Communication first involves a set of fundamental cognitive processes that condition the reception, processing, and interpretation of messages. Perception of signals, selective attention, memory, categorization, and interpretive inferences constitute the mental operations through which individuals make sense of the information to which they are exposed [9][10]. Meaning is therefore never directly transmitted; rather, it is actively constructed through pre-existing cognitive schemas, prior knowledge, and interpretive expectations shaped by experience and sociocultural context.

This cognitive dimension plays a structuring role in communicative acts by guiding message comprehension. The ability to decode content depends on the cognitive resources mobilized, the clarity of perceived signals, and their compatibility with an individual’s mental frameworks. It also conditions the selection of information considered relevant in an environment characterized by information abundance and competition for attention, where individuals constantly engage in cognitive trade-offs [11].

Finally, cognition contributes to the interpretive coherence of communication by ensuring continuity of meaning between messages, perceived intentions, and produced responses. Inferential processes make it possible to fill in implicit meanings, resolve ambiguities, and stabilize shared interpretations throughout interaction. In this sense, the cognitive dimension constitutes the foundation upon which the affective and social dimensions of communication are articulated, making the emergence of intelligible and communicable meaning possible.

Emotions play a structuring and transversal role in communication processes. They do not merely accompany interactions but actively participate in the ways messages are perceived, interpreted, and remembered. Research in affective psychology has demonstrated that emotions guide attention, strengthen memory, and influence the evaluation of information, thereby shaping both acceptance and resistance to messages [12][13]. Far from being secondary elements, affects constitute a central driver of communicative engagement by linking cognition, motivation, and action.

From a communication perspective, the emotional valence of a message—whether positive or negative—directly influences its impact, memorability, and capacity to generate reactions. Emotions facilitate persuasion and social influence processes by activating cognitive shortcuts and rapid evaluative responses, often at the expense of deeper analytical processing [10]. They also play a decisive role in attitude formation and in the dynamics of social interactions.

In media and digital environments, this affective dimension is particularly amplified. Visual, narrative, and interactive formats encourage the expression and circulation of intense emotions, while algorithmic visibility mechanisms tend to privilege content with strong emotional appeal. The virality of messages and the polarization of public discourse can be partly explained by this strategic mobilization of affect, which reinforces emotional resonance and contributes to the fragmentation of the public sphere. Consequently, the analysis of contemporary communication cannot disregard the affective dynamics that structure its uses and effects.

Communication is fundamentally relational and situated. It cannot be understood independently of the social frameworks within which it occurs, frameworks structured by norms, roles, power relations, and mechanisms of influence. Interactionist and psychosocial approaches have demonstrated that communicative acts derive their meaning from exchange and mutual recognition among actors rather than from isolated individual intentions [14][15]. Meaning therefore emerges through interaction, via processes of negotiation, adjustment, and social validation.

This social dimension first helps explain the intersubjective construction of meaning. Meanings are co-produced by interaction participants on the basis of shared interpretive frameworks, common references, and reciprocal expectations. Communication thus relies on a process of coordinating viewpoints, through which meaning gradually stabilizes over the course of interaction.

It also sheds light on the mechanisms regulating communicative exchanges. Social norms, whether explicit or implicit, guide participation, define legitimate behaviors, and structure forms of cooperation and conflict. These regulatory mechanisms contribute to maintaining interactional order and reducing communicative uncertainty.

Finally, the social dimension is essential for understanding the circulation of collective representations. Messages do not merely transmit information; they participate in the diffusion, reproduction, and sometimes transformation of shared beliefs, values, and social categories. Communication thus emerges as a central vehicle for the construction of social bonds and the structuring of collective imaginaries.

By articulating these three dimensions, the model makes it possible to move beyond reductionist approaches that privilege a single explanatory register—cognitive, emotional, or social—and instead analyze communication as a global psychological process in which information processing, affective engagement, and social interaction are inseparable. This integrated framework therefore provides a robust theoretical basis for the analysis of contemporary communication practices, particularly within media and digital environments characterized by complexity and the hybridization of human and technological processes.

The proposed tripolar model builds upon the major theoretical traditions of communication while seeking to overcome some of their explanatory limitations. Classical transmission models, exemplified by Lasswell (1948) [16], emphasize the circulation of information but devote limited attention to the psychological processes involved in meaning construction. Interactionist approaches inspired by Mead (1934) [14] highlight the importance of social relations and symbolic interactions but devote comparatively less attention to the cognitive and emotional mechanisms underlying these exchanges. Constructivist and praxeological perspectives [3][17], for their part, demonstrate how meaning is produced through action and social contexts, without always explicitly accounting for the psychological processes that make such production possible.

The present model does not seek to replace these approaches. Rather, it offers an integrative framework capable of articulating their principal contributions around three fundamental dimensions: cognition, affectivity, and sociality. Its originality lies in the proposition that all communication can be analyzed as the outcome of the simultaneous interaction of information-processing mechanisms, emotional dynamics, and relational processes. Whereas many communication theories privilege one of these dimensions at the expense of the others, the proposed model considers them to be constitutive and inseparable components of all communicative phenomena.

This perspective provides a common conceptual framework capable of bridging research in communication, social psychology, cognitive psychology, and media psychology. It also offers analytical tools for understanding contemporary digital environments in which cognitive, affective, and social processes are increasingly shaped by technological and algorithmic infrastructures. In this sense, the tripolar model seeks less to establish a new communication theory than to provide a general psychological architecture capable of strengthening coherence, integration, and cumulative knowledge production within Information and Communication Sciences.

The model developed in this article may be designated as the TripolarModelofPsychologicalCommunication(TMPC) or the Cognitive-Affective-SocialModelofCommunication(CASMC). This designation reflects the fundamental idea that every communicative act simultaneously mobilizes three constitutive psychological dimensions: cognition, affectivity, and sociality. Unlike approaches that privilege a single explanatory register, the model considers communication as the dynamic articulation of cognitive information-processing mechanisms, affective processes of emotional engagement, and social regulations that structure interactions.

The scope of the model is theoretical, methodological, and applied.

From a theoretical perspective, it provides a unifying framework capable of reconnecting the principal contributions of cognitive psychology, affective psychology, and social psychology to the study of communication phenomena. In doing so, it makes explicit the psychological foundations that often remain implicit within Information and Communication Sciences and contributes to strengthening the conceptual coherence of the field.

From a methodological perspective, the model offers a conceptual architecture that can guide the development of indicators, measurement scales, and analytical tools designed to assess the cognitive, affective, and social dimensions of communication simultaneously. It therefore opens the way toward a communicometric operationalization of psycho-communicational processes.

From an applied perspective, the model can be transposed to a wide range of communication domains, including organizational communication, political communication, media communication, digital communication, intercultural communication, health communication, and educational communication. Its transversal nature enables it to analyze both interpersonal interactions and large-scale mediated communication phenomena.

The originality of the TripolarModelofPsychologicalCommunication(TMPC) lies first in its attempt to overcome the theoretical fragmentation that characterizes much communication research. Existing studies frequently mobilize psychological concepts such as perception, attention, emotions, and social influence, yet they often address them in an isolated or sector-specific manner. The proposed model integrates these concepts within a coherent explanatory architecture based on their functional interdependence.

A second source of originality stems from its integrative character. Whereas many communication models focus primarily on information transmission, social interaction, or symbolic processes, the TMPC conceptualizes communication as a comprehensive psychological process in which cognition, affectivity, and sociality are simultaneously involved in the production of meaning. This perspective makes it possible to transcend traditional divisions between cognitive, affective, and interactionist approaches.

A third innovative aspect lies in its measurement potential. The model provides a particularly suitable theoretical foundation for the development of a PsychologicalCommunicometrics, understood as a set of indices and models designed to quantitatively assess the psychological dimensions of communication. In this respect, it goes beyond a purely descriptive framework and opens the way for comparative, predictive, and evaluative analyses of communication phenomena.

Although it shares with the PentadimensionalModelofCommunication(PMC) an integrative ambition, the TMPC differs from it in both its level of analysis and its theoretical object. The PMC seeks to describe communication in its entirety through five constitutive dimensions—cognitive, affective, social, symbolic and cultural, and technical and algorithmic—thus providing a general architecture of communication phenomena. By contrast, the TMPC adopts a more fundamental perspective by focusing exclusively on the psychological processes that make communication possible.

The model is based on the assumption that all communication, regardless of its cultural, media, or technological context, necessarily mobilizes three fundamental psychological mechanisms: cognition, which enables the processing and interpretation of information; affectivity, which directs attention, motivation, and engagement; and sociality, which situates interactions within relational and normative frameworks. Consequently, the TMPC may be regarded as the psychological core of the PMC. Whereas the former seeks to explain the psychological conditions underlying meaning production, the latter broadens the analysis to include the symbolic, cultural, and sociotechnical dimensions that structure communication environments. The two models should therefore be viewed as complementary rather than competing, with the TMPC providing the psychological foundations upon which the broader architecture of the PMC is built.

Ultimately, the originality of the TMPC resides in its capacity to provide a unified theoretical framework that is psychologically grounded, methodologically operational, and scientifically cumulative for the study of communication phenomena. As such, it constitutes one of the theoretical foundations of the PsychologyofCommunications and the PsychologicalCommunicometrics developed within LaPsyCom.

From a theoretical perspective, this framework contributes first to a clarification of the psychological foundations of communication. By making explicit the cognitive, affective, and social mechanisms mobilized in every communicative act, it helps overcome the implicit and fragmented use of psychological concepts within Information and Communication Sciences. Communication is thus defined as a structured psychological process rather than merely as information transmission or isolated social interaction.

The model also promotes a coherent articulation between individual and social levels of analysis. By integrating individuals’ mental and emotional processes with interactional and normative dynamics, it avoids the traditional opposition between micro-psychological and macro-social approaches. Communication consequently appears as a relational phenomenon in which individual psychological states and social frameworks mutually shape one another.

Finally, this approach contributes to strengthening the conceptual unity of Information and Communication Sciences. By proposing a transversal theoretical foundation, it makes it possible to connect research domains that are often treated separately—including organizational, media, political, and digital communication—through common explanatory principles. Such unification enhances scientific cumulativeness and facilitates the comparability of research findings across the field.

From a methodological perspective, the integrated model opens the way for the development of psycho-communicational analytical tools capable of operationalizing the cognitive, affective, and social dimensions of communication. Such tools may take the form of scales, indices, or analytical grids designed to assess engagement, comprehension, influence, and meaning construction across diverse communication contexts.

The model also encourages the joint integration of cognitive, affective, and social measures, thereby avoiding partial analyses based on a single explanatory register. Such integration makes it possible to better capture the complexity of communication practices by simultaneously considering information processing, emotional dynamics, and interactional frameworks.

Furthermore, the framework strengthens support for mixed-methods approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The articulation of standardized measurements with discourse analysis, interaction analysis, or ethnographic inquiry makes it possible to access both the subjective depth of communication experiences and their embeddedness within broader social and cultural dynamics. This methodological complementarity is particularly relevant for the study of contemporary media and digital environments.

Beyond its theoretical significance, the TripolarModelofPsychologicalCommunication(TMPC) can be used as a multidimensional analytical framework for the study of communication phenomena. The model’s three constitutive dimensions—cognition, affectivity, and sociality—each correspond to specific research questions, observable variables, and measurable indicators that may be employed in empirical investigations. Table 1 summarizes these elements.

Table 1.Operational framework for the three-dimensional model.

The value of the model lies in its ability to analyze these three dimensions simultaneously in order to account for the psychological complexity of communication phenomena. Communication is never exclusively cognitive, affective, or social; rather, it emerges from the continuous interaction among these three psychological domains.

Depending on the objectives of a study, each dimension may be measured independently or integrated into a multidimensional approach designed to explain the production, interpretation, and circulation of meaning in various communication contexts. For example, the analysis of a media campaign may simultaneously examine message comprehension (cognitive dimension), the emotions it generates (affective dimension), and the mechanisms of social influence and diffusion that shape its collective reception (social dimension).

This operationalization also provides a methodological foundation for the future development of communicometric tools designed to assess the three fundamental dimensions of the model through standardized indices. In doing so, it opens the way toward a PsychologicalCommunicometrics grounded in the joint evaluation of the cognitive, affective, and social processes involved in communication.

The individual first perceives the visual and textual elements of the message. Their attention is captured by an attractive image depicting a vaccinated young adult accompanied by the slogan: “Protectingyourselfmeansprotectingothers.”

The user then mobilizes prior knowledge about vaccination in order to interpret the message. Comprehension depends on the individual’s level of information, pre-existing beliefs, and ability to assess the credibility of the source.

Consequently, two individuals exposed to the same message may construct different meanings depending on their cognitive schemas and interpretive frameworks.

The message also seeks to elicit an emotional response. An image portraying a family reunited after a period of illness may generate feelings of hope, security, or empathy.

These emotions reinforce attention to the content, facilitate memory retention, and increase the likelihood of adherence to the recommended behavior. Conversely, if the message evokes fear, distrust, or anxiety, it may provoke resistance or rejection.

The communicational impact therefore depends, at least in part, on the emotional valence associated with the message.

Finally, the reception of the message takes place within a social context. The user observes comments, shares, and reactions from friends, family members, and members of their online community.

If the majority of their social network supports vaccination, mechanisms of social influence and normative conformity are likely to reinforce acceptance of the message. Conversely, if the user’s reference group expresses unfavorable attitudes, they may be more inclined to reject the content.

The meaning and effectiveness of communication thus emerge through a process of social co-construction grounded in interactions and collective representations.

In this situation, communication cannot be adequately explained through a single dimension.

Cognition enables the individual to understand and interpret the message.Affectivity determines the level of emotional engagement generated by the content.Sociality influences the acceptance, diffusion, or rejection of the message within a social environment.

The effectiveness of the campaign depends on the simultaneous interaction of these three dimensions. A message that is scientifically accurate but emotionally neutral or socially contested may fail to achieve its objectives. Conversely, a message that is cognitively understandable, affectively engaging, and socially endorsed has a much greater probability of producing attitudinal and behavioral change.

This illustration supports the central hypothesis of the present article: communication constitutes an integrated psychological process resulting from the dynamic articulation of cognition, affectivity, and sociality. It also demonstrates the model’s versatility, as it can easily be applied to organizational, political, media, educational, health, and digital communication contexts.

The proposed model is based on the assumption that communication can be analyzed through the articulation of three fundamental dimensions: cognition, affectivity, and sociality. While this structure helps clarify the psychological foundations of communication, it does not claim to exhaust the full complexity of communication phenomena.

Indeed, several important aspects of communication remain only partially addressed within the proposed framework, including linguistic, semiotic, cultural, historical, institutional, and technological dimensions. These dimensions frequently contribute to the production and interpretation of meaning and may, depending on the context, exert an influence as significant as the psychological mechanisms emphasized in this study.

The model should therefore be understood as an analytical framework centered on the psychological foundations of communication rather than as a general theory encompassing all communication phenomena.

A second limitation concerns the disciplinary boundaries of the model. The cognitive, affective, and social dimensions mobilized in this research are historically rooted in cognitive psychology, affective psychology, and social psychology. Consequently, the model occupies a theoretical space shared with several branches of psychology.

Furthermore, some of the issues addressed overlap with research traditions developed in media studies, communication sociology, information science, and digital media research. Concepts such as influence, engagement, reception, attention, and technological mediation have already been extensively investigated within these fields.

The objective is therefore not to replace these approaches with a Psychology of Communications, but rather to provide an integrative framework capable of connecting their respective contributions around a more coherent understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying communication phenomena.

Like any integrative model, the present theoretical framework is exposed to the risk of overextending its explanatory domain. By seeking to account for a broad range of communication phenomena—including organizational, media, political, digital, and intercultural communication—it may be tempted to explain highly diverse realities through a limited number of psychological dimensions.

Such generalization could lead to an underestimation of context-specific variables such as institutional structures, economic factors, cultural logics, or technological constraints. Communication phenomena generally emerge from complex interactions among psychological, social, organizational, and environmental factors.

The use of the model should therefore be accompanied by epistemological caution, recognizing that it constitutes a partial explanatory framework focused on psychological mechanisms rather than a comprehensive explanation of all forms of communication.

These limitations open several promising avenues for future research aimed at strengthening the scientific robustness of the model. The first involves the development of measurement instruments capable of operationalizing the cognitive, affective, and social dimensions across different communication contexts. The construction of standardized scales, psycho-communicational indices, and observational protocols constitutes an essential step in transforming the model from a theoretical framework into an empirical research program.

A second avenue concerns the empirical validation of the model through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Comparative studies could be conducted in organizational, political, media, educational, and digital communication settings in order to assess the relative importance of the three proposed dimensions and examine their interactions.

A third perspective lies in integrating the model with recent developments in PsychologicalCommunicometrics. The construction of a CommunicationalCognitiveIndex(CCI), a CommunicationalAffectiveIndex(CAI), a CommunicationalSocialIndex(CSI), and a GlobalPsycho-CommunicationalIndex(GPI) would make it possible to empirically test the relationships among the model’s components and to develop descriptive, comparative, and predictive analytical capacities.

Finally, the emergence of intelligent digital environments and artificial intelligence systems offers particularly promising opportunities for model validation. Contemporary digital platforms generate large volumes of behavioral data that make it possible to observe simultaneously the cognitive, emotional, and social processes involved in mediated interactions. These environments therefore constitute privileged research settings for evaluating the explanatory power of the model and progressively enriching its theoretical and methodological foundations.

Thus, rather than constituting a weakness, the limitations identified here should be viewed as opportunities for scientific development capable of supporting the evolution of the Psychology of Communications into a cumulative, empirically grounded, and methodologically robust research program.