Among the pioneering contributions are the works of Alex Mucchielli (1995) [18], who emphasized the role of meaning-construction processes in communication situations; Jean-Claude Abric (1996) [19], whose work on social representations demonstrated their function as cognitive mediators of interaction; and the analyses of Marcel Bromberg and Alain Trognon (2005) [20], which focused on the psychological mechanisms underlying communicational exchanges. Likewise, Claude Chabrol and Miruna Radu Lefebvre (2008) [21] deepened the study of the psychosocial dimensions of mediated communication, while Philippe Castel and Marie-Françoise Lacassagne (2011) [22] contributed to linking communication, cognition, and social identity. In a similar vein, Kachar (2012) [23] emphasized the need for a more systematic consideration of psychological processes in the analysis of contemporary communication practices.

These contributions demonstrated that communication cannot be reduced to the mere transfer of information between a sender and a receiver. Rather, it mobilizes cognitive operations, affective dynamics, social representations, and symbolic mechanisms that jointly contribute to the production of meaning. However, these approaches often remain fragmented and do not always provide an integrative framework capable of articulating all the constitutive dimensions of the communicational phenomenon.

The digital transformations of recent years have profoundly altered the conditions under which messages are produced, circulated, and received. Recent research indicates that digital platforms have become cognitive environments within which individuals construct their perceptions of the world, develop social relationships, and shape their digital identities.

The work of Nick Couldry and Andreas Hepp (2021) on Deep Mediatization [24] highlights that digital technologies no longer merely transmit information; they actively participate in structuring social experience. From this perspective, communication appears as a process increasingly embedded within technical infrastructures capable of influencing behaviors, interactions, and collective representations.

Research on social media platforms further reveals the growing importance of attentional, emotional, and identity-related mechanisms in the circulation of content. Consequently, the attention economy has become a central factor in determining the visibility and dissemination of messages within the digital public sphere.

Between 2021 and 2025, numerous studies emphasized the structuring power of major digital platforms in organizing social exchanges. The work of José van Dijck, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal [5] demonstrates that platforms have evolved into sociotechnical institutions capable of shaping the cultural, economic, and political practices of contemporary societies.

Platform governance is no longer based solely on explicit rules but also on invisible technical mechanisms that influence information flows, content hierarchies, and the forms of interaction available to users. This evolution suggests that digital infrastructures themselves participate in the production of meaning and in the structuring of communicational spaces.

These observations reinforce the argument that the study of contemporary communication must incorporate the analysis of the technical dispositifs that frame and modulate human interactions.

Algorithmic mediation has become one of the major themes of contemporary communication research. The works of Tarleton Gillespie (2022) [25], David Beer (2023) [26], and Taina Bucher (2024) [27] demonstrate that algorithms now intervene in the selection, personalization, recommendation, and visibility of content.

Algorithmic systems function as mediators that shape individuals’ informational trajectories. They influence the content to which users are exposed, the interactions they develop, and the representations they construct of the social world.

This evolution requires moving beyond classical communication models centered exclusively on human actors. Contemporary digital environments rely on hybrid forms of interaction in which humans and computational systems jointly participate in the circulation and transformation of meaning.

The key question is therefore no longer simply how individuals communicate, but also how algorithmic architectures influence the very conditions under which communication takes place.

Media psychology has experienced significant development in recent years. Contemporary research demonstrates that digital media influence not only informational behaviors but also cognitive, emotional, and identity-related processes.

The work of Patti Valkenburg, Ine Beyens, and their collaborators (2022-2025) [28][29] highlights that the effects of digital media largely depend on users’ psychological characteristics, contexts of use, and mechanisms of social mediation. Media thus emerge as complex psychological environments whose effects cannot be adequately understood through simplistic causal models.

Furthermore, studies on digital emotions, polarization, information bubbles, online engagement, and identity dynamics confirm the need for theoretical frameworks capable of simultaneously articulating the cognitive, affective, social, and symbolic dimensions of communication.

Finally, an examination of this body of research reveals a progressive convergence among communication studies, psychology, digital sociology, and media studies. Despite this convergence, knowledge remains dispersed across disciplinary traditions that employ distinct concepts, methods, and levels of analysis. This situation underscores the need for a meta-epistemological reflection aimed at identifying the common principles underlying the study of communicational phenomena and constructing an integrative framework capable of articulating the cognitive, affective, social, symbolic, and technological dimensions of communication.

It is within this perspective that the proposal for a Psychologyof Communication is situated—as a unified theoretical framework for analyzing contemporary communicational processes.

Every communicational situation mobilizes complex psychological mechanisms—including perception, attention, memory, emotions, intentions, and expectations—that shape both the production of messages and their interpretation (Neisser, 1967 [7]; Kahneman, 2011 [9]). Communication cannot, therefore, be adequately understood independently of the mental and affective states of the actors involved, whether they function as senders, receivers, or mediators.

This postulate challenges purely transmission-based models of communication and reaffirms the centrality of the cognitive and emotional subject in communicational analysis.

Meaning does not circulate as a pre-existing entity; rather, it emerges through the interaction between actors, contexts, and interpretive frameworks (Mead, 1934 [14]; Berger & Luckmann, 1966 [15]). Messages possess no intrinsic meaning. Their symbolic value is acquired through situated processes of interpretation that are historically and culturally constructed.

This postulate situates the Psychology of Communication within a constructivist and interactionist perspective, emphasizing the dynamics of meaning co-construction and the active role of participants in communicational processes.

Communication technologies are not merely neutral channels or supports. They actively participate in the cognitive and decision-making processes of individuals and collectives. Digital platforms, interfaces, and algorithms orient attention, structure memory, influence judgments, and modulate emotions (Clark, 2008 [16]; Floridi, 2014 [17]; Van Dijck et al., 2018 [5]).

From this perspective, technical dispositifs may be regarded as cognitive co-actors integrated into the extended psychological systems that characterize contemporary communication. Communication is therefore increasingly shaped by hybrid assemblages in which human cognition and computational processes operate in close interdependence.

Communication should be understood as an open, evolving, and non-linear system characterized by feedback loops, emergent effects, and continuous adjustments between actors and contexts (Watzlawick et al., 1967 [32]; Morin, 1990 [13]). Communicational acts transform the psychological states of participants, which in turn influence subsequent interactions.

This systemic dynamic endows communication with its own temporality and justifies an integrative approach attentive to the interrelationships among individual, interactional, organizational, cultural, and societal levels of analysis. Communication is thus conceived as a dynamic process of psychological regulation and meaning production rather than as a simple exchange of information.

Taken together, these four ontological postulates establish the foundations of the Psychology of Communication as a unified theoretical framework. They position communication as a psychologically mediated, socially constructed, technologically extended, and dynamically evolving phenomenon, thereby providing a coherent basis for integrating the diverse traditions that have historically shaped Information and Communication Sciences.

The cognitive level refers to the mental processes involved in the reception, processing, and interpretation of messages, including perception, attention, memory, categorization, and inferential reasoning. These mechanisms determine the selection of information deemed relevant and guide the construction of meaning (Neisser, 1967 [7]; Kahneman, 2011 [9]). Communication, therefore, presupposes a situated cognitive activity shaped by available mental resources and contextual constraints.

The affective level encompasses emotions, their valence (positive or negative), and the associated motivational dynamics. Emotions are not merely epiphenomena of communication; they significantly influence attention, memory, persuasion, and communicational engagement (Damasio, 1994 [33]; Lazarus, 1991 [34]). In media and digital environments, emotions play a central role in content virality, audience engagement, and opinion polarization.

The social level refers to the interactional and normative frameworks within which communicational acts occur. Social norms, roles, power relations, and mechanisms of influence structure exchanges and shape communicational behaviors (Mead, 1934 [14]; Moscovici, 2003 [10]). This level highlights the fundamentally relational nature of communication, which cannot be reduced to a purely individual activity.

The symbolic and cultural level concerns the systems of representations, values, beliefs, and collective imaginaries that give meaning to messages and communicational practices. Communication contributes both to the reproduction and to the transformation of the symbolic universes through which individuals interpret the social world (Geertz, 1973 [35]; Hall, 1997 [36]). This level situates communicational processes within a broader historical and cultural perspective, emphasizing the role of shared symbolic frameworks in the production of meaning.

The technical and algorithmic level refers to the material, digital, and computational dispositifs that mediate, orient, and transform contemporary communication processes. It encompasses technical infrastructures, digital platforms, interfaces, artificial intelligence systems, and the algorithms responsible for content recommendation, filtering, ranking, and personalization.

Far from functioning as neutral channels of transmission, these dispositifs actively participate in the selection, prioritization, and circulation of information, thereby influencing the cognitive, affective, social, and symbolic processes of communicational actors (Latour, 2005 [37]; Gillespie, 2014 [38]; Couldry & Hepp, 2017 [39]).

Within digital environments, algorithms contribute to structuring conditions of information exposure, shaping attentional trajectories, and modulating social interactions. They operate as mediating agents capable of reinforcing specific representations, encouraging particular communicational behaviors, and generating effects of visibility and invisibility within the digital public sphere (Beer, 2017 [40]; Zuboff, 2019 [41]). Communication can therefore no longer be conceptualized solely as a relationship between human senders and receivers; rather, it must be understood as a hybrid process in which technical systems participate in the co-production of meaning.

Importantly, this level is not conceived as an isolated or autonomous dimension. Instead, it operates transversally across all other levels of the model. It influences cognitive information processing, triggers or amplifies affective responses, reconfigures social interactions, and contributes to the dissemination, reinforcement, or transformation of symbolic and cultural universes. From this perspective, digital technologies and algorithmic systems emerge as structuring mediators of contemporary communication, whose analysis has become indispensable to any comprehensive understanding of communicational phenomena.

Integrative Dynamics of the Model

Taken together, these five analytical levels form an integrated framework in which communication is understood as a multidimensional psychological process operating simultaneously across cognitive, affective, social, symbolic, and technological domains. The communicational act emerges from the continuous interaction among these dimensions rather than from any single factor considered in isolation.

This integrative model, therefore, provides a common theoretical architecture capable of articulating the principal contributions of behaviorist, cognitivist, interactionist, constructivist, systemic, and digital paradigms. By placing psychological processes at the center of analysis while recognizing the structuring role of social, cultural, and technological environments, it offers a unified framework for understanding communication in both analog and digital contexts.

The Psychology of Communication thus appears not merely as a new subfield of inquiry but as an integrative epistemological framework capable of reconnecting the diverse traditions of Information and Communication Sciences around a common explanatory core: the psychological production, mediation, regulation, and transformation of meaning.

The model proposed in this article, which conceptualizes communication through five constitutive and interdependent dimensions—cognitive, affective, social, symbolic-cultural, and technical-algorithmic—may be designated as the Pentadimensional Model of Communication (PMC).

This five-level model provides a unified theoretical framework for analyzing a wide range of communicational phenomena, including organizational, media, political, and digital communication. It enables the articulation of individual psychological processes with broader social and cultural dynamics while simultaneously incorporating the growing role of technical and algorithmic dispositifs. In this respect, the model constitutes a transversal conceptual foundation capable of enhancing both the comparability of research findings and the cumulative development of knowledge within Information and Communication Sciences.

The present proposal differs from existing integrative traditions in communication studies and media psychology in several important respects. Classical approaches to the PsychologyofCommunication have primarily focused on the cognitive, affective, or interactional mechanisms involved in human exchanges, whereas media psychology has concentrated more specifically on the psychological effects of media environments on individuals. Mediatization theories, for their part, have emphasized the social transformations generated by media and digital infrastructures. Although these approaches have made substantial contributions to the understanding of communicational phenomena, they generally privilege a particular level of analysis or a specific domain of investigation.

The Psychology of Communication advanced in this article pursues a different ambition. It is neither a branch of psychology applied to communication nor a simple extension of media psychology. Rather, it is conceived as a meta-theoretical framework aimed at redefining the communicational object itself through five interdependent dimensions: cognitive, affective, social, symbolic-cultural, and technical-algorithmic.

Its originality lies in the simultaneous integration of these dimensions within a single analytical model capable of accounting for both traditional interpersonal interactions and contemporary digital environments mediated by platforms and algorithms.

Whereas classical models often regard technologies as channels or contextual factors of communication, the present framework conceptualizes them as active mediators participating in the co-production of meaning. In this sense, the Psychology of Communication offers a renewed interpretation of communicational processes by integrating insights from psychology, communication studies, media studies, and digital systems research within a unified conceptual architecture.

First, this framework contributes to the conceptual stabilization of the communicational object. By defining communication as a psychologically mediated process embedded within social, symbolic, cultural, and technical dynamics, it makes it possible to move beyond the partial or implicit definitions that have historically fragmented the field of ICS (Miège, 2004 [2]; Wolton, 2009 [3]). The communicational object is no longer reduced to information, media dispositifs, or isolated interactions but is instead conceived as a complex system articulating cognition, affect, sociality, culture, and technology.

Second, the Psychology of Communication strengthens scientific cumulativity. By proposing a transversal theoretical foundation, it provides a common framework capable of accommodating heterogeneous empirical studies without merely juxtaposing them. This structuring effort responds to the requirement for cumulative knowledge emphasized by research-program epistemologies, facilitating the comparison, replication, and progressive integration of research findings (Kuhn, 1962 [42]; Lakatos, 1978 [43]).

Finally, the framework establishes a structured dialogue between Information and Communication Sciences, psychology, and digital studies. It clarifies the conceptual borrowings from cognitive and social psychology while integrating recent advances in research on algorithms, platforms, and artificial intelligence (Floridi, 2014 [17]; Van Dijck et al., 2018 [5]). This interdisciplinary positioning contributes to strengthening the scientific legitimacy of ICS in the analysis of contemporary communicational environments.

From a methodological perspective, the Psychology of Communication opens the way for the development of psycho-communicational indicators, designed to systematically measure dimensions such as cognitive load, affective engagement, trust, influence, and meaning construction. These indicators make it possible to operationalize the psychological processes underlying communication while remaining adapted to the specificities of media and digital environments (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997 [44]; Pata, 2026 [45]).

The framework also promotes the emergence of psychological communicometrics, understood as a methodological field dedicated to the rigorous quantification of communicational phenomena through psychological, social, and symbolic indicators. This perspective extends the traditions of psychometrics and measurement sciences while addressing the specific needs of Information and Communication Sciences in evaluating communicational dispositifs, practices, and effects.

Furthermore, the framework encourages a stronger integration of mixed-methods approaches combining quantitative techniques (surveys, scales, indices, statistical analyses) with qualitative approaches (interviews, discourse analysis, observations). Such methodological articulation enables researchers to capture both the subjective depth of communicational experiences and their embedding within broader social and technological dynamics (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 [46]).

Beyond its theoretical significance, the proposed model may be employed as a multidimensional analytical framework for the study of communicational phenomena. Each of the five identified levels corresponds to a specific set of research questions, observable variables, and measurable indicators that can be operationalized in empirical investigations. As shown in Table 2.

Table 2.Operational framework of the five-level model.

The principal strength of the model lies in its capacity to analyze these five dimensions simultaneously, thereby accounting for the complexity of contemporary communicational phenomena. Depending on research objectives, each dimension may be measured independently or integrated into a multidimensional analytical framework aimed at explaining the production, circulation, and transformation of meaning across diverse communicational contexts.

The Psychology of Communication does not claim to encompass the entirety of the phenomena studied within Information and Communication Sciences (ICS). Its primary focus is on the cognitive, affective, social, symbolic-cultural, and technical mechanisms involved in the production, circulation, interpretation, and appropriation of meaning. Other important dimensions of ICS—particularly economic, legal, political, historical, and institutional approaches to communication—are only indirectly addressed within the proposed framework. Consequently, the model should be understood as a specific analytical perspective on communicational phenomena rather than as an exhaustive theory of the field.

The proposed framework necessarily maintains close relationships with several neighboring disciplines. On the one hand, it draws upon concepts from cognitive, social, cultural, and emotional psychology to explain the individual and collective mechanisms underlying communication. On the other hand, it intersects with key concerns developed within media studies, particularly regarding media effects, digital practices, platforms, and technological mediation.

These disciplinary overlaps may raise questions concerning the theoretical autonomy of the Psychology of Communication. However, the objective is not to replace psychology or media studies but rather to provide an integrative framework capable of articulating their contributions around a specifically communicational object. The added value of this approach lies precisely in its ability to connect dimensions that are often examined separately.

One of the principal risks associated with any integrative framework is conceptual overextension. By seeking to combine the cognitive, affective, social, symbolic-cultural, and technical dimensions of communication, the model may be perceived as overly encompassing or insufficiently delimited. Such expansion could weaken its explanatory power and reduce its analytical precision.

To mitigate this risk, the proposed model should be viewed as a heuristic framework designed to organize the analysis of communicational phenomena rather than as a grand unified theory of communication. Its value lies less in claiming to explain all communicational phenomena than in providing a coherent structure through which different levels of analysis can be articulated and dialogue among theoretical traditions can be fostered.

The present contribution remains primarily conceptual and epistemological in nature. The propositions advanced here would benefit from empirical validation across diverse contexts, including organizational communication, digital interactions, media practices, intercultural communication, and communication environments increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence.

Future research could contribute to refining the indicators associated with each level of the model, testing the relationships among them, and evaluating their explanatory power across different communicational situations. Such investigations would help determine the empirical robustness of the framework and further clarify its theoretical and methodological contributions to Information and Communication Sciences.

The user watches the video, listens to the candidate’s arguments, and processes the information received. In doing so, they mobilize prior knowledge regarding the country’s economic situation, compare the candidate’s proposals with those of competing candidates, and evaluate their credibility.

Their attention is drawn to certain promises, while memory activates personal experiences and information previously encountered through other media sources. The meaning of the message, therefore, emerges through a cognitive process involving perception, comprehension, evaluation, and interpretation.

Beyond the objective information conveyed, the candidate’s discourse elicits emotional responses. A young, unemployed graduate may experience hope upon hearing promises of job creation. Conversely, an individual disappointed by previous political promises may react with skepticism, frustration, or anger.

These emotional reactions significantly influence the evaluation of the message. Political support thus depends not only on the quality of the arguments presented but also on the emotions they generate.

After viewing the video, the user examines comments posted by friends, influencers, and members of their online community.

If their social environment expresses strong support for the candidate, mechanisms of social conformity and normative influence may reinforce favorable attitudes. Conversely, repeated criticism may encourage reconsideration of the candidate’s credibility and proposals.

Meaning construction, therefore, appears as a collective and interactional process rather than a purely individual cognitive activity.

The candidate’s message also mobilizes symbols and cultural values. References to the nation, youth, patriotism, social justice, or economic development evoke collective representations deeply embedded within the social imagination.

Individuals interpret these symbols through the lens of their personal histories, cultural affiliations, and belief systems. Consequently, the same political discourse may be perceived as a source of hope by some audiences while appearing as a mere political slogan to others.

The user did not encounter the video by chance. Facebook’s algorithm selected and displayed it based on browsing history, expressed interests, previous interactions, and inferred preferences.

The digital dispositif thus functions as a genuine cognitive co-actor. It directs attention, filters available information, shapes exposure patterns, and indirectly influences political opinions and behavioral intentions.

From this perspective, communication is no longer solely the result of interactions between human actors; it is increasingly mediated by computational systems that participate in the construction of communicational experiences.

This situation illustrates the central thesis of the Psychology of Communication: communication cannot be reduced either to the transmission of information or to a simple social interaction.

The reception and interpretation of a political message simultaneously involve:

Cognitive processes (comprehension, evaluation, and interpretation);Affective processes (emotions, attitudes, and motivations);Social processes (influence, interaction, and normative regulation);Symbolic-cultural processes (values, beliefs, and collective representations);Technical and algorithmic processes that shape exposure, attention, and communicational experience.

This example confirms that communication constitutes a dynamic psychological system within which individuals, social groups, cultural frameworks, and technological infrastructures jointly participate in the production of meaning.

Moreover, the illustration highlights one of the distinctive contributions of the proposed framework: the explicit recognition of digital platforms and algorithms as cognitive co-actors. Rather than functioning merely as channels of transmission, they actively contribute to the structuring of communicational environments and to the co-production of meaning, a phenomenon that lies at the very heart of the Psychology of Communication advanced in this article.