{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03076923076923077, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002564102564102564, 'mean_word_length': 5.398907103825136, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Revisiting the impression management model: the mediating role of net benefits, the moderating role of communication competence, and the importance of mutual-face concern

ABSTRACT This manuscript reports the results of an empirical study that used the impression management model (IMM) to examine likelihood of channel use (among face-to-face, phone, and texting) in parent–child relationships. Drawing from face-negotiation theory, we recast the model in terms of face concern. Results of a survey of 715 participants indicated that mutual-face concern served as a particularly potent predictor of channel preferences. Channel net benefits mediated the association between the IMM predictors (i.e., face concern and valence) and likelihood of channel use, with communication competence serving as a weak moderator of several IMM predictors (specifically, other-face concern, mutual-face concern, and valence). These results highlight the importance of mutual-face concern in evaluating channel options, and also suggest that channel choice may have more to do with the avoidance of the risk of synchronous communication than a draw to the control of mediated channels.