Empirical Paper

Emerging Adulthood
2021, Vol. 9(1) 76-87
Parents’ and College Students’ Perceptions ª 2019 Society for the
Study of Emerging Adulthood
and SAGE Publishing
of Support and Family Environment Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2167696818823947
journals.sagepub.com/home/eax

Karin Bartoszuk1, James E. Deal2, and Meghan Yerhot2

Abstract
The main objectives of this multimethod exploratory study were to compare parent and college student perceptions of com-
munication patterns, financial/emotional support, family environment, and achieved adulthood during the transition to adulthood
while in college. First, focus groups including eight parent figures and 16 students were conducted to provide feedback on
important topics as well as on survey instruments. Survey responses from 152 parent figures and their college-age children were
then used for the exploratory survey study. Parents reported providing more financial support, more positive family interactions,
and less negative family interactions compared to their college-age children. The majority of students as well as parents did not
view themselves and their children as having fully completed the transition to adulthood as indicated by the majority using the “in-
between” response when asked if their child (or student himself or herself) had reached adulthood.

Keywords
college students, parents, family environment and support

There is ample evidence that appropriate parental involvement
in childhood is related to numerous positive, long-term devel-
opmental trajectories. Whether using the traditional parenting
types (i.e., Baumrind, 1966) or focusing more on types of con-
trol (i.e., Barber, 1996), warm, supportive parenting that is
meant to guide children through developmental transitions has
been consistently related to a variety of positive outcomes. This
fact is so established in the literature that, as Crosnoe and Cava-
nagh (2010) note, scholars have turned to broader, more
process-oriented themes that may potentially link parenting
and child/adolescent development in ways heretofore not
understood.
At the same time, researchers have begun to explore the
period beyond adolescence as an important developmental
period in its own right, termed “emerging adulthood” by Arnett
(2000). Currently, the period from age 18 to 29 is viewed as not
really adolescence, but not yet adulthood, either; it is a separate
period of life that lasts about as long as adolescence does
(Arnett, 2006; Arnett, Žukauskien_e, & Sugimura, 2014). Dur-
ing this period, the notion of family and roles within the family
may be redefined, especially in many Western countries where
the perceived need for a college education is increasing. Some
emerging adults will move away; some will change jobs; others
may move back home. Many of them, regardless of their cir-
cumstances, will remain financially dependent on their parents,
which is especially true for college students (Arnett, 2006). In
addition to the financial support, this is also often a time when
many parents are still an important source of emotional sup-
port, and they continue to be important in their children’s lives
(Schwartz & Finley, 2010).
While relationships can be made less positive by parents
either discouraging emerging adults from leaving the home and
being overinvolved or by dysfunctional family interactions
(e.g., conflict, disengagement; Scabini, Marta, & Lanz,
2006), the cultural norm in this country has been for parents
to encourage a successful “split” between themselves and the
emerging adult. It appears that this may be changing, at least
when examining the degree of involvement by parents in their
child’s college experience. As Sweeton and Davis (2004) have
noted, colleges and universities in the 1960s and 1970s shifted
away from an In Loco Parentis role, allowing considerable
independence to students across a variety of areas. For the
highly involved parents of college students, however, where
parent–child relationships appear stronger than in the past, a
1
Department of Educational Foundations and Special Education, East Tennes-
see State University, Johnson City, TN, USA
2
Department of Human Development and Family Science, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND, USA
Corresponding Author:
Karin Bartoszuk, PhD, Department of Educational Foundations and Special
Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA.
Email: bartoszu@etsu.edu
Bartoszuk et al.
high degree of parental involvement in their child’s life while
at college/university appears to be increasing (Love & Thomas,
2014; Sweeton & Davis, 2004). The general assumption in
higher education tends to be that such involvement is negative
(Hofer & Moore, 2010; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012), best
characterized as overinvolvement, as evidenced by the
“helicopter parents” and “failure to launch” perspectives found
in both the popular press and the professional literature as well
(see Schiffrin et al., 2014, for a brief review).
This focus on the negative aspects of parental involvement
in their emerging adult children’s lives highlights one of the
more problematic areas of the literature, namely, that, as a
whole, little is known about the nature of the relationship
between parents and their children during the college period
(Sherrod, 2009). It also shifts the focus significantly, so that
a negative lens is applied to parent–child relationships during
this critical transitional period, when, in fact, parents and fam-
ily are an important source of emotional and financial support
for students because of increased costs of a college education as
well as insecurities about securing future employment (Adams,
Ryan, & Keating, 2000; Trice, 2002). Furthermore, parent–
child relationships have important implications on individual
long-term psychological adjustment as well as provide stability
within society. Therefore, it is important to investigate this
transitional period further during the college period. This
important period provides a distinct occasion to examine fam-
ily functioning and parental behavior, as young adults may
require more independence in the context of higher education
systems (Lowe & Dotterer, 2017). With these points in mind,
the purpose of this research project was to examine the percep-
tions of parents and college student children regarding their
relationships during the transition to adulthood and college.
Literature Review
For most college students of traditional age, there are varieties
of ways in which parental involvement and support may man-
ifest themselves. In this project, we focused on four areas: com-
munication patterns, parental support (financial and social),
family functioning/environment, and criterion for adulthood.
These areas have been extensively researched and have been
found not only to influence parent–child relationships but also
to affect the transition to adulthood in either a more positive or
negative trajectory (Adams et al., 2000; Bradley-Geist &
Olson-Buchanan, 2014; Love & Thomas, 2014; Scabini
et al., 2006).
Communication Patterns
As students take on new roles and wrestle with new life
demands and stressors during the transition to college, the
structure of relationships with parents/caregivers may change.
These changes can provide opportunities for strengthening
relationships and the support that they provide, or they can lead
to periods of loneliness and insecurity (Ramsey, Gentzler,
Morey, Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2013). In addition, this
77
transition now takes place during a period of great technologi-
cal advancement, particularly in the area of communication.
Technology now allows communication to take place practi-
cally anywhere and anytime via text message, e-mail, or phone
call. In a time of transition, of moving away from family, indi-
viduals may rely heavily on these various communication
forms to maintain familial relationships.
Gentzler, Oberhauser, Westerman, and Nadorff (2011), for
example, focused specifically on college students and elec-
tronic communication with their parents. They consistently
found that frequent phone conversations with parents provided
and helped students maintain a more secure and intimate rela-
tionship with them. Students who primarily communicated
with their parents through other forms of social media, how-
ever, were more likely to report feelings of loneliness and
depression, though this effect was not found in a later cohort.
Similar results have been found in other studies of internet
usage, with more time spent on social media sites linked to
depression and loneliness, as well (Shaw & Gant, 2002). For
most students, social media is an entertaining way to pass time;
relying on it to stay connected to parents would appear to have
the opposite effect.
It is also important to consider the context of parent–student
communication during this transitional period. Whereas most
people would consider maintaining communication normative
(Ramsey et al., 2013), it is not always true that students stay
in regular contact with parents once they have left home. While
we might assume that not staying in contact would be associ-
ated with negative outcomes, if students grew up in an unstable
and/or chaotic environment, such a separation during the tran-
sition to adulthood may actually be positive, enabling the stu-
dent to focus on themselves and make a clean start. If students
perceive that the level of support they are receiving from par-
ents is not enough, they may look elsewhere for the support that
they need. This support is vital to students’ success in college
and can be most beneficial coming from other peers within the
same settings (Thompson & Mazer, 2009). Determining and
establishing the amount of communication needed to feel sup-
ported or cared for will vary from person to person; while most
may receive this from parents and family, others may find that
there are other sources of communication that meet their needs.
As some may engage in regular communication with parents,
Thompson and Mazer (2009) point out that other sources are
just as useful during times of transition such as college.
In contrast to parents who may not communicate regularly
with their children during this transitional period, other parents
may communicate too much. As noted previously, this percep-
tion has quickly dominated the popular press and has begun to
appear in the scholarly literature as well. Such overinvolve-
ment can be detrimental to the success and overall well-being
of the student (Schiffrin et al., 2014). While parental involve-
ment can lay the foundation for a successful, stable, and enrich-
ing environment for the child to grow, the overprotective,
hovering parenting styles that can emerge with multiple daily
calls, text messages, and e-mails can hinder the student’s abil-
ity to become independent in their new role (Hunt, 2008).
78
While parents may feel that being involved in their child’s edu-
cation will allow them to be in control of their ultimate success,
balance in being supportive and communicating with one
another is necessary for both the students’ well-being and the
parents. Parents often feel that they should check up on their
child because they are also adjusting to a new period in their
life, the empty nest or launching stage (Mitchell & Lovegreen,
2009). During this time, parents experience a new set of roles as
their child adapts to the new challenges that college may bring.
For the first time, perhaps, parents have to trust that their child
will be able to be a functioning adult and make their own deci-
sions. This adjustment can bring about a great deal of stress for
parents, which can perhaps be the reason for the overinvolved
parenting style as they look to increased communication with
the child to avoid their own feelings of sadness or depression.
Finally, as part of the context of communication, gendered
differences between parents and students should also be exam-
ined. As Baxter and Pederson (2013) have noted, much of the
literature on family communication fails to do so, viewing fam-
ily members as interchangeable. They note, however, Fitzpa-
trick and Ritchie’s work (1994), showing that mothers
reported more openness in communication with adolescents
than fathers did, while fathers reported more conformity orien-
tation. Baxter and Pederson were unable, however, to replicate
these differences. In addition, similar work by Levin and Currie
(2010) found only limited gender differences, with more ado-
lescent boys than girls reporting easy communication with their
mothers, no differences for fathers, and no differences for
either parent on reports of difficult communication. In light
of the limited literature in this area, as well as the general lack
of research with emerging adults, more research in the area is
needed.
Clearly, then, communication between parent and child
involves a balancing act, taking into account the needs and
desires of both, and may vary by gender of the parent and of
the child. Current research has not examined these possibly dif-
ferent needs and desires in much depth.
Financial and Social/Emotional Support
Historically, macro-level influences such as economic trends
have influenced the transition to adulthood. The transition to
adulthood is more complex and gradual today. Many young
people do not achieve economic and psychological autonomy
as quickly as they did 50 years ago (Furstenberg, Rumbaut,
& Settersten, 2008), partially due to increased costs of educa-
tion, stagnant wages, and the changing job market.
The average cost of college at a public 4-year in-state uni-
versity in the United States—including tuition, room, and
board—is approximately US$20,092 per year (The College
Board 2017 Trends in Higher Education, n. d.). Although there
are other options such as 2-year and private universities one
may consider, the costs can be a strenuous investment and can
lead some to search for assistance to help cover the expenses. In
the past, the normative expectation was that families would pay
for college; this is no longer true, due to the increased cost of
Emerging Adulthood 9(1)
college tuition and no corresponding increase in the average
family’s salary (Hornak, Farrell, & Jackson, 2010).
According to SallieMae (2016), in 2015–2016, parental
income and savings covered just 29% of college costs, with stu-
dent savings and income covering even less (12%). Another
20% was covered with loans (13% for students, 7% for par-
ents), with other relatives and friends contributing 5%, and
scholarships and grants accounting for 34%. In addition to their
direct contribution, it is not clear just how many parents are
providing additional financial help that may go unreported in
research studies. Fingerman et al. (2012), for example, found
that parents were actually providing more financial support
than they had in the past. Regardless of the degree or type of
financial support given and any stipulations set by parents, the
current research perspective is from the parental perspective;
research on the perspective of the student is typically lacking
(Hornak et al., 2010).
Student decisions about whether or not they will pursue a
college education after high school are likely closely linked
to finances and financial support. De La Rosa (2006) found that
students’ ultimate decision relied heavily on whether or not
they believed it was financially possible for them. If students
feel as if they are unable to afford college, they may be quick
to push the idea of attending out of their plans. However, if par-
ents are able to help them financially cover the costs of a col-
lege education, it may influence their decision.
That financial support may not come without a price, how-
ever; it may create a sense of parental entitlement over their
child’s decisions while in college (Lowe, Dotterer, & Fran-
cisco, 2015). The degree of this entitlement may differ for each
parent, but what is common is the feeling that they want to have
a say in decisions and be in control so that ultimately their
investment does not go to waste. This involvement may also,
however, have a negative impact on parental satisfaction with
their own lives (Fingerman et al., 2012). Despite evidence that
some involved parents get a sense of fulfillment out of being
there for their child, this is not always the case, and seems to
be dependent on the parents perceiving that the degree of sup-
port provided to the child is deserved (e.g., by earning good
grades). When this happens, the parents feel happy about the
support and get a sense of satisfaction from it.
From the student’s perspective, while overly involved par-
ents are typically seen in the literature as negative (Padilla-
Walker & Nelson, 2012), there may also be positive benefits
to them. There is evidence, for example, that students who
receive financial support tend to adjust and excel at a greater
rate than those who have to provide support for themselves
(Fingerman et al., 2012). Fingerman also found that students’
perceptions of their parents’ involvement were linked to higher
satisfaction within their lives because they were able to do
more things and enjoy college instead of being stressed about
major decisions and finances. It seems that there needs to be
an established, healthy balance of support. Being overly sup-
portive can be beneficial in some aspects, but it can also hinder
the developing person’s attempt to establish independence and
develop decision-making abilities on their own. This possible
Bartoszuk et al.
dichotomy emphasizes the importance of understanding both
parental and student’s perspectives of receiving support from
parents.
While a great deal of the focus on support during this period
is on finances, parents also provide social and emotional sup-
port to students during this period. As Hirsch and Barton
(2011) note, social support from a variety of sources—parents,
peers, educational institutions—is related to a variety of posi-
tive outcomes including academic performance, mental health,
and reduced suicidal likelihood. In their research, lower levels
of peer and parental support were related to lower levels of aca-
demic performance and higher levels of anxiety, depression,
and aggression. Opposite results were found for family and
peer conflict, which can be seen as potential indicators of a lack
of support from those sources. Desjardins and Leadbeater
(2017) examined emotional support, which has been linked
to positive adjustment, career development, and maturity in
emerging adults. Their results indicated that higher levels of
emotional support led to better mental health and educa-
tional/occupational outcomes. Overcontrol by parents, in con-
trast, led to more negative outcomes.
Finally, there is substantial literature linking social support
by parents to career development and interests, across a wide
age range (Metheny & McWhirter, 2013; Rice, Barth, Gua-
dagno, Smith, & McCallum, 2013). Rice et al., for example,
found greater social support from parents, teachers, and others
was linked to better perceived abilities in math and science.
Family Environment/Functioning
During this transitional period, the relationships that form
within the family environment can play a significant role in the
outcomes associated with the transition. Numerous studies, for
example, have found that parent–child relationships and
experiences together, are strongly related to future outcomes
throughout the life span (Schwartz & Finley, 2010). During
times of transition, certain family characteristics emerge as
more prominent, including, for example, how families deal
with conflicts and expressiveness within the family (Johnson,
Gans, Kerr, & LaValle, 2010). These characteristics and rela-
tionships help to prepare and protect the student during transi-
tions. Major changes such as moving to a new city or new state
and living away from the family for the first time can be stress-
ful and require the relationships built during childhood and
adolescence to be strong and stable to ensure well-being. We
often learn from our families how to cope with stressful events,
and we establish ways to maintain those close relationships
(Johnson et al., 2010).
In addition to the general research in this area, the specific
relationship between the family environment and college
adjustment is an area that has been studied extensively (Adams
et al., 2000; Buboltz, Johnson, & Woller, 2003; Johnson et al.,
2010; Lopez & Thurman, 1993; Love & Thomas, 2014). The
majority of these studies have found that the decision to leave
the family for college creates a degree of tension between con-
tinuing to be a part of the family of origin and establishing
79
one’s independence (Johnson et al., 2010). Successfully com-
pleting this transition may depend on how cohesive the family
is. Students who reported that their family was very cohesive,
for example, found the transition into college to be less stress-
ful than those who reported coming from a less cohesive family
(Johnson et al., 2010).
Successfully completing the transition may also depend on
the variety of parenting styles and strategies that each family
utilizes. The majority of work in this area still focus on parent-
ing typologies as defined by Baumrind (1966). Oden Weller,
Booth-Butterfield, and Weber (2014), focusing on parenting
styles and the relation to helicopter parenting, found that cer-
tain parenting styles, such as authoritarian, lead to more inten-
sely involved parenting practices. Trice (2002) found that
students reported more contact with their parents for advice
regarding school or other serious matters when they came from
a family with authoritarian parents than when they came from a
family with authoritative parents. In the latter, the students
reported frequent contact with their families as well but for
more enjoyable everyday talks rather than for advice. This may
indicate that students who come from stricter family environ-
ments where less autonomous decision-making is allowed find
themselves needing parental help as they establish their own
adult lives. In contrast, students who have family support and
the freedom to be independent and make their own decisions
rely on parents less for decision-making and are able to engage
in conversations that are instead more meaningful. Similarly,
Alt (2015) found that female first-year college students who
reported having stricter parents also reported more negative
outcomes that hindered their overall academic progress.
Furthermore, Bradley-Geist and Olson-Buchanan (2014)
reported that overparenting had a negative impact on self-
efficiency and work place adjustment. On the other hand, neu-
tral and even positive outcomes have been reported. College
students whose parents were overinvolved reported higher
satisfaction and engagement regarding their college experi-
ences and had a higher grade point average (National Survey
of Student Engagement, 2007). Helicopter parenting or overin-
volved parenting may be a more complex phenomenon than
originally thought (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012).
In summary, this study will focus on family processes and
some specific parenting behaviors (communication, support),
exploring the implied dimensions of cohesion, rules, roles, and
conflict conceptualized as family functioning. These processes
are demonstrated through behaviors and can have implications
on the transition to adulthood.
Criteria for Adulthood
The United States and many developed countries have seen a
prolonged transition from adolescence to adulthood termed
as emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). Many emerging adults
postpone life events such as leaving the parental home, finan-
cial independence, and launching a professional career, mainly
due to an increased need for education (Badger, Nelson &
McNamara Barry, 2006; Robette, 2010; the origin and
80
theoretical aspects of emerging adulthood are beyond the scope
of the current article; for more information, see Arnett, 2016;
Côt_e & Bynner, 2008; Furstenberg, 2016; Syed, 2016). Further-
more, as Nelson et al. (2007) note, there is an emergent litera-
ture suggesting that the majority of college students do not
view themselves as adults. While Nelson et al. argue that sim-
ilar views can be expected from the students’ parents, the liter-
ature in this area is severely limited, as are direct comparisons
between parents and children. Nelson et al. provided such com-
parisons across five areas: role transitions, norm compliance,
biological/age transitions, family capacities, and relational
maturity. Emerging adults viewed two areas—role transitions
and biological age/transitions—as more important than did par-
ents, while parents viewed norm compliance as more important
than did emerging adults. In two areas—family capacities and
relational maturity—ratings of importance by emerging adults
were less than those by mothers but not those by fathers.
This is potentially an important area to pursue as we attempt
to understand parental support. Perceptions of the student as
being an adult or not may influence both the level and type
of support offered by the parent as well as that expected or
accepted by the student. Given the relative scarcity of research
in this area, further data on both the nature of these perceptions
and the congruence (or lack thereof) between parents and emer-
ging adults would be helpful. Considering the importance of
support on ensuring a successful transition into college, it
should be obvious that some type of support is needed and nec-
essary for academic success as well as overall well-being. What
is not clear from the current research is which of the different
areas of support are most important in influencing positive out-
comes—as well as negative outcomes—or how perceptions
may differ between parents and students.
Purpose
With these points in mind, the purpose of this study was to
explore the following research questions:
1. How often do parents and emerging adult students com-
municate, and what form does this communication take?
2. What topics do parents and students disagree on? What
is the frequency of this disagreement?
3. What type of financial and social/emotional support do
parents provide to students?
4. How do parents and students view the family environment?
5. What criteria for adulthood do parents and students
endorse?
6. And, for all of these, how do views of parents differ
from those of students?
Method
Procedure and Sample
Because of the exploratory nature of this project, we began
with focus groups with parents and students to gather insight
on proceeding with the questionnaire portion of the project.
Emerging Adulthood 9(1)
Separate focus groups were conducted for parents (n ¼ 8) and
students (n ¼ 16) to receive input on communication patterns,
financial support, and different family environment/function-
ing scales (Bloom, 1985; and others) in order to evaluate their
applicability. Parents of college students came from medium-
sized cities and small rural communities and had various levels
of education from professional degrees to not finishing high
school. Students participating in the focus groups were all
attending the same university and ranged from freshmen to
seniors. The information obtained during the focus groups
was used to develop survey items, select the most applicable
established questionnaires, and modify items on selected ques-
tionnaires. Parents and students were asked about their commu-
nication patterns, including social media, concerns about their
future (especially the transition to college), and provided
insight into different areas of support (financial, emotional,
etc.), as well as applicable family functioning/environment
measures.
During the focus groups, we used guided questions (commu-
nication/technology usage/important topics, etc.) as well as the
survey instruments (family/communication) to start the discus-
sions, which were recorded and coded by two graduate stu-
dents. The majority of students and parents reported they
communicated numerous times a day (in person, text, and
phone). The majority of students described this behavior from
parents as “supportive and caring.” Parents often reported that
they wanted to be involved in their children’s lives to make
sure they “feel well and will succeed in college and later on
in life.” Additionally, the majority of students reported that
their parents were listed as friends on Facebook and other
social media, and were proud that their parents were
“technologically advanced enough” to do so, and that they were
“interested in their lives.” The inclusion of the health-related
variables as topics of importance was initiated by parents’
responses, as these topics were of great concern regarding their
children’s future well-being. More specifically, parents were
more concerned about healthy nutrition, sleeping patterns,
keeping medical appointments, and taking medication regu-
larly if applicable. Finally, both parents and emerging adults
preferred the Bloom family scale over others (Olson, Stein-
berg) as the questions were more concrete and applicable, espe-
cially after their children moved out to attend college. All of
these scales are several decades old and were established
mostly to measure parent–adolescent relationships. Therefore,
the focus groups helped to establish if these scales were still
acceptable regarding content as well as applicable to parents
with emerging adults.
Once this information was obtained and the questionnaire
was developed, surveying of undergraduates and their parents
was begun. A sample of 152 students with a parental response
was obtained. Data were collected from students (and their par-
ents) attending a mid-sized public university in the Southeast-
ern part of the United States. Demographic information is
presented in Table 1. Students were between the ages of 18 and
29, with a mean age of 20.99 years (SD ¼ 2.54). 80.3% were
female, with 19.7% male, and 92.8% were White. Regarding
Bartoszuk et al. 81

Table 1. Demographics. 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) and is organized into

two scales: open communication (e.g., I can discuss my beliefs
Variable Mean/Percentage
with my child without feeling restrained or embarrassed) and
Students problem communication (e.g., My child insults me when she/
Age 20.99 years (SD ¼ 2.54) he is angry). In the present sample, as of .88 and .81 were found
Gender 80.3% female for parents on these two scales. For students, as of .92 and .83
19.7% male were found for reports of communication with their mothers,
Race 92.8% White
with as of .94 and .86 found for reports of communication with
Year in school 13.9% freshmen
33.8% sophomores their fathers. (3) Finally, both parents and students responded to
29.1% juniors a series of topics (romantic relationships, finances, mental
22.5% seniors health issues, academics, sex, family values, religion, friends,
0.7% other politics, alcohol use, safety, transportation, sexual assault, par-
Relationship status 51.7% single ties, health, drugs, crime, and future career), rating them on
35.1% in relationship but living apart both how often each topic was talked about (1 ¼ never to 5
8.6% cohabiting
¼ always) as well as how frequently they were a source of
4.6% married
Living situation 27.8% at home disagreement.
26.5% dorm or campus apartment
45.7% off campus Support. To assess parental support of the student, both parents
Parents and students were asked if the parents provided financial sup-
Age 48.11 years (SD ¼ 6.41) port for the student and, if so, what type (i.e., tuition, rent,
Role 84.9% mothers phone, etc.). Responses were coded as “yes/no”. In addition,
15.1% fathers
participants completed two additional measures of support. In
Race 94.1% White
Marital status 69.1% married the first, parents and students were presented with a list of tasks
13.8% divorced, not remarried that a parent might perform for a child in college: do laundry,
10.5% divorced, remarried prepare meals, arrange appointments, and so on. Both parents
2.6% single, never married and children indicated which of these parents performed and
2.6% widowed how often. Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Both groups also completed a social support scale (Barrera,
Sandler, & Ramsey, 1981) that assessed the degree of support
year in school, 13.9% were freshmen, 33.8% were sophomores, provided in a variety of ways. The value of a was .95 for both
29.1% were juniors, 22.5% were seniors, and 0.7% were students and parents.
“other”. Slightly over half were single (51.7%), with 35.1%
in a committed relationship but not living together, 8.6% coha- Family functioning. The Self-Report Measure of Family Func-
biting, and 4.6% married. At the time of the data collection, tioning Scale (Bloom, 1985) was used to measure parent’s and
27.8% of the students lived at home, 26.5% lived in a dorm student’s perceptions of the family environment. The Self-
or campus apartment, and 45.7% lived off campus. Report Measure of Family Functioning has 15 subscales, each
Looking at parental characteristics, 84.9% were mothers, including 5 items, arranged on a 4-point Likert-type scale: very
15.1% were fathers, with the majority white (94.1%). Roughly untrue for my family to very true for my family. Because of a
two thirds were married (69.1%), with 13.8% divorced and not computer error (incomplete items for two subscales:
remarried, 10.5% divorced and remarried, 2.6% single/never Intellectual-Cultural Orientation and Active-Recreational
married, and 2.6% widowed. The mean age was 48.11 years, Orientation) and low as for four others (Enmeshment, Laissez
with a standard deviation of 6.41 years. The level of education Faire, External Locus of Control, and Authoritarian Family
ranged from less than a high school degree to having obtained a Style), these six subscales were not included in subsequent
professional degree, with the majority of parents having some analyses. The as for this sample on the nine remaining sub-
college or a bachelor’s degree. scales that were included ranged from .64 to .81 for parents and
from .68 to .90 for students. Even though some of these as were
low, they are still appropriate for an exploratory study.
Measures
Communication. Communication was assessed in three different Criteria for adulthood. Finally, the Criterial for Adulthood scales
ways: (1) The first measure was a series of questions regarding (Nelson et al., 2007) were used to assess both parental and stu-
the frequency of contact between student and parent across dent’s perceptions of the characteristics that each considered
three mechanisms: in person, phone, or text, ranging from 1 important in order for an individual to be considered an adult.
(numerous times a day) to 9 (never) and Facebook/other social Subscales include role transition (i.e., be financially indepen-
networking (yes/no). (2) Both parent and student also com- dent, be finished with education), norm compliance (i.e., avoid
pleted the Parent–Adolescent Communication (PAC) Scale illegal drugs, drive safely), biological transition (i.e., have
(Olson, 1985). The PAC consists of 20 items (ranging from reached age 21, have had sexual intercourse), family capacities
82 Emerging Adulthood 9(1)

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for Communi- Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for Frequency of
cation Variables. Discussion Topics.

Student Mean/ Parent Mean/ Student Mean/ Parent Mean/

Standard Standard Standard Standard
Variable Deviation Deviation t p Variable Deviation Deviation t p

Student/mother Romantic relationships 3.10 (1.08) 3.30 (0.79) 2.57 .01

Communicate in 3.50 (2.26) 3.59 (2.29) 0.51 .61 Finances 3.66 (0.93) 3.76 (0.75) 1.33 .18
person Mental health issues 2.42 (1.26) 2.63 (1.13) –1.94 .05
Communicate 2.24 (1.45) 2.07 (1.29) 1.55 .12 Academics 3.92 (0.86) 3.98 (0.78) –.80 .42
phone/text Sex 1.86 (0.97) 2.72 (1.09) –9.47 .00
Social media 1.48 (0.71) 1.57 (0.84) 1.68 .10 Family values 3.39 (1.06) 3.86 (0.90) –5.03 .00
Open 4.05 (0.78) 4.18 (0.63) 2.07 .04 Religion 3.32 (1.20) 3.52 (1.04) –2.42 .02
communication Friends 3.82 (0.86) 3.80 (0.76) .37 .71
Problem 3.35 (0.81) 3.84 (0.72) 6.76 .00 Politics 2.41 (1.12) 2.63 (1.03) –2.35 .02
communication Alcohol use 2.41 (1.08) 3.04 (0.97) –6.12 .00
Student/father Safety 3.41 (1.16) 3.84 (0.93) –4.09 .00
Communicate in 4.00 (2.14) 3.33 (1.91) 1.42 .08 Transportation 3.07 (1.04) 3.12 (1.09) –.51 .61
person Sexual assault 1.66 (0.99) 2.49 (1.11) –8.13 .00
Communicate 3.10 (1.67) 2.38 (1.16) 1.41 .04 Parties 2.31 (1.09) 2.81 (1.06) –4.99 .00
phone/text Health 3.53 (0.96) 3.72 (0.87) –2.19 .03
Social media 1.43 (0.68) 2.00 (0.95) 3.20 .00 Drugs 1.95 (1.10) 2.79 (1.16) –7.78 .00
Open 4.01 (0.74) 3.98 (0.52) 0.18 .86 Crime 2.12 (1.16) 2.82 (1.08) –6.36 .00
communication Future career/profession 3.95 (0.84) 3.97 (0.80) –.32 .75
Problem 3.55 (0.79) 3.70 (0.67) 0.79 .44
communication
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for Disagree-
ments on Discussion Topics.

(i.e., be capable of providing a safe environment for a family, Student Mean/ Parent Mean/
be capable of caring for children), and relational maturity Standard Standard
Variable Deviation Deviation t p
(i.e., accept responsibility for the consequences of own
actions). The as for this sample ranged from .68 to .91. Romantic 2.23 (1.07) 2.20 (0.99) 0.39 .70
Finally, students were asked if they had reached adulthood relationships
(yes, no, neither yes or no), and parents were asked if their child Finances 2.46 (1.03) 2.23 (0.99) 2.75 .01
had reached adulthood, using the same response options. Mental health issues 1.46 (0.78) 1.41 (0.69) 0.81 .42
Academics 2.20 (1.01) 1.95 (1.03) 2.78 .01
Sex 1.69 (1.01) 1.52 (0.74) 1.77 .08
Family values 1.80 (0.96) 1.77 (0.96) 0.37 .71
Results Religion 1.84 (1.06) 1.61 (0.85) 2.99 .00
Friends 1.89 (0.93) 1.86 (0.82) 0.41 .68
Communication Politics 1.81 (1.03) 1.55 (0.84) 3.23 .00
Alcohol use 1.85 (1.04) 1.60 (0.82) 3.11 .00
Matched pair t tests were conducted between parent and stu- Safety 1.69 (0.87) 1.84 (0.96) 1.91 .06
dent reports on all communication measures. Means, standard Transportation 1.70 (0.87) 1.66 (0.83) 0.43 .67
deviations, t values, and probability values for type of contact Sexual assault 1.24 (0.58) 1.27 (0.56) 0.55 .58
and the PAC Scale are presented in Table 2. Parties 1.74 (0.92) 1.66 (0.81) 1.07 .29
Looking first at frequency of contact between student and Health 1.74 (0.95) 1.83 (1.05) 0.92 .36
parent in person, phone, or text, and Facebook/other social net- Drugs 1.37 (0.72) 1.36 (0.66) 0.21 .83
Crime 1.30 (0.62) 1.38 (0.66) 1.12 .26
working, no significant differences were found between stu- Future career/ 1.97 (1.09) 1.86 (0.99) 1.18 .24
dent and mother reports. For student and father reports, two profession
significant differences were found, with students more likely
to report communication via phone/text than did fathers, but
fathers more likely to report being friends on social media than The results for topics of discussion and frequency of discus-
did students. sion are presented in Tables 3 and 4. For topics of discussion,
Turning to the PAC Scale (Olson, 1985; open and problem no significant differences were found on 5 of the 18 topics:
communication), no significant differences were found finances, academics, friends, transportation, and future career/
between students and fathers. For students and mothers, how- profession. For the remaining 13 topics, significant differences
ever, significant differences were found on both scales, with were found, and all were consistent in terms of direction. Parents
mothers’ scores higher on both. reported discussing the following topics significantly more than
Bartoszuk et al. 83

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for Support Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for Family
Scales. Environment Scales.

Student Mean/ Parent Mean/ Student Mean/ Parent Mean/

Standard Standard Standard Standard
Variable Deviation Deviation t p Variable Deviation Deviation t p

Buy groceries 2.97 (0.12) 2.99 (1.31) 0.19 .85 Cohesion 3.04 (.68) 3.22 (.51) 3.70 .00
Go shopping 2.23 (1.02) 2.48 (1.10) 2.65 .01 Expressiveness 2.93 (.66) 3.17 (.46) 4.81 .00
Do laundry 2.37 (1.36) 2.53 (1.35) 1.67 .10 Conflict 1.88 (.67) 1.66 (.58) 5.21 .00
Buy gifts 2.56 (1.22) 2.52 (1.18) 0.30 .76 Religious emphasis 2.87 (.92) 3.08 (.76) 4.63 .00
Clean living space 2.13 (1.38) 2.29 (1.36) 1.38 .17 Organization 2.70 (.67) 2.81 (.59) 1.89 .06
Prepare meals 2.93 (1.17) 2.97 (1.18) 0.44 .66 Sociability 2.99 (.65) 3.07 (.50) 1.73 .09
Arrange appointments 2.65 (1.37) 2.64 (1.24) 0.07 .85 Idealization 2.57 (.79) 2.81 (.57) 4.35 .00
Call when sick 1.16 (0.50) 1.23 (0.66) 1.55 .12 Disengagement 2.22 (.61) 2.24 (.48) 0.45 .65
Social support 0.73 (0.22) 0.57 (0.27) 6.82 .00 Democratic style 2.57 (.65) 2.81 (.53) 4.16 .00
Financial support 1.18 (0.38) 1.11 (0.31) 2.33 .02

Table 7. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for Criteria for

students did: romantic relationships, mental health issues, sex, Adulthood.
family values, religion, politics, alcohol use, safety, sexual Student Mean/ Parent Mean/
assault, parties, health, drugs, and crime. Standard Standard
Looking at how frequently discussion of these topics led to Variable Deviation Deviation t p
disagreements, significant differences between parents and
Role transition 2.52 (.69) 2.43 (.68) 1.54 .13
students were found on only five topics: finances, academics,
Norm compliance 3.10 (.59) 3.35 (.61) 4.55 .00
religion, politics, and alcohol use. Perhaps not surprisingly, Biological transitions 2.12 (.73) 1.98 (.76) 2.13 .03
students were significantly more likely to report that discussion Family capacities 3.42 (.58) 3.46 (.63) 0.76 .45
led to disagreement than did their parents. Relational maturity 3.41 (.45) 3.40 (.45) 0.21 .83

Support
Matched pair t tests were conducted between parent and stu-
dent reports on all support measures. Means, standard devia-
tions, t values, and probability values for these are presented
in Table 5.
Looking at tasks that parents might perform for their chil-
dren, both parents and students indicated that parents per-
formed these tasks “sometimes,” and they were largely in
agreement on frequency. Significant differences between
reports were found on only one task, “go shopping”, where par-
ents reported performing the task more than did students.
On the social support scale, students reported parents pro-
viding social support significantly more than parents did. For
financial support, students reported receiving support more
than parents reported providing it, though the difference was
relatively small.
Family Functioning
Matched pair t tests were conducted between parent and stu-
dent reports on all family environment measures. Means, stan-
dard deviations, t values, and probability values for these are
presented in Table 6. Parents and students differed significantly
on six of the scales.
On five of these—cohesion, expressiveness, religious
emphasis, idealization, and democratic style, parent ratings of
the family environment were significantly higher than those
provided by students. On one—conflict, student ratings were
higher than those provided by parents. On the remainder—
organization, sociability, and disengagement—no significant
differences were found.
Criteria for Adulthood
Matched pair t tests were conducted between parent and stu-
dent reports on all Criteria for Adulthood subscales. Means,
standard deviations, t values, and probability values for these
are presented in Table 7. Parents and students differed signifi-
cantly on two of the five scales.
Parents rated the first, norm compliance, significantly
higher as a criterion for adulthood than did students. Students
rated the second, biological transitions, however, significantly
higher than did parents. On the remaining three—role transi-
tion, family capacities, and relational maturity, no significant
differences were found.
Students and parents were asked parallel questions concern-
ing the student’s status as an adult—have you reached adult-
hood/has your child reached adulthood—and were given
three response options: yes, no, and in some respects yes, in
some respects no. For students, 30.5% said yes, 8.5% said
no, and 61.0% chose the yes/no option. For parents, 43.8% said
yes, 7.8% said no, and 48.4% chose the yes/no option. A w2
analysis was conducted to test the significance of these differ-
ences and was significant (w2 ¼ 17.65, df ¼ 4, p < .001). Cell
comparisons indicated two sets of significant differences. First,
students who indicated that they had reached adulthood had
parents who were more likely to agree with them, less likely
84
to say “no,” and also less likely to say “yes/no” than would
have been expected by chance. Second, students who chose the
yes/no option had parents who were less likely to say “yes” and
more likely to say “no” than would have been expected by
chance. No significant differences were found for students who
said they were not adults, though that percentage was very
small. Overall, then, parents tend to follow the lead presented
by the students’ self-perceptions, regardless of the direction
of that perception.
Discussion
The main purpose of this project was to examine the percep-
tions of parents and their college-aged children regarding their
relationship during the college years in terms of communica-
tion, support, family functioning, and the criteria of adulthood.
Overall, findings revealed that both emerging adults as well as
their parents viewed their relationships in mostly positive
terms, and statements between children and parents on positive
aspects were often similar. However, when examining these
aspects in more detail, some complex issues arose.
Parents still play an important role in all aspects explored in
this study. In terms of communication, the most frequent com-
munication occurred in person, which is not surprising as about
26% of students still lived at home or within driving distance.
Furthermore, mothers and students appear to communicate
more in person, phone, and text compared to fathers (with the
exception of social media use), and mothers reported more
open and problem communications compared to their children.
Fathers, in contrast, reported less communication via phone
and text and more frequent communication via social media
compared to their children. It appears that mothers rate the
quality aspects of communication (both open and problem
communication) higher than their children, while fathers and
their children differ more on frequency patterns. These findings
further confirm that child–parent communication patterns dif-
fer between mothers and fathers and go beyond adolescence
into emerging adulthood. It also implies that gender differences
are an important aspect when considering different perspec-
tives regarding parent–child interactions and need to be
explored in more detail (Nelson et al., 2007).
Not surprisingly, the two most frequently discussed topics
for both students and parents were related to future careers and
financial issues. Parents stated that topics related to romantic
relationships, sex, family values, religion, politics, alcohol use,
safety, sexual assault, parties, health, drugs, and crime were
discussed more frequently than their children did, revealing
that parents appear more concerned about their children’s ideo-
logical identity domains as well as physical well-being. It
appears, then, that identity issues are a major concern for both
children and parents during this time period (Arnett, 2006).
Furthermore, the concerns of parents regarding physical well-
being and safety issues might also demonstrate that emerging
adults still subscribe to the “invincibility fable” and that parents
are more concerned about the short- and long-term outcomes
related to these risk behaviors.
Emerging Adulthood 9(1)
The topic that most often led to disagreement was finances,
followed by academics, alcohol use, religion, politics, and sex.
Interestingly, parents reported less disagreement compared to
their children. It appears that parents and children agree on the
topic of the most disagreements but not necessarily on the fre-
quency of the topic discussed. Again, pointing out the complex
differences regarding values, life-style issues, and negative out-
comes, it appears that parents seem to be more interested/con-
cerned in these areas in comparison to their children.
In terms of task support, parents and children reported that
the tasks most provided by parents were buying groceries and
preparing meals. Students reported receiving more financial
support (tuition, rent, car insurance) than their parents reported
giving and also reported receiving more social support than
their parents reported. These findings support the view that stu-
dents continue to rely on financial and social support from par-
ents during this time period.
Examining the differences in family environment, both par-
ents and children rated their family interactions in positive
terms. Parents, however, rated cohesion, expressiveness, reli-
gious emphasis, idealization, democratic style higher, and con-
flict lower compared to their children. It appears that, in this
sample, family environment is perceived as very supportive
with an absence of enmeshment—the closest construct related
to helicopter parenting. The lower scores for children com-
pared to parents might indicate that a sense of autonomy and
of starting their own lives is in progress, but the connectedness
with parents is still valued and necessary.
Finally, in terms of the criteria for adulthood, children and
parents both rated the importance of family capacity and rela-
tional maturity highest. While differences for norm compliance
and biological transition were found, children rated them lower
than their parents. These findings support previous research by
Nelson et al. (2007) in terms of biological transitions and norm
compliance but do not reveal any differences in terms of role
transition. These findings pose an interesting question: Do
regional differences play a role when it comes to the criteria
of adulthood? Nevertheless, the importance of family capacity
and relational maturity point again to the necessity (recognized
by both parents and children) to mature and self-regulate in
order to become capable and successful adults. Children as well
as parents perceived themselves and their children to be in the
“in-between” stage of adulthood, and parents were more likely
to follow their children’s lead on most of the categories.
Application for Practitioners
The results presented here, many of them directly or indirectly
related to the prolonged transition to adulthood, have implica-
tions for many practitioners who work with university students.
In general, it appears that parents are a source of emotional and
financial support for their college-aged children. In particular,
the perception of the majority of both parents and students that
the students have not fully completed the transition to adult-
hood may reflect lower levels of adult experience on the stu-
dents’ part as well as their need for more guidance and
Bartoszuk et al.
mentoring. These results, consistently pointing to the continued
involvement of parents in the lives of their student children
across a wide variety of areas and topics, indicate that parents
remain in a position to assist in providing that guidance and
mentoring, and can be a useful resource or partner for univer-
sity professionals such as those in Student Affairs or Student
Health. When parents are involved, for example, they can be
utilized as an aid to a student struggling with financial, health,
or academic issues. They can be a source of support to help stu-
dents get through more difficult moments in their academic
career. Careful involvement of parents, when necessary, might
mean the difference between successfully completing a degree
program or dropping out. With universities more focused on
completion rates than potentially ever before, parental support
could be an important influence.
Conclusion
Overall, these findings support the view that communication,
support, family environment, and the criteria of adulthood are
perceived most often in positive ways, but, at the same time,
that complex differences among emerging adults and their par-
ents exist. Issues related to identity development (such as val-
ues, religion, and politics as well as overall well-being) are still
of high importance during this transitional period. As during
adolescence, parents perceived the family environment more
positively and less negatively than did their children. Overall,
parents are supportive and interested in their children’s auton-
omy and healthy transition into independent adulthood, even
though many emerging adults still depend on them for financial
and social support.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study is limited in terms of relying on self-report data,
including some family communication scales that were devel-
oped for parent–adolescent relationships several decades ago, a
sample of only college students, and parental participation that
was initiated by their children. Findings, therefore, might not
be generalizable to noncollege bound emerging adults. Further-
more, the positive outcomes might be due to children who were
willing to ask their parents to participate having a more posi-
tive, supportive, and close relationship with them than children
who were not willing to ask their parents. Students who felt less
close to their parents, in contrast, might not have supplied them
with the survey. Additionally, the sample included more
females (both students and mothers), the small sample was not
conducive to examine different living arrangements of students
(at home/or dorm, apartment), and was conducted in one partic-
ular region in the United States.
Future studies should also link these perceptions of the com-
pletion of adulthood with perceived communication, family
functioning, support, and additional well-being variables for
both children and parents to provide a better understanding
of these complex issues. Finally, relationships between parents
and their emerging adult children need to be expanded to
85
include noncollege students, often referred to as the “forgotten
half” (Halperin, 2001) and how their relationships are affected
during this transition. Such questions can help to untangle the
complexity of family relationships during this key develop-
mental period.
Author Contributions
Karin Bartoszuk contributed to conception and design and to acquisi-
tion, analysis, and interpretation; drafted manuscript; critically revised
manuscript; gave final approval; and agrees to be accountable for all
aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. James E. Deal con-
tributed to conception and design and to analysis and interpretation,
drafted manuscript, critically revised manuscript, gave final approval,
and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity
and accuracy. Meghan Yerhot contributed to design and to interpreta-
tion, drafted manuscript, gave final approval, and agrees to be accoun-
table for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research
was supported with a grant from the Research and Development Com-
mittee at East Tennessee State University.
Open Practices
Data and materials for this study have not been made publicly avail-
able. The design and analysis plans were not preregistered.
References
Adams, G. R., Ryan, B. A., & Keating, L. (2000). Family relation-
ships, academic environments, and psychosocial development dur-
ing the university experience: A longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 99–122.
Alt, D. (2015). First-year female college students’ academic motiva-
tion as a function of perceived parenting styles: A contextual per-
spective. Journal of Adult Development, 22, 63–75.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development
from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist,
55, 469–480.
Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way
of coming of age. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging
adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 3–19).
Washington, DC: APA.
Arnett, J. J. (2016). Emerging adulthood and social class: Rejoinder to
Furstenberg, Silva, and du Bois-Reymond. Emerging Adulthood, 4,
244–247.
Arnett, J. J., Žukauskien_e, R., & Sugimura, K. (2014). The new life
stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18-29 years: Implications for
mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1, 569–576.
Badger, S., Nelson, L. J., & McNamara Barry, C. (2006). Perceptions
of the transition to adulthood among Chinese and American emer-
ging adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30,
84–93.
86
Barber, B. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a
neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319.
Barrera, M., Sandler, I., & Ramsey, T. (1981). Preliminary develop-
ment of a scale of social support: Studies on college students.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 435–447.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child
behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.
Baxter, L. A., & Pederson, J. R. (2013). Perceived and ideal family
communication patterns and family satisfaction for parents and
their college-aged children. Journal of Family Communication,
13, 132–149.
Bloom, B. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family
functioning. Family Processes, 24, 225–239.
Bradley-Geist, J., & Olson-Buchanan, B. J. (2014). Helicopter par-
ents: An examination of the correlates of over-parenting of college
students. Education and Training, 56, 314–328.
Buboltz, W., Johnson, P., & Woller, K. (2003). Psychological reac-
tance in college students: Family-of-Origin Predictors. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 81, 311–317.
Côt_e, J., & Bynner, J. M. (2008). Changes in the transition to adult-
hood in the UK and Canada: The role of structure and agency in
emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 11, 251–268.
Crosnoe, R., & Cavanagh, S. E. (2010). Families with children and
adolescents: A review, critique, and future agenda. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 72, 594–611.
De La Rosa, M. L. (2006). Is opportunity knocking? Low-income stu-
dents’ perceptions of college and financial aid. American Beha-
vioral Scientist, 49, 1670–1686.
Desjardins, T., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2017). Changes in parental emo-
tional support and psychological control in early adulthood: Direct
and indirect associations with educational and occupational adjust-
ment. Emerging Adulthood, 5, 177–190.
Fingerman, K. L., Cheng, Y. P., Wesselmann, E. D., Zarit, S., Fursten-
berg, F., & Birditt, K. S. (2012). Helicopter parents and landing
pad kids: Intense parental support of grown children. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 74, 880–896.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata
within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction.
Human Communication Research, 20, 275–301.
Furstenberg, F. (2016). Social class and development in early adult-
hood: Some unsettled issues. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 236–238.
Furstenberg, R., Rumbaut, R., & Settersten, R. (2008). On the frontier to
adulthood. In R. Settersten, F. Furstenberg, & R. Rumbaut (Eds.),
On the frontier to adulthood (pp. 3–25). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Gentzler, A. L., Oberhauser, A. M., Westerman, D., & Nadorff, D.
(2011). College students’ use of electronic communication with
parents: Links to loneliness, attachment, and relationship quality.
CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 14, 71–74.
Halperin, S. (2001). The forgotten half revisited: American youth and
their families, 1988-2008. Washington, DC: American Youth Pol-
icy Forum.
Hirsch, J., & Barton, A. (2011). Positive social support, negative
social exchanges, and suicidal behavior in college students. Jour-
nal of American College Health: J of ACH, 59, 393.
Emerging Adulthood 9(1)
Hofer, B. K., & Moore, A. S. (2010). The iConnected parent: Staying
close to your kids in college (and beyond) while letting them grow
up. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Hornak, A. M., Farrell, P. L., & Jackson, N. J. (2010). Making it (or
not) on a dime in college: Implications for practice. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 51, 481–495.
Hunt, J. (2008). Make room for daddy . . . and mommy: Helicopter
parents are here. The Journal of Academic Administration in
Higher Education, 4, 9–11.
Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., Kerr, S., & LaValle, W. (2010). Managing
the transition to college: Family functioning, emotion coping, and
adjustment in emerging adulthood. Journal of College Student
Development, 51, 607–621.
Levin, K. A., & Currie, C. (2010). Family structure, mother-child
communication, father-child communication, and adolescent life
satisfaction: A cross-sectional multilevel analysis. Health Educa-
tion, 110, 152–168.
Lopez, F. G., & Thurman, C. W. (1993). High-Trait and low-trait
angry college students: A comparison of family environments.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 524–527.
Love, K. M., & Thomas, D. M. (2014). Parenting styles and adjust-
ment outcomes among college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 55, 139–150.
Lowe, K., & Dotterer, A. (2017). Parental involvement during the
college transition: A review and suggestions for its conceptual def-
inition. Adolescent Research Review, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s40894-
017-0056-z
Lowe, K., Dotterer, A. M., & Francisco, J. (2015). “If I pay, I have a
say!” Parental payment of college education and its association
with helicopter parenting. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 286–290.
Metheny, J., & McWhirter, E. H. (2013). Contributions of social status
and family support to college students’ career decision self-
efficacy and outcome expectations. Journal of Career Assessment,
21, 378–394.
Mitchell, B. A., & Lovegreen, L. D. (2009). The empty nest syndrome
in midlife families: A multimethod exploration of parental gender
differences and cultural dynamics. Journal of Family Issues, 30,
1651–1670.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). National survey of
student engagement annual report. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from
http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report/docs/withho
ld/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report.pdf
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carroll, J. S., Madsen, S. D.,
Barry, C. M., & Badger, S. (2007). “If you want me to treat you
like an adult, start acting like one!” Comparing the criteria that
emerging adults and their parents have for adulthood. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, 665–674.
Oden Weller, K. G., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Weber, K. (2014).
Investigating helicopter parenting, family environments, and rela-
tional outcomes for millennials. Communication Studies, 65,
407–425.
Olson, D. H. (1985). Family inventories: Inventories used in a
national survey of families across the life cycle. St. Paul: Family
Social Science, University of Minnesota.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down:
Establishing helicopter parenting as a distinct construct from other
Bartoszuk et al.
forms of parental control during emerging adulthood. Journal of
Adolescence, 35, 1177–1190.
Ramsey, M. A., Gentzler, A. L., Morey, J. N., Oberhauser, A. M., &
Westerman, D. (2013). College students’ use of communication
technology with parents: Comparisons between two cohorts in
2009 and 2011. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network-
ing, 16, 747–752.
Rice, L., Barth, J. M., Guadagno, R. E., Smith, G. P., & McCallum, D.
M. (2013). The role of social support in students’ perceived abil-
ities and attitudes toward math and science. Journal of youth and
adolescence, 42, 1028–1040.
Robette, N. (2010). The diversity of pathways to adulthood in France.
Evidence from a holistic approach. Advances in Life Course
Research, 15, 89–96.
SallieMae. (2016). How America pays for college. Retrieved from
http://news.salliemae.com/files/doc_library/file/HowAmericaPa
ysforCollege2016FNL.pdf
Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Lanz, M. (2006). The transition to adulthood
and family relations: An intergenerational perspective. New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis.
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.
Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2010). Troubled ruminations about
parents: Conceptualization and validation with emerging adults.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 88, 80–91.
Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The
relationship between Internet communication and depression,
loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. Cyberpsy-
chology & behavior, 5, 157–171.
Sherrod, L. (2009). The delay of adulthood: Implication for the field of
developmental science. SRCD Developments: Newsletter of the
Society for Research on Child Development, 52, 1–2.
87
Sweeton, N., & Davis, J. (2004). The evolution of in loco parentis.
Journal of Student Affairs, 13, 67–72.
Syed, M. (2016). Emerging adulthood: Developmental stage, theory,
or nonsense. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of emer-
ging adulthood. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
The College Board 2017 Trends in Higher Education. (n.d.).
Retrieved January 10, 2017, from https://trends.collegeboard.o
rg/
Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2009). College student ratings of stu-
dent academic support: Frequency, importance, and modes of com-
munication. Communication Education, 58, 433–458.
Trice, A. D. (2002). First semester college students’ email to parents:
I. Frequency and content related to parenting style. College Student
Journal, 36, 327–335.
Author Biographies
Karin Bartoszuk, PhD, is a professor in the Department of
Educational Foundations and Special Education and the associ-
ate dean of the School of Graduate Science at East Tennessee
State University. Her research interests include identity pro-
cesses during adolescence and emerging adulthood, family
environment, and college student retention.
James E. Deal is a professor of Human Development and Fam-
ily Science. His research interests include quantitative metho-
dology and issues of religion and finances in emerging
adulthood.
Meghan Yerhot is a doctoral student at North Dakota State
University in the Developmental Science program. Her
research has focused on identity development, first-generation
college students, and student success in higher education.