Relationships Among Helicopter Parenting,Self-Efficacy,and Academic Outcome in American and South Korean College Students

Abstract

Although numerous studies have examined the role of helicopter parenting in child outcomes, there is little empirical cross-cultural research on the academic outcomes of helicopter parenting for late adolescents. This study investigated the differences in the association between mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting and college students’ (N = 343) academic outcomes across American and South Korean contexts, examining the role of self-efficacy as a mediator. Multigroup structural equation modeling analyses showed that South Korean fathers’ helicoptering has a negative relation with students’ academic outcomes. Higher levels of fathers’ parenting were directly related to students’ lower academic outcomes in the Korean context. However, comparable results were not observed with South Korean mothers or American parents. In addition, mothers’ helicopter parenting was not related to either self-efficacy or academic outcomes across the two countries. Although there are cultural differences in helicopter parenting practices, there appear to be potentially more cultural similarities across the two cultures than was conjectured.

Keywords

helicopter parenting self-efficacy academic outcome comparative study parenting practice

Introduction

In recent years, numerous studies have examined the role helicopter parenting plays in student outcomes. Helicopter parenting is commonly defined as “parenting involving hovering parents who are potentially over-involved in the lives of their child” (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012, p. 1177). Similar terms like, overparenting (Kouros, Pruitt, Ekas, Kiriaki, & Sunderland, 2017; Leung & Shek, 2018), intensive parenting (Schiffrin, Godfrey, Liss, & Erchull, 2015), intensive support (Fingerman et al., 2012), and intrusive parental involvement (Kouros et al., 2017) are frequently used interchangeably with helicopter parenting. Helicopter parenting is mostly regarded as developmentally inappropriate for young adult children (Kouros et al., 2017). Although helicopter parenting is predominantly regarded as having negative effects on psychological and emotional well-being (Bayer, Sanson, & Hemphill, 2006; LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Reed, Duncan, Lucier-Greer, Fixelle, & Ferraro, 2016; Willoughby, Hersh, Padilla-Walker, & Nelson, 2015), a few studies have reported neutral or positive outcomes, with young adult children reporting higher satisfaction with college experience or better school adjustment than those with less intensely involved parents (Bradley-Geist & Olson-Buchanan, 2014; Earle & LaBrie, 2016).

College students are transitioning from late adolescence to adult status, and many of them still have strong connections with their parents and feel partly adolescent and partly adult (Furstenberg, 2010; Mailhot & Feeney, 2017). In late adolescence, academic achievement is very important for successful degree attainment, future careers, and life outcomes (Allen, Robbins, Casillas, & Oh, 2008; Mailhot & Feeney, 2017). Prior work on American college students found that those with helicopter parents had lower academic achievement than other students, as measured by students’ college grade point average (GPA) (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007). Students’ GPA is regarded as a reasonable indicator of academic achievement and success in college (Mailhot & Feeney, 2017; Moore, Shulock, & Jensen, 2009; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). In contrast, other research has found that for Korean American college students in the United States, helicopter parenting may not be that harmful, and it even had some positive relationship with their academics (Kwon, Yoo, & De Gagne, 2017). However, there is relatively little research on the relationship between helicopter parenting and college students’ academic outcomes.

Somers and Settle (2010) found that about 40% to 60% of the college students in their study reported intensive and sometimes intrusive involvement by their parents in their daily lives (i.e., helicopter parenting). Concerned with the increasingly heavy parental involvement with their students on campus, some American universities even explicitly advise parents not to solve children’s problems for them. They inform parents that overinvolved parenting does not promote problem solving in college students and hinders their children from making life decisions independently (Segrin, Givertz, Swaitkowski, & Montgomery, 2015). Some schools even ask parents to step aside from their children’s lives so that children can function more independently in their academic and social lives (Earle & LaBrie, 2016; Marano, 2008). Judging from Somers and Settle’s (2010) findings, helicopter parenting practices seem to be prevalent in American colleges. Considering the prevalence of helicopter parenting on college campuses and in young adult children’s lives, and the importance of achieving good academic standing by getting good grades, it is surprising that there are very few studies on the relationship between helicopter parenting and academic outcomes.

During late adolescence, children enter a period of increased power over their decisions, career exploration, and building relationships with individuals outside their families; thus, they seek increased autonomy during their transition to adulthood (J. Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). In transitioning from adolescence to adulthood, however, children from Eastern and Western countries may perceive and interpret their parents’ parenting practices differently. The cultural universality and specificity theory, as delineated in the developmental niche framework (Harkness & Super, 1992), supports the view that there may be similarities and differences in terms of the impact of helicopter parenting on student academics across different countries.

Asian families tend to place strong value on academic training and learning-focused daily lives (Ng, Pomerantz, & Lam, 2007; Parmar, Harkness, & Super, 2004). Many Asian parents believe that children can achieve better with parental support, guidance, and involvement in their education (Raghavan, Harkness, & Super, 2010). The experience of intensive parenting (Schiffrin et al., 2015) or intensive support (Fingerman et al., 2012)—a concept similar to helicopter parenting—may have been present in the lives of many Asian students while they were growing up and may even continue as they transition into adulthood. Some students may view helicopter parenting as an extension of the parenting practices that their parents have already been using to provide for them. Hence, children in Asian cultures may interpret helicopter parenting simply as a continuation of the general parenting practices that they have grown used to. American families in Western countries, however, tend to value individualism, autonomy, and independence (Chao & Tseng, 2002). Parents in Western cultures are likely to support their children through greater collaboration between families and schools, providing more resources, and being involved in volunteer activities, although their involvement may significantly vary based on the family’s socioeconomic background, educational level, and ethnic background (Eccles & Harold, 1996; N. E. Hill et al., 2004). However, when their parents are overly involved in their lives and even making decisions for them, some American children may view it as invasive and may be adversely affected because of their cultural orientation and the environment in which they have grown up (Cline & Fay, 1990; Nelson, Padilla-Walker, Christensen, Evans, & Carroll, 2011).

Nonetheless, there have been relatively few studies investigating the similarities and differences in the role of helicopter parenting in academic outcomes across countries. One prior study compared the effects of parental control—a concept similar to helicopter parenting—on emotional functioning and academic achievement in American and Chinese early adolescent children (Wang, Pomerantz, & Chen, 2007). The authors found notable differences in the role of parenting practices across these two countries, but they also found some common features in predicting children’s academic outcomes, supporting the perspective of “universalism without the uniformity” (Shweder, 1993, p. 290). To date, the concept of helicopter parenting has been mostly discussed in the U.S. context, and studies that have investigated the differences in the role of helicopter parenting in student outcomes across different countries have been rare. Further research is needed to determine whether this relation extends to late adolescents’ helicopter parenting experience and academic outcomes, and the extent to which these relations differ across countries with varying cultural orientations. Examining that issue is a major objective of the current study.

Another limitation of the earlier studies is lack of consideration of the possible role of the parent’s gender in how helicopter parenting affects student outcomes. Until now, most studies on helicopter parenting have not examined whether its impact differed as a function of parental gender, as they frequently involved any one parent, guardian, or parental figure in their investigation (e.g., Bradley-Geist & Olson-Buchanan, 2014; Kwon, Yoo, & Bingham, 2016; Van Ingen et al., 2015). If there are gender differences in the effect of parenting styles on child outcomes (Baxter, 2002; Craig, 2006), to our knowledge, this possibility has not yet been investigated. We have examined it in the present study.

Studies have shown that helicopter parenting may be linked to students’ sense of self-efficacy. Bandura (1986) defined individuals’ self-efficacy as their perception of their own capabilities and their competence to execute tasks. Students who are self-efficacious can better recognize their own abilities to accomplish given tasks and put their own efforts toward meeting their needs (Givertz & Segrin, 2014; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Self-efficacy has been shown to be a strong predictor of academic outcomes (Daniels et al., 2014; Multon et al., 1991; Stupnisky, Renaud, Daniels, Haynes, & Perry, 2008). Focusing on the academic outcomes of college students in the United States, researchers recently found that higher degrees of helicopter parenting were related to lower levels of self-efficacy and that a lower level of self-efficacy was associated with lower GPA (Darlow, Norvilitis, & Schuetze, 2017). Overparenting—a concept similar to helicopter parenting—was shown to be negatively related to the self-efficacy of Chinese students (Leung & Shek, 2018), and a similar result was found with American college students when the researchers studied the relationship between helicopter parenting and self-efficacy (Van Ingen et al., 2015). Schiffrin and Liss (2017) similarly found that helicopter parenting is associated with extrinsic academic motivation, which may be adversely related to academic achievement. Therefore, the current study examined the mediating role of college students’ self-efficacy in the association between helicopter parenting and academic outcomes.

The Present Study

Incorporating the cultural universality and specificity framework (Harkness & Super, 1992), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Darlow et al., 2017; Multon et al., 1991), and parental gender differences (Baxter, 2002; Craig, 2006), the current study sought to expand the body of research on helicopter parenting by investigating whether mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting differentially affected college students’ academic outcomes across different cultures. This is an important research area because late adolescents who experience higher levels of helicopter parenting may not realize their full potential academically or careerwise, and therefore understanding the predictors of academic success is essential.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the differences in the associations between mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting and college students’ academic outcomes in American and South Korean (hereafter Korean) contexts. We also examined the possible indirect paths of this association through students’ self-efficacy. We hypothesized that helicopter parenting is negatively associated with college students’ academic outcome (GPA), helicopter parenting is negatively associated with college students’ self-efficacy, and students’ self-efficacy and academic outcomes are significantly associated. Although there is little research exploring the relationship among helicopter parenting, self-efficacy, and academic outcomes in Eastern and Western cultures, because of the cultural differences in parenting style, we expected that helicopter parenting might have fewer negative effects for Korean students.

Method

Participants

Undergraduate students from a university in the United States (N = 416) and one in Korea (N = 204) originally participated in the study. The two participating universities were selected based on their similar background to fulfill the requirement for comparative studies (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Both were midsized private universities in suburban areas located a few hours’ drive from a metropolitan city, and most of the undergraduate students resided on campus.

Institutional review board approvals were secured from both universities. The researchers recruited participants from undergraduate classes, which were primarily social science or liberal arts courses. Students who completed the questionnaire received extra credit as compensation for their participation. The response rate was 94.3% (416 out of 441 students) in the U.S. university and 93.1% (204 out of 219 students) in the Korean university. To ensure that there were similar familial contexts between American and Korean students, this study only included students who were biological children of legally married parents (218 American and 170 Korean students). In addition, we dropped 18 American students and 27 Korean students who returned incomplete questionnaires. Consequently, the final sample consisted of 200 American students and 143 Korean students. In the American group, 143 students (71.5%) were White, 18 (9.0%) were Asian American, 12 (6.0%) were Hispanic, and 7 (3.5%) were African American. In the Korean group, all the students were Korean. With regard to the participants’ gender, the American sample consisted of 135 female students (67.5%) and 63 male students (31.5%), whereas the Korean sample was composed of 74 female students (51.7%) and 69 male students (48.3%).

Measures

All the measures used in this study were created in both English and Korean versions. To develop equivalent forms of measures across the two countries and two languages, the translate-back method (Brislin, 1980; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997) was employed. The measures were first prepared in English and were then translated into Korean by more than two bilingual researchers. Then, the Korean measures were translated back into English. In addition, before conducting the survey, all the measures were pilot tested with undergraduate students in both countries for clarity of language and meaning.

Helicopter Parenting

Mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting styles were separately measured by five items of the Helicopter Parenting Scale (5-point scale; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012). An example item was “My mother (father) makes important decisions for me.” Higher scores indicated higher helicopter parenting levels. Five items each for mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting were used as indicators of mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting latent constructs, respectively (α = .74 for mothers and α = .72 for fathers in the American group; α = .78 for mothers and α = .76 for fathers in the Korean group).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy was measured by the six-item short form of the general 4-point self-efficacy scale (Romppel et al., 2013; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2010). An example item was “I have a great deal of control over my academic performance in my courses.” Higher scores indicated greater self-efficacy, and all the items were taken as indicators for a self-efficacy latent construct (α = .78 in American students; α = .85 in Korean students).

Academic Outcome

College students’ academic outcomes were measured using their GPA. The two participating universities have different grading scales. The U.S. institution uses a 4.0 GPA system, whereas the Korean institution uses a 4.3 GPA system. Therefore, we calculated the percentage of GPA (current GPA divided by the total number of grade points) and used it in the analysis.

Control Variables

Children’s characteristics included age, sex (0 = male, 1 = female), and number of children in the family. Mothers’ and fathers’ educational backgrounds were captured with an ordinal measure (treated as continuous) ranging from 1 (high school or less) to 4 (master’s/doctoral degree). This study measured parents’ household annual income using one unfolding question based on the currency ratio between the United States and South Korea at the time of the survey: There were six ordered categories of income, ranging from 1 (<$20,000 for American students and <₩20,000,000 for Korean students) to 6 (≥$100,001 in American students and ≥₩100,000,001 Korean students). An unfolding question is mostly used for income measures to reduce missing values and measurement errors (Duncan & Petersen, 2001; Lavrakas, 2008). Given that college students would not necessarily know their parents’ exact incomes, we utilized a categorical income measure instead of a continuous income measure to increase the participants’ response rates. All control variables were mean centered.

Analyses

We conducted descriptive and bivariate correlational analyses using SPSS 22 to examine the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables. To compare the characteristics of the study variables between the American and Korean students, we employed independent t tests. To test our hypotheses, we conducted multigroup structural equation modeling analysis using AMOS 22 as follows. First, we tested the hypothesized model for the American and Korean student groups separately. If one of the models did not fit the data acceptably, it was not deemed necessary to conduct a further analysis. Second, we executed the measurement invariance test (Brown, 2006) and compared the unconstrained model (all factor loadings are not constrained as equal) with a constrained factor loadings model (all factor loadings are constrained as equal) using the combined data from both student groups. If the chi-square values for the unconstrained and constrained factor loadings models are not significantly different, it indicates that the measures have the same structure and meaning across the two groups. Additionally, we tested the scalar invariance and compared the constrained factor loadings model and a constrained intercepts model (all intercepts are constrained as equal) between the American and Korean student groups. If the chi-square values for the constrained factor loadings and constrained intercepts models are not significantly different, it indicates that the measures have the same observed scores on an indicator at a given level of the latent factor across the two groups (Brown, 2006). Third, we conducted a structural invariance test to determine which paths are equal in the two groups (Brown, 2006). As in the measurement invariance test, if the chi-square values for the unconstrained path model and the constrained path model are not significantly different, it indicates that the path is equal across the two groups.

This study utilized two indices to assess the fit of our hypothesized model in both the student groups, based on Hu and Bentler’s (1999) suggestion of evaluating structural equations and modeling analysis: comparative fit index (CFI: value greater than .90 indicates a good model fit) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA: value less than .08 indicates a good model fit). To evaluate the mediating role of self-efficacy in the association between helicopter parenting and GPA, we conducted a bias-corrected bootstrap procedure to estimate the confidence intervals and test the indirect effects; if a 95% confidence interval does not contain 0, then the indirect effects are significant at the .05 level (Selig & Preacher, 2008). To account for the missing data, a full information maximum likelihood estimation was used in the analysis (Acock, 2005).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and independent t-test results among the study variables across the American and Korean students are presented in Table 1. The independent t-test results showed that the American students reported higher levels of self-efficacy (t = 4.49, p < .001) and GPA (t = 2.05, p = .041) than the Korean students. In addition, the Korean students reported higher levels of fathers’ helicopter parenting (t = −2.87, p < .01) than the American students. However, mothers’ helicopter parenting was not significantly different between the two groups (t = −1.02, p > .05).

Table 1.

Results of Descriptive Analysis Between the American and Korean Students.

		American students (n = 200)		Korean students (n = 143)		t test^a
Variable	Range	M	SD	M	SD	t test^a
Control variables
Age	—	19.71	1.47	21.99	1.95	−12.31***
Female^b	0–1	0.68	0.46	0.51	0.50	3.10**
Mother’s education	1–4	2.88	0.93	2.18	1.04	6.47***
Father’s education	1–4	2.88	1.02	2.57	1.03	2.72**
Parents’ annual income	1–6	5.02	1.26	3.86	1.37	8.01***
Number of siblings	—	2.64	1.05	2.19	0.60	4.61***
Study variables
Mothers’ helicopter parenting	1–5	2.43	0.80	2.52	0.80	−1.02
Fathers’ helicopter parenting	1–5	2.15	0.76	2.39	0.77	−2.87**
Self-efficacy	1–4	3.10	0.47	2.86	0.50	4.49***
GPA	0–100	0.83	0.11	0.81	0.11	2.05*

Note. SD = standard deviation; GPA = grade point average.

Results of independent t test for all study variables between the American and Korean student groups. ^bBinary variable (0 = male, 1 = female).

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

Table 2 presents the results of the bivariate correlations among the study variables. In the American student group, mothers’ helicopter parenting was negatively correlated with children’s self-efficacy (r = −.16, p = .025). However, fathers’ helicopter parenting was not correlated with children’s self-efficacy. In addition, GPA was not significantly correlated with mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting for the American students. For the Korean students, both mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting were negatively correlated with children’s self-efficacy and GPA.

Table 2.

Results of the Bivariate Correlations Among the Study Variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4
1. Mothers’ helicopter parenting	−	.73***	−.16*	−.04
2. Fathers’ helicopter parenting	.78***	—	−.09	−.01
3. Self-efficacy	−.14	−.08	—	.09
4. GPA	−.02	−.14	.08	—

Note. The upper part of the diagonal is for the American college students, and the bottom part of the diagonal is for the Korean college students. GPA = grade point average.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Testing the Hypothesized Model

Table 3 presents the results of multiple-group analysis of the hypothesized model in both American and Korean students. For the single-group analysis, both American students (Model 1) and Korean students (Model 2) showed an adequate fit, which satisfied the prerequisites of a measurement invariance test. Therefore, we conducted a measurement invariance test. The results of the unconstrained model (Model 3: all factor loadings are not constrained as equal) and the constrained factor loadings model (Model 4: all factor loadings are constrained as equal) were a good fit for the data. Compared with the unconstrained model, the constrained model yielded a Δχ² value of 21.97 (df [degrees of freedom] = 13, p = .06). This result indicates that all factor loadings for their respective measurement variables are invariant across the two groups (Brown, 2006). Therefore, the measures have the same structure and meaning for both American and Korean students.

Table 3.

Results of the Multiple-Group Analysis.

Model/Model description	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	Model comparison	Δχ²^a	Δdf ^b
Single-group analysis
1: American students (n = 200)	393.74***	199	.88	.07
2: Korean students (n = 143)	300.47***	199	.93	.06
Measurement invariance test
3: Unconstrained model	694.23***	398	.91	.05
4: Constrained factor loadings model	716.20***	411	.90	.05	4 vs. 3	21.97	13
5: Constrained intercepts model	883.20***	427	.86	.06	5 vs. 4	167.00***	16
Structural invariance test
6: Model 4 with mothers’ helicopter parenting—GPA was constrained to be equal	719.96***	412	.90	.05	6 vs. 4	3.76	1
7: Model 4 with fathers’ helicopter parenting—GPA was constrained to be equal	721.55***	412	.90	.05	7 vs. 4	5.35*	1
8: Model 4 with mothers’ helicopter parenting—Self-efficacy was constrained to be equal	716.77***	412	.90	.05	8 vs. 4	.57	1
9: Model 4 with fathers’ helicopter parenting—Self-efficacy was constrained to be equal	716.21***	412	.90	.05	9 vs. 4	.01	1
10: Model 4 with self-efficacy—GPA was constrained to be equal	716.58***	412	.90	.05	10 vs. 4	.38	1

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; df = degrees of freedom.

Difference in χ² values between models. ^bDifference in df between models.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

However, the constrained intercepts model (Model 5: all intercepts are constrained as equal) showed a poor model fit (χ²₍₄₂₇₎ = 883.20, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .06). In addition, compared with the constrained factor loadings model, the constrained intercepts model yields a Δχ² value of 167.00 (df = 16, p < .001). These results indicate that all intercepts for their latent variables are variant across the two groups. Consequently, the comparison of factor means would not be possible, and this condition implies potential measurement bias (Hong, Malik, & Lee, 2003). Regarding this issue, Byrne and Van de Vijver (2010) explained that

although some researchers contend that this strong test of equivalence (e.g., test for invariant item intercepts) should always be conducted, others argue that analysis of only covariance structures may be the most appropriate approach to take in addressing the issues and interests of a study. (p. 111)

Brown (2006) also mentioned that group comparisons of factor variance and covariance are available when the factor loadings are invariant. In this study, we compared the relationships (regression coefficients) among helicopter parenting, self-efficacy, and GPA across the United States and South Korea rather than comparing latent mean scores across the two countries. For this reason, although the scalar invariance test was not supported, the constrained factor loadings model could be used. Therefore, we conducted the structural invariance test based on the constrained factor loadings model.

To test the structural invariance of the model between American and Korean students, we constrained each hypothesized path to be equal (Models 6-10) and compared it with Model 4 (constrained factor loadings model). Compared with Model 4, Model 7 (path from fathers’ helicopter parenting to children’s GPA was constrained equal) yielded a ∆χ² value of 5.35 (df = 1, p = .02). This result indicates that the path from fathers’ helicopter parenting to children’s GPA is not statistically equal for American and Korean students. Other paths were equal for both American and Korean students.

Figure 1 presents the unstandardized coefficients for multiple-group analysis of the constrained model (Model 4) across the American and Korean student groups. For the American students, mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting practices were not significantly related to children’s self-efficacy and GPA. In addition, children’s self-efficacy was not significantly associated with their GPA. However, for Korean students, fathers’ helicopter parenting was negatively associated with children’s GPA (B = −.07, p = .021). But no other paths were significant. Consequently, this study failed to satisfy the prerequisite for the mediation test (Baron & Kenny, 1986)—that both independent (e.g., helicopter parenting) and dependent (e.g., GPA) variables should be significantly associated with a mediator (e.g., self-efficacy). Moreover, the results of the indirect effects test using the bias-corrected bootstrap method were not significant.

Figure 1.

Results of the hypothesized model. Unstandardized coefficients are shown for American/Korean students. Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path.

Overall, the results of the hypothesized model in American students explained 11% of the variance in GPA and 8% of the variance in self-efficacy. On the other hand, the results of the hypothesized model in Korean students explained 20% of the variance in GPA and 8% of the variance in self-efficacy.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationships among helicopter parenting, self-efficacy, and academic outcomes in American and Korean families. The study’s findings contribute to the field in several ways. For one, this investigation tested the prediction that helicopter parenting would be negatively associated with children’s academic outcomes in American and Korean families. The results partly supported this prediction, as the findings were largely limited to Korean fathers’ helicopter parenting. Additionally, this investigation tested the prediction that helicopter parenting would be associated with diminished self-efficacy. This prediction was not held for both student groups. This investigation also tested the prediction that self-efficacy and academic outcomes would be significantly associated. This was not found to be the case for both American or Korean students. Finally, this investigation tested the prediction that helicopter parenting would have fewer negative effects for Korean students. This was not the case; yet this study did produce an important set of findings regarding cultural similarities and differences between the two countries in the role of helicopter parenting in children’s academic outcomes.

The results showed that in the Korean context, only fathers’ helicopter parenting was significantly and directly associated with children’s GPA but mother’s helicopter parenting was not. Helicopter parenting was negatively associated with GPA for fathers but was not related to GPA for mothers. This indicates that helicopter parenting of mothers and fathers was received differently by the children. These students did not show any differences in their academic outcomes when they felt that their mothers showed higher levels of helicopter parenting, as Korean mothers’ intensive support for their children was not directly related to GPA. Although helicopter parenting is generally regarded to be less beneficial to college students’ well-being outcomes (e.g., Kouros et al., 2017; Schiffrin et al., 2014) or GPA (Bradley-Geist & Olson-Buchanan, 2014) and academic achievement (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007), at least in the Korean context, mothers’ helicopter parenting was not found to be of any benefit or detriment to the children. This result does not support the finding that helicopter parenting may have positive associations with Korean American college students’ academic performance (Kwon et al., 2017). However, the Korean students in the current investigation showed poor academic outcomes when they felt that their fathers showed higher levels of helicopter parenting. Fathers are commonly viewed as more assertive, paying less attention to and spending less time with their children (Pohl, Bender, & Lachmann, 2005). It may be that in Korean culture, fathers’ helicopter parenting is seen as invasive or extreme, resulting in an adverse relationship with academic outcomes (Kouros et al., 2017; Schiffrin et al., 2014). Likewise, there was no direct relationship, either positive or negative, between mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting and student outcomes in the American context. As was the case with Korean mothers, American mothers’ and fathers’ intensive support for their children was not directly related to GPA. This result is in alignment with a past study that also found no relation between helicopter parenting and American students’ GPA (Lampert, 2009).

It is interesting to note that there was no relation between mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting and children’s self-efficacy in Korean and American contexts because we expected to observe this pattern in both countries. As in Asian cultures, mothers in Western cultures are viewed as encouraging and caring and serve the role of supporters of their children to a greater extent than fathers (Craig, 2006). Nonetheless, American culture places more value on independence and autonomy (Chao & Tseng, 2002), especially during late adolescence. Our findings show that the American and Korean college students in the study did not seem to perceive mothers’ helicopter parenting as controlling and affecting their autonomy and as intrusive parental involvement probably because their perception of their capabilities and competences was not affected (Kouros et al., 2017; Schiffrin et al., 2015). For individuals to be motivated to advance and engage in academic tasks, they need to believe that they have the capability to execute tasks and achieve positive outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Givertz & Segrin, 2014). Nonetheless, children’s need for self-efficacy and autonomy in this study may not have been viewed as being interrupted by their mothers (Bandura, 1986; J. Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). The results of the study seem to show that this trend does not differ across American families and Korean families.

We offer two potential explanations for these unexpected, statistically not significant, yet intriguing findings that mothers’ helicopter parenting is not related to either self-efficacy or GPA across the two countries. First, the results may imply that these students from both countries have interpreted their mothers’ parenting practice as merely encouraging them to continue putting effort into their academics, which would not be much different from what they experienced while they were growing up (Cote & Bornstein, 2009; Ng et al., 2007; Parmar et al., 2004; Wu, 2008). Although Asians are known to place more emphasis on academic success than students in Western countries and to believe that putting in effort is more important than innate ability or talents, which are frequently more valued in Western countries (Cote & Bornstein, 2009; Wu, 2008), there appear to be potentially more cultural similarities than was speculated in terms of mothers’ parenting practices. As shown in the results section, the effect sizes for all paths are not very different between the American and Korean students, which may suggest that they may be more similar than we hypothesized. Mothers are viewed as more nurturing across societies; furthermore, they usually spend more time with their children and are perceived to be better at communicating with and taking care of their children than fathers (Craig, 2006). Therefore, college students in both contexts may have viewed their mothers’ helicopter parenting as part of their usual care and support, intended to ensure their future success.

Second, the helicopter parenting measure that we used does not exclusively focus on academic pursuit. It mostly measures parenting styles and asks questions about, for example, whether parents make important decisions for children and intervene in solving their problems (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012). As such, even if mothers and fathers are excessively involved in their child’s life and decision making, they may not be involved in the child’s academic life, especially if the child is in college. Perhaps domain-specific helicopter parenting measures may function as a stronger predictor for college students’ self-efficacy and GPA. This aspect may need to be considered for future research.

These similarities in the lack of impact of helicopter parenting on student self-efficacy across the American and Korean students in the current study support the cultural universality notion (Harkness & Super, 1992) as well as the impact of gender (Baxter, 2002; Craig, 2006), as American and Korean parents’ helicopter parenting was not necessarily related to lower self-efficacy. It seems that parenting practices function differently yet also in similar ways in Eastern and Western contexts and across mothers and fathers. The findings of this study are not consistent with those of previous studies that showed that helicopter parenting is negatively related to American students’ self-efficacy (Reed et al., 2016; Van Ingen et al., 2015). The current study investigated American and Korean participants from midsized private universities, whereas Reed et al.’s (2016) participants were from a large public university. As differences across private and public universities were not considered in this study, and parents’ gender differences were not considered in previous studies, further investigation is warranted.

We originally predicted that children’s self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between helicopter parenting and children’s academic performance. Although the way one perceives their competence to perform tasks can better explain academic outcomes for Korean than for American students, this study did not support the previous study that indicated that helicopter parenting is indirectly related to student GPA through self-efficacy (Darlow et al., 2017). Although this result was unexpected, we suspect that self-efficacy is the variable that might explain why the path from helicopter parenting to especially academic achievement was not a powerful predictor of students’ academic outcomes in the contexts that we studied. Because no study, to the best of our knowledge, has investigated self-efficacy as the sole mediator of the association between helicopter parenting and academic outcomes in different cultures, we are limited in our interpretation of this lack of an explanatory path in the relationship. This aspect warrants further investigation.

This study has several limitations. First, this study adds to the literature linking mothers’ and fathers’ helicopter parenting with college students’ academic outcomes and investigating the differences across the cultures and parents’ gender. Nonetheless, the findings were based on correlational data. Therefore, no causal conclusions can be drawn from this study, and terms like effect or impact are provided for only heuristic purposes. Second, the findings were based on student self-reported data regarding themselves and their parents, hence single-source bias could be present. Third, the current investigation of cultural differences may be primarily applicable to White families. Considering the increasing number of racial/ethnic minority youth with diverse cultural backgrounds (e.g., Latino) in the United States, this study might not have fully captured the differences among racial/ethnic groups in our U.S. sample. Fourth, the measures of the study are reported to have acceptable reliabilities, but a different measure could have provided a different picture of student academic outcomes. For instance, to measure helicopter parenting and self-efficacy, a previous study (Reed et al., 2016) utilized helicopter parenting behavior (Schiffrin et al., 2014) and the general self-efficacy scale (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, & Jacobs, 1982), whereas our study used the helicopter parenting scale (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012) and the short form of the general self-efficacy scale (Romppel et al., 2013; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2010). Hence, there could have been subtle differences in meaning between these measures that may have contributed to different outcomes. Fifth, this study revealed a lack of scalar invariance between American and Korean groups. Given that in the multiple group analysis, differences between intercepts might occur when comparing across nations because of dissimilar social and cultural contexts (Bujacz, Vittersø, Huta, & Kaczmarek, 2014). This issue should be examined more closely across American and Korean contexts. In addition, our findings should be replicated with a larger sample than the one used in this study.

Despite these limitations, this study provides important insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the implications of helicopter parenting for college students’ academic performance in different cultures. While Korean fathers’ helicopter parenting does not appear to be beneficial to students’ academic outcomes, American parents and Korean mothers’ helicopter parenting does not appear to support nor hinder students’ academic outcomes. Our results seem to suggest that fathers in Korea are encouraged to be more careful in their parenting practices so that their support or involvement may not be viewed by their children as invasive or extreme. Understanding cultural and parental gender differences in helicopter parenting of college students is crucial to the ability of parents, administrators, and school personnel to conceptualize how college students’ academic outcomes may be affected. More effort should be put into achieving an in-depth understanding of the different roles helicopter parenting plays in children’s academic outcomes across different cultures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Eunjoo Jung

Woosang Hwang

References

Acock

A. C.

(2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012-1028. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x

Allen

Robbins

Casillas

(2008). Third-year college retention and transfer: Effects of academic performance, motivation, and social connectedness. Research in Higher Education, 49, 647-664. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9098-3

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Baxter

(2002). Patterns of change and stability in the gender division of household labor in Australia, 1986–1997. Journal of Sociology, 38, 399-424.

Bayer

Sanson

Hemphill

(2006). Parent influences on early childhood internalizing difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 542-559. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.08.002

Bradley-Geist

J. C.

Olson-Buchanan

J. B.

(2014). Helicopter parents: An examination of the correlates of over-parenting of college students. Education and Training, 56, 314-328. doi:10.1108/ET-10-2012-0096

Brislin

R. W.

(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 89-102). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

10.

Bujacz

Vittersø

Huta

Kaczmarek

L. D.

(2014). Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 984. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00984

11.

Byrne

B. M.

Van de Vijver

F. J.

(2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107-132.

12.

Chao

Tseng

(2002). Parenting of Asians. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Cline

F. W.

Fay

(1990). Parenting with love and logic: Teaching children responsibility. Colorado Springs, CO: Pinon Press.

14.

Cote

L. R.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2009). Child and mother play in three U.S. cultural groups: Comparisons and associations. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 355-363. doi:10.1037/a0015399

15.

Craig

(2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children. Gender & Society, 20, 259-281.

16.

Daniels

L. M.

Perry

R. P.

Stupnisky

R. H.

Stewart

T. L.

Newall

N. E. G.

Clifton

R. A.

(2014). The longitudinal effects of achievement goals and perceived control on university student achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 175-194.

17.

Darlow

Norvilitis

J. M.

Schuetze

(2017). The relationship between helicopter parenting and adjustment to college. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2291-2298. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0751-3

18.

Duncan

G. J.

Petersen

(2001). The long and short of asking questions about income, wealth, and labor supply. Social Science Research, 30, 248-263.

19.

Earle

A. M.

LaBrie

J. W.

(2016). The upside of helicopter parenting: Engaging parents to reduce first-year student drinking. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53, 319-330. doi:10.1080/19496591.2016.1165108

20.

Eccles

J. S.

Harold

R. D.

(1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In Booth

Dunn

J. F.

(Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Fingerman

K. L.

Cheng

Y. P.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Zarit

Furstenberg

Birditt

K. S.

(2012). Helicopter parents and landing pad kids: Intense parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 880-896.

22.

Furstenberg

F. F.

(2010). On a new schedule: Transition to adulthood and family change. The Future of Children, 20, 67-87. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0038

23.

Givertz

Segrin

(2014). The association between overinvolved parenting and young adults’ self-efficacy, psychological entitlement, and family communication. Communication Research, 41, 1111-1136. doi:10.1177/0093650212456392

24.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(1992). From parents’ cultural belief systems to behavior. In Eldering

Leseman

(Eds.), Effective early intervention: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 67-90). New York, NY: Falmer Press.

25.

Hill

Holmbeck

(1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. Annals of Child Development, 3, 145-189.

26.

Hill

N. E.

Castellino

D. R.

Lansford

J. E.

Nowlin

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(2004). Academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1491-1509. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x

27.

Hong

Malik

M. L.

Lee

M. K.

(2003). Testing configural, metric, scalar, and latent mean invariance across genders in sociotropy and autonomy using a non-Western sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 636-654.

28.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

29.

Kouros

C. D.

Pruitt

M. M.

Ekas

N. V.

Kiriaki

Sunderland

(2017). Helicopter parenting, autonomy support, and college students’ mental health and well-being: The moderating role of sex and ethnicity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 939-949. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0614-3

30.

Kwon

K.-A.

Yoo

Bingham

G. E.

(2016). Helicopter parenting in emerging adulthood: Support or barrier for Korean college students’ psychological adjustment? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 136-145. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0195-6

31.

Kwon

K.-A.

Yoo

De Gagne

J. C.

(2017). Does culture matter? A qualitative inquiry of helicopter parenting in Korean American college students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1979-1990. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0694-8

32.

Lampert

J. M.

(2009). Parental attachment styles and traditional undergraduates’ adjustment to college: Testing the “helicopter parent” phenomenon (Paper No. 57). School of Professional Psychology, Forest Grove, OR.

33.

Lavrakas

P. J.

(2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

LeMoyne

Buchanan

(2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effects on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399-418. doi:10.1080/02732173.2011.574038

35.

Leung

J. T. Y.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2018). Validation of the perceived Chinese overparenting scale in emerging adults in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 103-117. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0880-8

36.

Mailhot

B. A. E.

Feeney

(2017). Perceived parental involvement and academic achievement of college students: The mediating role of academic self-concept. North American Journal of Psychology, 19, 685-708.

37.

Marano

H. E.

(2008). A nation of wimps: The high cost of invasive parenting. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

38.

Moore

Shulock

Jensen

(2009). Crafting a student-centered transfer process in California: Lessons from other states. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

39.

Multon

K. D.

Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30

40.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). National survey of student engagement annual report. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report/index.cfm

41.

Nelson

L. J.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

Evans

C. A.

Carroll

J. S.

(2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 730-743. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9584-8

42.

F. F.-Y.

Pomerantz

E. M.

Lam

(2007). European American and Chinese parents’ responses to children’s success and failure: Implications for children’s responses. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1239-1255. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1239

43.

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

44.

Parmar

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(2004). Asian and Euro-American parents’ ethnotheories of play and learning: Effects on preschool children’s home routines and school behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 97-104. doi:10.1080/01650250344000307

45.

Pohl

Bender

Lachmann

(2005). Autobiographical memory and social skills of men and women. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 745-759.

46.

Raghavan

C. S.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(2010). Parental ethnotheories in the context of immigration: Asian Indian immigrant and Euro-American mothers and daughters in an American town. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 617-632. doi:10.1177/0022022110362629

47.

Reed

Duncan

J. M.

Lucier-Greer

Fixelle

Ferraro

A. J.

(2016). Helicopter parenting and emerging adult self-efficacy: Implications for mental and physical health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3136-3149. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0466-x

48.

Roderick

Nagaoka

Coca

(2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban high schools. The Future of Children, 19, 185-210. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0024

49.

Romppel

Herrmann-Lingen

Wachter

Edelmann

Düngen

H. D.

Pieske

Grande

(2013). A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): Development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 10, 1-7.

50.

Schiffrin

H. H.

Godfrey

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

(2015). Intensive parenting: Does it have the desired impact on child outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2322-2331. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0035-0

51.

Schiffrin

H. H.

Liss

(2017). The effects of helicopter parenting on academic motivation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1472-1480. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0658-z

52.

Schiffrin

H. H.

Liss

Miles-McLean

Geary

K. A.

Erchull

M. J.

Tashner

(2014). Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 548-557. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9716-3

53.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(2010). The general self-efficacy scale (GSE). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 329-345.

54.

Segrin

Givertz

Swaitkowski

Montgomery

(2015). Overparenting is associated with child problems and a critical family environment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 470-479. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9858-3

55.

Selig

J. P.

Preacher

K. J.

(2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm

56.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercandante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

(1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

57.

Shweder

R. A.

(1993). “Why do men barbecue?” and other postmodern ironies of growing up in the decade of ethnicity. Daedalus, 122, 279-308.

58.

Somers

Settle

(2010). The helicopter parent: Research toward a typology. College and University, 86, 18-27.

59.

Stupnisky

R. H.

Renaud

R. D.

Daniels

L. M.

Haynes

T. L.

Perry

(2008). The interrelation of first year college students’ critical thinking disposition, perceived academic control, and academic achievement. Research in Higher Education, 49, 513-530.

60.

Van de Vijver

Leung

(1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Berry

J. W.

Poortinga

Y. P.

Pandey

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 257-300). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

61.

Van Ingen

D. J.

Freiheit

S. R.

Steinfeldt

J. A.

Moore

L. L.

Wimer

D. J.

Knutt

A. D.

Roberts

. (2015). Helicopter parenting: The effect of an overbearing caregiving style on peer attachment and self-efficacy. Journal of College Counseling, 18, 7-20. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2015.00065.x

62.

Wang

Pomerantz

E. M.

Chen

(2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: A longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78, 1592-1610. doi:0009-3920/2007/7805-0012.

63.

Willoughby

B. J.

Hersh

J. N.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nelson

L. J.

(2015). “Back off”! Helicopter parenting and a retreat from marriage among emerging adults. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 669-692. doi:10.1177/0192513X13495854

64.

E. C.

(2008). Parental influence on children’s talent development: A case study with three Chinese American families. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 100-129. doi:10.4219/jeg-2008-826