686104

research-article2017
NMS0010.1177/1461444816686104new media & societyO’Sullivan and Carr

Article

new media & society

Masspersonal communication:
2018, Vol. 20(3) 1161­–1180
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
A model bridging the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461444816686104
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686104
mass-interpersonal divide journals.sagepub.com/home/nms

Patrick B O’Sullivan
California State Polytechnic University, USA

Caleb T Carr
Illinois State University, USA

Abstract
Theoretical discussions about the false dichotomy between interpersonal and mass
communication scholarship continue while the emergence of powerful and flexible digital
communication tools have made the old distinctions more permeable than ever. Individuals
are using communication technologies in ways that expand the intersection of interpersonal
communication and mass communication, calling for new frameworks. We introduce
masspersonal communication as a concept at the intersections of mass and interpersonal
communication, with examples from older and newer communication technologies and
practices. The masspersonal communication model is introduced incorporating two
dimensions—perceived message accessibility and message personalization—that link mass
communication and interpersonal communication and redefine each independent of channel.

Keywords
Computer-mediated communication, convergence, interpersonal communication,
mass communication, masspersonal communication, transchannel communication

Emergent digital media, affording new ways of interacting and new contexts for interac-
tion, are prompting scholars to reassess some basic assumptions about interpersonal
communication (e.g. Lea and Spears, 1995), mass communication (e.g. Morris and Ogan,

Corresponding author:
Patrick B O’Sullivan, Center for Teaching, Learning, & Technology, California State Polytechnic University,
319 Kennedy Library, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA.
Email: posulliv@calpoly.edu
1162 new media & society 20(3)

1996), and the distinction between the two (e.g. Jensen and Helles, 2011; O’Sullivan,
1999). Social phenomena observed in computer-mediated communication (CMC) can
spur scholars to see if similar phenomena have existed with older technologies or face-
to-face (O’Sullivan and Flanagan, 2003). These efforts help scholars of new technolo-
gies avoid the tendency to generate new theories uninformed by—and perhaps duplicative
of—existing theory. Instead of reinventing the theory “wheel,” communication scholars
can reassess existing theory for its applicability across older and newer channels.
Theories can also be revised to explain communicative phenomena more precisely and
comprehensively, regardless of—or more explicitly incorporating—the communication
channels involved. Even more important is the opportunity to reassess some basic
assumptions foundational to relevant communication theories. When communication
practices using newer technologies violate these assumptions, scholars have an opportu-
nity to advance the communication discipline by proposing revised assumptions. These
new insights can prompt new theorizing and research to test those theories, as well as
re-evaluating findings from prior scholarship. More accurate and comprehensive theo-
ries will result that can more effectively incorporate the newer communication forms and
practices emerging as digital communication technologies spread and uses advance. This
article examines mediated communication activities—involving both older technologies
and newer digital technologies—that challenge one of the enduring frameworks that has
marked the discipline from its origins: the definitional divide between interpersonal and
mass communication.

The false mass-interpersonal divide

The communication field historically has delineated between mass and interpersonal
communication, both conceptually and in its research and theoretical development.
Traditionally, mass communication has been defined as (a) one-way, (b) technologically
mediated messages, (c) delivered to large audiences (d) of individuals not known person-
ally by the sender. Mass communication theories typically emphasize the size and homo-
geneity of a receiving audience (Webster and Phalen, 2013), the nature of an audience,
and the publicness of a message (Price, 1992), or the effects of message reception with-
out reciprocal exchange (Peters, 1994). Examples of the conventional mass communica-
tion model include broadcast television and radio, print newspapers, movies, books, and
recorded music. Interpersonal communication has been traditionally defined as (a) two-
way, (b) nonmediated message exchange between (c) a very small number (usually two)
of participants, (d) who have personal knowledge of each other. Theories of interper-
sonal communication acknowledge the idiosyncratic nature of interpersonalness (Miller
and Steinberg, 1975), and typically emphasize the development or effects of relation-
ships between communicators or the reciprocal effects of dyadic message exchange
(Knapp and Daly, 2011). The gold standard of interpersonal communication has been
face-to-face interactions, though mediated interpersonal communication (e.g. via tele-
phone, email) has gradually been accepted among interpersonal scholars (Knapp and
Daly, 2011).
Yet since the late 1980s, a flurry of scholarship has examined what Reardon and Rogers
(1988) called the “false dichotomy” between mass and interpersonal communication
O’Sullivan and Carr 1163

theory and research (e.g. Berger and Chaffee, 1988; Hawkins et al., 1988; Wiemann et al.,
1988). Reardon and Rogers (1988), anticipating the emergence in the early 1990s of the
graphical Web, noted that a full understanding of newer interactive mediated communica-
tion technologies would be hampered under traditional levels of analysis because some
channels functionally meld elements of mass communication and interpersonal commu-
nication. While communication scholars have sporadically re-engaged the philosophical
discussions, uses of communication technologies have made the functional boundaries
between mass and interpersonal communication practices more permeable than ever.
More than a decade later, Reardon and Rogers’ expectations were being realized through
social uses of newer communication technologies that blended aspects of both (O’Sullivan,
1999; Rogers, 1999).1
Scholars from across disciplines sought to respond to these calls to explore the inter-
sections and synergies between mass and interpersonal communication, particularly as
communication technologies facilitated such opportunities. Some of these discussions
have examined the rhetoric of communication and media scholarship, attempting to
understand the construction of metacommunication (Ytreberg, 2002). Critical scholars
(e.g. Peters, 1994) have focused on the historical and philosophical underpinnings and
developments that may have led to the mass-interpersonal divide. Positivist scholarship
has often sought to model the relationship between mass and interpersonal communica-
tion as a multistep flow process, whereby mass media messages are first disseminated,
and are consequently interpreted interpersonally via social networks (e.g. Southwell,
2013). For example, Southwell and Yzer (2007) noted political mass media campaigns
may need to consider and integrate the role of personal conversations, which can aid in
the diffusion and social influence of campaign messages. In all, these works have sought
to respond to prior calls to bridge mass and interpersonal communication, but without
clear integration of the two. To truly respond to Reardon and Rogers (1988), concepts,
theories, and models must not just bridge the barriers between mass and interpersonal but
transcend those boundaries.
Communication technologies increasingly offer such an opportunity, as technological
developments have made criteria such as “one-way” versus “two-way,” “mediated” ver-
sus “nonmediated,” and “large undifferentiated audiences” versus “small numbers of
familiar interactants” less precise and thus less useful to distinguish mass communication
and interpersonal communication (see Peters, 1994). These developments prompted
Chaffee and Metzger (2001) to propose that society may be witnessing the end of mass
communication as interactive digital technologies demassify traditional broadcasting and
provide interactivity, personalization, and audience control to an unprecedented degree.
O’Sullivan (1999) addressed the issue in a review of “synthesis scholarship” spanning
decades of communication research, identifying scholarly work bridging mass commu-
nication and interpersonal communication in one of four ways. Synthesis research either
(a) explicitly addressed mass-interpersonal synthesis as a theoretical or disciplinary
structural issue, (b) examined interpersonal communication and mass media in the same
context (e.g. interpersonal interaction while viewing mass-mediated messages), (c)
examined phenomena or processes incorporating both mass and interpersonal channels
(e.g. persuasion or diffusion), or (d) applied traditionally interpersonal theories to mass
communication processes or traditionally mass communication theories to interpersonal
1164 new media & society 20(3)

processes (e.g. parasocial relationships). The present work extends O’Sullivan’s (1999)
analysis, advancing the term masspersonal communication to highlight communication
at the intersection of traditional mass communication and traditional interpersonal
communication.

Masspersonal communication as a bridge

The concept of masspersonal communication emerges from observations of instances
when (a) individuals use conventional mass communication channels for interpersonal
communication, (b) individuals use conventional interpersonal communication channels
for mass communication, and (c) individuals engage in mass communication and inter-
personal communication simultaneously. These instances highlight the utility of a user-
centered perspective that focuses on communicators’ activities to more accurately
understand the communication episode rather than on the particular technology used for
communication. The concept emphasizes communicators’ selection and uses of commu-
nication channels in their pursuit of interactional goals, rather than a focus on channel
characteristics (O’Sullivan, 2000), infrastructure affordances (Castells, 2010), or spe-
cific channels and their idiosyncratic mix of user, technical, and interactive attributes
(Eveland, 2003).
The masspersonal concept challenges the assumption that the channel used deter-
mines the type of communication. Substantive extant mass communication scholarship
assumes (a) communication requires use of traditional mass communication channels
(e.g. television, radio, newspapers) and (b) a message via mass communication chan-
nels is (by definition) mass communication.2 Masspersonal communication recognizes
individuals can use traditionally defined mass communication channels for interper-
sonal communication. Similarly, substantive interpersonal communication scholarship
assumes (a) interpersonal communication occurs via traditionally interpersonal chan-
nels, and (b) a message via interpersonal communication channels is inherently inter-
personal communication (see Note 2). Masspersonal communication likewise recognizes
individuals can use traditional interpersonal channels for mass communication. Most
importantly, the masspersonal concept comprehensively encompasses the increasing
array of CMC forms and practices that simply do not fit conventional conceptualiza-
tions of either mass or interpersonal communication, while still accounting for older
forms of communication.
We first explicate the masspersonal communication model (MPCM), which provides a
framework encompassing both mass communication and interpersonal communication.
The model also introduces the concept of masspersonal communication and provides a
rich set of issues for future research to explore. From that framework, a historically
informed review evidences masspersonal communication is not a new phenomenon, pro-
viding examples and discussions of how both traditional and newer media can be used to
enable communication in all quadrants of the MPCM. The examples offered of massper-
sonal communication activities may be relatively infrequent compared to the pervasive-
ness of conventional forms of mass-interpersonal communication; however, they represent
an accumulation of anomalies (Kuhn, 1996) inconsistent with the prevailing paradigm.
Masspersonal communication activities do not fit conventional conceptualizations of
O’Sullivan and Carr 1165

mass communication or interpersonal communication, and thus indicate a need to revisit

and revise basic assumptions of each.

The Masspersonal communication model

The MPCM conceptualizes interpersonal, mass, and masspersonal communication as
related forms of communication distinguished by their variation on two dimensions: (a)
perceived exclusivity of message access and (b) message personalization. These dimen-
sions are a distillation of the characteristics that have distinguished conventional concep-
tualizations of mass communication and interpersonal communication that remain after
pruning elements of each definition that exhibit limitations when applied to a broad
range of communication activities enabled by newer communication technologies (e.g.
mediated vs unmediated; one-way vs two-way; one-to-one vs one-to-many; personal
knowledge of receiver vs unknown others). These dimensions provide novel approaches
to mass and interpersonal communication that demonstrate the linkage between them
while building a framework for defining forms of communication that fit neither tradi-
tional mass nor interpersonal communication but are increasingly common.

Perceived accessibility
The perceived accessibility dimension involves the degree of perceived accessibility to a
particular message at any particular time.3 At one end of the continuum is the narrowest
accessibility: the message is perceived accessible only by a single individual other than
the originator. Access to interpersonal messages is limited to the intended recipient, a
perspective retained in this model. At the other end of the continuum is the broadest
accessibility: the message is perceived accessible by anyone and everyone. By tradi-
tional definition, a mass communication message is highly accessible by a large number
of recipients, a perspective retained in this model.
In the MPCM, the degree of perceived accessibility (i.e. exclusivity) encompasses
and reframes the conventional “audience size” distinction between mass and interper-
sonal communication as a continuum representing the entire range of possible number of
communicants potentially involved in a particular interactional episode. It is important
to note the communicator’s subjective perception of accessibility, rather than an objec-
tive number of individuals who may or do access a message, governs the MPCM due to
the nature of accessibility and privacy across media, particularly the Web. Many com-
munication channels online are inherently publicly accessible, allowing anyone with a
browser to possibly navigate to and access that message; however, the likelihood of an
unintended recipient finding an individual’s personal blog post is significantly less than
the expectation of an unintended audience reading a comment posted to a popular and
intentionally public site like a social medium or online auction.
Effects of a channel’s perceived accessibility have already been noted empirically.
For example, in a study exploring the effect of changing self-perceptions due to feedback
from others, Walther et al. (2011) asked participants to self-disclose either privately (via
Word document) or publicly (via blog post). Participants in the public condition were
asked how many others (besides the lab assistant) were able to read their self-disclosure,
1166 new media & society 20(3)

with responses ranging from “1” to “1,000,000,” suggesting large variation in the
expected accessibility of the same blog tool among participants. This variance suggests
the perceived accessibility of a message is perceived idiosyncratically by a communica-
tor, and is not an innate property of the communication channel.

Personalization
Personalization involves the degree to which receivers perceive a message reflects their
distinctiveness as individuals differentiated by their interests, history, relationship net-
work, and so on. At one end of this continuum is the highest personalization possible. By
traditional definition and common practice, interpersonal messages are highly personal-
ized for the receiver. At the other end of the continuum is the lowest personalization
possible, when messages reflect scant or nonexistent knowledge of the recipient(s). The
term impersonal has been applied to messages of this type. Mass communicative mes-
sages do not reflect any individual listener/viewer/reader’s uniqueness or distinctiveness
and incorporates no aspects tailored for any individual, and thus can considered imper-
sonal or, at most, parasocial (Horton and Wohl, 1956).
Bazarova (2012) noted the degree of message personalization—whether a disclo-
sure appeared to be tailored toward an individual and specific participant—influences
judgments made of the message sender, and thus of the message itself. While message
creators shape the intended degree of personalization as they compose a message,
judgments about actual degrees of personalization are made by those who access
(receive) the message. Thus, variation on this dimension may be even more difficult to
assess objectively. While individuals external to a particular communication episode
may be able to identify aspects of messages that appear to reflect personal knowledge
of the recipient(s), that judgment may not in all cases align with interactants’ perspec-
tives. This points to the value of using interactants’ judgments when possible to assess
degrees of message personalization.

Explicating the MPCM

When the perceived accessibility and personalization dimensions are overlaid as inter-
secting continua, mass and interpersonal communication can be located in opposing
quadrants (see Figure 1). Messages higher in personalization (i.e. personal) but less
accessible (i.e. private) are located in Quadrant I, constituting interpersonal communica-
tion. Messages lower in personalization (i.e. impersonal) but more accessible (i.e. pub-
lic) are located in Quadrant II, constituting mass communication. Finally, messages
higher in personalization (i.e. personal) and more accessible (i.e. public) are located in
Quadrant III, constituting masspersonal communication.
This approach to conceptualizing communication recognizes channel characteristics
can play a role in contributing to the degree of personalization and (especially) accessi-
bility for any particular message; however, the channel used does not determine the
nature of communication: neither mass nor interpersonal communication is linked exclu-
sively to each form’s traditional communication channel (e.g. television for mass, tele-
phone for interpersonal) in the MPCM. Instead, the form of communication is determined
O’Sullivan and Carr 1167

Figure 1.  The masspersonal communication model, with illustrative communicative episodes.
The placement of dividing lines and specific communicative episodes here is primarily for visualization and
illustrative purposes, and may not reflect exact placements or demarcation points.

by the communicators’ decisions—first in the message content itself, then in the channel
selection, and finally in the specific ways the selected channel is employed.
Based on the MPCM, some common forms of communication are reconceptualized.
Central to the discussion of the boundaries separating them, interpersonal communica-
tion is reconceptualized as communication activities high in personalization and low in
message accessibility, and mass communication is reconceptualized as communication
activities low in personalization and highly accessible. The channel used and the one-
way/two-way criterion traditionally used to distinguish the two are discarded in these
reconceptualizations because of their imprecision, particularly when applied to newer
communication technologies.
Of particular interest is the third quadrant, in which masspersonal communication is
located. In the MPCM, masspersonal communication is defined as communication activ-
ities high in personalization yet highly accessible. Messages in this quadrant use chan-
nels enabling broader access (e.g. conventional mass communication channels) for more
personalized messages (e.g. those common in conventional interpersonal communica-
tion). The widening variety of CMC technologies and the concurrent use of conventional
1168 new media & society 20(3)

mass and interpersonal channels suggest diverse uses of channels to facilitate massper-
sonal communication, as we discuss shortly.
Note that the dimensions are continua, and boundaries and example messages are
located only for illustrative clarity. Messages can vary along both personalization and
accessibility dimensions, and can even be shifted based on the communicators’ actions,
as when mass communicators narrowcast by targeting specific audience segments based
on one or more variables of interest (e.g. education, income, leisure activities) with tai-
lored (i.e. personalized) messages. On the continua, narrowcasting would remain high on
the accessibility dimension, but near the middle of the personalization dimension. As the
Web’s infrastructure increasingly facilitates tracking individuals’ online activities to
compile data on their interests based on content accessed and then creating and present-
ing increasingly personalized messages (e.g. advertisements), such instances may relo-
cate narrowcast advertisements from public-impersonal mass messages toward the
middle of both dimensions.4
Similarly, typically private messages can vary in their degree of accessibility depend-
ing on the communicators’ actions. For example, email messages intended for a particu-
lar recipient can be forwarded by the receiver to small or large numbers of mutual
friends, who might then forward it and make it highly accessible to even more known
and unknown recipients. This practice highlights the communicators’ roles in determin-
ing the nature of the communication. It is an example of the potential for individuals to
change interpersonal messages (especially those recorded via some medium) into more
accessible masspersonal messages by retransmitting them to audiences. In the model,
the location of a message that originally fit into Quadrant I (high personalization, low
accessibility) would shift along the access accessibility continuum toward Quadrant III
as more receivers gain access to the message. Concurrently, the expanding number of
individuals accessing the message could expand beyond the original communicators’
social network and thus the message would be viewed as increasingly impersonal and
move on the personalization continuum toward Quadrant II. Ultimately, it could become
transformed into an example of mass communication, with low personalization and
high accessibility, all based on the actions of the communicators exploiting the power
and flexibility of digital networks.
Tracking movement of message location based on the accumulated decisions of the
communicators over time could provide insights into the complex array of intended and
unintended message effects for involved individuals depending on the specific context of
their participation. For example, while the interpersonal communication literature could
provide perspective on message effects of a single email exchange sent from one person
to another, different frameworks may be needed to evaluate the consequences of that
same message intentionally or inadvertently forwarded to members of their social circle
or to large numbers of strangers. The model, then, provides a heuristic framework for
analyzing outcomes of increasingly common but complex communication exchanges,
both via traditional communication channels and emergent technological tools.
To support personalization and perceived accessibility as fundamental dimensions to
understand and guide discussions of various types of communication, we apply the
model by exploring several concepts central to extant communication scholarship (i.e.
interpersonal and mass communication), also illustrating the model’s potential and
O’Sullivan and Carr 1169

utility. In addition, we use the MPCM as a lens to apply and discuss the masspersonal
communication concept and illustrate its ability to bridge and synthesize previously dis-
parate areas of the field. We conclude by reviewing implications and future directions for
communication scholarship.

Applying the MPCM

A strength of the MPCM is its emphasis on message characteristics rather than traits of a
channel or communicators. In this way, it can be a utile means of considering communi-
cative phenomena and interactions both hoary and nascent. An additional benefit of the
model’s approach is that, as it is not medium specific, it can be applied to communica-
tion—mediated and not—via both older and newer channels. To illustrate how the model
may be applied to consider communication and evidence its robustness, we discuss each
of the MPCM’s quadrants and proffer brief examples of how each may manifest in both
traditional and emergent channels.

Quadrant I: private and personal

Interpersonal communication
Quadrant I comprises messages low in accessibility but high in personalization, many
of which may be considered interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communica-
tion has been considered as relationship-building interactions (Knapp and Daly, 2011),
often comprising close exchanges between individuals. Within the MPCM, these types
of interactions—personalized, socioemotionally rich communication to a specific indi-
vidual and thus less accessible—are located in Quadrant I, and can manifest in many
channels.

Private and personal via older channels

Communication in traditional channels for interpersonal communication typically exem-
plifies Quadrant I of the MPCM, being both private and personalized, including face-to-
face interaction (e.g. coffee chats) and personal phone calls. Face-to-face interactions
have long typified private and personal messages, as individuals use directed messages
with proximal communicators to develop relationships and seek social support (Altman
and Taylor, 1973; Burleson et al., 1994). Likewise, telephone calls can mediate these
personalized messages accessible to only those parties on the call, such as parents who
increasingly use mobile phones to maintain relationships with their collegiate children
(Miller-Ott et al., 2014).
A perhaps counterintuitive example of private and personal communication via older
channels may be impersonal communication: consider two acquaintances passing in a
hall and one says, “Hello” or “Hey! How are you,” without the other replying. Such
instances are common occurrences that are often impersonal—even when clearly
between two interactants—in that they follow social conventions more than intentional
interpersonal dyadic exchange (Langer et al., 1987). We place such interactions in
1170 new media & society 20(3)

Quadrant I as they are private exchanges that—even though they may not be rich in idi-
osyncratic, socioemotional exchange—are discrete communicative instances among two
individuals and are thus personal messages, even if their content is not interpersonal in
nature.

Private and personal via newer channels

Newer channels likewise facilitate messages both private and personalized. In an early
study of virtual spaces, Parks and Roberts (1998) found individuals used a bevy of chan-
nels in cyberspace—including private discussion rooms and email—to communicate
interpersonally with other users. In a more recent example, individuals can use private
(i.e. limited accessibility) messages in Facebook to communicate personally with others
to seek and obtain social support (Oh and LaRose, 2016) or provide a discrete and per-
sonalized feedback (Carr and Foreman, 2016). Even features of an ostensibly publicly
accessible channel like Twitter can be utilized to create and transmit messages highly
tailored to a specific user and with limited accessibility (Edwards and Harris, 2016).
Thus, both traditional and newer channels can be used to convey messages of limited
accessibility yet highly personalized, often meeting the conventional conceptualization
of interpersonal communication.

Quadrant II: public and impersonal

Mass communication
Quadrant II comprised broadly accessible messages low in personalization, many of
which may be considered mass communication. Mass communication has often been
previously defined by the medium through which a message is transmitted (McQuail,
2010) and commonly understood as broadcast communication wherein a single source
sends a message to a wide, undifferentiated audience. Within the MPCM, these same
types of interactions—single, impersonal accessible to a broad public but impersonal in
that typically a single message is sent—are located in Quadrant II, and can manifest in
many channels.

Public and impersonal via older channels

Hoary “mass media” channels typically facilitate messages that are widely accessible yet
uniform to that broad audience. Television programs, movies, newspaper articles, and
billboards transmit nonpersonalized messages to all audience members. As Horton and
Wohl (1956) noted, such messages are impersonal in large part due to the inability of
receivers to meaningfully reply to or otherwise communicate with the message source. A
viewer may watch a television program and a reader may read an article in the daily
paper; but neither perceives the message is crafted specifically for them, and neither can
readily nor directly reply to the message. Many older mass media channels were devel-
oped to enable the transmission of these public and impersonal messages. Interestingly,
given the uniform, impersonal message facilitated in traditional mass media channels,
O’Sullivan and Carr 1171

Horton and Wohl also noted the ability of these channels to facilitate parasocial interac-
tions, wherein individual audience members perceived personal and idiosyncratic rela-
tionships with mass media characters, such as television broadcasters and soap opera
characters. Although these parasocial interactions can lead to relational development
(see Dibble et al., 2016), individuals in parasocial relationships still recognize the para-
social interactions (i.e. messages from the broadcaster or character) as impersonal mes-
sages, thus situating parasocial interaction in Quadrant II.
An important distinction can be made and evidenced here regarding the slight privi-
leging of the receiver’s perspective in the MPCM. We locate direct marketing—deroga-
torily known as junk mail or spam—in Quadrant II alongside more conventional and
typical mass communication examples such as billboards and group mailings. Both
highly impersonal and private spam exist in a state where placing them in any quadrant
may be more discretionary. However, we initially locate the spam in Quadrant II as a
mass communicative exemplar as, even though spam mail or calls are received by a sin-
gle individual, the receiver is typically aware such messages are transmitted en masse.
Although steps can be taken to personalize spam (e.g. personal address, using a font
mimicking handwriting), a discerning receiver can quickly realize there is little personal
knowledge demonstrated therein, lacking Miller and Steinberg’s (1975) requisite inter-
personalness. Thus, we situate spam as mass communicative messages in the same way
we place television programs in Quadrant II: although the receiver may privately receive
the message, the scope of the message’s transmission makes the general message highly
accessible.

Public and impersonal via newer channels

Newer channels can likewise facilitate messages that are widely accessible yet uniform
to that broad audience. Tools like YouTube (Dylko et al., 2012) and blogs/podcasts
(Meraz, 2009) have been heralded as a means of reducing the gatekeeping role of tradi-
tional television and radio stations in the media environment, enabling individuals to
record and widely disseminate original content to an undifferentiated audience. Even
text-based channels like Twitter have been used by individuals to rapidly broadcast news
events like political dissent (Pearce, 2015) and environmental phenomena (Spence et al.,
2015) via publicly accessible and impersonal tweets. In these ways, newer channels are
supplementing (and, as some argue, replacing) traditional mass communication media.

Quadrant III: public and personal

Masspersonal communication
Finally, Quadrant III comprised messages high in accessibility and personalization,
wherein lay masspersonal communication. Masspersonal communication is offered here
as a novel concept to encompass interactions wherein individuals publicly communicate
a personalized message, often simultaneously engaging in previously distinct mass and
interpersonal communicative processes. Masspersonal communication can include the
concurrent use of an interpersonal channel and a mass communication channel, locating
1172 new media & society 20(3)

the communication at the midpoints of the continua of personalization and perceived

accessibility, within the transect of the MPCM (see Figure 1).
Although similar to interpersonal use of a mass communication channel, massper-
sonal communication differs in one key characteristic: a personalized interaction is
accessible to a large audience, yet is intended as a personalized message in that its con-
tent is applicable only to the intended recipient, which may be an individual or select
audience (e.g. followers). Moreover, masspersonal communication often facilitates
either a private or public response from the (un)intended receiver(s). Masspersonal com-
munication is not inherently a phenomenon or affordance of newer media, as people
communicated masspersonally prior to the Internet; yet newer technologies have made
masspersonal communication more prolific. Within the MPCM, these types of interac-
tions—highly accessible and personalized—are located in Quadrant III.

Public and personal via older channels

Examples of public-yet-personalized communication in older channels can involve radio
and television call-in shows. Audience members call to dyadically converse with the host
(personalized) while on the air (high accessibility) and having their interaction broadcast
to a large, undifferentiated audience (Avery, 1990). Likewise, a common occurrence at
sporting events is a marriage proposal via the Jumbotron or billboard, thus making an
individual’s message publicly accessible yet highly personalized for another individual
audience member. These uses of older communication technologies blur mass communi-
cation and interpersonal communication because individuals have utilized these chan-
nels and their characteristics for social goals in ways that transcend the typical scholarly
distinctions separating mass communication and interpersonal communication.

Public and personal via newer channels

Perhaps most exciting is the potential for newer channels, particularly social media (see
Carr and Hayes, 2015), to easily facilitate the convergence of conventional interpersonal
and mass communication, enabling publicly accessible yet highly personalized messages
(Walther et al., 2010; Yang and Stone, 2003). From the perspective of the MPCM, the
excitement around these tools comes not from their novelty in facilitating this conver-
gence, but rather from the increasing ubiquity of social media like Facebook and YouTube
that readily facilitate messages and channels concurrently mass and interpersonal in
nature. Facebook’s billion users can now post a personalized message (e.g. “Happy
Birthday!”) on a specific user’s page but available to all members of that user’s network.
Alternately, a message can be posted to an individual’s Facebook page tailored to a broad
audience based on the message or its assumed audience (e.g. “Party Tuesday night at
Cedar Village everyone!”). Personal websites, popup or targeted advertising, and even
videos (e.g. a YouTube or JibJab video created for a particular receiver) likewise now
exemplify communication public yet personal, and thus masspersonal, in nature. The
convergence of channels and affordances typical in social media (Treem and Leonardi,
2012; Walther et al., 2010) means individuals can selectively utilize multiple channels
(and thus levels of message accessibility) in a single medium to communicate, and may
O’Sullivan and Carr 1173

do so with messages of varying levels of personalization, creating a single-channel envi-

ronment with complex interactions among various types of communication. Given the
expansion and approaching ubiquity of social media use across demographics, commu-
nication that would have previously been paradoxically categorized as concurrently
interpersonal and mass is becoming increasingly common and interesting. This is par-
ticularly true when masspersonal communication facilitated by social media bridges pre-
viously distinct conceptual and theoretical understandings of mass and interpersonal
communication.
The public-cum-personal communication channels typified by social media (Baym
and boyd, 2012) reflect a challenge to a substantive amount of extant communication
theory, given that both media and relational attributes can independently and interac-
tively affect communicative effects. Consider a self-statement such as “I am a smart
person” posted publicly to Facebook and without a specific intended recipient.
Although the initial statement was publicly accessible and nonpersonalized, others
can provide feedback to the individual through either public (i.e. a comment) or pri-
vate (i.e. message) channels. The accessibility of the feedback message can affect the
degree to which the individual incorporates the receiver’s feedback into her or his
self-concept (Carr and Foreman, 2016). This finding suggests a complex interaction
of message accessibility and personalization: public and personalized feedback results
in greater identity shift, so that an individual may feel publicly committed to the iden-
tity characteristics attributed specifically to her or him in the feedback of others.
Moreover, the individual’s relationship with the feedback provider affected the inte-
gration of the feedback, so that feedback from close friends resulted in greater iden-
tity shift than feedback from distant or unknown relational ties. Thus, both interpersonal
(i.e. tie strength) and mass (i.e. channel) communicative factors influence how indi-
viduals assimilate feedback to their online self-presentation into their self-concept,
suggesting a masspersonal effect.
Political communication offers additional communicative situations increasingly
influenced by public-yet-personal masspersonal communication. Rather than the static,
one-to-many information-disseminating webpages popular during campaigns in the late
1990s (Margolis et al., 1997), politicians and their campaigns increasingly use social
media as a means of interacting with voters and constituents (Bor, 2014). A politician’s
statements on Twitter may be located in Quadrant II (mass communication) in that they
are impersonal messages publicly broadcast from the politician to an undifferentiated
audience. But what happens when a voter publicly responds to the politician, and again
when the politician replies to engage the voter in a publicly accessible dialogue? Should
the communicative effects of politician–voter interactions be theorized using interper-
sonal or mass communication theories: as dyadic interactions for interpersonal influence
or as mass messages to diffuse and shape an audience’s impressions of the candidate? As
scholars work to conceptualize the public debates and personalized conversations among
politicians and the electorate (Kruikemeier et al., 2013; Lee and Shin, 2012), we may
consider the communicative processes of a mayor who personally engages publically
with city residents via Twitter (see The Huffington Post Alberta, 2014) as masspersonal
communication. By thusly considering the dimensions of message accessibility and per-
sonalization, the MPCM offers a mechanism to theorize communicative situations,
1174 new media & society 20(3)

concurrently conceptualizing both medium and message effects on interpersonal and

intrapersonal outcomes.

Quadrant IV: private and impersonal

By now, the discerning scholar will have noted two concerns with the MPCM’s explication:
the misnomer of identifying only three areas as quadrants and the conceptual paucity of a
fourth area describing communicative processes. This explicatory oversight was intentional,
reflecting our attempt to balance conceptual and pragmatic needs. To truly derive forms of
communication from the MPCM’s two dimensions, a fourth quadrant—private and imper-
sonal messages—should exist where the model currently denotes a fine (and somewhat arbi-
trary) distinction between Quadrants I and II. However, unlike examples of masspersonal
communication and its role bridging prior conceptualizations of mass and interpersonal com-
munication (both theoretically and practically), we were unable to theorize private and imper-
sonal messages in the contemporary communication environment that did not fit within
extant conceptual or theoretical frameworks, and thus demonstrate a similarly novel concep-
tualization of communication. For example, many stranger-on-the-train interactions fit the
private-impersonal categorization, yet are sufficiently theorized and explained by interper-
sonal theories as impersonal interactions (see Quadrant I). Likewise, messages from media
characters could be considered as private and impersonal, yet are sufficiently theorized and
explained as parasocial interactions and relationships (see Quadrant II discussion). Thus, near
the lower extremes of the MPCM communication episodes in the current communication
environment may move between Quadrants I and II directly, and without the necessity of a
bridge as called for previously (Berger and Chaffee, 1988; Reardon and Rogers, 1988) and
afforded by the masspersonal communication concept within Quadrant III.
Quadrant IV may yet emerge as did Quadrant III. Future communicative technologies
and experiences may introduce communicative episodes not sufficiently theorized by extant
theory nor articulated by current conceptualizations of communication. Although our illus-
tration of the MPCM presently omits a fourth quadrant, the model conceptually suggests
Quadrant IV exists and future scholars may identify communicative episodes exemplifying
this currently obfuscated concept or theoretical needs and explanations for messages that
may exemplify this quadrant. Thus, though Figure 1 does not illustrate Quadrant IV, the
MPCM acknowledges private-impersonal messages may at some point constitute a new
conceptualization of communication, at which time the model may be expanded to account
for emergent communication conceptualizations where the dimensions of personalization
and accessibility are low that may need explication and means of theorizing, just as we have
done with the masspersonal concept here. Even with this nascent quadrant, the MPCM
therefore provides a framework to reconceptualize and reconsider communication scholar-
ship, and in so doing responds to prior calls to specifically bridge mass and interpersonal
communication scholarship (e.g. Reardon and Rogers, 1988).

Conclusion
The argument presented here suggests the conventional definitions that have long guided
scholars and theory, while accurate and useful for much scholarship, do not comprehensively
O’Sullivan and Carr 1175

encompass relevant contemporary human communication activities. Our analysis suggests

scholars should reconsider the precision of the terms “mass media” and “interpersonal
media,” as mass communication messages are not constrained to channels that have been
exclusively considered mass communication channels. Similarly, interpersonal communica-
tion is not limited to channels that have been exclusively considered interpersonal communi-
cation channels. The MPCM’s identification of key variables encompassing both mass and
interpersonal (and masspersonal) communication thus extends, rather than replaces, the
framing of the “false dichotomy” (Reardon and Rogers, 1988) traditionally distinguishing
mass communication and interpersonal communication.
Critically, the MPCM develops revised conceptualizations of interpersonal communi-
cation and mass communication and advances the masspersonal communication concept
as a framework for convergent messages. Not defining or identifying the type of com-
munication based on the channel alone would expand the spheres of scholarship for both
mass communication scholars and interpersonal communication scholars beyond the
limited scope that now constrains each. A substantive contribution of the MPCM is thus
its emphasis on message characteristics, rather than the medium used to facilitate mes-
sage exchange.
Defining and explicating masspersonal communication suggests a new perspective of
the spheres of interpersonal communication and mass communication concepts, respond-
ing to prior calls (Chaffee and Metzger, 2001; Reardon and Rogers, 1988) to synthesize
and bridge typically disparate areas of the communication field. What have been consid-
ered two distinct spheres of scholarly purview have always overlapped to some degree
(see Peters, 1994), and will continue to overlap more alongside the progress of powerful
and flexible digital media. Masspersonal communication is also a framework for devel-
oping what might be termed transchannel communication theory (i.e. theory that explains
communication activities and effects independent of a specific channel), and incorpo-
rates the role of various channels in shaping the possibilities and actualities of communi-
cation. Given the trends described above, transchannel scholarship should be pursued
more vigorously to explore the convergence of interpersonal and mass communication
channels and messages, agnostic of specific channels, to focus on the communicative
processes and effects therein (see Yang and Stone, 2003).
By reconfiguring our conceptualization of mass communication and interpersonal
communication in a way that transcends the channel characteristics, traditional labels,
and assumed uses, while recognizing the reinvention of these channels for nontraditional
uses, the masspersonal concept offers a foundation on which communicative theory may
be developed to account for new (or at least more readily employed) forms of communi-
cation. As social media increasingly span multiple audiences and social contexts, enable
multiple channels within single medium for interaction, and present new opportunities
for self-presentation and feedback (see Carr and Hayes, 2015), the traditional assump-
tions underpinning interpersonal communication versus mass communication may no
longer distinguish the complex, converged communicative processes occurring in social
media’s rich, multichannel environment. New theories, guided by the masspersonal com-
munication concept and model, can be developed and refined based on the communica-
tors’ actions with messages, rather than channel or relational characteristics. This
broadening of the assumptions underlying communication can increase the utility and
1176 new media & society 20(3)

strengthen the development of theories by making them more robust to reflect the con-
vergence of modern communication environments and increase their explanatory power
by better modeling antecedent processes in the exchange of messages and meaning
(Shoemaker et al., 2003).
Conceptualizing mass communication and interpersonal communication along
dimensions of personalization and exclusivity suggests intriguing questions for CMC—
as well as both interpersonal and mass communication—scholars. For example, the
interpersonal literature encompasses almost exclusively one-to-one interactions highly
personalized and private, but has little to say about one-to-one highly personalized yet
public interactions. How communication differs when interactants are aware that their
conversation is or will be observed by others is an interesting topic for exploration by
both mass communication scholars and interpersonal communication scholars. Why
would someone share personal conversations with a bevy of strangers? How does the
public nature of the message or exchange shape the process, message interpretations, and
consequences for both the interactants and those witnessing the interaction? How do
these interactions differ from private-personal interactions and outcomes? What is the
role of intentionality in shaping the interaction, such as when an interaction assumed and
intended to be private is instead unintentionally made public? Decoupling definitions of
communication type from the channel of communication can help resolve the questions,
with potentially significant implications for communication theory development and the
scope of research agendas.
An additional and perhaps more broadly visible consequence of the masspersonal
approach to communication is its implications for the communication field and its
education curricula. Divisions remain within the field between “interpersonal” and
“mass” communication. Scholarly associations (e.g. ICA, NCA, regionals) still main-
tain disparate interpersonal and mass divisions, and many universities offer separate
degree programs in either interpersonal communication or mass communication.
Adoption of the masspersonal concept to bridge these hoary divides may help restruc-
ture the field, noting commonalities and bridging some longstanding schisms. This is
not a call to do away with “communication in close relationships” or “media theory”
courses—certainly both remain distinct and valuable. Rather, this concept presents a
means of understanding how these areas may benefit from additional cross-discipli-
nary work and synthesis or application of relevant theories to explain phenomena in
often-siloed areas.
The masspersonal communication concept can raise important avenues of interest
common to mass communication, interpersonal communication, and CMC scholars, as
well as the institutions in which they reside. Increasing contact and theory exchange
among mass and interpersonal scholars may itself be a worthwhile outcome and could
inform transchannel communication theory. Even more valuable would be an improved
capability of communication scholars to more precisely conceptualize each area of study
as well as to more effectively recognize and explore the long-standing commonalties
shared by both (Wiemann et al., 1988). The issues raised by a recognition of massper-
sonal communication can prompt communication scholars to continue to advance theory
and research as digital media—and the potential for expansion of masspersonal commu-
nication–become more pervasive in social interaction.
O’Sullivan and Carr 1177

Acknowledgements
A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2005 meeting of the International
Communication Association in New York City, New York.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
1. The panel “Crossing the Boundary between Personal and Mass Communication” was held
at the 2003 meeting of the International Communication Association to further examine the
issue.
2. Although substantive, these perspectives are not exhaustive. For notable alternate perspec-
tives, see Castells’ (2010) mass self-communication, Menzel’s (1971) quasi-mass commu-
nication, and Horton and Wohl’s (1956) parasocial communication, all of which reflect
different means of mediated communication and relationships.
3. This description is based on the assumption that perceived access to a particular message is
essentially equivalent to actual access by individuals who have received and processed the
message, while acknowledging that sometimes email messages sit unopened and some broad-
cast programming is viewed only by small audiences.
4. Examples like these contribute to a debate over exactly what message qualities constitute
impersonal versus personal messages. A computer program processing data from a user’s web
viewing to guide presentation of targeted ads is likely a qualitatively different type of person-
alization than a message composed by a close friend whose long relationship and familiarity
with the recipient guides the message’s tone and content. How to distinguish between the two
deserves further examination.

References
Altman I and Taylor DA (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal
Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Avery RK (1990) Talk radio: the private-public catharsis. In: Gumpert G and Fish SL (eds)
Talking to Strangers: Mediated Therapeutic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.
87–97.
Baym NK and boyd d (2012) Socially mediated publicness: an introduction. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56: 320–329.
Bazarova NN (2012) Public intimacy: disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook.
Journal of Communication 62: 815–832.
Berger CR and Chaffee SH (1988) On bridging the communication gap. Human Communication
Research 15: 311–318.
Bor SE (2014) Using social network sites to improve communication between political campaigns
and citizens in the 2012 election. American Behavioral Scientist 58: 1195–1213.
Burleson BR, Albrecht TL and Sarason IG (1994) Communication of Social Support: Messages,
Interactions, Relationships, and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Carr CT and Foreman AC (2016) Identity shift III: effects of publicness of feedback and relational
closeness in computer-mediated communication. Media Psychology 19: 334–358.
Carr CT and Hayes RA (2015) Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal
of Communication 23: 46–65.
1178 new media & society 20(3)

Castells M (2010) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and
Culture. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Chaffee SH and Metzger MJ (2001) The end of mass communication? Mass Communication and
Society 4: 365–379.
Dibble JL, Hartmann T and Rosaen SF (2016) Parasocial interaction and parasocial relation-
ship: conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication
Research 42: 21–44.
Dylko IB, Beam MA, Landreville KD, et al. (2012) Filtering 2008 US presidential election news
on YouTube by elites and nonelites: an examination of the democratizing potential of the
internet. New Media & Society 14: 832–849.
Edwards A and Harris CJ (2016) To tweet or “subtweet”?: impacts of social networking post
directness and valence on interpersonal impressions. Computers in Human Behavior 63:
304–310.
Eveland WP (2003) A “Mix of attributes” approach to the study of media effects and new com-
munication technologies. Journal of Communication 53: 395–410.
Hawkins RP, Wiemann JM and Pingree S (1988) Advancing Communication Science: Merging
Mass and Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Horton D and Wohl RR (1956) Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on
intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19: 215–229.
Jensen KB and Helles R (2011) The Internet as a cultural forum: implications for research. New
Media & Society 13: 517–533.
Knapp ML and Daly JA (2011) Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal
communication. In: Knapp ML and Daly JA (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 3–22.
Kruikemeier S, Van Noort G, Vliegenthart R, et al. (2013) Getting closer: the effects of personal-
ized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication
28: 53–66.
Kuhn T (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Langer EJ, Blank A and Chanowitz B (1987) The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: the
role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 36: 635–642.
Lea M and Spears R (1995) Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer
networks. In: Wood JT and Duck S (eds) Under-Studied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 197–233.
Lee E-J and Shin SY (2012) Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity
in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
15: 515–520.
McQuail D (2010) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Margolis M, Resnick D and Tu C-C (1997) Campaigning on the Internet parties and candidates
on the World Wide Web in the 1996 primary season. The Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics 2: 59–78.
Menzel H (1971) Quasi-mass communication: a neglected area. The Public Opinion Quarterly 35:
406–409.
Meraz S (2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence
in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14: 682–707.
Miller GR and Steinberg M (1975) Between People: A New Analysis of Interpersonal
Communication. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
O’Sullivan and Carr 1179

Miller-Ott AE, Kelly L and Duran RL (2014) Cell phone usage expectations, closeness, and
relationship satisfaction between parents and their emerging adults in college. Emerging
Adulthood 2: 313–323.
Morris M and Ogan C (1996) The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Communication 46: 39–50.
Oh HJ and LaRose R (2016) Impression management concerns and support-seeking behavior on
social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior 57: 38–47.
O’Sullivan PB (1999) Bridging the mass-interpersonal divide synthesis scholarship in HCR.
Human Communication Research 25: 569–588.
O’Sullivan PB (2000) What you don’t know won’t hurt me: impression management functions of
communication channels and relationships. Human Communication Research 26: 403–431.
O’Sullivan PB and Flanagan AJ (2003) Reconceptualizing “flaming” and other problematic mes-
sages. New Media & Society 5: 69–94.
Parks MR and Roberts LD (1998) “Making MOOsic”: the development of personal relation-
ships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 15: 517–537.
Pearce KE (2015) Democratizing kompromat: the affordances of social media for state-sponsored
harassment. Information, Communication & Society 18: 1158–1174.
Peters JD (1994) The gaps of which communication is made. Critical Studies in Media
Communication 11: 117–140.
Price V (1992) Public Opinion. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Reardon KK and Rogers EM (1988) Interpersonal versus mass media communication a false
dichotomy. Human Communication Research 15: 284–303.
Rogers EM (1999) Anatomy of the two subdisciplines of communication study. Human
Communication Research 25: 618–631.
Shoemaker PJ, Tankard JW and Lasorsa DL (2003) How to Build Social Science Theories.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Southwell BG (2013) Social Networks and Popular Understanding of Science and Health: Sharing
Disparities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Southwell BG and Yzer MC (2007) The roles of interpersonal communication in mass media
campaigns. In: Beck CS (ed.) Communication Yearbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.
420–462.
Spence PR, Lachlan KA, Lin X, et al. (2015) Variability in Twitter content across the stages
of a natural disaster: implications for crisis communication. Communication Quarterly 63:
171–186.
The Huffington Post Alberta (2014) Mayor Nenshi knows how to handle the Twitter haters.
Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/06/nenshi-twitter_n_5274435.html
Treem JW and Leonardi PM (2012) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances
of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In: Salmon CT (ed.) Communication
Yearbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 143–186.
Walther JB, Carr CT, Choi S, et al. (2010) Interaction of interpersonal, peer, and media influence
sources online: a research agenda for technology convergence. In: Papacharissi Z (ed.) The
Networked Self. New York: Routledge, pp. 17–38.
Walther JB, Liang YJ, DeAndrea DC, et al. (2011) The effect of feedback on identity shift in
computer-mediated communication. Media Psychology 14: 1–26.
Webster J and Phalen PF (2013) The Mass Audience: Rediscovering the Dominant Model. New
York: Routledge.
Wiemann JM, Pingree S and Hawkins RP (1988) Fragmentation in the field—and the movement
toward integration in communication science. Human Communication Research 15: 304–310.
1180 new media & society 20(3)

Yang J and Stone G (2003) The powerful role of interpersonal communication in agenda setting.
Mass Communication and Society 6: 57–74.
Ytreberg E (2002) Erving Goffman as a theorist of the mass media. Critical Studies in Media
Communication 19: 481–497.

Author biographies
Patrick B O’Sullivan (PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara) is the director of the Center for
Teaching, Learning, and Technology at the California Polytechnic State University.
Caleb T Carr (PhD, Michigan State University) researches how computer-mediated communica-
tion affects communicative processes, including how social media are used for organizational
uncertainty reduction and to create and maintain identity online. He is currently an Associate
Professor of Communication at Illinois State University.