Parenting Style and Academic Procrastination: A Serial Mediation Role of Social Media Usage and Fear of Failure

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between parenting styles and academic procrastination (AP), with social media usage (SMU) and fear of failure (FoF) as serial mediators. Data from 327 participants aged 18–22 were analyzed using SPSS 27 and PROCESS Macro Model 6. Authoritative parenting negatively predicted AP, whereas authoritarian and permissive parenting positively predicted AP. Significant indirect effects emerged for authoritative and authoritarian parenting through SMU and FoF, while permissive parenting showed no significant mediation effect. Findings highlight the importance of behavioral and emotional mechanisms in understanding and reducing AP.

Keywords

parenting style social media usage fear of failure academic procrastination

Introduction

Procrastination is the deliberate and unnecessary delay in completing a planned occupation (Rahimi & Hall, 2021). It can occur in a variety of life situations, such as housekeeping, shopping, and doctor's appointments. According to researchers, 20% of Americans habitually procrastinate on daily duties. Procrastination is much more common in educational settings. For example, Peixoto et al. (2021) observed that 46% of college students frequently postpone academic activities, whereas 95% procrastinate at least once. Academic procrastination (AP), defined as the voluntary delay of academic tasks despite awareness of potential negative outcomes, is a common behavior among college students (Steel, 2007; Svartdal et al., 2020). AP remains a popular issue in educational research (Rozental et al., 2022). The phenomenon is associated with poorer academic outcomes, higher stress levels, and reduced psychological well-being (Albulescu et al., 2024; Bahl et al., 2025; Bu et al., 2021; Faure-Carvallo et al., 2025; Sparfeldt & Schwabe, 2024). Existing research indicates that AP is shaped by various psychological and environmental factors, including self-regulation abilities, parenting approaches, fear of failure (FoF), and patterns of social media usage (SMU) (Steel & Klingsieck, 2016; Svartdal et al., 2020; Wolters et al., 2017).

Adverse academic results have been linked to this behavior, with students suffering from lower performance (Goroshit, 2018), increased stress, and less psychological well-being (Ramanjaneyulu & Jalandharachari, 2024; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). As a result, AP has attracted considerable interest from both educational and psychological researchers.

Traditionally, procrastination has been viewed through the lens of self-regulation failure: inability to control one's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors when pursuing goals (Steel, 2007; Sirois & Pychyl, 2013). More recently, however, theorists have started to conceptualize procrastination as a multidimensional construct, with emphasis placed on the ways in which multiple factors (e.g., individual, emotional, and contextual) interact dynamically within individuals (Sirois & Kitner, 2015). Factors in one's early environment, particularly parenting, can play a major role in the development of one's self-regulation abilities and achievement-related behaviors (Schraw et al., 2007).

Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive are three primary parenting styles defined by varying levels of involvement and control (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritative parenting is linked to positive outcomes that include higher self-efficacy, more effective emotional regulation, and less procrastination (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Woo & Yeo, 2019). By contrast, authoritarian parenting has been associated with developing anxiety, fear of evaluation, and maladaptive coping strategies that are likely to result in procrastination (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Although permissive parenting is associated with higher levels of responsiveness and lower levels of control, it actually undermines a child's ability to develop discipline or self-regulation and thus contributes to procrastination (Baumrind, 1991). Although the associations between parenting style and AP have been well-documented, the mechanisms through which parenting style impacts AP are not well understood.

SMU affects people's daily lives through their routines as well as how they connect with academic assignments (Reinecke et al., 2018). Procrastination can develop over time in response to several different factors; these are likely to include both the rapid growth of technology and how quickly the culture of the environment is changing. Social networks represent one type of technology that allows individuals to maintain contact and establish connections through real-time methods of communicating with one another (e.g., texting and chatting) (Landa-Blanco et al., 2024). SMA (social media addiction) refers to a cluster of cognitive and behavioral symptoms that result from excessive social media use and have been linked to negative outcomes (Davis, 2001). Although social media provides a means of communication and exchanging information, excessive use has been shown to lead to distractions from important tasks (e.g., studying), decreased concentration (Andreassen, 2015), difficulty managing time (Kuss & Griffiths, 2017), and difficulty achieving one's goals (Meier et al., 2016). Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant positive correlation between SMU and AP (Bao & Li, 2025; Kurker & Surucu, 2024; Rozgonjuk et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2023), implying that individuals who engage in digital activities may use social media as an alternative way of connecting with others while avoiding important tasks, such as completing schoolwork.

Another important psychological factor implicated in procrastination is FoF. FoF refers to the tendency to avoid achievement-related tasks due to concerns about negative evaluation, loss of self-worth, or perceived incompetence (Conroy et al., 2002). Researchers’ observation highlights irrational FoF as a main cause of procrastination (Aldhi et al., 2026; Sudirman et al., 2023; Tan & Prihadi, 2022). For instance, Solomon and Rothblum (1984) showed that 49.4% of the variance in a questionnaire measuring the reasons given for procrastinating was explained by a factor labeled FoF. Furthermore, according to a frequency analysis, 6.3%–14.3% of individuals cited FoF as a major cause of procrastination. According to one study, over 20% of participants cited “were worried that you would get a bad grade” and “were concerned that you wouldn't meet your own expectations” as the primary causes of procrastination (Kachgal et al., 2001). High FoF individuals are more inclined to avoid, including procrastinate, to maintain their self-esteem (Haghbin et al., 2012; Sagar & Stoeber, 2009). In addition, FoF is a mediating variable between environmental factors and maladaptive academic behaviors, indicating its central function as an emotion-based mediating variable (Soysa & Weiss, 2014). Growing up in an environment in which a child has experienced excessive criticism, conditional approval, or high expectations will increase the likelihood that the child will develop a FoF (Elliot & Thrash, 2004).

While earlier work has focused on the relationships between parenting approaches, social networking sites, FoF, and AP. Very little research has been conducted using an integrative framework to identify how these environmental, behavioral, and emotional factors interact with each other. A serial mediation model allows for an improved understanding of the underlying processes through which parenting styles influence both emotional tendencies (FoF) and behavioral patterns (SMU), thus influencing academic achievement.

Therefore, the present study aims to develop and empirically test a serial mediation model that examines the relationship between parenting styles and AP, with social media use and fear of failure serving as mediators. By integrating these variables into a unified framework, this study seeks to extend the existing literature by explaining the indirect pathways through which early environmental influences contribute to maladaptive academic behaviors (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Graphical representation of the proposed model.

Hypothesis

H1: Parenting styles significantly predict AP

H1a: Authoritative Parenting will negatively predict AP.

H1b: Authoritarian Parenting will positively predict AP.

H1c: Permissive Parenting will positively predict AP.

H2: Parenting styles significantly predict SMU.

H2a: Authoritative Parenting will negatively predict SMU.

H2b: Authoritarian Parenting will positively predict SMU.

H2c: Permissive Parenting will positively predict SMU.

H3: SMU mediates the relationship between parenting styles and AP.

H4: Fear of failure mediates the relationship between parenting styles and AP.

H5: SMU positively predicts fear of failure, which predicts AP.

H6: Parenting styles influence AP through a serial mediation process involving SMU and FoF.

Method

Research Design

In the current study, researchers used a quantitative framework and a cross-sectional, correlational research design, which allows for examining relationships between variables in a non-experimental manner. Specifically, the data were collected from participants at only one point in time (Setia & Singh, 2016). This design is well-suited for investigating indirect relationships using serial mediation models that assess how predictor variables affect outcome variables through a sequence of mediators. However, due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, a causal relationship cannot be established.

Participants

This research was done using a correlational design to help gather information about the undergraduate population at Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology. In total, there were 327 undergraduate students who completed the survey, with individuals being between the ages of 18 and 22. An a priori power analysis was completed with G*Power (f² ₌.15, α ₌ 0.05, power ₌ 0.95, number of predictors ₌ 3) and indicated a minimum sample size of 119 would be needed to conduct the study. In consideration of this, an attempt to collect more than the minimum sample size was made to increase statistical power and to allow for the chance for incomplete surveys to occur. Participants completed a paper-and-pencil survey that was conducted outside of their regular class time. A total of 350 students reported for the survey, whereas only 327students completed. All participants had the right to not participate, completed an informed consent, and received an ethics letter from the Institutional Review Board (Approval no: PTY/ 2025/38). The survey was completed anonymously and required about 25–30 min to complete.

Instruments

Academic Procrastination: The AP Scale (McCloskey, 2012) was used to assess procrastination tendencies. The scale comprises 25 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ₌ strongly disagree to 5 ₌ strongly agree). Total scores range from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating greater procrastination. In the present sample, Cronbach's α ₌ .94.

Social Media Usage (problematic use): The Social Media Addiction Scale – Student Form (Şahin, 2019) was used to assess problematic social media use. The scale includes 29 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ₌ strongly disagree to 5 ₌ strongly agree), with total scores ranging from 29 to 145. The scale has good psychometric properties, with Cronbach's α coefficient at 0.93 for the entirety. This measure operationalizes problematic/addictive use rather than simple time spent on social media.

Fear of Failure in Learning Scale (Beomkyu Choi, 2021 ): It has 26 items to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The range of total score is 26–130; the higher the score indicates higher the level of FoF. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient, or internal consistency coefficient, was determined to be .92 for the entire scale and to range from .73 to .93 for the sub-factors.

Parenting Style: Parenting styles were measured using the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991). The instrument contains 30 items (10 items per subscale: Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive), rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ₌ strongly disagree to 5 ₌ strongly agree). In this sample, Cronbach's α values were Authoritarian ₌ 0.86, Authoritative ₌ 0.78, and Permissive ₌ 0.81.

Data Analysis

Data from participants were managed and recorded with Microsoft Excel before being analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 27. These included descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, and frequencies) and Pearson's correlation analysis to assess basic relationships between study variables. To test the serial mediation model, the PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Andrew F. Hayes (Version 4.0) (specifically model 6) was used. This approach models multiple mediators in the specified order following the causal chain as mediators of the effects of an independent variable on a dependent variable through the mediators in the causal chain (mediator 1, mediator 2, etc.). An indirect effect is deemed statistically significant if the bootstrap 95% confidence interval does not encompass zero; 5,000 bootstrap resamples were performed to estimate the indirect effects and their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Result

Prior to analysis, we must first examine our variables to determine if mediation is appropriate. The assumptions for multiple regression also apply to mediation analysis in the present study. Assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity were examined. The results and residual plots supported the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity.

Descriptive statistics were computed to examine the central tendency and dispersion of the study variables. The mean and standard deviation values, along with the correlation values for all variables, are presented in Table 1. The results indicated that AP had a mean score of 70.07 (SD ₌ 18.58), suggesting a moderate level among participants. SMU (M ₌ 73.02, SD ₌ 16.69) and FoF (M ₌ 76.24, SD ₌ 14.53) were also moderate to high. Among parenting styles, authoritative parenting showed the highest mean (M ₌ 33.62, SD ₌ 6.99), followed by permissive (M ₌ 30.80, SD ₌ 5.75) and authoritarian parenting (M ₌ 30.39, SD ₌ 6.44). Furthermore, skewness and kurtosis values indicated that the data were normally distributed.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Analysis.

Variables		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
Academic Procrastination		70.06	18.58	1
Social Media Usage		73.01	16.69	.603**	1
Fear of Failure		76.23	14.52	.486**	.476**	1
Parenting styles	Authoritative	33.61	6.99	−.179**	−.129*	.014	1
	Authoritarian	30.39	6.43	.292**	.211**	.246**	−.098	1
	Permissive	30.80	5.75	−.030	.044	.160**	.268**	.133*	1

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; sample = 327.

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships among the study variables. The results of the correlation analysis revealed that AP was significantly (positive) correlated with SMU (r ₌ .603, **p < .01), Similarly with FoF (r ₌ .486, **p < .01), with Authoritarian parenting (r ₌ .292, **p < .01), and a significant negative correlation was found between Authoritative parenting and AP (r = −.179, **p < .01). Furthermore, SMU showed a significant positive relationship with FoF (r ₌ .476, **p < .01), similar with Authoritarian parenting (r ₌ .211, **p < .01), and a negative but significant correlation with Authoritative parenting (r ₌ −.129, *p < .05). Moreover, results indicated that FoF was positively associated with both parenting styles Authoritarian (r ₌ .246, **p < .05), and Permissive (r ₌ .160, **p < .05). Overall, the correlation results indicate significant relationships among the study variables, providing a basis for further mediation analysis.

Mediation Analysis Results

A serial mediation analysis with bias-corrected percentile bootstrap estimation was conducted using PROCESS Model 6 (Hayes, 2022) to examine the effect of Authoritative Parenting on AP through SMU and FOF. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, the analysis of standardized path coefficients showed that authoritative parenting significantly predicted (negatively) SMU (β = −0.3078, p < .05). SMU, in turn, significantly predicted FoF (β = 0.4225, p < .001) and AP (β = 0.5102, p < .001). Additionally, FoF significantly predicted AP (β = 0.3453, p < .001). However, the direct effect of authoritative parenting on FoF was not significant (β = 0.1596, p = .1184).

Figure 2.

Serial mediation diagram (authoritative parenting model, social media usage, fear of failure, and academic procrastination).

Table 2.

Regression Analysis (PROCESS Model 6 – Authoritative Parenting, N = 327).

Variables	SMU		FoF		Academic Procrastination (AP)
Variables	Β	t	β	t	β	t
Authoritative Parenting	−0.308	−2.3448*	0.1596	1.5656	−0.3300	−0.3300
Social Media Usage (SMU)			0.4225	9.8911***	0.5102	9.4788***
Fear of Failure (FoF)					0.3453	5.6276***
R ²	0.0166		0.2321		0.4297
F	5.4981*		48.9598***		81.1159***

Abbreviations: β = standardized regression coefficient; R² = coefficient of determination; F = F-statistic.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

The indirect effects were examined using bootstrapping (5,000 samples). The results shown in Table 3 indicate that the indirect effect of authoritative parenting on AP through SMU was significant (β = −0.1570, 95% CI [−0.3098, −0.0217]). The serial mediation pathway through SMU and FoF was also significant (β = −0.0449, 95% CI [−0.0945, −0.0059]). However, the indirect effect through FoF alone was not significant (β = 0.0551, 95% CI [−0.0267, 0.1439]). The overall model explained a substantial proportion of variance in AP (R² = 0.4297). These findings indicate that SMU partially mediates the relationship between authoritative parenting and AP, while FoF operates as a sequential mediator rather than an independent mediator.

Table 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects (Bootstrapping Results).

Effect	Relationship	Estimate	Boot SE	95% CI	Significance
Effect	Relationship	Estimate	Boot SE	Boot LLCI, Boot ULCI	Significance
Direct effect	Authoritative Parenting → AP	−0.3300	0.1130	[−0.5523, −0.1077]	Significant
Indirect effect 1	Authoritative Parenting → SMU → AP	−0.1570	0.0736	[−0.3098, −0.0217]	Significant
Indirect Effect 2	Authoritative Parenting → FoF → AP	0.0551	0.0421	[−0.0267, 0.1439]	Not significant
Indirect Effect 3	Authoritative Parenting → SMU → FoF → AP	−0.0449	0.0226	[−0.0945, −0.0059]	Significant
Total Indirect Effect		−0.1468	0.1066	[−0.3631, 0.0592]	Not significant

Abbreviations: β = regression coefficient; SMU = social media usage; FoF = fear of failure; AP = academic procrastination; LLCI = lower limit confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit confidence interval.

An effect is considered significant if the bootstrap confidence interval (Boot LLCI to Boot ULCI) does not include zero.

To investigate the impact of Authoritarian Parenting on AP via SMU and FoF. Table 4 and Figure 3 demonstrate that the examination of standardized path coefficients indicated that Authoritarian Parenting had a significant positive direct effect on AP (β = 0.3963, p < .001), and FoF (β = 0.3443, p < .01). SMU significantly predicted FoF (β = 0.3863, p < .001) and AP (β = 0.5175, p < .001). Additionally, FoF significantly predicted AP (β = 0.2954, p < .001).

Figure 3.

Serial mediation diagram (authoritarian parenting model, social media usage, fear of failure, and academic procrastination).

Table 4.

Regression Analysis (PROCESS Model 6 – Authoritarian Parenting, N = 327).

Variables	SMU		FoF		Academic Procrastination (AP)
Variables	Β	t	β	t	β	t
Authoritarian Parenting	0.5489	3.8932***	0.3443	3.0880**	0.3963	3.1488**
Social Media Usage (SMU)			0.3863	8.9948***	0.5175	9.6873***
Fear of Failure (FoF)					0.2954	4.7716***
R ²	0.0447		0.2488		0.4332
F	15.1570***		53.4826***		82.0338***

Abbreviations: β = standardized regression coefficient; R² = coefficient of determination; F = F-statistic.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

The indirect effects were tested using bootstrapping (5,000 samples). In Table 5, the results showed that the indirect effect of authoritarian parenting on AP through SMU was significant (β = 0.2841, 95% CI [0.1280, 0.4454]). The indirect effect through FoF was also significant (β = 0.1017, 95% CI [0.0296, 0.1915]).

Table 5.

Direct and Indirect Effects (Bootstrapping Results).

Effect	Relationship	Estimate	Boot SE	95% CI	Significance
Effect	Relationship	Estimate	Boot SE	Boot LLCI, Boot ULCI	Significance
Direct effect	Authoritarian Parenting → AP	0.3963	0.1259	[0.1487, 0.6439]	Significant
Indirect effect 1	Authoritarian Parenting → SMU → AP	0.2841	0.0803	[0.1280, 0.4454]	Significant
Indirect Effect 2	Authoritarian Parenting → FoF → AP	0.1017	0.0418	[0.0296, 0.1915]	Significant
Indirect Effect 3	Authoritarian Parenting → SMU → FoF → AP	0.0626	0.0219	[0.0254, 0.1124]	Significant
Total Indirect Effect		0.4484	0.0997	[0.2513, 0.6427]	Significant

An effect is considered significant if the bootstrap confidence interval (Boot LLCI to Boot ULCI) does not include zero.

Furthermore, the serial mediation pathway through SMU and FoF was significant (β = 0.0626, 95% CI [0.0254, 0.1124]). The overall model explained a substantial proportion of variance in AP (R² = 0.4332). These findings suggest that SMU and FoF both independently and sequentially mediate the relationship between authoritarian parenting and AP.

To investigate the impact of Permissive Parenting on AP via SMU and FOF, Table 6 and Figure 4 demonstrate that the examination of standardized path coefficients indicated that Permissive Parenting had a significant negative direct effect on AP (β = −0.3072, p < .05) and predicted FoF (β = 0.3523, p < .001). SMU significantly predicted FoF (β = 0.4086, p < .001) and AP (β = 0.5300, p < .001). Additionally, FoF significantly predicted AP (β = 0.3516, p < .001).

Figure 4.

Serial mediation diagram (permissive parenting model, social media usage, fear of failure, and academic procrastination).

Table 6.

Regression Analysis (PROCESS Model 6 – Permissive Parenting, N = 327).

Variables	SMU		FoF		Academic Procrastination (AP)
Variables	Β	t	β	t	β	t
Permissive Parenting	0.1263	0.7853	0.3523	2.8885**	−0.3072	−2.2199*
Social Media Usage (SMU)			0.4086	9.7235***	0.5300	9.9050***
Fear of Failure (FoF)					0.3516	5.6494***
R ²	0.0019		0.2457		0.4234
F	0.6167		52.7677***		79.0663***

Abbreviations: β = standardized regression coefficient; R² = coefficient of determination; F = F-statistic.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

The indirect effects were examined using bootstrapping (5,000 samples). The results shown in Table 7 indicate that the indirect effect of permissive parenting on AP through SMU was not significant (β = 0.0670, 95% CI [−0.0917, 0.2425]). The indirect effect through FoF was significant (β = 0.1239, 95% CI [0.0298, 0.2354]). However, the serial mediation pathway through SMU and FoF was not significant (β = 0.0181, 95% CI [−0.0265, 0.0642]). The overall model explained a substantial proportion of variance in AP (R² = 0.4234). These findings suggest that FoF serves as a significant mediator in the relationship between permissive parenting and AP, whereas SMU and the sequential mediation pathway do not play a significant mediating role.

Table 7.

Direct and Indirect Effects (Bootstrapping Results).

Effect	Relationship	Estimate	Boot SE	95% CI	Significance
Effect	Relationship	Estimate	Boot SE	Boot LLCI, Boot ULCI	Significance
Direct effect	Permissive Parenting → AP	−0.3072	0.1384	[−0.5795, −0.5795]	Significant
Indirect effect 1	Permissive Parenting → SMU → AP	0.0670	0.0853	[−0.0917, 0.2425]	Notsignificant
Indirect Effect 2	Permissive Parenting → FoF → AP	0.1239	0.0524	[0.0298, 0.2354]	Significant
Indirect Effect 3	Permissive Parenting → SMU → FoF → AP	0.0181	0.0229	[−0.0265, 0.0642]	Notsignificant
Total Indirect Effect		0.2090	0.1256	[−0.0341, 0.4584]	Notsignificant

An effect is considered significant if the bootstrap confidence interval (BootLLCI to BootULCI) does not include zero.

Discussion

The present study examines the relationship among parenting styles (Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive), SMU, FoF, and AP, and also examines how SMU and FoF mediate the relationship between parenting styles and AP among emerging adults. The correlation findings supported the main analysis, indicating that SMU and FoF are positively related to AP, while authoritative parenting shows a protective effect.

Consistent with H1, parenting styles significantly predicted AP. Specifically, authoritative parenting showed a negative association, whereas authoritarian parenting showed a positive association, supporting prior research suggesting that supportive parenting promotes self-regulation, while controlling parenting increases avoidance tendencies (Chen et al., 2022; Li, Dong et al., 2023; Nadeem & Akhtar, 2026; Zakeri et al., 2013). However, permissive parenting showed a negative effect, contrary to expectations, indicating the need for further investigation (Mahasneh et al., 2016).

In line with H2, authoritative parenting negatively predicted SMU, whereas authoritarian parenting showed a positive relationship, suggesting that parenting practices shape students’ behavioral regulation, including digital engagement (Morgan et al., 2017; Purboningsih et al., 2025; Vossen et al., 2024). However, permissive parenting did not significantly predict SMU, leading to only partial support for this hypothesis.

Regarding mediation, H3 and H4 were partially supported. SMU significantly mediated the relationship between parenting styles and AP for authoritative and authoritarian parenting, whereas FoF emerged as a significant mediator, particularly for authoritarian and permissive parenting. These findings indicate that both behavioral (social media use) and emotional (FoF) processes play important roles in explaining procrastination.

While there has yet to be a study that has directly examined social media use and FoF as mediators between parenting styles and AP, there is adequate empirical support for each pathway separately to justify the proposed mediation model. Early childhood research provides evidence that one of the main ways in which parenting impacts adolescents’ and adults’ online behaviors (which includes social media use) is by placing an emphasis on monitoring, controlling, and emotionally supporting their online activities (Geurts et al., 2023). For example, many researchers have found that adolescents with authoritarian parents often use social media as a way of escaping their harsh realities and establishing their own identity without parental influence or guidance. Similarly, authoritative parenting is associated with providing warmth and having reasonable expectations of their children. Consequently, these adolescents tend to use social media in a much healthier manner and avoid overusing social media (Li & Zedginidze, 2015; Prabandari & Yuliati, 2016; Vossen et al., 2024). With these findings as a reference point, it follows that adolescents who engage more deeply in using social media are likely to demonstrate poorer academic performance and a greater amount of academic delay (Muslikah & Andriyani, 2018; Sarfo et al., 2023; Serrano et al., 2022). Thus, based on these findings, the present study contributes to our understanding of how using social media can be a behavioral pathway through which parenting styles can affect AP.

High control in parenting can cause FoF (Deneault et al., 2020), which in turn has been shown to predict AP, since students will avoid tasks to prevent a negative evaluation (Danne et al., 2024; Haghbin et al., 2012; Maulidia, 2020). Furthermore, parenting styles and procrastination are directly connected with each other. When you consider the impact that FoF and the use of social media have as a mediation between parenting style and AP, you can see how they contribute to the findings together.

Evidence supports H5; overall, evidence provides an indication of a sequential relationship between digital behavior and personality fear with social media and AP (Altındağ & Erdirençelebi, 2025; Hammad & Awed, 2023; Sudirman et al., 2023). H6 received partial support, with significant paths from digital behavior to personality of FoF via both authoritative and authoritarian parenting, and no significant paths from digital behavior to FoF via permissive parenting. Digital behaviors and personal fears of failure may be united differently depending on the parenting context.

Results indicate that authoritative parenting can protect against AP, while authoritarian parenting can contribute to the risk of developing AP through several means. Additionally, permissive parenting may only operate through FoF. Therefore, prevention efforts against AP should consider the combination of both digital behaviors and personal fears when designing intervention programs (Geurts et al., 2023; Haghbin et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023).

Conclusion

In this study, the researchers have shown that different types of parenting styles have a profound effect on procrastination in children educationally both directly and indirectly. The Authoritative parenting style was identified to be a “protective” parenting style; both the Authoritarian and Permissive parenting styles have been associated with increased levels of procrastination in children through Behavioral (SMU) & Emotional (FoF) pathways. The findings of the present study, by examining and integrating the above mediators, demonstrate that the family environment is very influential in terms of impacting the degree of procrastination and, therefore, impacting students’ academic performance.

Implication and Limitation

The study builds on prior research to support the idea that procrastination is an emotional and behavioral construct that can be positively or negatively influenced by parenting styles and levels of self-regulation. The findings suggest the importance of more (authoritative) parenting, so there are better self-regulated youth, limiting recreational use of social media, and helping youth learn to properly cope with the fear of failure through counseling or educational intervention to reduce procrastination.

Limitations of the study include: the present research is based on a cross-sectional design; therefore, causal inference cannot be made. There is also limited diversity in the sample, thus limiting generalizability, and other important factors that may be correlated, such as self-regulation and motivation, were not assessed.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Monika

Manju

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Monika is a PhD Research Scholar in the Department of Psychology at Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India. Her research interests include academic procrastination, parenting styles, self-esteem, social media use, fear of failure, and positive psychology. She is currently pursuing doctoral research on the psychological factors associated with academic procrastination among young adults.

Manju is a faculty member (professor) in the Department of Psychology at Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India. Her teaching and research interests include educational psychology, personality development, mental health, cognitive psychology, and behavioral sciences. She has guided numerous research projects and has published research in various areas of psychology.

References

Albulescu

Labar

A. V.

Manea

A. D.

Stan

(2024). The mediating role of cognitive test anxiety on the relationship between academic procrastination and subjective wellbeing and academic performance. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1336002. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1336002

Aldhi

I. F.

Suhariadi

Rahmawati

Supriharyanti

Hardaningtyas

Sugiarti

Trihantoyo

(2026). Fear of failure, procrastination, and academic performance in higher education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 13, 731. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07088-0

Altındağ

Erdirençelebi

(2025). The effect of university students’ social media addiction and academic procrastination tendency on their perceived academic failure. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 24, 116–136. https://doi.org/10.20860/ijoses.1788293

Andreassen

C. S.

(2015). Online social network site addiction: A comprehensive review. Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-015-0056-9

Bahl

Gupta

Tanwar

Khan

Hakak

I. A.

Amin

(2025). Locus of control, academic procrastination, and academic performance amongst university students.

Bao

(2025). Self-efficacy, fear of missing out, social media use, and bedtime procrastination in Chinese college students. Psychological Reports, 00332941251329864, https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251329864

Baumrind

(1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. The encyclopedia of adolescence.

Wang

(2021). Impact of college students’ academic procrastination on subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 49(7), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9858

Buri

J. R.

(1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13

10.

Chen

W. W.

Yang

Jiao

(2022). Authoritarian parenting, perfectionism, and academic procrastination. Educational Psychology, 42(9), 1145–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.2024513

11.

Choi

(2021). I’m afraid of not succeeding in learning: Introducing an instrument to measure higher education students’ fear of failure in learning. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2107–2121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1712691

12.

Conroy

D. E.

Willow

J. P.

Metzler

J. N.

(2002). Multidimensional fear of failure measurement: The performance failure appraisal inventory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(2), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200252907752

13.

Danne

Gers

Altgassen

(2024). Is the association of procrastination and age mediated by fear of failure? Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-023-00527-w

14.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496. Retrieved on July 14, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

15.

Davis

R. A.

(2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00041-8

16.

Deneault

A. A.

Gareau

Bureau

J. F.

Gaudreau

Lafontaine

M. F.

(2020). Fear of failure mediates the relation between parental psychological control and academic outcomes: A latent mediated-moderation model of parents’ and children’s genders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(8), 1567–1582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01209-x

17.

Elliot

A. J.

Thrash

T. M.

(2004). The intergenerational transmission of fear of failure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262024

18.

Faure-Carvallo

Nieto-Fernández

Calderon

Gustems

(2025). Relationship between procrastination, time management, personality, and psychological distress in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 49(4), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2025.2459852

19.

Geurts

S. M.

Koning

I. M.

Van den Eijnden

R. J.

Vossen

H. G.

(2023). Predicting adolescents’ problematic social media use from profiles of internet-specific parenting practices and general parenting dimensions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(9), 1829–1843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01816-4

20.

Goroshit

(2018). Academic procrastination and academic performance: An initial basis for intervention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198157

21.

Haghbin

McCaffrey

Pychyl

T. A.

(2012). The complexity of the relation between fear of failure and procrastination. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0153-9

22.

Hammad

M. A.

Awed

H. S.

(2023). The use of social media and its relationship to psychological alienation and academic procrastination. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 10(2), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.15379/ijmst.v10i2.1172

23.

Huang

Ding

Liang

Zhang

Peng

Wan

Chen

(2022). The mediating effects of coping style and resilience on the relationship between parenting style and academic procrastination among Chinese undergraduate nursing students: A cross-sectional study. BMC nursing, 21(1), 351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01140-5

24.

Kachgal

M. M.

Hansen

L. S.

Nutter

K. J.

(2001). Academic procrastination prevention/intervention: Strategies and recommendations. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(1), 14.

25.

Kurker

Surucu

(2024). Social media addiction mediates the relationship between basic psychological needs satisfaction and academic procrastination. Psychology in the Schools, 61(7), 2701–2721. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23190

26.

Kuss

D. J.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311

27.

Landa-Blanco

García

Y. R.

Landa-Blanco

A. L.

Cortés-Ramos

Paz-Maldonado

(2024). Social media addiction relationship with academic engagement in university students: The mediator role of self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. Heliyon, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24384

28.

Zedginidze

(2015). The effect of parenting styles on teenagers’ social interaction within social media in China. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications, 35, 53–59.

29.

Dong

Tang

Guo

Chen

(2023). The effect of parenting styles on Chinese undergraduate nursing students’ academic procrastination: The mediating role of causal attribution and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1167660. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1167660

30.

Mahasneh

A. M.

Bataineh

O. T.

Al-Zoubi

Z. H.

(2016). The relationship between academic procrastination and parenting styles among Jordanian undergraduate university students. The Open Psychology Journal, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101609010025

31.

Maulidia

(2020). Effect of self-regulated, fear of failure, and social support of parents on academic procrastination. Fear of Failure, and Social Support of Parents on Academic Procrastination, June 17, 2020.

32.

McCloskey

(2012). Finally, my thesis on academic procrastination.

33.

Morgan

Kristjánsson

Adolescents ‘Perceptions

O. P. R.

(2017). Parents and social media. Adolescents’ perceptions of parental responses to morally salient social media scenarios. University of Birmingham and The Jubilee Center for Character and Virtues .

34.

Muslikah

Andriyani

(2018). Social media user students’ academic procrastination. Psikopedagogia Jurnal Bimbingan Dan Konseling, 7(2), 53–57.

35.

Nadeem

Akhtar

(2026). Role of perceived parenting styles, as determinants of, maladaptive perfectionism, procrastination, and self-esteem in college students. Research Journal for Social Affairs, 4(1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.71317/RJSA.004.01.0678

36.

Peixoto

E. M.

Pallini

A. C.

Vallerand

R. J.

Rahimi

Silva

M. V.

(2021). The role of passion for studies on academic procrastination and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Psychology of Education, 24(3), 877–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09636-9

37.

Prabandari

Yuliati

L. N.

(2016). The influence of social media use and parenting style on teenagers’ academic motivation and academic achievement. Journal of Child Development Studies, 1(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.29244/jcds.1.01.39-53

38.

Purboningsih

E. R.

Massar

Hinduan

Z. R.

Agustiani

Ruiter

R. A.

Verduyn

(2025). Parental mediation strategies for social media use: A thematic analysis of perspectives among Indonesian parents and adolescents. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(12), 2838–2859. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2413454

39.

Rahimi

Hall

N. C.

(2021). Why are you waiting? Procrastination on academic tasks among undergraduate and graduate students. Innovative Higher Education, 46(6), 759–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09563-9

40.

Ramanjaneyulu

Jalandharachari

A. S.

(2024). The moderation role of gender and educational level in the effect of mental well-being on academic procrastination. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 363–373.

41.

Reinecke

Meier

Beutel

M. E.

Schemer

Stark

Wölfling

Müller

K. W.

(2018). The relationship between trait procrastination, internet use, and psychological functioning: Results from a community sample of German adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00913

42.

Rozental

Forsström

Hussoon

Klingsieck

K. B.

(2022). Procrastination among university students: Differentiating severe cases in need of support from less severe cases. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 783570. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.783570

43.

Rozgonjuk

Kattago

Täht

(2018). Social media use in lectures mediates the relationship between procrastination and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.003

44.

Sagar

S. S.

Stoeber

(2009). Perfectionism, fear of failure, and affective responses to success and failure: The central role of fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(5), 602–627. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.5.602

45.

Şahin

(2019). Social Media Addiction Scale–Student Form. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology .

46.

Sarfo

J. O.

Amoadu

Ansah

E. W.

(2023). Internet addiction among college students from 20 countries: Scoping review of risk factors and impact on academic procrastination and sleep quality. International Journal of Media and Information Literacy, 8(2), 382–400.

47.

Schraw

Wadkins

Olafson

(2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12

48.

Serrano

D. M.

Williams

P. S.

Ezzeddine

Sapon

(2022). Association between problematic social media use and academic procrastination: The mediating role of mindfulness. Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2022.2100920

49.

Setia

Maninder Singh

. Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology 61(3):p 261–264, May–Jun 2016. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410

50.

Sirois

Pychyl

(2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011

51.

Sirois

F. M.

Kitner

(2015). Less adaptive or more maladaptive? A meta-analytic investigation of procrastination and coping. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1985

52.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

(2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30(1), 74–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001

53.

Solomon

L. J.

Rothblum

E. D.

(1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503

54.

Soysa

C. K.

Weiss

(2014). Mediating perceived parenting styles–test anxiety relationships: Academic procrastination and maladaptive perfectionism. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.004

55.

Sparfeldt

J. R.

Schwabe

(2024). Academic procrastination mediates the relation between conscientiousness and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 218, 112466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112466

56.

Steel

(2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

57.

Steel

Klingsieck

K. B.

(2016). Academic procrastination: Psychological antecedents revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12173

58.

Sudirman

S. A.

Reza

F. A.

Yusri

N. A.

Rina

Bah

(2023). Putting off until tomorrow: Academic procrastination, perfectionism, and fear of failure. International Journal of Islamic Educational Psychology, 4(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.18196/ijiep.v4i1.17576

59.

Svartdal

Dahl

T. I.

Gamst-Klaussen

Koppenborg

Klingsieck

K. B.

(2020). How study environments foster academic procrastination: Overview and recommendations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 540910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540910

60.

Tan

E. W. Y.

Prihadi

K. D.

(2022). Fear of failure and academic procrastination among university students: The role of achievement expectancy and year of study. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(1), 69–77.

61.

Tice

D. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x

62.

Vossen

H. G.

Van Den Eijnden

R. J.

Visser

Koning

I. M.

(2024). Parenting and problematic social media use: A systematic review. Current Addiction Reports, 11(3), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-024-00559-x

63.

Wang

Liao

Chen

Zhang

Qian

(2023). Work and affective outcomes of social media use at work: A daily-survey study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(5), 941–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.2012711

64.

Wolters

C. A.

Won

Hussain

(2017). Examining the relations of time management and procrastination within a model of self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 12(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9174-1

65.

Woo

V. M. W.

Yeo

K. J.

(2019). Parenting styles and procrastination behaviors. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8, 1007–1013. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.F1112.0986S319

66.

Zakeri

Esfahani

B. N.

Razmjoee

(2013). Parenting styles and academic procrastination. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.509