Investigating Helicopter Parenting, Family Environments, and Relational Outcomes for Millennials

Abstract

To examine the relationship between helicopter parenting and Millennials' personal and interpersonal problems, Millennials (N = 268) reported on their parents' helicopter parenting, parenting styles, and family communication patterns and their own neuroticism, 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

Notes

^a The Revised Family Communication Patterns Instrument was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from never (0) to always (4).

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 development. Second, Segrin et al. correlated error terms during their confirmatory factor analyses, which Gerbing and Anderson (1984) claimed obscures the theoretical structure of measurement models and should not be used simply to improve model fit.

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).

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.

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 children. 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.

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 obtaining 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.

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).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kelly G. Odenweller

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

Melanie Booth-Butterfield (PhD, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1985) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University.

Keith Weber

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