Considering the history of prioritising restriction and surveillance (Adawiah & Rachmawati 2021). The discourse of digital parenting has shifted towards relational and autonomy-supportive parenting modalities that foster values as internalised rather than through compliance (Jung & Choi 2020; Pyne et al. 2025). It is hypothesised that self-regulation development is more efficiently achieved in an autonomy-supportive environment and through active mediation and less so in a coercive environment (Ryan & Deci 2000; Syukur et al. 2024). Consequently, we postulate that DPP consistently predict children’s DSR (H1).

Family emotional communication complements such parenting skills and is a significant protective factor in such situations, as it promotes emotional socialisation and provides children with the vocabulary to deal with online stressors, such as cyber-victimisation (Ferreira et al. 2024; Ratliff et al. 2023). The empirical support of the proactive use of emotional dialogue to improve behavioural regulation and adjustment of children in collectivist contexts has been established by empirical findings, and the hypothesis has also been validated (Kapoor et al. 2024; Shaw et al. 2020), which implies a positive correlation between FECs and DSR in children (H2).

The key element of this family process model is DSR, a scaffolded competence formed through positive parent–child interactions and serving as the key lever connecting external contributions of parenting to internal child outcomes (Hamid et al. 2025; Syukur et al. 2024). Adaptive coping (Kurt 2023), which, in turn, has a positive impact on psychosocial outcomes (in terms of mood and peer relationships) (Rega et al. 2023; Zhang 2023), positively influences the DSR, and the parenting practices and the FEC model positively affect the DSR. Therefore, we posit that DSR is positively associated with children’s psychosocial well-being (CPW) (H3) and acts as a mediator in the relationships between DPP (H6) and FEC (H7) with CPW.

Parenting style is an important moderator that puts these relationships into context; it shapes the emotional climates in which certain practices are implemented (Baumrind 1991). Authoritative PS facilitates the regulation of behaviour, internalisation and active mediation development (Hamid et al. 2025; Pyne et al. 2025), but authoritarian or permissive PSs might not (Lo et al. 2025). Therefore, it is predicted that PS would moderate the connection between digital parenting and DSR (H4a) and between FEC and DSR (H4b), with a greater positive relationship under authoritative parenting.

Lastly, one of the contextual stressors is SME, and the high intensity of algorithms, along with social comparison, tends to overwhelm a child’s regulatory abilities, harming their well-being (Prime et al. 2020; Rahamathulla 2021). Our counterintuitive assumption is that the structural disadvantage of overexposure harms CPW (H8) and that there is a moderating relationship between authoritative parenting and DSR, with the protective influence of authoritative parenting decreasing with greater exposure to social media (H5).

In urban areas of Indonesia, including Jakarta, Bandung and Surabaya, 483 parent–child dyads were sampled. The children were aged 9–12 years (M = 10.7; standard deviation [SD] = 1.8; 52% females). Most of the respondents were mothers (86%), aged 28–52 years (M = 38.4, SD = 6.2), and 74% had at least a secondary school diploma. Almost all families (98%) reported using smartphones every day, and 92% stated that their children used social media platforms (TikTok, Instagram and YouTube Shorts).

Recruitment was conducted across public and private primary schools using stratified random sampling to ensure representation across socioeconomic strata (low, middle and high) and geographic zones (central and suburban). Within each stratum, schools were randomly selected, and parent–child dyads were invited through school-parent meetings until the target sample size was met. Written informed consent was obtained from parents, and age-appropriate verbal assent was secured from children. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (‘information redacted to maintain the integrity of the review process’).

The measured constructs were assessed using parent-reported questionnaires in Bahasa Indonesia, administered during school-parent meetings. Questions were answered using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree and/or Never to 5 = Strongly agree and/or Always). The tool was developed following a multi-process validation:

Table 1 presents the definitions, sample items and reliability estimates of the constructs.

We employed partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 4 (Hair & Alamer 2022) for three methodological reasons: (1) its predictive orientation is optimal for testing novel moderated mediation models in under-researched contexts; (2) it efficiently handles complex interaction terms and reflective constructs without strict distributional assumptions; and (3) it provides robust estimates of path coefficients even when sample size is moderate relative to model complexity:

Child age and gender were initially tested as covariates in the structural model. Neither variable significantly altered the primary path coefficients (Δβ < 0.03, p > 0.10). To preserve model parsimony and align with PLS-SEM guidelines for theory-driven structural testing (Hair & Alamer 2022), they were excluded from the final reported model.

Ethical clearance to conduct the study was obtained fromthe Ethics Committee of Universitas Kristen Indonesia Tomohon, Indonesia (protocol number 99/LPPM-UKIT/VI/2025), and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents, and verbal assent was provided by all child participants prior to data collection. All participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and their data remained anonymised throughout the analysis process.

The final analytic sample comprised 483 parent–child dyads. Children averaged 10.7 years (SD = 1.8), with a nearly balanced gender distribution (52% female, 48% male). Most respondents were mothers (86%), aged 28–52 years (M = 38.4, SD = 6.2), and 74% had completed upper-secondary education or higher. Smartphone access was nearly universal (98%), and 92% of parents reported their child’s active use of social media platforms. Univariate normality was acceptable (skewness: –0.14 to 0.11; kurtosis: –0.05 to 0.49). Harman’s single-factor test yielded 28.3% variance, indicating no severe common method bias. Construct descriptives are presented in Table 2.

Given the cross-sectional design, all reported paths reflect statistical associations rather than causal effects. Directionality is interpreted within theoretical constraints and should be validated through longitudinal designs. The inner model and hypothesis testing results are presented in Table 4.

The significance of all hypothesised interactions was assessed. The three hypothesised interaction effects were statistically significant, supporting the moderating effect of authoritative PS on family-level inputs to children’s DSR pathways. The moderation effects are summarised in Table 5. The correlation between PS and DPP was positively associated with DSR (β = 0.115, t = 3.26, p = 0.001), supporting H4a. Similarly, communication between PS and FEC had an even greater positive impact on DSR (β = 0.163, t = 5.12, p < 0.001), proving H4b. These results imply that the beneficial effect of both digital PSs and emotional communication on the self-regulatory capacity in children is greatly enhanced in situations where the parents are authoritative in their PS, that is, they are warm, reasoning clearly and supporting their children by a sense of autonomy, thus establishing a conducive relational climate where guidance is embraced instead of being defended against.

Conversely, PS and SME showed a significant negative correlation with DSR (β = −0.112, t = 3.42, p = 0.001), which is consistent with H5. This poses a percentage-determined boundary condition on negative moderation: even the most favourable PS can only partially buffer the regulatory pressure of high-intensity social media use. In an environment with high SME, the effect of authoritative parenting on DSR is significantly reduced, a generally protective effect. Together, the effects of these interactions prove that family agency exists within structural limitations, and the effectiveness of digital parenting depends not only on parental affection and communication levels but also on the severity of children’s exposure to the digital world.

The impact of family inputs depended entirely on the DSR of well-being:

The two confidence intervals did not contain zero, indicating significant complete mediation. Parenting style had a significant moderated mediation index (DPP path: β = 0.051, p = 0.002; FEC path: β = 0.043, p = 0.001). The moderated mediation results are presented in Table 6. The final synthesis of all tested hypotheses is presented in Table 7.

The findings of this research relate to and augment extant studies on digital parenting, child welfare and self-regulation in the digital environment. Our findings also emphasise the importance of FEC in mitigating the psychosocial risks of SME among children. On the same note, similar observations were made in European settings, where teenagers do not readily share the risks of the Internet with their parents (Lisztwan Honusová et al. 2026). This implies that the family’s protective role in communication might be universal, but it is mediated by culture. The findings are relevant to applied developmental studies because they show how daily digital parenting and FEC correlate with children’s DSR and psychosocial well-being in an urban setting in Southeast Asia. We discuss each of the main findings below in a direct conversation with prior empirical and theoretical findings, highlighting areas of consistency, differences and new insights.

These results not only demonstrate the pivotal role of DSR as a mediating factor but also subvert the individualistic tenets that Western theories of DSR often hypothesise. In studies conducted in Europe and North America, DSR is generally conceptualised as embedded in children’s executive functioning (Rega et al. 2023; Zhang 2023). Conversely, in the Indonesian collectivist background, DSR is a relational rather than an individual accomplishment, developed through FEC.

This realisation necessitates redefining Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to foster the development of digital ecosystems in the Global South. Conventionally, SDT assumes that autonomy is an individual achievement. However, our data indicate that healthy autonomy in Indonesia is shaped by relational interdependence: children manage their digital behaviour because they are emotionally attached to their parents, not despite this attachment. We suggest this as an interdependent autonomy, a new theoretical construct that will make a fresh contribution to developmental and digital media research in the future.

The real-world application of these findings aligns with Indonesia’s Penguatan Pendidikan Karakter (PPK; Character Education Strengthening) programme, a nationally implemented, school-based character initiative delivered through teacher-facilitated parent workshops and integrated into primary school extracurricular schedules. While participation is voluntary, PPK is widely adopted across public and private schools and trained by certified regional education coordinators. We propose embedding a ‘Digital Emotional Dialogue’ module within PPK, comprising eight guided sessions that coach parents in asking reflective, emotion-focused questions about children’s online experiences (e.g. ‘What part of that video made you feel upset or happy?’). A preliminary feasibility pilot in three Jakarta primary schools (N = 68 dyads) indicated a 32% increase in children’s willingness to discuss digital stressors with parents over 6 weeks. The digital emotional dialogue will capitalise on collectivist values of relational harmony, shifting family digital practices from surveillance to co-regulation.

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the nature of cross-sectional research excludes causal inferences; longitudinal research must be conducted to determine temporal precedence. Secondly, self-report measures can introduce common method bias; multi-informant methodologies would enhance validity. Thirdly, the urban Java sample does not allow generalisation of the results to rural Indonesian settings or other collectivist cultures. Fourthly, other moderators (e.g., socioeconomic status and peer influences) are unmeasured and warrant further investigation to understand their relation to well-being outcomes across domains. Despite these shortcomings, the current study provides strong evidence supporting the use of family-centred digital parenting interventions among collectivists.

Despite these limitations, the current study provides robust evidence that relational digital parenting and FEC are central to children’s DSR and psychosocial adjustment in collectivist, rapidly digitalising contexts. School-family collaborative interventions that prioritise emotional dialogue over restrictive monitoring warrant further longitudinal and multi-informant testing.