J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
DOI 10.1007/s10826-017-0751-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Relationship between Helicopter Parenting and Adjustment
to College
Veronica Darlow1 Jill M. Norvilitis1 Pamela Schuetze1
● ●
Published online: 8 May 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract As the entry into adulthood has become delayed,
parental involvement in young adults’ lives has increased.
However, parental overinvolvement may have negative
consequences on development. This study examined the
role of helicopter parenting and its effects on anxiety,
depression, self-efficacy and adjustment to college among
294 college students. It was hypothesized that students with
parents who are overly controlling will have higher levels of
anxiety and depression and lower levels of self-efficacy,
leading to poorer college adjustment, as evidenced by grade
point average, academic adjustment, and social adjustment
to college. The structural model was generally supported by
the data, indicating an indirect effect of helicopter parenting
on college adjustment, thus confirming the importance of
the relationship between healthy parenting and college
student mental health and, subsequently, student success.
The study also examined student preferences for parental
intervention, finding that students reporting more over-
parenting were less likely to desire parental intervention.
Keywords Parenting College adjustment Academic
● ●
* Jill M. Norvilitis
norviljm@buffalostate.edu
Veronica Darlow
darlowvl01@mail.buffalostate.edu
Pamela Schuetze
schuetp@buffalostate.edu
1
Department of Psychology, SUNY Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood
Ave., Buffalo, NY 14222, USA
Introduction
In recent years, parents have become increasingly involved
in younger children’s lives. This increased parental control
has also increased in college students’ lives as the emer-
gence of adulthood has become delayed with a longer
transition to some of the traditional markers of adulthood,
such as home ownership, full-time employment, and
families of one’s own (Furstenberg 2010). Parental invol-
vement is key to children’s cognitive, social, and emotional
adjustment (Combs-Orme et al. 2003; Pomerantz et al.
2007). As children develop into emerging adulthood, the
growth of autonomy and self-reliance becomes an important
task, but supportive parenting remains important for well-
being (Furstenberg 2010). Indeed, when asked, college
students report desiring parental involvement and most
students report that they are satisfied with their parents’
degree of involvement (Pryor et al. 2007).
Conversely, too much parental involvement may lead to
negative outcomes in children. In fact, Grant and Schwartz
(2011) argued that an inverted U relationship of moderation
rather than excess may be most beneficial. That is, just as
too little parental involvement is harmful to development,
too much parental involvement may be as well. In fact,
several studies indicate that too much parental involvement
is associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety
(Creswell et al. 2008; Gibbs 2009; Lemoyne and Buchanan
2011; Levine 2006; Marano 2008; Schiffrin et al. 2014) and
with children who report feeling less competent and more
vulnerable to stressors (Bronson and Merryman 2009;
Gibbs 2009; Hofer and Moore 2010; Marano 2008).
According to Creswell et al. (2008), parents’ over-
involvement comes from the perception that the child is
vulnerable and is a reaction to prevent child distress.
However, this reaction only enhances childhood anxiety.
2292
Overparenting hinders the development of coping
mechanisms, leading students to feel that they lack control
over their lives, resulting in a lack of volition (Schiffrin
et al. 2014). This subsequently leads to increased reports of
stress by students (Segrin et al. 2013).
This parental overinvolvement in children’s lives has
become known as helicopter parenting, describing the
hovering of parents over their children, ready to take
responsibility for their decisions and their problems
(LeMoyne and Buchanan 2011). Padilla-Walker and Nelson
(2012) described helicopter parenting as representing a
unique combination of common parenting styles: parenting
that is high on warmth and support, but also high on control
and low on granting autonomy to the child. According to
Baumrind (1966), authoritative parenting helps children to
develop the skills to engage autonomously and effectively
with society. Authoritative parents are firm without being
overly restrictive and have clear expectations of their child.
Helicopter parents are similar to authoritative parents in that
they are warm and responsive, but are significantly more
controlling (LeMoyne and Buchanan 2011). Although it is
common for parents to be concerned about their children’s
ability to succeed, helicopter parents are intrusive and feel
the need to perform their children’s tasks themselves to
ensure their children’s success (LeMoyne and Buchanan
2011). The degree to which children welcome this type of
involvement by their parent may be particularly important
in determining the nature of associated developmental
outcomes. While some studies find lower satisfaction with
family life among children of helicopter parents (Segrin
et al. 2012), Padilla-Walker and Nelson (2012) found that
children of helicopter parents report feeling that their par-
ents are emotionally supportive.
In this climate, young adults with helicopter parents may
be at a disadvantage compared to other adults. Hovering
parents do not allow their children to be autonomous, which
is appropriate for adolescents entering adulthood (Segrin
et al. 2012). Learning to be independent and autonomous is
an important skill set for young adults entering college. In
fact, research has shown that a high level of independence
promoted by parents, as well as a reciprocal relationship
with parents, aids in adjustment to college (Klein and
Pierce 2009), whereas overparenting is related to decreased
levels of self-regulation and goal-setting (Hong et al. 2015)
and self-efficacy (Bradley-Geist and Olson-Buchanan
2014). This lack of control and autonomy may lead to
problems with students’ social adjustment to college. Stu-
dents who have overinvolved parents may have a harder
time relating to their roommates or engaging in extra-
curricular activities (Klein and Pierce 2009), lack the con-
fidence to approach others or become part of a group and
report greater levels of alienation from and a lack of trust in
peers (van Ingen et al. 2015).
J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
To date, less research has examined the relationship
between helicopter parenting and overall success in college.
In one of the few studies to do so, college student
grade point average was not found to be related to over-
parenting (Bradley-Geist and Olson-Buchanan 2014),
although, in a longitudinal study, Kim et al. (2013) reported
lower academic achievement among Chinese–American
adolescents with overinvolved parents than those whose
parents were not excessively involved. Thus, a relationship
with academic adjustment, as well as social adjustment, in
college students seems plausible but requires additional
research.
Self-determination theory may be one useful framework
for explaining why helicopter-parenting leads to negative
outcomes among college students (Deci and Ryan 2008).
According to self-determination theory, there are three cri-
tical needs for optimal development and functioning; (1) the
basic need for autonomy, which involves feeling free to
make individual choices, (2) the basic need for competence,
or a feeling of confidence in one’s abilities, and (3) the basic
need for relatedness, which involves feeling part of caring
relationships. The presence of these three components is
associated with lower levels of depression (Wei et al. 2005)
and greater life satisfaction (Meyer et al. 2007). Thus,
helicopter parenting may reduce psychological well-being
and adjustment among college students via its impact on
self-determination.
A second useful framework for exploring the impact of
helicopter parenting on student adjustment to college is a
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning perspective. This
theory addresses the belief one has in one’s ability to reg-
ulate academic success through thoughts, motivation, affect,
and actions (Caprara et al. 2008). This self-efficacy has
clear implications for college student success and has been
found to be related to well-being (Paciello et al. 2016).
Because students with helicopter parents are unable to
develop the skills they need to be autonomous, it is possible
that helicopter parenting is predictive of both low self-
efficacy and the decreased well-being to which it is related.
These, in turn, may lead to lower levels of academic
achievement and adjustment.
Although there is research indicating a relationship
between overparenting and college student well-being, there
is less work examining the implications for college student
adjustment, both socially and academically. Further, there is
little research exploring the relationship between over-
parenting, well-being and college adjustment in concert
with one another. Thus, this work contributes to field by
considering the relationship between helicopter parenting
and student adjustment to college, examining in particular
the role of student well-being. Further, to our knowledge,
there are no studies to date that have considered whether
students prefer to have parents who are heavily involved.
J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
The primary goal of this study is to examine the link
between helicopter parenting and adjustment to college. We
hypothesized that helicopter parenting and adjustment to
college would best be understood through a model in which
helicopter parenting would lead to higher levels of depres-
sion and anxiety and lower levels of self-efficacy which
would adversely affect student adjustment to college. In
addition, this study examined college students’ preferences
about parental involvement and the relationship between
that preference and overparenting to explore whether stu-
dents think that parents should be heavily involved in their
college-age children’s lives.
Method
Participants
Participants included 294 college undergraduate students
(241 females) majoring in psychology at a public university
in the northeastern United States. Students ranged in age
from 18 to 26 years (M = 20.54, SD = 1.61). The majority
of participants identified themselves as Caucasian/White
(55.4%), followed by 30.3% African-American/Black,
7.1% Hispanic American, 2.4% Asian-American, and 4.8%
other. Further, 18.4% of the participants were 1st year
students, 18.4% were sophomores, 36.7% were juniors and
25.2% were seniors.
Procedure
The participants were recruited from various undergraduate
psychology classes to complete an online questionnaire
outside of class time. Following informed consent, the
questionnaires were completed anonymously. Participation
was voluntary and students received extra credit for com-
pleting the survey. In addition to demographic information
and college grade point average, participants completed
several measures.
Table 1 The College Student Parental Interaction Preference Scale
Item
If I had a problem with a professor, I would want one of my parents to step in to help.
College students’ parents should be supportive of their children, but not actively intervene in most situations. (R)
If parents are paying for college, they should have a voice in what classes students take.
If parents do not like their college age children’s romantic partners, the college student should probably end that
relationship.
If a college student gets in trouble on campus for failing to follow the Code of Conduct, his or her parents should
step in to help with the judicial process.
Note: (R) indicates that the item is reverse-scored
2293
Measures
Assessment of helicopter parenting
The Helicopter Parenting Scale (LeMoyne and Buchanan
2011) was used to determine the extent to which an indi-
vidual felt that their parents were controlling throughout
their childhood. It comprises 10 items, including such
questions as “My parents supervised my every move
growing up” and “My parents often stepped in to solve life
problems for me”. The items were rated on a Likert scale
from 1 to 5 (1 = “not at all like me,” 5 = “a lot like me”).
Higher scores represented higher levels of helicopter par-
enting. The authors report Cronbach’s reliability alpha
of 0.71.
The Parental Control Scale (Padilla-Walker 2008) was
utilized to evaluate the degree to which parents make
decisions and exert behavioral and psychological control
over their children. It included 15 items, such as “At least
one of my parents intervenes in settling disputes with my
roommates or friends” and “At least one of my parents tries
to control which classes I take or what my major is”, rated
on a 5 point Likert scale, from 1 “not at all like me” to 5 “a
lot like me”. Higher scores were equivalent to higher
levels of overall control. The authors report reliability alpha
of 0.85.
The College Student Parental Interaction Preference
Scale (Table 1) was created for this study to examine stu-
dent preferences about interactions with their parents. A list
of 8 items was generated asking participants about the
extent to which parents should intervene in a college stu-
dent’s life. Participants were asked to rate how strongly
they agreed with the statements on a scale of 1 to 5
(1 = “strongly agree”, 5 = “strongly disagree”). Higher
scores represented lower preference for heavy parental
involvement. Initial reliability analyses yielded a reliability
coefficient of 0.54. Subsequent principal components factor
analysis with varimax rotation indicated that the scale was
composed of three factors, five primary items, and two that
formed a secondary factor and one that did not load on the
M (SD) Item-total
correlation
4.14 (1.06) .40
4.34 (0.78) .37
3.49 (1.08) .49
3.94 (0.97) .36
3.42 (1.13) .38
2294 J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298

other two factors. Reliability for the five items of the pri- adjustment to college. The authors reported that the overall
mary factor was 0.64 and, thus, this factor was used in all scale has shown to be a reliable measure, with alphas
further analyses. ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 and also has good validity.

Mediating variables Data Analyses

Three International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) scales were
used to examine psychological well-being. IPIP scales are
open source equivalents to widely-used, copyrighted mea-
sures (Goldberg 2006). The IPIP Depression scale consists
of 20 questions to assess level of depression using a scale
rating from 1 (“rarely or none of the time”) to 4 (“most or all
of the time”). The IPIP database reports strong reliability (α
= .93).
The IPIP Anxiety scale was used to assess a person’s
level of anxiety on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (“not at all
characteristic of me”) to 5 (“extremely characteristic of me”).
In both the IPIP database, reliability was 0.83.
The IPIP Self Efficacy scale of 10 questions measured a
person’s level of self-efficacy on a scale ranging from 1
(“not at all characteristic of me”) to 5 (“extremely char-
acteristic of me”). The IPIP database reports acceptable
reliability (α = .78).
Measures of adjustment to college
The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Baker
and Siryk 1989) was included to measure student adjust-
ment to college. It is composed of four subscales, which
include Goal Commitment, Academic, Social and Personal
Adjustment, but only the Academic and Social Adjustment
subscales were used in the present study. These items were
rated on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“doesn’t
apply to me”) to 5 (“very much applies to me”). High scores
on this questionnaire indicate higher levels of self-reported
Group differences in parenting, psychosocial functioning,
GPA and adjustment to college variables were examined
first using analyses of variance (ANOVAs) in order to
provide descriptive data. Structural equation modeling
(SEM) was used to test the hypothesized model with levels
of depression, anxiety and self-efficacy as intervening
variables between helicopter parenting and student adjust-
ment to college. SEM analyses were conducted using
Mplus, Version 5.2 software (Muthen and Muthen
1998–2004) using full-information maximum likelihood
estimation procedures (Arbuckle 1996).
Results
The means, standard deviations, ranges, and reliability for
all measures in the study and correlations among measured
variables can be found in Table 2. Parental control and
helicopter parenting were highly associated with each other.
Thus, a latent variable called Helicopter Parenting com-
prised both of the parenting scales was used in the SEM
analyses Parental control and helicopter parenting were both
positively associated with depression and negatively asso-
ciated with self-efficacy, and both academic and social
adjustment to college. Depression and anxiety were both
negatively associated with both social and academic
adjustment to college. Self-efficacy was positively asso-
ciated with GPA, and both social and academic adjustment
to college.

Table 2 Correlations among study measures

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
M (SD; Range)

1. Parental control 2.07 (0.81; 1–4.87) .90

2. Helicopter parenting 2.64 (0.55; 1.22–4.67) .64** .61
3. Depression 1.88 (0.48; 1.15–3.5) .21** .17** .88
4. Anxiety 3.09 (0.76; 1–5.0) .09 .04 .54** .83
5. Self-efficacy 3.81 (0.54; 2.1–5.0) −.20** −.19** −.35** −.33** .75
6. GPA 3.07 (0.59; 0–4.0) −.08 −.09 −.05 .21** .21** –
7. Academic adjustment 3.46 (0.75; 1.48–4.74) −.26** −.22** −.48** −.26** .43** .29** .88
8. Social adjustment 3.40 (0.75; 1.4–5.0) −.17** −.15* −.44** −.35** .38** .0 .56** .88
9. Student preferences 3.86 (0.65; 1.4–5.0) −.39*** −.22*** −.05 .02 .16** .13* .21*** .13* .64
Note: Scale reliabilities are on the diagonal
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
College student parental interaction preference was not
part of the model to be investigated. However, we were
interested to know students’ preferences about the ideal
degree of parenting involvement. Parental interaction pre-
ference was negatively correlated with parenting control (r
= −.39, p < .001) and helicopter parenting (r = −.22, p
< .001), such that students who reported more over-
parenting were less likely to want high levels of parental
involvement. There was no difference in preference by
gender [t (286) = .76, p = .45]. There was a significant
difference by year [F (3,289) = 4.50, p = .004]. Post hoc
testing indicated that first year students were more
approving of parental intervention than seniors, but no other
comparison was significant. Students generally preferred
less parental intervention rather than more. As noted pre-
viously, items were scored on a five-point strongly agree to
strongly disagree scale. Item means for each of the five
items on the scale all were in the direction of desiring less
parental intervention and fewer than five percent of students
strongly agreed with any of the items. Even first year stu-
dents, who were the most accepting, generally disagreed
with intervention (first year overall M = 3.63, SD = 0.74).
One-way ANOVAs were used to explore possible dif-
ferences in study measures by year in school and by gender.
There were no differences by year in school for parenting
behaviors, IPIP subscale scores, GPA or the measures of
adjustment to college. There were, however, gender dif-
ferences for anxiety and academic adjustment to college.
Females (M = 3.17, SD = 0.75) reported higher levels of
anxiety than males (M = 2.72, SD = 0.73), F(1, 282) =
8.51, p = .001. Females (M = 3.17, SD = 0.75) also repor-
ted higher levels of academic adjustment to college than
males (M = 3.17, SD = 0.75), F(1, 272) = 4.61, p = .03.
There were no differences between males and females in
parenting behavior, levels of depression and self-efficacy,
GPA or social adjustment to college.
The hypothesized model tested included levels of
depression, anxiety and self-efficacy as potential mediators
or intervening variables between the latent variable of par-
enting behaviors and student adjustment to college and
academic performance. The model also included covar-
iances among the residuals of intervening variables,
Fig. 1 Structural model of the
relationship between helicopter
parenting and college
adjustment
2295
between parenting variables and between GPA and mea-
sures of adjustment to college. Goodness of fit indices
indicated that the structure of our hypothesized model
provided a good fit to the data, χ2 (8) = 8.17, p = .42,
comparative fit index = 1.0, root mean square error of
approximation = .004 (0.00, 0.06). This indirect effects
model was contrasted with a model that included direct
paths from parenting behaviors to GPA and the adjustment
to college measures. Results indicated that the addition of
these direct paths did not improve the fit of the model,
Δχ2(3) = 1.61, p = NS. Thus, the final model displayed in
Fig. 1 does not include these direct paths. The residuals of
GPA and academic adjustment were associated with each
other. The structural paths indicated that higher degrees of
helicopter parenting behaviors were associated with higher
levels of depression and lower levels of self-efficacy.
Higher levels of depression and lower levels of self-efficacy
were associated with lower levels of both social and aca-
demic adjustment to college. Higher levels of self-efficacy
and anxiety were associated with higher GPA.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to expand upon previous
research that has established a link between helicopter
parenting and depression, anxiety, and self-efficacy in col-
lege students (e.g., Schiffrin et al. 2014) by exploring the
role that these indices of student well-being have on their
adjustment to college. Results indicated that higher levels of
helicopter parenting are associated with more symptoms of
depression and with lower self-efficacy which, in turn, are
associated with lower levels of academic and social
adjustment to college.
The pathway from overparenting to lower student
adjustment through reduced self-efficacy supports self-
determination theory. Self-efficacy is a measure of student
sense of competence one of the three basic needs of self-
determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2008). As would by
hypothesized by self-determination theory, lower self-
efficacy was associated with less optimal student aca-
demic and social adjustment to college. We also found that
2296
students who report overparenting are also less likely to
want it than other college students suggesting a negative
impact on their sense of autonomy, another of the basic
needs in self-determination theory. Contrary to the goals of
many parents who are overinvolved in the lives of their
college students, these findings indicate that helicopter
parenting may well defeat what is likely its own goal of
improving student success by negatively impacting student
mental health.
It may be that this pattern of results extends beyond self-
efficacy and self-determination as initially hypothesized to
the construct of mindset. Mindset theory explains that stu-
dents with a growth orientation believe that intelligence is
malleable and are more likely to pursue challenges and
value effort, whereas those with a fixed mindset, who view
intelligence as unchangeable, are more likely to give up in
the face of difficulty (Rattan et al. 2015). Mindset is fostered
by the messages that parents send their children both
directly and indirectly (Dweck 2006). The unintended
message of the helicopter parent may be that their children
need control and intervention because their own efforts are
not sufficient. This could lead to feelings of depression and
anxiety, both of which have been linked to a fixed mindset
(Dweck 2006), and decreased self-efficacy, ultimately
resulting in poorer adjustment to college and decreased
academic performance. Future research should examine the
relationship between mindset and overparenting more
directly. If this were supported, this may point to inter-
ventions to improve student functioning in the face of
overparenting, as research has demonstrated that fostering a
growth mindset can boost student adjustment and achieve-
ment (Rattan et al. 2015).
The results of this study also raise interesting questions
about the nature of helicopter parenting. Few studies
(such as Segrin et al. 2013) have examined parents’ per-
ceptions of helicopter parenting. This study was based
solely on student self-report. It is possible that anxious or
depressed students may have altered perceptions of their
parents. It is also possible that those students who most
value autonomy perceive their parents as engaging in more
hovering behaviors perhaps because they chafe at inter-
vention more than other students, leading to the relationship
between scores on the helicopter parenting measures and
students’ preferences. As is the case that perceptions of
social support often matter more than actual measures of
social support in predicting well-being (McDowell and
Serovich 2007), it may also be that perceptions of parental
involvement matter more when looking at the relationship
between mental health and overparenting than objective
behaviors. Future research should examine the role of
perceptions of overparenting versus objective measures of
overparenting behaviors and versus parents’ perceptions of
their own behaviors.
J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
Despite the promising nature of the results, there are
limitations that temper the conclusions. First, the partici-
pants were psychology majors from a medium-sized state
university. Thus, these results may not generalize to stu-
dents in other types of colleges and universities. Further,
data were collected at one point in time from a cross-section
of students and thus it is impossible to draw conclusions
that overparenting led to decreased college adjustment. It is
also possible that parents step in more to help students
who are struggling already. It would also be worthwhile to
examine parental differences in hovering. The measures in
the present study asked if at least one parent acted in a
controlling way and did not differentiate between the
mother and the father. This information would provide
insight as to which parent is perceived as more prone to
hovering and how mothers and fathers may differentially
affect the child’s development. Finally, the measure of
student preference for parental intervention was developed
for the present study. The reliability was somewhat low
and tempers conclusions based on that measure. Further
development of the measurement of this construct is
warranted.
It is interesting to note that helicopter parenting did not
predict anxiety as had been reported in prior research. It is
possible that, due to the strong correlation between
depression and anxiety, depression was influencing the
relationship between helicopter parenting and anxiety in
prior studies. However, in this study, even the bivariate
correlations between helicopter parenting and anxiety were
not significant. Therefore, it is also possible that this result
was due to the anxiety measure used in this study. Perhaps a
measure designed to specifically assess anxiety related to
academics would have yielded different results. Thus,
additional study is warranted.
Although there are several limitations, the present study
indicates the importance of the relationship between healthy
parenting—or, perhaps, perceptions of healthy parenting—
and college student mental health and subsequently on
student success. Given the potential consequences of heli-
copter parenting, it is important for colleges to be aware of
this issue and to have a plan for increasing college student
autonomy. van Ingen et al. (2015) recommended that col-
leges begin to address this during new student orientation,
talking to both parents and students about helpful and non-
helpful communication styles. They also recommended
creating opportunities for students to develop autonomy,
such as through developing healthy peer relationships and
leading educational programming on peer communication.
Improving communication and helping students become
autonomous may well improve mental health and student
success in college. However, to date, there is little research
on interventions or their efficacy. Clearly, this is an area in
need of further study.
J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
Author Contributions V.D.: designed and executed the study,
assisted with data analyses, and wrote the paper. J.M.N.: collaborated
with the design and writing of the study. P.S.: analyzed the data and
collaborated with the writing and editing of the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no compet-
ing interests.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indivi-
dual participants included in the study.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of
incomplete data. In C. A. Marcoulides, R. E. Schumacker (Eds.),
Advanced structural equation modeling; Issues and techniques
(pp. 243–277). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child
behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, M. A. (1989). Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Bradley-Geist, J. C., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2014). Helicopter
parenting: An examination of the correlates of over-parenting of
college students. Education and Training, 56, 314–328.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). Nurture shock: New thinking
about children. New York, NY: Twelve.
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G.
M., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal ana-
lysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 525–534.
Combs-Orme, T., Wilson, E., Cain, D. S., Page, T., & Kirby, I. D.
(2003). Context-based parenting in infancy. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 20, 437–472. doi:10.1023/B.CASW.
000003138.32550.a2.
Creswell, C., O’Connor, T. G., & Brewin, C. R. (2008). The impact of
parents’ expectations on parenting behaviour: An experimental
investigation. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36,
483–490.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and
psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psy-
chology, 49, 14–23. doi:10.1037/0708-449.I.49.1.14.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New
York: Ballantine.
Furstenberg, F. F. (2010). Becoming adults: Challenges in the transi-
tion to adult roles. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85,
S14–S23.
Gibbs, N. (2009). The growing backlash against overparenting. Time
Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
0.9171.1940597.00.html.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.
C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International
Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality
measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
2297
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The
challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 61–76.
Hofer, B. K., & Moore, A. S. (2010). IConnected Parent. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Kuo, Y. C., & Hsu, W. Y. (2015). Parental
monitoring and helicopter parenting relevant to vocational stu-
dents’ procrastination and self-regulated learning. Learning and
Individual Differences, 42, 139–146.
Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Orozco-Lapray, D., Shen, Y., & Murtuza, M.
(2013). Does “Tiger Parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chi-
nese Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes.
Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 7–18. doi:10.1037/a
0030612.
Klein, M. B., & Pierce, J. D. (2009). Parental care aids, but parental
overprotection hinders, college adjustment. College Student
Retention, 11(2), 167–181.
LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does “hovering” matter?
Helicopter parenting and its effect on well being. Sociological
Spectrum, 31, 399–418.
Levine, M. (2006). The price of privilege. New York, NY: Harper
Collins.
Marano, H. E. (2008). A nation of wimps: The high cost of invasive
parenting. New York, NY: The Crown Publishing Group.
McDowell, T. L., & Serovich, J. M. (2007). The effect of perceived
and actual social support on the mental health of HIV-positive
persons. AIDS Care, 19, 1223–1229. doi:10.1080/095401
20701402830.
Meyer, B., Enstrom, M. K., Harsveit, M., Bowles, D. P., & Beevers, C.
G. (2007). Happiness and despair on the catwalk: Need satis-
faction, well-being, and personality adjustment among fashion
models. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 2–17. doi:10.
1080/17439760602076635.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2004). Mplus user’s guide. 3rd
ed. California: Authors.
Paciello, M., Ghezzi, V., Tramontano, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Fida, R.
(2016). Self-efficacy configurations and wellbeing in the aca-
demic context: A person-centered approach. Personality and
Individual Differences 99, 16–21.
Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2008). Domain-appropriateness of maternal
discipline as a predictor of adolescents’ positive and negative
outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 456–464.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down?:
Establishin helicopter parenting as a distinct construct from other
forms of parental control during emerging adulthood. Journal of
Adolescence, 35, 1177–1190.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The
how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s aca-
demic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 373–410.
Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Korn, W. S., & Sharkness, J. (2007). The
American freshman: National norms for fall 2007. Los Angeles:
Higher Education Research Institute. www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri.
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Chugh, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2015).
Leveraging mindsets to promote academic achievement: Policy
recommendations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10,
721–726.
Schiffrin, H. H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., Geary, K. A., Erchull,
M. J., & Tashner, T. (2014). Helping or hovering? The effects of
helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 23, 548–557.
Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., Bauer, A., & Murphy, M. T.
(2012). The association between overparenting, parent-child
communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits in adult
children. Family Relations, 61, 237–252.
2298
Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., & Montgomery, N. (2013).
Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 569–595.
van Ingen, D. J., Freiheit, S. R., Steinfeldt, J. A., Moore, L. L., Wimer,
D. J., Knutt, A. D., Scapinello, S., & Roberts, A. (2015). Heli-
copter parenting: The effect of an overbearing caregiving style on
J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2291–2298
peer attachment and self-efficacy. Journal of College Counseling,
18, 7–20.
Wei, M., Philip, A. S., Shaffer, A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A.
(2005). Adult attachment, shame, depression, and loneliness:
The mediation role of basic psychological needs satisfaction.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 591–601.