1

Message Design Logics

John P. Caughlin
University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign, USA

Message design logics are sets of assumptions about how communication works. They
concern the thinking behind individuals’ production and interpretation of messages.
The notion of message design logics assumes that communication is oriented toward
meeting multiple communication goals simultaneously. The message design lo­gics
p­rovide the principles behind how people reason from a set of communication goals to
create messages directed at those goals, and they also shape how individuals ­understand
others’ messages.
The model of message design logics was first articulated by O’Keefe (1988). It has
some assumptions in common with other rational goals‐based theories of ­communication,
which propose that communication is a purposeful activity in which messages are gen-
erated to address communication goals, such as accomplishing tasks (e.g., ­persuasion),
managing identities (e.g., trying to appear socially attractive to others), or m­aintaining
relationships. The message design logics model is most closely associated with con-
structivism, which provides a developmental explanation for individual differences in
communicative competence (Burleson, 2007). Similar to the constructivist paradigm,
research on message design logics is aimed at explaining what makes some messages
more effective and sophisticated than others.
The most crucial distinction between scholarship on message design logics and
other rational goal‐based theories of communication is that message design logics
focus on different ways that the same communication goals can be pursued. Many goal
theories, such as politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1978), articulate the ­connections
between configurations of goals and message production, but they often assume that a
given set of goals will predictably generate similar messages. Message design logics, in
contrast, explain why in a given situation with a particular set of goals, d­ifferent people
often generate very different kinds of messages.
Such variation in messages is most apparent in complex situations, which are ones in
which communication goals compete, meaning that addressing one goal makes it more dif-
ficult to achieve another. For instance, asking someone to help with a task can be compli-
cated by identity goals, such as not appearing too lazy or too presumptuous. If the situation
is simple, all reasonably competent individuals will act in similar ways; it is only when com-
munication situations become more challenging that differences become salient.
The model of message design logics proposes that variations in messages in a given
situation are due to different premises about communication that are used to create

The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, First Edition.

Edited by Charles R. Berger and Michael E. Roloff.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic0026
2

messages. Although message design logics are not directly observable, one can infer
differences in them by examining the nature of a particular situation and variations in
messages produced in that situation. Because message design logics are used to create
a message from a given set of conversational goals, one can infer the design logic by
observing the message produced in a specific circumstance.

Three distinct design logics

O’Keefe (1988) identified three different belief systems about how messages should be
designed and interpreted, and she called these belief systems message design logics. Each
message design logic represents a coherent understanding of communication, including
beliefs about (a) the fundamental premise of what communication is, (b) the nature of
good communication, (c) the role of context in communication, and (d) the communi-
cative means available for managing multiple goals.
With the expressive design logic, communication is conceptualized as a means
for voicing one’s thoughts and feelings to another person. Evaluating the quality of
­communication using an expressive design logic involves assessing the extent to
which  thoughts and feelings are expressed clearly, openly, and honestly. Because
­communication involves articulating individuals’ internal states, messages are thought
to be literal and forthright; therefore, context is not viewed as important. Also, m
­ essages
that result from an expressive design logic may be more focused on expressing the
­individuals’ desires or ideas than on what is expected in that situation or desired by
other communicators. Given that communication is primarily about expressing
internal states, the primary means available for managing multiple goals is editing. For
instance, if c­ommunicators are aware that making a request could make them look
greedy or lazy, they may choose not to make the request.
The conventional design logic assumes that communication involves following
socially agreed-upon guidelines and processes. From this view, communication is a
game, and people collaborate to make sure the rules of the game are followed. The rules
of communication are social ones, such as the obligations that are connected to
particular social roles. These social rules govern the communicative acts that are
p­ermitted, and they are viewed as fixed in a given context. Rather than prioritizing
clear expression of one’s thoughts and feelings, the conventional design logic values
saying what is appropriate, cooperating with others to follow conversational rules, and
trying to achieve one’s conversational goals by having the right social position for
achieving those goals.
From the view of the conventional design logic, the meaning of communication
is strongly influenced by the social context; for example, making a request based
on social obligations would be appropriate and effective only if the respective roles
of the i­ndividuals implied a social norm in which the target person was viewed as
l­egitimately having such an obligation (e.g., making a request of one’s employee
means something different from making the same request of one’s boss). With the
conventional design logic, multiple competing goals are addressed through the
rules and norms available in the context, such as politeness norms. For instance, if
 3

a person wishes to make a request to someone who does not have a social obligation
to comply (e.g., one’s boss in a work setting), a conventional design logic would
g­enerate a request that included elements that are conventionally understood to be
polite (e.g., saying “please” or making verbal hedges such as “I was wondering
whether you might …?”).
The rhetorical design logic views communication as the means through which social
situations and identities are negotiated. Like the conventional design logic, this view
recognizes that there is a connection between social context and meaning, but rather
than conceiving of the context as fixed, it treats all aspects of the social context as open
for negotiation. Roles and norms are viewed as changeable through communication.
From the rhetorical viewpoint, the most sophisticated communication is that which
allows communicators to maintain flexibility and redefine situations in advantageous
ways. The rhetorical design logic implies that it is useful to attend to subtle social cues,
and therefore good communication from this perspective involves careful and deep
interpretation of the other’s messages.
In situations in which there are multiple competing goals, the rhetorical design logic
generates messages that attempt to redefine the situation so that all the goals can be
met. Such messages are aimed at renegotiating the norms, rules, or identities ­underlying
the situation. For example, a boss may recognize that a subordinate would comply with
a request if the boss relied only on the convention of obligation, but the boss also might
be concerned that the subordinate would resent the task, under­mining morale. If the
boss used the rhetorical design logic, it might lead to a message that fostered a different
impression of the request, perhaps presenting it as a sign of respect for the person’s
abilities and an opportunity for skill development that would make the employee even
more valued. From the viewpoint of the rhetorical design logic, the ways messages are
presented matters because they can reshape the meaning of communicative acts and
the context.
O’Keefe (1988) posited that the three design logics represented a “developmental
­progression” (p. 88), with expressive being the least sophisticated, conventional
being more sophisticated than expressive, and rhetorical being the most sophisti-
cated. The argument for this ordering is that the premises of the expressive design
logic must be understood before one can acquire the conventional design logic, and
the premises of  the conventional design logic must be understood before one can
utilize the r­hetorical design logic.

Effectiveness of different design logics

With some exceptions, research generally supports the notion that the conventional
design logic is superior to the expressive design logic, and the rhetorical one is superior
to the conventional one. Most of the early research focused on situations in which a
communicator attempted to influence another person’s behavior, such as a scenario in
which small-group members wanted more work from a member of the group (O’Keefe
& McCornack, 1987) or pharmacy students wanted patients to have greater adherence
to a medicinal regimen (Lambert & Gillespie, 1994). More recent research has shown
4

that the ordering of the message design logics also appears ­useful for conceptualizing
the relative sophistication of social support messages (e.g., Caughlin et al., 2008).
Additionally, there is evidence that design logics are linked to broader assumptions
about the world and individuals’ tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors. People
who produce rhetorical messages, for example, are more likely than other individuals
to engage in altruistic behaviors and to have high social capital (Edwards & Shepherd,
2007). Such findings suggest that the benefits of more sophisticated design logics go
beyond the personal communicative effectiveness of the message designer.
Although the preponderance of the evidence suggests that O’Keefe’s theoretical
ordering of the message design logics is consistent with what is most effective,
the  ordering only applies to complex contexts. In a straightforward circumstance,
m­essage design logics should not matter because most people would say something
similar. For instance, when explaining why one is returning a call from a friend who
left a message (see Hullman, 2004), most people would start with a greeting and a
statement i­ndicating that they are responding to the message. In such cases there
would not be a benefit to a rhetorical design, and such a design might even be viewed
as inappropriately ­complicated for the situation. Attempts to turn even the simplest
situation into a nuanced negotiation of situation and identities may be viewed as
too elaborate.
Also, even within a complex situation, the rhetorical design logic may not always
yield the most effective messages. A person using the expressive design logic may at
times view rhetorical designs as disingenuous (O’Keefe, Lambert, & Lambert, 1997).
For instance, the nuanced attempts to renegotiate identities can appear to lack clarity or
forthrightness to a person using the expressive design logic. In short, although the
­rhetorical design logic appears to be the most sophisticated overall, it may not be
­appreciated in all instances.

SEE ALSO: Compliance Gaining/Resisting Strategies and Principles; Constructivism;

Facework; Identity Management; Influence Goals and Plans; Interpersonal
Communication Skill/Competence; Normative Model of Social Support; Politeness
and Social Influence; Politeness Theory

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Burleson, B. R. (2007). Constructivism: A general theory of communication skill. In
B.  B.  Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and
exemplars (pp. 113–138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caughlin, J. P., Brashers, D. E., Ramey, M. E., Kosenko, K. A., Donovan‐Kicken, E., & Bute, J. J.
(2008). The message design logics of responses to HIV disclosures. Human Communication
Research, 34, 655–685. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2958.2008.00336.x
Edwards, A. P., & Shepherd, G. J. (2007). An investigation of the relationship between implicit
personal theories of communication and community behavior. Communication Studies, 58,
359–375. doi: 10.1080/10510970701648574
 5

Hullman, G. A. (2004). Interpersonal communication motives and message design logic:

Exploring their interaction on perceptions of competence. Communication Monographs, 71,
208–225. doi: 10.1080/0363775042000250411
Lambert, B. L., & Gillespie, J. L. (1994). Patient perceptions of pharmacy students’ hypertension
compliance‐gaining messages: Effects of message design logic and content themes. Health
Communication, 6, 311–325. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc0604_6
O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about
communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80–103. doi: 10.1080/03637758809376159
O’Keefe, B. J., Lambert, B. L., & Lambert, C. A. (1997). Conflict and communication in a research
and development unit. In B. D. Sypher (Ed.), Case studies in organizational communication 2:
Perspectives on contemporary work life (pp. 31–52). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
O’Keefe, B. J., & McCornack, S. A. (1987). Message design logic and message goal structure:
Effects on perceptions of message quality in regulative communication situations. Human
Communication Research, 14, 68–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2958.1987.tb00122.x

Further reading

O’Keefe, B. J. (1990). The logic of regulative communication: Understanding the rationality of

message designs. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal
influence messages (pp. 87–104). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and the management of multiple goals. In K. Tracy
(Ed.), Understanding face‐to‐face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 131–150).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

John P. Caughlin  is acting head and professor of communication at the University

of  Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign. His research focuses on effective interpersonal
communication and the inter­ connections between face‐to‐face and mediated
communication. His awards include the Brommel Award from the National Com­
munication Association for contributions to family communication, the Miller Early
Career Achievement Award from the International Association for Relationship
Research, the Arnold O. Beckman Research Award from the University of Illinois
Research Board, and the Franklin H. Knower Article Award from the Interpersonal
Communication Division of the National Communication Association.