Are we helping or hurting our kids with helicopter parenting? Discuss with reference to parenting styles, and how helicopter parenting might impact on a child’s cognitive, emotional and social development.

Investigating Helicopter Parenting, Family Environments, and Relational Outcomes for Millennials Kelly G. Odenweller, Melanie Booth-Butterfield, & Keith Weber

To examine the relationship between helicopter parenting and Millennials’ personal

and interpersonal problems, Millennials (N ¼ 268) reported on their parents’ helicopter parenting, parenting styles, and family communication patterns and their own neuroti-

cism, interpersonal dependency, and coping efficacy. Results revealed helicopter parenting’s

positive associations with the authoritarian parenting style and conformity orientation and

Millennials’ neurotic tendencies, dependency on others, and ineffective coping skills. In

addition, a new Helicopter Parenting Instrument (HPI) emerged as a viable alternative

measure of this phenomenon. The implications of helicopter parenting’s negative

effects include dysfunctional family environments, Millennials’ stunted development, and

overburdened college campuses.

Keywords: Coping Efficacy; Family Communication Patterns; Helicopter Parenting;

Interpersonal Dependency; Millennial Generation; Neuroticism

With the rise of the Millennials (i.e., children born after 1982; Howe & Strauss, 2003)

in college classrooms and workplaces across the country, overinvolved parents, or

‘‘helicopter parents’’ (Cline & Fay, 1990), have grabbed the attention of scholars,

Kelly G. Odenweller (MA, West Virginia University, 2011) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of

Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Melanie Booth-Butterfield (PhD, University of

Missouri-Columbia, 1985) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia

University. Keith Weber (EdD, West Virginia University, 1998) is a Professor in the Department of

Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Correspondence to: Kelly G. Odenweller, Department

of Communication Studies, West Virginia University, 108 Armstrong Hall, P.O. Box 6293, Morgantown, WV

26506-6293, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Studies

Vol. 65, No. 4, September–October 2014, pp. 407–425

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2014 Central States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2013.811434

media, and academic institutions alike. Despite parents’ powerful influence on their

children’s psychological wellbeing and social development (Maccoby, 1992; McHale,

Dariotis, & Kauh, 2003), only a few empirical investigations of helicopter (or over)

parenting have advanced scientific knowledge of this phenomenon (e.g., LeMoyne

& Buchanan, 2011; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; Segrin, Woszidlo, Givertz, Dauer,

& Murphy, 2012). Based on their meaningful discoveries, these scholars recom-

mended that future researchers examine (a) the links between helicopter parenting

and characteristics of family environments, (b) helicopter parenting in the context

of the Millennial generation as hyperinvolved parenting is more prevalent among this

population, and (c) the personal and interpersonal problems of children with heli-

copter parents in order to uncover information that university administrators and

counselors can use to help first-year college students transition to campus. Thus,

to answer these calls, the current study seeks (a) to ascertain the relationships

between helicopter parenting and parenting styles and family communication

patterns and (b) to examine the relationships between helicopter parenting and

Millennials’ neuroticism, interpersonal dependency, and coping efficacy.

Review of Literature

Across disciplines, parental involvement appears as one of the strongest predictors of

positive child outcomes, such as higher academic achievement (Ballantine, 1999),

better social skills and fewer behavior problems (El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-

Drzal, 2010), and decreased alcohol use (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). Yet, over the past

decade, experts (e.g., Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006; LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Marano,

2004) have implied too much involvement is detrimental to children’s development.

As a result, attention has shifted to a novel style of parenting that is currently affect-

ing Millennials’ academic, professional, and personal success: helicopter parenting.

Helicopter Parenting

Helicopter parenting, first coined in Cline and Fay’s (1990) parenting book series and

made mainstream by a Newsweek article (Zeman, 1991), refers to overly involved and

protective parents who constantly communicate with their children, intervene in

their children’s affairs, make decisions for their children, personally invest in their

children’s goals, and remove obstacles their children encounter (Gottlieb, 2011;

LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Marano, 2004; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; Segrin

et al., 2012; Tyler, 2007). Most helicopter parents are well-educated, dual-income

Baby Boomers who have been fortunate to acquire a plethora of resources (e.g.,

money, time, connections, negotiating skills) with which to overindulge and shelter

their children (Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006). Approximately 60%–70% of college students report having parents who exhibit some form of helicopter, or hovering,

behavior (‘‘Liftoff for ‘helicopter’ parents,’’ 2007), which corroborates the prevalence

of this parenting style among Millennials.

408 K. G. Odenweller et al.

Although helicopter parents’ hovering is typically well intentioned (Kantrowitz &

Tyre, 2006), scientific and anecdotal evidence has linked intense parental involvement

to several negative child outcomes. For example, researchers have empirically linked

helicopter parenting to the following: children’s use of recreational painkillers and

anxiety and depression medications (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011); diminished

self-confidence, school engagement, and adult identity development (Padilla-Walker

& Nelson, 2012); and a heightened sense of entitlement (Segrin et al., 2012). Popular

press journalists have suggested parents’ intrusion enables children’s enduring depen-

dency, stifles children’s development of independent problem solving abilities, stunts

children’s psychological immunity to hardship and painful experiences, engenders

destructive social skills, and fosters children’s external locus of control (Gibbs, 2009;

Gottleib, 2011; Marano, 2004). Academic administrators and student affairs personnel

commented that helicopter parenting negatively affects students’ grades (e.g., Shoup,

Gonyea, & Kuh, 2009), self-esteem (e.g., Rutherford, 2011), and ability and motivation

to mature into adults (e.g., Colavecchio-Van Sickler, 2006). Other experts deem

parents’ micromanagement behaviors disruptive to companies’ hiring processes,

privacy policies, and overall productivity (Howe & Strauss, 2007; Tyler, 2007).

Given helicopter parenting’s focus on parent-child interactions, two relevant and

heuristic frameworks to consider when investigating helicopter parenting are Baumrind’s

(1991) parenting styles and Fitzpatrick and her colleagues’ (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002;

Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) family communication patterns.

Parenting Styles

One of the most well-known parenting typologies is Baumrind’s (1966, 1991) authori-

tarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting styles. Authoritarian parents develop

clear and firm expectations for their children and demand obedience, structure, and

conformity in their families (Baumrind, 1966). These parents believe using force,

threats, or punishment to shape their children’s behavior is more effective than reason-

ing with their children (Baumrind, 1966). As a result, children with authoritarian

parents are more likely to demonstrate less independence and maturity, to perform

poorly on cognitive assessments, and to challenge societal rules and values compared

to children with permissive or authoritative parents (Baumrind, 1991).

Conversely, permissive parents consider themselves a resource for their children

and do not attempt to restrain or modify their children’s behavior. Because these par-

ents believe children should regulate their own behaviors instead of blindly obeying

authority, they typically place fewer demands (e.g., household chores, academic or

employment responsibilities) on their children. As a result, children with permissive

parents are less likely to be goal oriented or self-sufficient compared to children with

authoritarian and authoritative parents (Baumrind, 1966).

In between these two extremes are authoritative parents, who value self-will and

autonomy and discipline and conformity depending on the situation and their

children’s individual interests and abilities (Baumrind, 1966). These parents celebrate

their children’s present accomplishments and set standards and limits for future

Helicopter Parenting 409

behaviors through rational and issue-specific reasoning. As a result, children with

authoritative parents are more likely to be assertive, mature, and self-reliant com-

pared to children with authoritarian and permissive parents (Baumrind, 1966).

Segrin et al. (2012) uncovered four trends related to overparenting and

Baumrind’s (1966, 1991) parenting styles that inform the current study. First, both

authoritarian and permissive parents remove obstacles and mitigate problems before

their children are faced with or even aware of them, implying that authoritarian and

permissive parents shelter their children from adversity. Second, authoritative parents

give their children freedom to solve their own problems, suggesting that authoritative

parents encourage their children to be independent and efficacious. Third, authori-

tative parents provide their children with financial support and personal assistance

(e.g., chores, errand-running), suggesting that authoritative parents intervene in their

children’s affairs. Fourth, authoritative parents feel responsible for managing their

children’s moods and feelings, demonstrating that authoritative parents supply

extreme levels of emotional support to their children.

Because Segrin et al.’s (2012) findings are inconsistent, such that each parenting

style harbors some connection to helicopter parenting, and the research team admit-

ted that their measure of helicopter parenting had several methodological limita-

tions, 1 the current study seeks to replicate their investigations with two alternative

instruments. Thus, the following research question is posed:

RQ1: What types of relationships exist between helicopter parenting and the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles?

In addition to considering the associations between helicopter parenting and the

levels of parental involvement and types of discipline that are evident in the parenting

styles, it is necessary to consider helicopter parents’ actual communication. Thus, we

extend previous research by examining helicopter parenting with another well-known

framework of parent-child relationships, family communication patterns.

Family Communication Patterns

According to the general theory of communication (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002),

family communication patterns are fundamental norms or beliefs that govern family

members’ communication along two orientations: conformity and conversation.

High conformity orientation parents create traditional family environments in which

rigid hierarchies exist between older and younger family members. High conformity

orientation parents make all family decisions, stifle their children’s dissention and

encourage uniformity of attitudes, values, and beliefs to minimize conflict, to foster

cohesiveness, and to create interdependence among family members (Koerner &

Fitzpatrick, 2002). High conformity orientation families have been associated with

negative outcomes for children, such as perceived stress, low self-esteem, and poor

mental health (Schrodt, Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007), weak self-concepts (Sillars,

Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005), and emotional instability, personal inadequacy, and

410 K. G. Odenweller et al.

social incompetency (Orrego & Rodriguez, 2001). Because the conformity orientation

and helicopter parenting share common themes of parental control and child

compliance, as well as negative child outcomes, the following hypothesis posits:

H1: A positive relationship exists between helicopter parenting and the conformity orientation.

Conversely, high conversation orientation parents create flexible and open

family environments in which each family member is treated equally (Koerner &

Fitzpatrick, 2002). High conversation orientation parents facilitate frequent and

diverse interactions with their children and encourage their children to participate

in family decision making (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) in order to foster children’s

social skills and independence (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). High conversation

orientation families have been related to positive outcomes for children, such as

resiliency in adverse situations (Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 1996), interpersonal com-

petence and the ability to adapt to changing environments (Koesten & Anderson,

2004), and romantic relationship maintenance in adulthood (Fowler, Pearson, &

Beck, 2010).

The conversation orientation and helicopter parenting are likely positively associated

as they both include regular parent-child interactions. However, high conversation

orientation parents encourage their children to express individual opinions, whereas

helicopter parents restrain children’s autonomy. In addition, the outcomes associated

with conversation orientations are unlike the developmental stunting associated with

helicopter parenting. Thus, these parenting styles may be negatively or unrelated. Because

a definitive prediction regarding the connection between helicopter parenting and the

conversation orientation cannot be asserted, the following research question is posed:

RQ2: What type of relationship exists between helicopter parenting and the conversation orientation?

Now that the links between helicopter parenting and parenting styles and com-

munication patterns have been outlined, we shift our focus to examine the relation-

ships between helicopter parenting and outcomes related to Millennials’ personality

traits and interpersonal relationships.

Neuroticism

Personality traits are dispositions universal in all individuals (Goldberg, 1992).

Neuroticism, one personality trait included in the Big Five-Factor Theory (McCrae

& Costa, 1999), is described as a tendency to experience negative emotions, such

as sadness, fear, hopelessness, and guilt. Neuroticism is typically regarded as

a negative trait as it is related to low life satisfaction and negative affect (DeNeve &

Cooper, 1998), increased stress, anxiety, and depression (Brown & Rosellini, 2011),

mood instability and suicidal thoughts (Bowen, Baetz, Leuschen, & Kalynchuk, 2011),

Helicopter Parenting 411

and perceptions of insufficient intimacy in interpersonal relationships (Goodboy &

Booth-Butterfield, 2008). To this end, parents likely want to prevent neuroticism

in their children to preserve their physical, mental, and social health.

To determine if parenting styles influence children’s neuroticism, we investigate

the link between this personality trait and helicopter parenting. Neuroticism has

traditionally been considered genetically determined (Eaves & Eysenck, 1976), yet

recent research has linked neuroticism with environmental factors (Pluess, Belsky,

Way, & Taylor, 2010), which could include parenting styles and family communi-

cation. Because helicopter parents intervene in their children’s affairs in order

to rectify their problems or to prevent misfortune, their children constantly feel

vulnerable to negative experiences and to suffer from anxiety and depression when

they are faced with even trivial hardships or fail at tasks their parents are unable

to perform on their behalf (Marano, 2004; LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). Thus,

it seems likely that helicopter parents, albeit not necessarily intentionally, foster

neuroticism in their children. This prediction is reflected in the following

hypothesis:

H2: A positive relationship exists between helicopter parenting and Millennials’ neuroticism.

Although investigating individuals’ personality traits provide insights into beha-

vior (McCrae & Costa, 1999), it is necessary to examine actual behaviors in order

to gather a comprehensive view of the effects of helicopter parents on Millennials’

interpersonal relationships. Thus, we move to two behaviors—interpersonal depen- dency and coping efficacy—that appear to be related to neuroticism and helicopter

parenting.

Interpersonal Dependency

Interpersonal dependency refers to the combination of thoughts, feelings, and beha-

viors that demonstrates individuals’ need to frequently interact with, closely asso-

ciate with, and constantly rely on valued others for help, approval, or attention

(Hirschfeld et al., 1977). Dependent individuals prefer opportunities to develop close

and protective relationships over opportunities to develop positive self-concepts and,

as a result, fear loss of love or abandonment above all other fears (Blatt, 2004).

Although, interpersonal dependency is associated with both positive beliefs (e.g.,

warmth, closeness, and affiliation) and negative emotions (e.g., emptiness, separate-

ness, and isolation; Hirschfeld et al., 1977), most studies that examine interpersonal

dependency have found it to be related to negative outcomes, such as negative

affective responses to imaginary rejection and failure (Besser & Priel, 2011),

borderline personality disorder, a condition in which individuals experience endur-

ing patterns of unstable or turbulent emotions (Bornstein, Becker-Matero, Winarick,

& Reichman, 2010), social anxiety in close relationships (Darcy, Davila, & Beck, 2005),

and vulnerability to major depression disorder (Luyten et al., 2007). Based on the

412 K. G. Odenweller et al.

negative emotions and outcomes associated with both interpersonal dependency and

neuroticism, it seems likely that these constructs are related. Thus, the following

hypothesis predicts:

H3: A positive relationship exists between Millennials’ interpersonal dependency and neuroticism.

Because children of helicopter parents rely on their parents to solve their

problems, to make their decisions, and to mitigate their distress and interpersonal

dependency is characterized by a strong need for emotional and social support, it

seems likely that helicopter parents foster interpersonal dependency in their children.

Thus, the following hypothesis predicts that

H4: A positive relationship exists between helicopter parenting and Millennials’ interpersonal dependency.

In addition to neuroticism and interpersonal dependency, we examine individuals’

ability to cope with distressful situations in the context of helicopter parenting as this

parenting style appears to thwart individuals’ resiliency.

Coping Efficacy

Coping refers to individuals’ adapting their cognitions and behaviors in response to

specific stimuli in an effort to regulate their emotions or to solve their problems

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Successful or efficacious, coping requires individuals

to develop complex responses across a variety of situations, to establish social support

networks, and to utilize communication strategies that will effectively reduce or

eliminate negative affect (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Coping efficacy has been associated with physical and mental health and overall life

satisfaction (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which demonstrates the importance for

children to develop effective coping skills.

However, some children appear to be at a disadvantage when it comes to develop-

ing coping efficacy. Because individuals high in neuroticism are emotionally unstable

and feel highly susceptible to negative experiences, they often lack the resources

needed for effective coping (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1987). In addition, children who

are protected from daily stressors and disappointments, such as children of helicopter

parents, feel more vulnerable to failure later in life and are likely to have poor coping

skills (Coburn, 2006; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976). Further, overinvolved parenting

(i.e., helicopter parenting) has been linked to young adult children’s low self-efficacy

(i.e., confidence in one’s abilities; Givertz & Segrin, 2012). Thus, the following

hypothesis predicts:

H5: A negative relationship exists between helicopter parenting and Millennials’ coping efficacy.

Helicopter Parenting 413

Method

Participants

Participants were 268 women (n ¼ 147; 54.9%) and men (n ¼ 121; 45.1%) who ranged in age from 18 to 25 (M ¼ 20.75, SD ¼ 1.25).2 Twelve (4.5%) participants did not report their ages. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (n ¼ 242; 90.3%) and single (n ¼ 181; 67.5%). The majority of participants reported on their biological (n ¼ 264; 98.5%) mothers (n ¼ 186; 69.4%) who ranged in age from 35 to 65 (M ¼ 50.43, SD ¼ 5.31), were predominantly Caucasian (n ¼ 246; 91.8%) and were married to their biological fathers (n ¼ 171; 63.8%). Ten (3.7%) participants did not report their parents’ ages and 3 (1.1%) participants did not report their

parents’ relationship status. Most participants had at least one sibling (n ¼ 238; 88.8%) and perceived their parents’ parenting styles to be consistent among all of

the children in their families (n ¼ 162; 60.4%). Three (1.1%) participants did not indicate if they had siblings.

Procedures

Following institutional review board approval, participants were recruited via con-

venience sampling in an introductory communication studies course at a large

Mid-Atlantic university. After providing consent, participants completed a

15-minute questionnaire that included demographic information and the instru-

ments described in the following section. To ensure consistent and clear results, part-

icipants were instructed to report on the parent they talk to the most frequently.

Instrumentation

The specific properties of each instrument are discussed below. When necessary,

instruments were modified to address the parent-child relationship. Unless otherwise

noted, responses to all instruments were solicited on 7-point Likert scales ranging

from very strongly disagree (1) to very strongly agree (7) and higher scores represented

greater endorsement of the measured variable. Table 1 includes the reliability

coefficients, means, and standard deviations for all instruments.

Helicopter parenting

Two instruments were employed to measure Millennials’ perceptions of their parents’

helicopter parenting. The first instrument was LeMoyne and Buchanan’s (2011)

7-item Helicopter Parenting Scale (e.g., ‘‘My parent supervised my every move

growing up,’’ ‘‘My parent often stepped in to solve life problems for me’’). 3

Because there are conceptual and statistical limitations 4

to LeMoyne and

Buchanan’s (2011) scale, the 15-item 5 Helicopter Parenting Instrument (HPI; see

‘‘Appendix’’) was developed as the second instrument for this study. The items were

inspired by words and phrases used in empirical research and popular press 6 to

414 K. G. Odenweller et al.

T a b le

1 R el ia b il it ie s, M ea n s, a n d S ta n d a rd

D ev ia ti o n s o f In st ru m en ts

a n d C o rr el a ti o n M a tr ix

o f A ll V a ri a b le s

In st ru m en ts

a M

S D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

H el ic o p te r P a re n ti n g

1 . H el ic o p te r P a re n ti n g

In st ru m en t

.7 8

3 .4 2

0 .8 1

–

2 . L eM

o y n e &

B u ch a n a n ’s (2 0 1 1 )

H el ic o p te r P a re n ti n g S ca le

.6 8

3 .2 5

0 .9 7

.6 3 ��

–

P a re n ti n g S ty le s

3 . A u th o ri ta ri a n

.8 1

4 .2 6

1 .1 1

.2 6 ��

.3 6 ��

–

4 . A u th o ri ta ti v e

.7 8

4 .9 7

0 .9 5

� .0 4

� .1 9 �

.1 2

–

5 . P er m is si v e

.6 3

3 .1 5

0 .9 4

.0 3

.0 1

� .2 1 ��

� .0 7

–

F a m il y C o m m u n ic a ti o n P a tt er n sa

6 . C o n fo rm

it y O ri en ta ti o n

.8 6

1 .8 0

0 .7 7

.4 2 ��

.5 3 ��

.5 0 ��

� .0 3

.0 2

–

7 . C o n v er sa ti o n O ri en ta ti o n

.8 9

2 .4 3

0 .6 6

� .1 0

� .2 9 ��

� .2 5 ��

.5 0 ��

.0 9

� .1 4 �

–

8 . N eu ro ti ci sm

.8 5

3 .4 7

1 .0 6

.3 3 ��

.2 8 ��

.1 1

� .2 1 �

.0 4

.2 4 ��

� .2 1 �

–

9 . In te rp er so n a l D ep en d en cy

.8 5

4 .1 9

0 .8 4

.3 4 ��

.3 0 ��

.3 3 ��

.1 9 �

� .1 3 �

.1 7 �

� .0 0

.5 1 ��

–

1 0 . C o p in g E ff ic a cy

.6 3

5 .0 9

1 .0 1

� .3 5 ��

� .3 4 ��

� .0 6

.1 5 �

� .2 0 �

� .2 5 ��

.1 1

� .7 3 ��

� .4 7 ��

–

N o te . U n le ss

o th er w is e n o te d , a ll in st ru m en ts w er e m ea su re d o n a 7 -p o in t L ik er t sc a le .

a T h e R ev is ed

F a m il y C o m m u n ic a ti o n P a tt er n s In st ru m en t w a s m ea su re d o n a 5 -p o in t L ik er t sc a le , ra n g in g fr o m

n ev er

(0 ) to

a lw a y s (4 ).

� . 0 0 1 � p � .0 5 . �� p < .0 0 1 .

415

ensure the HPI captures Millennials’ perceptions of their parents’ current develop-

mentally inappropriate, helicopter parenting behaviors.

Parenting styles

The 20-item Parental Authority Questionnaire—Short Version (Alkharusi, Aldhafri,

Kazem, Alzubiadi, & Al-Bahrani, 2011) measured emerging adult children’s percep-

tions of their parents’ parenting styles along three dimensions: seven items for auth-

oritarian (e.g., ‘‘Whenever my parent told me to do something as I was growing up,

he=she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions’’), seven items

for authoritative (e.g., ‘‘My parent directed the activities and decisions of the children

through reasoning and discipline’’), and six items for permissive (e.g., ‘‘As I was grow-

ing up, my parent seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior’’).

Family communication patterns

The Revised Family Communication Patterns Instrument (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick,

1990) measured Millennials’ perceptions of their parents’ conformity and conver-

sation orientations. The conformity orientation includes 11 items (e.g., ‘‘My parent

feels that it is important to be the boss,’’ ‘‘When I am at home, I am expected to obey

my parent’s rules’’) and the conversation orientation includes 15 items (e.g., ‘‘I can tell

my parent almost anything,’’ ‘‘My parent encourages me to express my feelings’’).

Responses were solicited on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (0) to always (4).

Neuroticism

The 12-item subscale of Neuroticism on the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness

(NEO) Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) measured Millennials’ neurotic personality

traits (e.g., ‘‘When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going

to pieces,’’ ‘‘Sometimes I feel completely worthless’’).

Interpersonal dependency

The 17-item subscale of Emotional Reliance on Another Person on the Interpersonal

Dependency Scale (Hirschfeld et al., 1977) measured Millennials’ interpersonal

dependency (e.g., ‘‘The idea of losing a friend is terrifying to me,’’ ‘‘I would feel

helpless if I were deserted by someone I love’’).

Coping efficacy

A four-item scale developed by Bonanno et al. (2002) measured Millennials’ coping

efficacy (e.g., ‘‘I can handle myself pretty well in a crisis,’’ and ‘‘When everything

seems to be going wrong, I can still make good decisions).

Results

Table 1 includes a correlation matrix of all variables. The first research question (RQ1)

asked about the relationships between helicopter parenting and the authoritarian,

416 K. G. Odenweller et al.

authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. Three Pearson correlations revealed

a weak, positive relationship between helicopter parenting and the authoritarian

parenting style (r ¼ .26, p < .001) and no relationships between helicopter parenting and the authoritative (r ¼ �.04, p ¼ .53) or permissive (r ¼ .03, p ¼ .61) parenting styles.

The first hypothesis (H1) posited a positive relationship between helicopter

parenting and the conformity orientation. A Pearson correlation revealed a moderate,

positive relationship between helicopter parenting and the conformity orientation

(r ¼ .42, p < .001). Thus, H1 was supported. The second research question (RQ2) asked about the relationship between

helicopter parenting and the conversation orientation. A Pearson correlation revealed

no relationships between helicopter parenting and the conversation orientation

(r ¼ �.10, p ¼ .12). The second hypothesis (H2) predicted a positive relationship between helicopter

parenting and Millennials’ neuroticism. A Pearson correlation revealed a moderate,

positive relationship between helicopter parenting and neuroticism (r ¼ .33, p < .001). Thus, H2 was supported.

The third hypothesis (H3) predicted a positive relationship between Millennials’

interpersonal dependency and neuroticism. A Pearson correlation revealed a strong,

positive relationship between interpersonal dependency and neuroticism (r ¼ .51, p < .001). Thus, H3 was supported.

The fourth hypothesis (H4) predicted a positive relationship between helicopter

parenting and Millennials’ interpersonal dependency. A Pearson correlation revealed

a moderate, positive relationship between helicopter parenting and interpersonal

dependency (r ¼ .34, p < .001). Thus, H4 was supported. The fifth hypothesis (H5) predicted a negative relationship between helicopter

parenting and Millennials’ coping efficacy. A Pearson correlation revealed a moder-

ate, negative relationship between helicopter parenting and coping efficacy (r ¼ �.35, p < .001). Thus, H5 was supported.

Discussion

According to helicopter parenting experts (e.g., Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006; Howe &

Strauss, 2003), Millennials—many of whom are now college-attending or newly employed, emerging adults—have been exposed to overbearing and overprotective

parenting that has hindered their effective decision making, independence, and

self-confidence. At the urging of previous helicopter (and over) parenting researchers,

the current study sought to ascertain the associations between helicopter parenting,

family environments, and Millennials’ relational outcomes. The following sections will

discuss the specific results, limitations, and directions for future research.

Helicopter Parenting and Parent-Child Relationships

This study exposes a negative family landscape for helicopter parents and their

Millennial-generation children as evidenced by the positive relationships between

helicopter parenting and the authoritarian parenting style and conformity

Helicopter Parenting 417

orientation. It makes sense that helicopter parenting is positively associated with

these constructs as all three include strict and overpowering parental control and

monitoring, unconditional child obedience and dependence, and have been associa-

ted with negative outcomes for children. Further, these results corroborate the links

Segrin et al. (2012) uncovered between authoritarian parenting and the anticipatory

problem-solving and child self-direction dimensions of overparenting. Thus, it seems

as if the positive association between helicopter and authoritarian parenting is

relatively stable given that three instruments (when including the results of LeMoyne

and Buchanan’s scale in Table 1) have revealed the same results.

The absence of a relationship between helicopter parenting and the conversation

orientation is also conceptually consistent. Although helicopter parents communicate

with their children frequently (Gottleib, 2011), scholars have yet to provide evidence

that helicopter parents encourage their children to be open about their private

thoughts and feelings, to participate in family decision making, and to challenge

other’s views and opinions. Future researchers should investigate the specific

messages exchanged between helicopter parents and their children to ascertain the

degree of openness fostered in these family environments.

Because helicopter parenting was unrelated to the permissive and authoritative

parenting styles, the results provide more insight into the complexity of helicopter

parenting. Given that Padilla-Walker and Nelson (2012) and Segrin et al. (2012)

claimed helicopter parenting is not inherently negative but actually includes healthy

parenting behaviors (e.g., advice-giving, emotional support, positivity), future

researchers should develop profiles of functional and dysfunctional helicopter parents

to illuminate which behaviors parents should avoid or perpetuate to ensure positive

child outcomes. Segrin et al.’s Overparenting Measure and Ledbetter and Vik’s

(2012) Parental Invasive Behavior Instrument exist as two recently developed mea-

sures that researchers could use to begin developing such profiles.

It may be premature to offer prevention advice to parents, but discipline research

can inform an initial discussion of positive parenting and healthy child development.

According to Grusec and Goodnow (1994), children need age- and issue-appropriate

limits enforced through consistent discipline and the freedom to make and learn

from their own decisions. This type of parenting, called reasoning, fosters children’s

internalization, the process through which prosocial behaviors are motivated by the

anticipation of intrinsic rewards (e.g., pride in oneself, moral obligation, pleasing

one’s parents) instead of external consequences (e.g., physical punishment, legal

ramifications, social denigration; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Helicopter parents’

overparenting lacks reasoning and, in turn, impairs children’s social competence,

emotion regulation, and identity development (Pope-Edwards & Liu, 2002). How-

ever, by respecting and trusting their emerging-adult children (Gower & Dowling,

2008) with more autonomy and responsibility (Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006), helicopter

parents can foster more positive outcomes for their children and families. As

researchers begin to formulate prevention plans, they should examine precursors

to helicopter parenting, such as attachment parenting (Sears & Sears, 2001), ineffec-

tive discipline techniques, and parent motives.

418 K. G. Odenweller et al.

Helicopter Parenting and Millennials’ Socioemotional Development

Although helicopter parents’ hovering behavior is often benevolent in nature, the

results related to neuroticism, interpersonal dependency, and coping efficacy suggest

this parenting style is detrimental to children’s healthy development and interperso-

nal relationships. Helicopter parents’ tendency to intervene and to ‘‘save’’ their chil-

dren from difficult situations may alleviate their children’s discomfort in the short

term, but this enabling behavior eventually impairs their physical, social, and

emotional development and wellbeing. In fact, children who rely on their helicopter

parents’ constant assistance likely rely on other relational partners (e.g., friends,

romantic partners) to satisfy their needs or accomplish their goals, experience anxiety

or fear in unfamiliar social settings, and lack the confidence and skills to cope

with trivial and major life problems. In addition, based on the current study, we

can infer that Twenge’s (2006) discovery that Millennials possess a quitter mentality

is a function of the helplessness children of helicopter parents feel because they are

unaccustomed to failures associated with common, adult experiences.

These negative trends are consistent with the links other scholars (e.g., LeMoyne &

Buchanan, 2011; Segrin et al., 2012) have uncovered between helicopter parenting

and distressed family environments and dangerous, self-destructive child outcomes.

However, it is too early to ascertain if these cross-sectional results will be sustained long

term or begin to dissipate as children encounter more adult responsibilities and experi-

ences. In addition, helicopter parenting may be a cohort-specific parenting style (i.e.,

among Baby Boomers) that may become extinct as the Generation X (i.e., individuals

born between 1963 and 1977; Tulgan, 2000), who are characterized as skeptical of auth-

ority, independent, and resourceful (Tulgan, 2000), begins raising children. Future

researchers should longitudinally assess Millennials’ traits and interpersonal behaviors

as well as various generations of parents’ helicopter parenting tendencies.

Regardless, in the short term, the effects of helicopter parenting present challenges

for university administrators and counselors who are confronted by sheltered

first-year college students as they experience their first major separation from their

overprotective parents. Generally, experts recommend university officials embrace

overly involved parents via parent clubs, programs, and communications (Coburn,

2006); family campus visits (Hoekstra, 2006); and parent-student orientations

(Santovec, 2004) or subtly encourage parents to give their children space (Hunt,

2008). However, when parents are not on campus, university officials must manage

student issues to maintain their institutions’ operating procedures and to increase

student enrollment and retention (e.g., Coburn, 2006; Hoekstra, 2006; Hunt, 2008).

Albeit just a beginning, this and other studies provide insight into the personality traits

and interpersonal deficiencies Millennials bring to campus in order to help adminis-

trators and counselors determine which resources and expertise they need to acquire.

The Helicopter Parenting Instrument (HPI)

Although not the primary focus of this study, the utility of the HPI was evidenced by

three results. First, the positive, but not isomorphic (i.e., correlations above .70;

Helicopter Parenting 419

Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1994), relationship between the HPI and

LeMoyne and Buchanan’s (2011) Helicopter Parent Scale demonstrates the distinct-

ness of the HPI. Second, the HPI demonstrated strong construct validity given its

positive relationships with theoretically related variables (i.e., the authoritarian

parenting style and conformity orientation) and no relationship with a divergent

variable (i.e., the conversation orientation). Third, the reliability of the HPI was close

to the ideal reliability (i.e., .80; George & Mallery, 2003). Given the aforementioned

reasons, the HPI represents a viable, alternative measure that could be used to

strengthen future research of helicopter parenting and other constructs in the family

(e.g., family types, attachment styles), classroom (e.g., motivation, academic

entitlement), or workplace (e.g., peer relationships, citizenship behaviors).

Limitations and Additional Future Directions

Although this study offers meaningful insights, there are three limitations to address.

First, the results may have been influenced by a single-source bias. Although collecting

and aggregating individual survey data from both parents and all children in a family

would require considerable time and knowledge of advanced statistical analyses (e.g.,

multilevel modeling), investigating helicopter parenting from a systems approach

would likely reveal if helicopter parenting is a family-wide phenomenon or merely

one parent’s unique style of parenting with one specific child. Further, given that

69.4% of participants reported on their mothers, 22.4% of participants’ parents were

divorced or remarried, and 30.6% of participants with siblings perceived their parents’ parenting styles to differ across the children in their families, participants may have

underestimated their fathers’ influence, step-parents’ involvement, or parents’ relation-

ships with their siblings. Nonetheless, because participants were asked to report on the

parent they talk to the most frequently, the results likely portray an accurate picture of

the parent-child relationship that has the most influence on the studied outcomes.

Second, given the correlational nature of the results, this study cannot provide

causal evidence regarding helicopter parenting. Thus, conducting an experiment to

isolate the actual cause of negative child outcomes would be productive.

Third, the sample was largely homogenous. Previous researchers (e.g., LeMoyne &

Buchanan, 2011; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; Segrin et al., 2012) asserted that

helicopter parenting may be experienced or perceived differently by other cultures.

Thus, future investigations of this phenomenon should include more diverse samples

of parents and children.

Conclusion

The prevalence of helicopter parenting warrants scientific inquiry of this unique

phenomenon. The results reported here provide empirical evidence for helicopter

parenting’s negative effects on Millennials. Specifically, when parents engage in

developmentally inappropriate techniques, their children are more likely to exhibit

neurotic tendencies, to depend on others for support and validation, and to lack

effective coping skills. Although this describes a grim view of helicopter parents

420 K. G. Odenweller et al.

and their children, these trends provide insight that can be used in preventing

destructive parenting behaviors and promoting healthy child outcomes. Because

research in this area is in its infancy, there are many avenues future researchers

can explore to advance knowledge of helicopter parenting and its effects on

parent-child relationships, college campuses, and the workplace.

Notes

[1] There are two major methodological limitations to Segrin et al.’s (2012) Overparenting

Measure. First, during exploratory factor analyses, Segrin et al.’s measure obtained primary

loadings between .42 and .49 and primary=secondary loading discrepancies as small as .08. These results fall below the criteria DeVellis (1991) specified for social science scale develop-

ment. Second, Segrin et al. correlated error terms during their confirmatory factor analyses,

which Gerbing and Anderson (1984) claimed obscures the theoretical structure of measure-

ment models and should not be used simply to improve model fit.

[2] Participants were required to be between the ages of 18 and 30 to ensure their membership in

the Millennial generation (Howe & Strauss, 2003) and to have at least one living parent as

individuals’ reports of deceased family members can be biased by favorable perceptions (e.g.,

Parkes, 1972; Shmotkin, 1999).

[3] LeMoyne and Buchanan’s (2011) Helicopter Parenting Scale was chosen because other

measures such as Segrin et al.’s (2012) 39-item Overparenting Measure and Padilla-Walker

and Nelson’s (2012) five-item scale were not published at the time of data collection.

In addition, given the number of variables included in the current study, incorporating

additional instruments may have caused participant fatigue and attrition.

[4] The conceptual and statistical limitations to LeMoyne and Buchanan’s (2011) Helicopter

Parenting Scale are twofold. First, these researchers solicited college students’ perceptions

of their parents’ overinvolvement and monitoring when they were growing up. Given that

helicopter parenting is conceptualized as developmentally inappropriate parenting tactics

used with otherwise competent adult children (Segrin et al., 2012), it is possible that

LeMoyne and Buchanan actually measured parents’ appropriate hovering over young chil-

dren. Second, LeMoyne and Buchanan’s scale retained two primary factor loadings of .48

and .45, which fall below DeVellis’ (1991) criteria, during their exploratory factor analysis.

[5] Before conducting an exploratory factor analysis with the maximum likelihood method and

varimax rotation, the HPI included 20 items. Five of the items were removed due to obtain-

ing primary loadings below .50 and secondary loadings above .30 (see DeVellis, 1991). The

final 15-item, unidimensional solution, which accounted for 54.94% of the variance, was used in correlation and regression analyses.

[6] The words and phrases used to develop the HPI included the following: ‘‘high involvement,

low autonomy granting, presence of emotional support,’’ ‘‘oversolicitous parenting,’’ and

‘‘not . . . conducive to growth during emerging adulthood’’ (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012, pp. 1186–1187); ‘‘overparenting,’’ ‘‘directiveness,’’ ‘‘intrusive, overinvolved, and overly

controlling parenting,’’ ‘‘overly fixated on the child’s needs,’’ ‘‘an extreme willingness to do

anything for the child’’ (Segrin et al., 2012, pp. 238–240); ‘‘keeping them in a permanent

state of dependency,’’ ‘‘emotional overinvestment in a child’s success,’’ and ‘‘overreact to

every . . . negative encounter your child has’’ (Marano, 2004, pp. 58–70); ‘‘crippling their children’s . . . self-sufficiency,’’ ‘‘don’t allow their children to deal with the consequences of their decisions,’’ and ‘‘dedicate our lives to our children’’ (Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006);

‘‘overbearing parents to hover well into adulthood,’’ ‘‘infantilize our young . . . stifle their development,’’ and ‘‘meddling’’ (Tyler, 2007, p. 43), and ‘‘constantly monitored’’ and ‘‘they

have no experience with hardship’’ (Gottlieb, 2011, pp. 5–6).

Helicopter Parenting 421

References

Alkharusi, H., Aldhafri, S., Kazem, A., Alzubiadi, A., & Al-Bahrani, M. (2011). Development and

validation of a short version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire. Social Behavior and

Personality, 39, 1193–1208. doi:10.2224=sbp.2011.39.9.1193 Ballantine, J. H. (1999). Getting involved in our children’s education. Childhood Education, 75,

170–171.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative control on child behavior. Child Development, 37,

887–907.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.

Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2011). Dependency, self-criticism and negative affective responses following

imaginary rejection and failure threats: Meaning-making processes as moderators or

mediators. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 74, 31–40. doi:10.1521= psyc.2011.74.1.31

Blatt, S. J. (2004). Experiences of depression: Theoretical, clinical and research perspectives.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., Lehman, D. R., Tweed, R. G., Haring, M., Sonnega, J., . . . Nesse, R. M. (2002). Resilience to love and chronic grief: A prospective study from preloss to

18-months postloss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1150–1164.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1994). The affective orientation to communication:

Conceptual and empirical distinctions. Communication Quarterly, 42, 331–344. doi:10.1080= 01463379409369941

Bornstein, R. F., Becker-Matero, N., Winarick, D. J., & Reichman, A. L. (2010). Interpersonal

dependency in borderline personality disorder: Clinical context and empirical evidence.

Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 109–127. doi:10.1521=pedi.2010.24.1.109 Bowen, R., Baetz, M., Leuschen, C., & Kalynchuk, L. (2011). Predictors of suicidal thoughts: Mood

instability versus neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 1034–1938.

doi:10.1016=j.paid.2011.08.015 Brown, T. A., & Rosellini, A. J. (2011). The direct and interactive effects of neuroticism and life

stress on the severity and longitudinal course of depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 120, 844–856. doi:10.1037=a0023035 Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating

emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen &

L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications,

and contexts (pp. 246–275). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cline, F. W., & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting with love and logic: Teaching children responsibility.

Colorado Springs, CO: Pinon.

Colavecchio-Van Sickler, S. (2006, June 19). Mommy, tell my professor he’s not nice: Involved

Baby Boomer parents and cell phones redefine adulthood. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/19/State/Mommy__tell_my_profes.shtml

Coburn, K. L. (2006). Organizing a ground crew for today’s helicopter parents. About Campus,

3, 9–16. doi:10.1002=abc.167 Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO

five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Darcy, K., Davila, J., & Beck, J. G. (2005). Is social anxiety associated with both interpersonal

avoidance and dependence? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 171–186. doi:10.1007= s10608-005-3163-4

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality

traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. doi:10.1037=0033- 2909.124.2.197

422 K. G. Odenweller et al.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s

academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81, 988–1005.

doi:10.1111=j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x Eaves, L., & Eysenck, H. (1976). Genetic and environmental components of inconsistency and unre-

peatability in twins’ responses to a neuroticism questionnaire. Behavior Genetics, 6, 145–160.

doi:10.1007=BF01067145 Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (1996, July). Family communication schemata and social func-

tions of communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Research

Colloquium on Communication Research, Moscow, Russia.

Fowler, M., Pearson, J. C., & Beck, S. J. (2010). Family communication patterns influence on adult

children’s romantic rituals and relational maintenance. Journal of the Communication, Speech

& Theatre Association of North Dakota, 23, 1–11.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0

update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within factor correlated measurement

errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 572–580. doi:10.1086=208993 Gibbs, N. (2009, November 30). The growing backlash against overparenting. Time. Retrieved from

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940697,00.html

Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2012, May). Effects of overinvolved parenting on young adults’ identity and

family satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communi-

cation Association: Phoenix, AZ.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological

Assessment, 4, 26–42. doi:10.1037==1040-3590.4.1.26 Goodboy, A., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2008). Individual differences in romantic partners’ desire

for less closeness. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 209–218.

Gottlieb, L. (2011, July=August). How to land your kid in therapy. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/

308555/

Gower, M., & Dowling, E. (2008). Parenting adult children – Invisible ties that bind? Journal of

Family Therapy, 30, 425–437. doi:10.1111=j.1467-6427.2008.00438.x Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s

internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental

Psychology, 30, 4–19. doi:10.1037==0012-1649.30.1.4 Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gough, H. G., Barrett, J., Korchin, S. J., & Chodoff, P. (1977).

A measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 610–618.

doi:10.1207=s15327752jpa4106_6 Hoekstra, J. (2006, January). Helicopter parents. St. Olaf Magazine, 14–18, 50. Retrieved from

http://www.stolaf.edu/magazine/2006winter/Helicopter_Parents.pdf

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Washington, DC: American

Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and Life Course

Associates. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Helicopter parents in the workplace. Austin, TX: nGenera.

Retrieved from http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/uploads/helicopter-parents-in-the-

workplace.pdf

Hunt, J. (2008). Make room for daddy . . . and mommy: Helicopter parents are here. The Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 4, 9–12.

Kantrowitz, B., & Tyre, P. (2006, May 26). The fine art of letting go. Newsweek. Retrieved from

http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/parents/images/TheFineArtofLettingGo.pdf

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication

Theory, 12, 70–91. doi:10.1093=ct=12.1.70

Helicopter Parenting 423

Koesten, J., & Anderson, K. (2004). Exploring the influence of family communication patterns,

cognitive complexity, and interpersonal competence on adolescent risk behaviors. The

Journal of Family Communication, 4, 99–121. doi:10.1207=s15327698jfc0402_2 Lazarus, S. R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Retrieved from http://goo.gl/jvbJF

Ledbetter, A. M., & Vik, T. A. (2012). Parental invasive behaviors and emerging adults’ privacy

defenses: Instrument development and validation. Journal of Family Communication, 12,

227–247. doi:10.1080=15267431.2012.686943 LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does ‘‘hovering’’ matter?: Helicopter parenting and its effect

on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399–418. doi:10.1080=02732173.2011.574038 Liftoff for ‘‘helicopter’’ parents. (2007, May 3). The Christian Science Monitor, 8. Retrieved from

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p08s02-comv.html

Luyten, P., Sabbe, B., Blatt, S. J., Meganck, S., Jansen, B., De Grave, C., . . . Corveleyn, J. (2007). Dependency and self-criticism: Relationship with major depressive disorder, severity of

depression, and clinical presentation. Depression and Anxiety, 24, 586–596. doi:10.1002=da.20272 Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview.

Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–1017. doi:10.1037=0012-1649.28.6.1006 Marano, H. E. (2004). A nation of wimps. Psychology Today, 504–170, 58–70, 103.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P.

John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York,

NY: Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/MMRDV

McHale, S. M., Dariotis, J. K., & Kauh, T. J. (2003). Social development and social relationships in

middle childhood. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of

psychology: Vol. 6 Developmental psychology (pp. 241–265). New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/U4LrV

Miller-Day, M., & Kam, J. A. (2010). More than just openness: Developing and validating a measure

of targeted parent-child communication about alcohol. Health Communication, 25, 293–302.

doi:10.1080=10410231003698952 Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth from infancy to

adolescence. Oxford, UK: Yale University Press.

Orrego, V. O., & Rodriguez, J. (2001). Family communication patterns and college adjustment: The

effects of communication and conflictual independence on college students. Journal of

Family Communication, 1, 175–189.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down?: Establishing helicopter parenting

as a distinct construct from other forms of parental control during emerging adulthood.

Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1177–1190. doi:10.1016=j.adolescence.2012.03.007 Parkes, C. M. (1972). Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life. New York, NY: International

Universities Press.

Pluess, M., Belsky, J., Way, B. M., & Taylor, S. E. (2010). 5-HTTLPR moderates effects of current

life events on neuroticism: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Progress in

Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 34, 1070–1074. doi:10.1016=j.pnpbp. 2010.05.028

Pope-Edwards, C., & Liu, W. L. (2002). Parenting toddlers. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook

of parenting: Status and social conditions of parenting (Vol. 1, pp. 45–71). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intraperso-

nal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544.

doi:10.1177=009365090017004007 Rutherford, M. B. (2011). The social value of self-esteem. Social Science and Public Policy, 48,

407–412. doi:10.1007=s12115-011-9460-5 Santovec, M. L. (2004, November). Dual orientations help ‘‘helicopter’’ parents let go. Recruitment

& Retention, 18, 1–8.

424 K. G. Odenweller et al.

Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators

of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. The Journal of Family

Communication, 7, 23–46. doi:10.1207=s15327698jfc0701_3 Sears, W., & Sears, M. (2001). The attachment parenting book: A commonsense guide to understand-

ing and nurturing your child. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group.

Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., Dauer, 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. doi:10.1111=j.1741-3729.2011.00689.x Shmotkin, D. (1999). Affective bonds of adult children with living versus deceased parents.

Psychology and Aging, 14, 473–482. doi:10.1037=0882-7974.14.3.473 Shoup, R., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009, June). Impact of helicopter parents. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Atlanta, GA.

Sillars, A., Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). Communication and understanding in

parent-adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research, 31, 103–128. doi:10.1093= hcr=31.1.102

Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. S. (1987). Bereavement and health. New York, NY: Cambridge.

Tulgan, B. (2000). Managing Generation X: How to bring out the best in young talent (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me. New York, NY: Free Press.

Tyler, K. (2007, May 1). The tethered generation. HR Magazine, 52(5), 41–46. Retrieved from

http://www.shrm.org/Publications/hrmagazine/EditorialContent/Pages/0507cover.aspx

Zeman, N. (1991, September 9). Buzzwords. Newsweek, p. 9.

Appendix: Helicopter Parenting Instrument (HPI)

1. My parent tries to make all of my major decisions.

2. My parent discourages me from making decisions that he or she disagrees with.

3. If my parent doesn’t do certain things for me (e.g., doing laundry, cleaning

room, making doctor appointments), they will not get done.

4. My parent overreacts when I encounter a negative experience.

5. My parent doesn’t intervene in my life unless he or she notices me experiencing

physical or emotional trauma.�

6. Sometimes my parent invests more time and energy into my projects than I do.

7. My parent considers oneself a bad parent when he or she does not step in and

‘‘save’’ me from difficulty.

8. My parent feels like a bad parent when I make poor choices.

9. My parent voices his or her opinion about my personal relationships.

10. My parent considers himself or herself a good parent when he or she solves

problems for me.

11. My parent insists that I keep him or her informed of my daily activities.

12. When I have to go somewhere (e.g., doctor appointments, academic meetings,

the bank, clothing stores), my parent accompanies me.

13. When I am going through a difficult situation, my parent always tries to fix it.

14. My parent encourages me to take risks and step outside of my comfort zone.�

15. My parent thinks it is his or her job to shield me from adversity.

�These items should be reverse coded during analyses.

Helicopter Parenting 425