential notions of communication in favor of an ongoing transaction.^[8] Central to this principle is the concept of a "transaction," defined as a mutual influence where every message from one participant immediately alters the dialogue and prompts adaptive responses from the other.^[1] Unlike models portraying communication as linear or turn-based, transactions involve layered exchanges in which verbal and nonverbal elements interconnect, ensuring that no message stands in isolation but instead evolves the shared meaning collaboratively.^[7] This mutual shaping fosters a fluid process where participants' contributions are interdependent, continuously refining the interaction's trajectory.^[8] The role of immediacy is particularly pronounced in face-to-face interactions, where verbal and nonverbal cues overlap continuously, allowing for instantaneous adjustments without interruption.^[1] For instance, in a conversation, one person's gesture—such as a nod or furrowed brow—can instantly modify the other's emerging response, integrating feedback into the ongoing exchange seamlessly.^[7] This overlap underscores the model's view of communication as a holistic, unbroken flow rather than discrete segments.^[8]

Contextual influences

In the transactional model of communication, contextual influences play a pivotal role in shaping how messages are exchanged and interpreted, encompassing multiple layers that interact dynamically. Key types of context include physical, relational, cultural, and psychological dimensions. Physical context refers to the tangible environment, such as the location, noise levels, or spatial arrangements that can either facilitate or hinder clarity in interactions. Relational context involves the history and nature of the relationship between participants, including prior experiences that inform expectations and trust levels. Cultural context draws on shared norms, values, and symbolic systems that guide appropriate behavior and meaning attribution. Psychological context accounts for individual mental and emotional states, such as stress or mood, which affect perception and responsiveness.^[9] These contexts function as interpretive filters that co-construct meaning during communication, modulating how participants encode and decode messages based on their interplay. For example, power dynamics within a relational context, such as in a workplace hierarchy, can lead to asymmetrical interpretations where a supervisor's feedback is received with deference or caution by an employee, altering the intended transaction. Similarly, cultural context might filter nonverbal cues differently; direct eye contact could signal confidence in one culture but disrespect in another, thus reshaping the interaction's trajectory. Psychological context further amplifies this by introducing personal biases or emotional lenses that color understanding.^[10]^[2] Dean Barnlund's framework highlights contextual layers through public, private, and behavioral cues that influence transactions. Public cues encompass observable environmental elements, like room acoustics or ambient lighting, available to all participants and setting the stage for the exchange. Private cues are internalized, stemming from an individual's sensory perceptions, memories, or physiological conditions that uniquely frame their viewpoint. Behavioral cues involve overt actions, including verbal tones and nonverbal gestures, which provide real-time indicators of evolving interpretations. These cues operate interdependently, with public elements often triggering private reflections that manifest in behavioral adjustments.^[2] A defining feature of contextual influences in the transactional model is their dynamic evolution, as interactions unfold and participants respond to emerging cues, thereby continuously reshaping the communication field. This fluidity ensures that contexts are not static backdrops but active contributors to meaning-making, adapting through ongoing exchanges. The bidirectional nature of the model facilitates this adaptation, allowing communicators to recalibrate based on contextual shifts in real time.^[2]

Key components

Communicators and roles

In the transactional model of communication, communicators are viewed as multifaceted participants who simultaneously encode, decode, and interpret messages, drawing on their personal experiences to shape and respond to interactions. This simultaneous engagement distinguishes the model from earlier frameworks, where roles were more rigidly divided; instead, each individual actively constructs meaning through ongoing sensory and cognitive processes influenced by their unique histories and perceptions.^[11] Roles within this model are inherently fluid, with no fixed distinction between sender and receiver; participants shift dynamically based on relational history and immediate context, allowing for concurrent arguing and listening, as seen in a debate where both parties advance positions while adapting to each other's responses. This fluidity underscores the interdependent nature of communication, where actions and reactions co-evolve in real time, fostering mutual influence rather than unilateral transmission. Dean Barnlund emphasized this by portraying communication as a circular process where roles adapt continuously to maintain relational balance.^[1] Central to effective transactions is the concept of shared fields of experience, as emphasized by Barnlund, describing the overlapping knowledge, emotions, and cultural understandings that enable communicators to align their interpretations and reduce misunderstandings. Without sufficient overlap in these fields, messages may be distorted, as assumptions from one participant's background fail to resonate with the other; for instance, shared emotional histories in long-term relationships facilitate deeper empathy and coherence in exchanges. This shared foundation is essential for constructing mutually intelligible social realities during interactions.^[11] Individual differences, such as cultural identity, profoundly affect how communicators enact their roles, as personal backgrounds filter the encoding and decoding of messages through lenses of ethnicity, values, and prior experiences. For example, a communicator from a high-context culture may rely more on implicit nonverbal cues, altering the fluidity of role shifts compared to someone from a low-context background who prioritizes explicit verbal content. These differences highlight the model's recognition that no two participants enter an interaction identically, necessitating adaptability to bridge gaps in fields of experience.^[1]

Messages, channels, and feedback

In the transactional model of communication, messages represent the verbal and nonverbal content exchanged between communicators, which is co-created and interpreted dynamically in real-time as both parties simultaneously encode and decode information. Encoding refers to the process of transforming internal thoughts, experiences, or intentions into communicable symbols, such as words, tones, or gestures, while decoding involves the receiver's interpretation of these symbols based on their own perceptual filters and context. This mutual encoding and decoding ensures that messages are not static transmissions but evolving constructs shaped by ongoing interaction, as articulated in Barnlund's foundational framework.^[12] Channels serve as the mediums through which these messages are transmitted, facilitating simultaneous bidirectional flow and often combining multiple pathways within a single exchange. Common channels include auditory ones like spoken language, visual cues such as facial expressions or body language, and in contemporary settings, digital tools like video calls that integrate audio and visual elements. Barnlund emphasized that channels are influenced by the communicators' cues—public (environmental factors), private (sensory experiences or internal states), and behavioral (verbal and nonverbal actions)—enabling layered transmission that adapts to the interaction's demands.^[12]^[1] Feedback in this model is a continuous and immediate loop of responses that allows communicators to adjust messages instantaneously, fostering a responsive dialogue rather than a sequential exchange. Examples include nonverbal affirmations like nods or eye contact, or verbal interruptions that signal misunderstanding, enabling real-time clarification and modification of the ongoing transaction. This integrated feedback distinguishes the model by embedding responses within the message flow itself, as both parties act as simultaneous senders and receivers.^[13] Noise interferes with this process by introducing distortions, categorized as internal (such as psychological biases, emotional states, or preconceptions) or external (like environmental distractions, physical discomfort, or semantic misunderstandings from differing vocabularies). While noise typically disrupts clarity— for instance, a loud background hindering verbal channels or cultural biases affecting decoding— Barnlund's model highlights noise as an inherent element that underscores the complexity of human interaction, requiring ongoing adjustment.^[12]^[13]

Comparisons with other models

Versus linear models

Linear models of communication, such as Aristotle's model from the 4th century BCE and the Shannon-Weaver model from 1949, conceptualize communication as a unidirectional process involving a source, message, channel, and receiver, with no provision for feedback or interaction.^[4]^[14] In Aristotle's framework, the emphasis is on the speaker crafting a persuasive message for a passive audience, while the Shannon-Weaver model, originally developed for technical transmission in telephony, treats communication as a linear transmission of signals prone to noise but without reciprocal exchange.^[4]^[15] The transactional model advances beyond these linear approaches by emphasizing simultaneity in communication, where participants act as both senders and receivers concurrently, rather than following sequential steps.^[16] This contrasts sharply with linear models' assumption of a pre-existing message being transmitted one-way, as the transactional perspective views meaning as co-created through ongoing exchanges influenced by shared contexts.^[7] For instance, Dean Barnlund's 1970 formulation highlights how linear models oversimplify by resembling mediated transmissions, such as broadcasts, where no mutual adjustment occurs, whereas transactional processes involve layered cues and feedback that shape relational dynamics.^[16]^[7] By exposing these limitations, the transactional model reveals how linear approaches neglect relational histories, environmental factors, and noise as interpretive elements, often resulting in an incomplete grasp of real-world interactions where meaning emerges dynamically.^[17] Linear models fail to account for how participants' experiences and contexts alter message interpretation in real time, leading to assumptions of fixed intent that do not hold in bidirectional exchanges.^[8] This oversight can hinder understanding in scenarios beyond mechanical transmission, as linear frameworks prioritize efficiency over the co-construction of shared realities.^[18] A practical illustration of this contrast is a radio broadcast, which exemplifies the linear model through one-way dissemination from broadcaster to listener without response, versus a live debate, where speakers continuously adjust based on opponents' reactions, embodying the transactional model's emphasis on simultaneous influence and feedback.^[8]^[7]

Versus interactive models

The interactive model of communication, exemplified by Wilbur Schramm's 1954 framework, represents an advancement over linear models by incorporating feedback mechanisms that allow receivers to respond to messages, thereby enabling a two-way exchange. However, it conceptualizes communication as a sequential process in which participants alternate between sender and receiver roles in discrete turns, with feedback occurring after the initial message transmission.^[19] In contrast, the transactional model emphasizes constant overlap in the sending and receiving of messages, where communicators simultaneously encode and decode information without rigid turn-taking. This shift highlights holistic co-construction of meaning, as opposed to the interactive model's partial exchanges limited by sequential feedback loops. Feedback serves as a shared component in both, but the transactional approach integrates it as an ongoing, mutual influence rather than a delayed response.^[20] The transactional model addresses limitations of the interactive framework by accounting for the simultaneity of nonverbal cues and the dynamic evolution of contexts during interaction. For instance, in an email chain, communication follows an interactive pattern of sequential replies, whereas a video call exemplifies the transactional model's simultaneous verbal and nonverbal exchanges that shape meaning in real time. Developed in the 1970s as a refinement of earlier interactive theories, the transactional model, notably articulated by Dean Barnlund, builds on the recognition of feedback while advancing a more integrated view of communication as a continuous, interdependent process.

Applications

In interpersonal settings

In interpersonal relationships, the transactional model underscores how simultaneous exchanges of verbal and nonverbal messages can either cultivate trust or provoke conflict, as partners co-create meaning influenced by their shared relational history. For example, when a couple negotiates evening plans, one partner's suggestion—delivered through words, tone, and gestures—is instantly interpreted and responded to by the other, with feedback loops allowing meanings to evolve dynamically; aligned responses reinforce trust, while misinterpretations rooted in unaddressed emotional cues can heighten tension. This process draws on reciprocal self-disclosure to reduce uncertainty and deepen intimacy, as demonstrated in studies of relational development.^[21] Cultural variations profoundly shape interpersonal transactions within the model, as norms dictate the balance between direct and indirect communication styles influenced by cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism. Individualistic cultures often favor direct verbal expression, enabling explicit feedback that clarifies intentions, while collectivist cultures tend toward indirect approaches that prioritize contextual nonverbal cues and relational harmony to avoid confrontation. These differences can lead to interpretive mismatches if participants overlook cultural fields of experience, emphasizing the model's emphasis on contextual adaptation for effective empathy and understanding.^[2]^[22] The model manifests clearly in family discussions and friendships, where emotional feedback and historical context drive relational dynamics. During a family conversation about holiday traditions, a parent's nostalgic recounting might evoke a child's affirming gesture, creating a feedback cycle that validates emotions and sustains bonds through accumulated shared experiences. In friendships, recounting daily stressors often involves layered responses—such as empathetic nods alongside probing questions—that mirror emotional states and foster deeper connection via ongoing mutual influence.^[21] By highlighting bidirectional influence, the transactional model enhances empathy in these settings, as individuals attune to each other's perspectives through real-time emotional exchanges, promoting relational growth and resilience. This mutual shaping of understanding encourages active perspective-taking, reducing isolation and strengthening interpersonal ties over time.^[2]

In professional environments

In team meetings, the transactional model enables simultaneous input from multiple participants through dynamic discussions, where immediate feedback allows teams to refine strategies and decisions in real-time, fostering a shared understanding of objectives.^[23] This process underscores the model's emphasis on co-created meaning, as verbal exchanges and nonverbal cues like nods or gestures prompt adjustments to proposals on the spot.^[24] In leadership applications, managers function as co-communicators within the transactional framework, using ongoing exchanges to motivate employees by tailoring messages according to observed nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions indicating confusion or agreement.^[25] For instance, a leader might pivot from directive instructions to collaborative brainstorming when sensing resistance, thereby enhancing team engagement and alignment with organizational goals.^[24] In hierarchical contexts, such noise as power imbalances can affect these transactions, yet reciprocal feedback often mitigates distortions.^[25] Digital adaptations of the transactional model are evident in video conferencing platforms, which facilitate real-time bidirectional exchanges including visual nonverbal feedback, unlike email's sequential and delayed responses that limit immediacy.^[26] Tools like Zoom or Microsoft Teams support this by allowing participants to react instantly through chat, emojis, or verbal interruptions, enabling adaptive dialogue during remote collaborations.^[27] Applying the transactional model in professional environments yields improved collaboration by promoting mutual adjustments and trust, as well as more effective conflict resolution through clarified intentions and reduced misunderstandings in business settings.^[28] In healthcare, it similarly enhances interdisciplinary team interactions, leading to better patient outcomes via coordinated feedback during case reviews or shift handovers.^[28]

Criticisms and developments

Limitations

One key limitation of Barnlund's transactional model lies in its overemphasis on simultaneity, positing that encoding and decoding occur concurrently in a seamless exchange. This assumption proves challenging in asynchronous media, such as email or social media posts, where delays in response can disrupt the fluid transaction and foster misinterpretations due to absent immediate feedback.^[3] The model further assumes an equality among communicators, treating them as mutually influential participants in the transaction without accounting for inherent power imbalances. In scenarios involving hierarchical relationships, such as workplace interactions between superiors and subordinates, one party may dominate the exchange, rendering the presumed reciprocity ineffective and skewing message interpretation.^[3]^[29] Analyzing communication through this lens is inherently complex, as the model's fluid and context-dependent elements—encompassing personal cues, shared fields of experience, and ongoing noise—resist straightforward empirical study. Researchers often struggle to isolate variables in real-time transactions, complicating quantitative assessments and limiting the model's applicability in controlled experimental settings compared to simpler linear models.^[3] Developed in the 1970s, the model exhibits dated aspects that undervalue contemporary phenomena like digital noise from algorithms and platform affordances, or the emergence of global cultural hybrids in multicultural exchanges. These omissions highlight its origins in a pre-digital era, where physical co-presence was more normative, potentially underestimating disruptions in modern, technology-mediated transactions.^[3]

Contemporary extensions

In the digital era, the transactional model has been adapted to incorporate AI-mediated communication, where chatbots and virtual agents simulate reciprocal exchanges but introduce asymmetries due to algorithmic processing rather than genuine intentionality. For instance, 2020s chatbots like those powered by large language models function as pseudo-transactional partners, enabling users to co-construct meaning through dynamic interactions, yet they lack the shared contextual depth of human reciprocity, prompting calls for revised theories to address these nonhuman dynamics.^[30] Interdisciplinary integrations have linked the transactional model to neuroscience, particularly through mirror neurons, which facilitate simultaneous encoding of observed and performed actions, underpinning the model's emphasis on mutual influence and empathy in communication. These neurons, active in premotor areas during both execution and observation of social cues, provide a neural basis for the co-creation of shared realities in interpersonal exchanges. Additionally, connections to globalization theories highlight the model's applicability in intercultural contexts, where participants from diverse backgrounds co-generate meaning through shared participation, fostering global collaboration despite cultural variances.^[31]^[32]

References

[1]
Transaction Model of Communication
The Transaction Model views communication as a process where communicators generate social realities, and are simultaneously senders and receivers, unlike ...
[2]
Revisiting Barnlund's Transactional Model - ResearchGate
Aug 28, 2024 · This paper revisits Barnlund's Transactional Model of Communication, one of the foundational frameworks that emphasize the dynamic and continuous nature of the ...
[3]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383463018_Communication_in_a_Digital_World_Revisiting_Barnlund%27s_Transactional_Model
[4]
[PDF] The Development of Communication Models - DTIC
Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A Transactional model of communication. In J. Akin, A. Goldberg, G. Myers, & J. Stewart (Eds.), Language Behavior: A Book of ...
[5]
[PDF] A The Process and Effects of Mass Communication
Page 1. THE. PROCESS. AND. EFFECTS. OF mass communication. WILBUR SCHRAMM. Page 2. A The Process and Effects of Mass Communication edited by WILBUR SCHRAMM.
[6]
Pragmatics of human communication; a study of interactional ...
May 6, 2009 · Pragmatics of human communication; a study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes ; Publication date: 1967 ; Topics: Communication.Missing: 1970s model
[7]
2.4: Models of Interpersonal Communication - Social Sci LibreTexts
Aug 6, 2021 · In 1970, Dean C. Barnlund created the transactional model of communication to understand basic interpersonal communication.26 Barnlund ...
[8]
3.2 Communication models – Introduction to Professional ...
The three models of communication we will discuss are the transmission, interaction, and transaction models.
[9]
1.3 Communication Principles – Communication in the Real World
Even if the words and actions stay the same, the physical, psychological, social, relational, and cultural contexts will vary and ultimately change the ...
[10]
Transactional Model of Communication
The transactional model views communication as a continuous and reciprocal process where any or all parties involved can act as participants simultaneously.
[11]
2.4: Models of Interpersonal Communication
### Summary of Barnlund’s Transactional Model (Source: https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Pueblo_Community_College/Interpersonal_Communication_-_A_Mindful_Approach_to_Relationships_%28Wrench_et_al.%29/02%3A_Overview_of_Interpersonal_Communication/2.04%3A_Models_of_Interpersonal_Communication)
[12]
1.3: The Communication Process and Models
### Summary of Transactional Model Components (Messages, Channels, Feedback, Noise)
[13]
[PDF] A Mathematical Theory of Communication
379–423, 623–656, July, October, 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. By C. E. SHANNON. INTRODUCTION. THE recent development of various methods of ...
[14]
A Mathematical Theory of Communication - Wiley Online Library
A Mathematical Theory of Communication - CE Shannon, CE Shannon. Search for more papers by this author. First published: July 1948.Missing: original | Show results with:original
[15]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
[16]
Communication Models | Communication for Professionals
The transaction model also includes a more complex understanding of context. The interaction model portrays context as physical and psychological influences ...
[17]
1.3: The Communication Process and Models - Social Sci LibreTexts
Jun 21, 2022 · The transactional model of communication describes communication as a process in which communicators are simultaneously senders and receivers. ...
[18]
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Prince_Georges_Community_College/COM_1010%253A_Foundations_of_Communication/01%253A_What_is_Communication/1.03%253A_The_Communication_Process_and_Models
[19]
2.2 Models of Communication - Fundamentals of Nursing | OpenStax
Sep 4, 2024 · The transactional model differs from the interactional model because the sending and receiving of messages happen simultaneously (Figure 2.5).
[20]
Chapter 2: Overview of Interpersonal Communication
In this chapter, you will learn the concepts associated with interpersonal communication and how certain variables can help you achieve your goals.
[21]
Exploring Perceptions of Communication among Culturally Diverse ...
Cultural practices control different communication styles, such as direct versus indirect communication, high context versus low context communication, and non ...
[22]
How to Choose the Right Communication Model for Every Team
Dean Barnlund's transactional model represents communication as a continuous, simultaneous process where all participants actively send and receive messages ...Why Communication Models... · 7. Barnlund's Transactional... · Using Slack To Support...
[23]
8 Models of Communication and How They Work - Personio
Transactional communication theories and models depict two-way communication processes that offer immediate feedback within a social situation. Rather than one ...
[24]
Understanding the Transactional Model of Communication - Candor
Jul 10, 2024 · Noise can be external, such as environmental distractions or loud noises, or internal, such as personal biases or emotional states.
[25]
Transactional Model of Communication: Definition, Examples & More
Sep 28, 2024 · The transactional model of communication describes communication as a two-way process where the sender and receiver are both communicators, ...
[26]
Transactional Models of Communication: Definition & Examples
where interlocutors create the communication process together, ...Linear communication models · Dean Barnlund's transactional... · 3: ContextMissing: originator | Show results with:originator<|control11|><|separator|>
[27]
Transactional Model of Communication: A Guide to Success
Nov 21, 2024 · The transactional model views communication as a dynamic, continuous, and reciprocal process where all participants are simultaneously senders ...
[28]
Communication Models Transactional - Housing Innovations
Aug 24, 2025 · The transactional model of communication views communication as a transaction between two parties, where both individuals are simultaneously ...Missing: environments | Show results with:environments
[29]
Exploring Human-AI Communication in the Digital Era - ResearchGate
Jan 8, 2025 · The area of interest in the present work is the subtleties that may occur in the interaction between artificial intelligence and people for the ...
[30]
Mirror Neurons, Embodied Simulation, and the Neural Basis of ...
Oct 15, 2009 · Mirror neurons are premotor neurons that fire both when an action is executed and when it is observed being performed by someone else. (Citation ...
[31]
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10481880903231910
[32]
Theories of Human Communication - Stephen W. Littlejohn
This textbook provides a survey of communication theories from the classic and the contemporary period. An introduction outlines the role of communication ...
[33]
Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary perspectives on ...
Guided by the traditional transactional communication model, which describes communication as “a process in which communicators generate social realities ...