Human communication is complex! The communication square, also known as the four-sides model, is a critical tool in understanding the role of communication in interpersonal conflict. It also provides clear insights into how to improve communication and relationships, avoid misunderstandings, and resolve conflict.
The communication square was first developed by German communication psychologist Friedemann Schulz von Thun in the 1980’s and has been applied in many settings including organisational teams, families, and relationships. The model states that every message - verbal and written - has four sides (or aspects, facets, layers) to it:
Factual information: What I am informing about. Information and factual content that is being conveyed. Information can be correct/incorrect, clear/unclear, and relevant/irrelevant in the broader context of the communication taking place.
Self-disclosure: What I am revealing about myself. The insights that can be gained about the sender. This may include their emotional state, how they purposefully or inadvertently present themselves (e.g. as an expert, counsellor, adviser, joker, disadvantaged party, needy friend…?), what seems most important to them right now, etc.
Relationship: What I think of you and how I see our relationship. What can be picked up about how the sender sees the other person (e.g. as an authority, child, slob, simpleton, poor soul…?), and/or how they think and feel about their relationship (e.g. as equals or in a hierarchical dynamic).
Appeal: What I want you to think, feel, or do. This could be direct requests, recommendations and instructions, or more subtle and indirect influences to move the recipient towards a particular behaviour, state, or decision.
The four sides are as illustrated in the below image:
All parts of the message can be conveyed consciously / intentionally, or unconsciously / unintentionally. Meanings and requests can be manifested through words as well as non-verbal communication, e.g. tone of voice, facial expressions and gestures.
For communication to be successful, every aspect of a message needs to be correctly interpreted by the receiver (“correct” in the sense of “in the way that the sender meant it”). Misunderstanding or disagreements can occur on each of the four sides.
An example
Person A says to Person B: “I’m hungry.” Person B must now interpret this message and respond appropriately. However, even innocuous remarks can usually be interpreted in different ways, and Person B’s interpretation may or may not match what Person A was actually thinking and feeling!
Let’s break it down and run through some possible scenarios:
Factual information: Person A is experiencing the sensation of hunger.
Self-disclosure: Person A probably wants to eat something. They may feel distracted, uncomfortable, bored, or unable to focus on the current interaction with Person B, which they may be trying to communicate indirectly.
Relationship: Person A may share this information for several reasons. Do they expect Person B to tend to their needs and fix them something to eat? Are they seeing Person B as a great source of information on where to get some food around here? Do they have the wish to eat together?
Appeal: The implied request, suggestion, or prompt could range from “get me something to eat”, to “let’s have a break”, to “please come with me to have dinner together”.
Person B’s response will be shaped by their interpretation of Person’s A message, their own communication style, and their current mood, needs, and interests.
For example, Person B could focus the self-disclosure aspect and respond to what they suspect is going for Person A (e.g. choosing to respond with, “Oh yes, it’s time to have a break!” vs. “sorry, but I need you to stay focused just a little longer”).
Alternatively, they could pay stronger attention to the relationship side and what Person A’s implied expectations or wishes towards Person B may be, which Person B may or may not agree with e.g. (choosing to respond with, “I can get you a sandwich?”, or “Sorry, I already have dinner plans”).
As a third option, Person B could be rather sensitive to perceived commands on the appeal side and (rightfully or wrongly) identify a thinly disguised request to solve the hunger problem for Person A, to which they could respond in different ways (e.g. choosing to respond with, “Well, I hope you brought your own food this time” vs “I’ll have dinner ready by 6.30pm").
Of course, Person B could also decide to just ignore Person A's comment and pretend they didn't hear. That's a message in itself, and it will be impossible for Person A not to notice this response! As Paul Watzlawick (Austrian-American communication psychologist and theorist) said, "One cannot not communicate." For example, silence may convey a lack of interest in the other person, confusion, or a demonstration of dominance.
Reflection prompts and activities
Think of a recent interaction that was challenging or confusing for you. What did the other person say? Maybe there is a particular part of the conversation or a sentence that stood out for you.
If you look at their message through the lens of communication square, what new insights come up for you?
Where (on which side of the square) may a possible misunderstanding have occurred?
Can you think of any other perspectives and possible interpretations to the one that immediately came to mind?
Reflect on your speaking (or writing) habits.
How are you trying to “come across” or be seen in communication with others in general, or with particular people specifically (self-disclosure aspect)? How do you do this? What is the impact on the other person and the relationship?
How do you usually express respect, interest, or concern for the other person (relationship aspect)? Think further than direct statements and also reflect on habitual choice of words, pauses, tone, body language, facial expression etc.
Reflect on your listening habits.
Which of the four sides do you tend to focus on most?
Are their people in your life whose messages you tend to interpret with a particular and strong lens, e.g. a focus on the relationship of self-disclosure side? What is the impact?
Sources
Schulz von Thun, Friedemann (1981). Miteinander reden: Störungen und Klärungen. Psychologie der zwischenmenschlichen Kommunikation. Rowohlt. (Unfortunately not availabe in English)