Helicopter Parenting and the Moderating Impact of Gender and Single-Parent Family Structure on Self-Efficacy and Well-Being

Abstract

The intersection of helicopter parenting, gender, and single-parent family on self-efficacy and well-being is examined. Existing research on helicopter parenting focuses on negative consequences. Using a sample of students at a university in the mid-southern United States (N = 247), we find that helicopter parenting is negatively related to self-efficacy and well-being for emerging adult sons from single-parent family backgrounds. Previous research suggests a negative relationship of divorce on sons. In addition, our study finds no substantive relationship of helicopter parenting to self-efficacy and well-being for women. This is an intriguing finding given previous research finding negative consequences. The impacts of helicopter parenting are not uniform across different demographic groups. This information is important for family counselors as well as university administrators in relation to the growing concern for parental involvement in students’ affairs.

Keywords

gender helicopter parenting self-efficacy well-being single parents

Helicopter parenting, described as overinvolved parenting, or “hovering,” became a commonly used term as the millennial generation entered high school and university. Administrators in higher education have become very attuned to both the negative and positive characteristics of upcoming generations of students and their parents. In fact, resources have been funneled into programs to better orient intrusive parents to the realities of college life and to teach them strategies for fostering greater independence in how they parent their college-aged children (Booher, 2007; Esposito, 2006).

There was so much concern among the public about helicopter parenting that an early empirical measure was designed and used to determine whether there were negative effects of this parenting style (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). Researchers found that helicopter parenting was related to lower psychological well-being, a higher prevalence of anxiety/depression, and an increased likelihood of the recreational use of pain pills. In an additional study (Schiffrin et al., 2013), helicopter parenting was negatively associated with life satisfaction and depression. There was also a slight negative relationship between helicopter parenting and the child’s sense of autonomy. Helicopter parenting has also been negatively correlated with school engagement, which was measured by the respondent’s frequency of school attendance and completing work on time (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012) and was posited to be especially detrimental when coupled with authoritarianism (Givertz & Segrin, 2014). At the same time, other studies have found no impact of overparenting on self-efficacy (Segrin et al., 2012).

While past research has given us much insight, there has been a lack of research concerning the intersectional relationship between gender, family structure, and helicopter parenting outcomes such as self-efficacy and well-being. In an effort to fill that void, we focus on the differential role helicopter parenting plays for female and male university students from different family structures on self-efficacy and well-being. This study has implications for clinicians and therapists involved with emerging adults and single parents.

Single-Parent Households: Challenges, Gender, and Emerging Adulthood

There has been a steady increase in the number of single-parent households in the United States from approximately 17% of all households in 1970 to about 27% in 2012 (Vespa et al., 2013). These families face a number of challenges that are unique to this family structure. Two of the main challenges reported are having total responsibility for all things at all times and bearing the full financial burden for the family (Whisenhunt et al., 2019). Grall (2016) found that a higher percentage of single mothers live below the poverty line compared to single fathers and this percentage increases with the number of children. In a comparative review, single-mother status was associated with less social support and lowered mental health assessments (Rousou et al., 2013).

While most of the research on single-headed households focuses on women (where 83% of those families are headed by women; Daryanani et al., 2017), there is some research on the differences between those headed by men and those headed by women. For example, daughters tend to do better academically with single fathers than single mothers (Lee & Kushner, 2008), and single-father-headed households are more apt to occur because of problematic family situations (Coles, 2015).

More generally, much of the research that focuses on single heads of households tends to fall into one of two categories: either the microstructural (or interactionist) approach or the gender approach. Proponents of the microstructural approach claim that mothers and fathers have traditionally navigated very different social conditions, and those differences result in dissimilar parenting styles. So, mothers and fathers tend to parent along traditional gender roles, not because of inherent differences between men and women but rather because of the social contexts that they inhabit. Following that logic, because single mothers and single fathers share many of the same social conditions, we can expect that their parenting styles would be similar to one another. Therefore, we can expect mothers or fathers who lead single-headed households to share similar behaviors and to spend more time on household tasks than either parent in a more traditional family composed of a man and a woman who are married (Coles, 2015, p. 154).

In contrast, the gender (or individualist) approach assumes that gender roles, whether rooted in society or biology, create parenting styles that are different for men and women. So, no matter the circumstances or social conditions, men will parent in ways that are considered instrumental, while women will parent in traditionally expressive ways (Coles, 2015, p. 154). One study did find that young adults who perceived their mothers emphasized femininity traits were more likely to be prone to anxiety, whereas maternal overprotection was associated with lowered adjustment (Shevenell & Meteyer, 2018). In the era of intensive mothering, characterized by extensive expenditure of time and energy resources (Hays, 1996), mothers across a broad range of demographic profiles experience the pressure to live up to society’s expectations of the ideal mother (Forbes et al., 2020). Single mothers may feel extreme pressure to live up to society’s gendered ideal of the perfect mother.

The preponderance of the evidence tends to suggest that both the microstructural and the individualist approaches impact parenting behaviors (Coles, 2015, p. 161). In addition, although much of the research on divorce in the past has focused on its negative consequences for the well-being of children (Amato, 1993; Fomby & Cherlin, 2007; Wallerstein & Lewis, 2007, 2008; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), much of the current research suggests that most children of divorced parents cope well (Barber & Demo, 2006; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Overall, how well children of divorced parents cope hinges on how well their parents manage marital discord and divorce. Not surprisingly, if divorced parents show their children love and support and work hard at resolving conflict with their ex-spouse, these children tend to have positive outcomes (Ahrons, 2004; Amato & Cheadle, 2008; Demo & Fine, 2010; Freeman, 2008). Despite the increase in the number of single-parent families, there are unfair stereotypes of deviance associated with this family structure, which may be exacerbated in minority families (Harris, 2013).

Arnett (2004) outlined the emerging adulthood as the period from 18 to 25 years of age where adjustments, stressors, and identity formation heightened experiences as young adults face many structural shifts in their lives. During this period, parenting is especially important as relationships shift increasingly from dependence on parents to more autonomy centered. Research suggests that parenting that involves high levels of discussion and involvement is conducive to adolescent children’s self-concept and locus of control (Lee et al., 2006). While this line of research tells us much about parenting styles and their effect on children, there has been little in the way of research on the impact of excessive parenting, or helicopter parenting, on single-parent households. That is the focus of this study.

Self-Efficacy

The prospect of examining how individuals are able to overcome the obstacles of social structure (or efficacy) has long been of interest to social scientists. The general idea of efficacy has been measured differently across disciplines, and it ranges from mastery, or personal control (Bruce & Thornton, 2004), to self-efficacy (Gecas, 1989), to self-directedness (Kohn & Schooler, 1983). Despite this ongoing interest in human agency, self-efficacy seems underutilized as a theoretical concept. Bandura’s (1997) perceived self-efficacy “refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Self-efficacy has been shown to impact a wide range of outcomes ranging from academic achievement to exercising birth control to career choice (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Grabowski et al., 2001; Jemmott et al., 1992; Lane & Lane, 2001).

Self-efficacy can be examined as a predictor and as a product of an environment (Bandura, 1997). For academic achievement, for instance, self-efficacy has been examined as both a cause and a consequence. Academic achievement is a result of self-efficacy but also has a positive influence on one’s self efficacy (Grabowski et al., 2001; Lane & Lane, 2004; Mizell, 1999). This relationship is typically stronger when using domain-specific measures of self-efficacy (Grabowski et al., 2001). The relationship between self-efficacy and achievement also has implications for career choice and achievement and other issues related to adult mastery (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Mizell, 1999).

Well-Being

Sociologists have long been interested in the construct of well-being and its related concepts such as happiness, quality of life, and life satisfaction, and increasing numbers of well-being studies have been published in recent years (Abbot et al., 2006; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Land et al., 2011; Rath & Harter, 2010; Springer et al., 2011). In psychological traditions, research on the measurement of well-being is appropriately divided into two types: hedonic, or subjective, well-being and eudemonic, psychological, well-being. Both traditions would be considered subjective by social science methodologists. Hedonic well-being focuses on aspects of global pleasure and happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Ryff (1989) offers a conceptualization of eudemonic well-being, which goes beyond the more global measures merely focusing on happiness. The Ryff measure addresses one’s actualization beyond happiness in that it measures a person’s perceptions of potential, thriving, and functioning (Ryff, 1989).

Ryff’s (1989) configuration of well-being consists of an overall measure comprised of six distinct dimensions of eudemonic well-being. The eudemonic concept measures an individual’s perception of thriving and functioning when facing challenges. Self-acceptance measures one’s level of acceptance of the past even as limitations and mistakes are recognized. Positive relations with others assesses an individual’s perception of how functional they perform in relationships. Having positive relations with others is related to both lowered stress levels and increased autoimmune functioning (Ryff & Singer, 2000). Autonomy addresses an individual’s ability to stand alone in the face of opposition as a self-determining, authoritative individual. Mature individuals with a strong sense of autonomy also have a greater internal locus of control (Keyes et al., 2002; Ryff, 1989). Environmental mastery attempts to measure an individual’s ability to participate successfully in their environment. Purpose in life is the perception that one has goals and a sense of directedness. Finally, personal growth measures the individual’s perception of their ability to continually grow throughout life (Ryff, 1989).

Several demographic measures have been found to be related to psychological well-being. Gender has been reported to be associated with positive relations with others, personal growth, and purpose in life, with women scoring higher on this measure than men (Ryff, 1989; Schwartz et al., 2009). On the other hand, women scored lower on autonomy and environmental mastery and higher on positive relations with others (Ryff et al., 2003). Still, others found respondents reporting traditionally female expressive traits were higher on positive relations with others, while those reporting traditionally male instrumental traits obtained higher scores on personal growth (September et al., 2001). Higher socioeconomic status was also linked to greater levels of self-acceptance, purpose in life, environmental mastery, and personal growth (Ryan & Deci, 2001), while those with more education had higher scores on all dimensions of well-being with the exception of autonomy (Ryff et al., 2003).

The university setting represents a context in which young adults are expected to develop a healthy level of independence. At the same time, these expectations conflict with a new, less structured context in which students need extra support (Kadison & DiGeronimo, 2004). This developmental transition has been termed self-differentiation. Self-differentiation pertains to an individual’s capacity for developing autonomy and emotional regulation while maintaining positive ties to family connections (Skowron et al., 2004).

Theoretical Perspectives

Expectancy-value theory shows us that both expectancy and task value determine student achievement and the choices a student will make around achievement. Expectancies are beliefs that a student may have about a specific task, which will then in turn effect their behaviors and choices. For example, if a student believes that they cannot write very well, they will probably do poorly when they must write a paper for a class. Task values, or the motivations, that a student might have for completing a task are also important. For instance, whether the task is interpreted as important or enjoyable will also impact achievement. In turn, both expectancy and task values will directly impact a student’s sense of self-efficacy (Eccles, 1983; Eccles et al., 1984; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Social cognitive theory purports that parents and peers have a major influence on the development of one’s self-efficacy from an earlier age through adolescence (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Parents’ emotional support and verbal encouragement impact self-efficacy, but parents also play a major role in choosing activities for their children that foster the immediate self-realization of efficacy in young children. Therefore, parents play a critical role in the development of self-efficacy and well-being. Later, the influence of parental guidance in efficacious activities gives way to the stronger influence of children’s peers on perceptions of self-efficacy, but as adolescence begin to develop a plan for their future, parents’ influence plays a major role (Bandura, 1997). Planning for the future is a manifest function of the university experience, and it is vitally important to examine the influence of parents on one’s self-efficacy and well-being at this stage in life.

An additional aspect of social cognitive theory is the notion that social contexts influence one to behave in gender-specific ways throughout one’s life (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Gender socialization within the traditional family sphere is strongly related to higher self-efficacy levels found in men compared to women (Bandura, 1997; Gecas, 1989). For instance, Eccles and Wigfield (2002) expanded this perspective with their expectancy-value theory. In this theoretical model, expectations and perceptions of gender roles are as integral as goals and tasks in forming a sense of efficacy and well-being. For example, when traditional parents overestimate the difficulties their daughters will experience in a more traditionally men-dominated subject such as mathematics, their daughters will be less likely to develop a positive sense of their mathematical abilities (Eccles et al., 1984). These differences in parents’ beliefs are present even after accounting for the academic achievement of their children (Tannenbaum & Leaper, 2003).

Status characteristics theory addresses some of the social-cognitive manifestations of inequality (Ridgeway, 2011). This theory’s focus is on the interactional processes by which cultural beliefs reproduce differences and inequality. Ridgeway’s (1997, 2005, 2011) work with this approach has been critical to addressing the obstinate nature of gender differences in socialization. She suggests status beliefs are inherent in gender stereotyping, and these status structures are drawn upon in the process of interaction in which value is assessed or determined. Critical to the perpetuation of gender inequality is what Ridgeway and Correll (2004) refer to as social relational contexts: “Social relational contexts include any context in which individuals define themselves in relation to others to comprehend the situation and act…” (p. 511). Ridgeway (2011) argues that the home is the ultimate context in which gender relations are formed and persist. In some qualitative research, fathers and mothers do have strong feelings about gendered parenting roles with their first child (Miller, 2011; Rose et al., 2015). Yet, there is limited research on the interaction of gender, helicopter parenting, and single-parent families on self-efficacy and well-being. While Buchanan and Selmon (2008) found that African Americans men from single-mother households had lower self-efficacy, less is known about the impact of helicopter parenting in single-parent families on sons and daughters. Given the body of research that demonstrates gender differentiation, the exploration of these intersections is essential to our understanding of efficacy and well-being.

Research Objectives

In this study, we address the following objectives:

Objective 1: Examine the intersection of gender and helicopter parenting on self-efficacy and well-being. Both outcomes measure one’s perceptions of ability to effectively function. We hypothesize that gender will be a salient factor in measuring the impact of helicopter parenting on these outcomes.

Objective 2: Examine the relationship of being from a single-parent household to the above intersection. Essentially, we are examining a three-way intersectional relationship. Given the salience of gender socialization and the well-documented differential role of both parents in the process, we hypothesize that single-parent family status will be an essential factor.

The rest of this manuscript is organized as follows: (a) description of the analytic and sampling strategy and the main measures used, (b) overview of the results, and (c) discussion that describes future directions and limitations of the study.

Analytic Strategy

In order to get a general overview of the sample, we first analyze the gender differences across all measures used in the study. Next, we run ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of the outcomes on the control measures, and then we perform OLS regressions for those respondents from single-parent households. Finally, we utilize a predictive technique that allows us to plot the outcomes for men and women separately at various degrees of reported helicopter parenting.

Participants

The data come from a sample of general education classes of a university in the mid-southern United States. Surveying from general education classes avoids a resulting sample that disproportionately represents a particular field of study because these courses are electives taken by all students irrespective of major. We surveyed small introductory sections as well as larger lecture courses, for a total of eight classes. All courses surveyed varied in terms of class times during the day and by scheduled weekdays during the week, and the total enrollment for the targeted classes was N = 414. From this frame, 330 students completed the voluntary survey. Students present in the courses were offered extra credit for attending on the day of the survey and were explicitly informed that the survey was voluntary and not connected to the extra credit. The final sample consists of 247 university students under the age of 30. Eighty-three cases were removed from the original sample of 330. Eight respondents were over the age of 29, while another 15 were omitted for reporting a broad range of racial/ethnic identities and 53 cases were removed for having family types not directly comparable for this study. The remaining seven cases had missing values on some of the variables.

Measures

Helicopter Parenting

We use the Helicopter Parenting Scale (HPS) developed by LeMoyne and Buchanan (2011). This measure consists of 7 Likert-style items measuring respondents’ level of agreement with statements such as “I sometimes felt that my parents didn’t feel I could make my own decisions” and “My parents often stepped in to solve life’s problems for me.” The following response set was used for all scales: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s α for this measure for this sample is .69.

Global Self-Efficacy

Global self-efficacy was assessed using 5 items from the 17-item Global Self-Efficacy Scale constructed and tested by Sherer et al. (1982) using the same response set as for HPS. An example item from this scale is “Failure just makes me try harder.” Higher scores represent higher self-efficacy. The following response set was used for this scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s α for the measure is .70 for this sample of White university students.

Well-Being

This is a measure developed by Ryff (1989) and consists of global well-being and six subscales: Autonomy, Positive Relations With Others, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Purpose in Life, and Self-Acceptance. For the overall measure of well-being, the 31 items used for the subscales were included. The reliability coefficient for the global measure of well-being was .83. In the Ryff (1989) initial formulation, each subscale consisted of approximately 20 items. Reduced versions of the Well-Being subscales were used for this study, and the overall well-being measure that combined the 31 items was used. The following response set was used for this scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

For the computation of the scale scores, each respondent’s item scores were summed and divided by the number of items constituting the scale. This computation returns scale scores to the same metric as each item. Higher scores represent higher well-being. For example, a scale score of “4” means the respondent, on average, slightly agreed with all items making up the scale. A final scale score of “2” means the respondent, on average, disagreed with all scale items. The scale has a possible range of 1–6. For complete lists of the items used to compute the Well-Being scale, please see Appendix.

Family Structure

Respondents were provided with a survey question asking them to indicate the response that best described their family situation growing up. The choices were as follows: “single parent—raised by mom,” “single parent—raised by dad,” “both parents,” “blended family—stepmother,” “blended family—stepfather,” and “guardian/relative or other.” For this study, those indicating single parents were put into one category, and a single binary variable was created. There were only four cases in which respondents were raised by single fathers. Therefore, we dropped these four cases from the analysis. Our comparison group is families in which the respondent grew up with both mother and father. We also dropped all other family types (blended families and foster parents). Our rationale for this decision was methodological. Given the research on blended families, which reports both negative and positive consequences for sons and daughters, we did not feel it would be an appropriate comparison group with single mothers. We did run our analyses with the other types included in the comparison group, and our results remained the same. However, we felt that this was a cleaner test of our hypotheses.

Control Variables

We include household income, parents’ emphasis on academics, and race (African American = 1) as control measures. Household income was measured by asking respondents to indicate the annual income of their family growing up. The response set was as follows: less than US$19,999 = 1; US$20,000 to US$29,999 = 2; US$30,000 to US$39,999 = 3; US$40,000 to US$49,999 = 4; US$50,000 to US$59,999 = 5; US$60,000 to US$69,999 = 6; US$70,000 to US$79,999 = 7; US$80,000 to US$89,999 = 8; “US$90,000 to US$99,999 = 9; and more than US$100,000 = 10. Parents’ emphasis on academics was measured by level of agreement with a one-scale item, “My parents stressed academic excellence.” Respondents were also asked the level of agreement with one-scale item, “My parents made a special effort to spend quality time with me one-on-one.” The following response set was used for the two 1-item measures: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

Results

First, we examine the sample of respondents to explore the degree to which men and women from the two different family types differ on the outcomes and control measures. The gender by family type differences on all the variables are displayed in Table 1. The two groups are remarkably similar across all the measures with a few exceptions. Both men and women report, on average, a similar level of helicopter parenting and self-efficacy. Women report a slightly higher level of well-being. Men, on the other hand, report a slightly higher annual income for their family of origin.

Table 1.

Gender Differences on Demographic and Outcome Measures for Sample of University Students by Gender and Family Structure.

Variables	Mother and Father		Single Mother
Variables	Women	Men	Women	Men
Helicopter Parenting Scale	2.8	2.8	2.6	2.7
Self-efficacy	4.6	4.7	5.0	4.5**
Well-being	4.6	4.5	4.8	4.4***
Household income	7.1	7.2	3.6	4.3***
Percent African American	22.0	13.0	50.0	59.1***
Age	19.3	19.5	19.2	19.7
Parents’ emphasis on academics	4.0	3.9	3.8	3.5
Quality one-on-one with parents	3.8	3.7	3.9	3.2*
N	106	77	42	22

Note. N = 247. ANOVA tests for continuous variables. χ² test for categorical. ANOVA = analysis of variance.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

In the second phase of the analysis, we explore the differential impact of helicopter parenting on self-efficacy and well-being by gender and single-parent household. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 2. In the first model, we examine the main effect of helicopter parenting (HPS), gender, and single-parent household and controls in order to establish a baseline. For self-efficacy, helicopter parenting is negatively related along with household income of family. We also control for parents’ emphasis on academic excellence. We feel that this needs to be examined as a separate measure from helicopter parenting. Helicopter parenting is a concept measuring overinvolvement rather than healthy involvement, and we assumed this would be positively related to self-efficacy. The results confirm this is the case for self-efficacy. No other control measures are significantly related to self-efficacy. The main model demonstrates that helicopter parenting is negatively associated with well-being, which corresponds to findings from earlier research (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011).

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Self-Efficacy and Well-Being on Helicopter Parenting (HPS), Controls, Gender, Single-Mother Family, and Interactions.

	Self-Efficacy				Well-Being
Variables	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
HPS	−.136**	−.188***	−.184***	−.143**	−.267***	−.286***	−.280***	−.244***
Household income	−.091	−.136**	−.110	−.093	−.031	−.076**	−.046	−.027
African American	.099	.045	.033	.033	.208***	.169	.157**	.162**
Parents’ emphasis on academics		.213***	.217***	.220***		.073	.070	.072
Quality one-on-one with parents		.074	.071	.062		.186***	.174***	.162**
Gender (men = 1)			−.020	.046			−.116*	−.040
Single-Mother HH			.055	.157*			.046	.159*
Single-Mother HH × Gender				−.184**				−.203**
HPS × Single-Mother HH × Gender				−.170***				−.142**
R ²	.042	.096***	.098	.139***	.111	.156**	.171	.208**
F	3.56	5.12	3.73	4.25	10.13	8.93	7.05	6.91

Note. N = 247. Standardized regression coefficients reported. HH = households; HPS = Household Parenting Scale.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

We then introduce the interaction effects into the model. We first examine how the relationship of growing up in a single-parent household on self-efficacy is moderated by gender. The gender variable is coded so that men equal 1 compared to women (0). The results show that, on average, men with single parents have lower self-efficacy and well-being. When the three-way interaction of HPS, single-parent household, and gender is entered into the equation, the former finding remains significant, but the three-way interaction is also significant and negative. For men from single-parent households, there is an added negative impact of having a helicopter parent on both self-efficacy and well-being. For well-being, in particular, the interaction contributes to the variation more than any other factor in the model. For both outcomes, the interaction terms are statistically significant (p < .01) and substantively meaningful. The interaction models with the added variables significantly contribute to the explained variation for both outcomes (R ² = .119 for self-efficacy, Δ = .042; R ² = .171 for well-being, Δ = .035).

In order to further illustrate the impact of helicopter parenting on both self-efficacy and well-being for respondents from single-parent families, we plot the predicted values for the main effects and interactions between helicopter parenting and gender following the procedure suggested by Jaccard and Turrisi (2003). In order to explore this group more intuitively, we restrict our analysis here to only those respondents who come from single-parent households (N = 64). The results of this analysis are displayed in Figures 1 and 2. For women from single-parent households, there is either zero to very little impact of helicopter parenting on self-efficacy or well-being. For men, on the other hand, the negative relationship is quite dramatic. The figures accentuate the gender contrast. More focus will be given to these relationships in the subsequent sections.

Figure 1.

Regression lines for self-efficacy as a function of helicopter parenting (Helicopter Parenting Scale) for men and women from single-mother families (N = 64).

Figure 2.

Predicted values for well-being as a function of helicopter parenting (Helicopter Parenting Scale) for men and women from single-mother families (N = 64).

Discussion

The findings presented in the models for self-efficacy and well-being display a stark gender contrast that is both statistically significant and substantively important. Helicopter parenting has a profound impact on the self-efficacy and well-being of sons in single-family homes, while having no impact for women.

In an effort to explain these findings, we turn to status characteristics theory. According to this theory, “gender is not merely pulled into the organization of the home—it is the organization of the home” (Ridgeway, 2011, p. 127). Relatedly, Blair-Loy distinguishes between two cultural structures that inform gender roles: the family devotion schema and the work devotion schema. These schemas are viewed as normative by society and involve strong emotional commitments by actors (Blair-Loy, 2001, p. 688). In addition, Ridgeway (2011) suggests women are culturally socialized within the schema of family devotion. Men, on the other hand, adopt a provider schema of family devotion, and these schemas for both men and women become intensified with the onset of parenthood.

Still, there is scant information about how this process of gender socialization might be altered when there is a change from traditional family structures to more modern family types. Without two parents, it is likely that there would be an increase in time pressure on the single parent. Because there is a lack of more traditional division of labor between two parents, a single parent would have little relief in the way of co-parenting the children.

While residing within intact families, fathers also spend more time with their sons than with their daughters (Raley & Bianchi, 2006), where much gender socialization would occur. Because of various time constraints, it may be that an involved divorced father may spend less time with his son. If true, it would seem that men in single-parent households would have more to lose overall, whether having a single mother or father.

Ethnomethodologists assert that in interactions, men and women act out gender scripts, or “do gender,” and this “doing” accentuates gender differences (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Given that most cases of single-parent households are absent a father, there may be less gender differentiation within the family, as research suggests that fathers are more responsible for behavior that reinforces traditional gender roles (Witt, 1997, p. 253). At the same time, research also indicates that divorce is hardest on sons, so it may be that in certain cases, boys don’t receive the personal benefits that traditionally accompany gender differentiation socialization (Witt, 1997, p. 254). In response to the father’s lack of presence, the mother may overcompensate for the losses that this absence involves for her son, by “hovering,” which may inadvertently exacerbate the overall negative consequences for the well-being of her son.

Therefore, in a single-parent household, mothers would continue to parent their daughters normatively, but sons might interpret their mothers’ overreach as more intrusive and atypical. This overparenting by the mother might occur more often if the father is absent, and despite the intentions of the mother, it might be perceived by sons as undermining their traditional gender role. In a sense, sons might view their mothers’ behavior as a personal critique of their ability to manifest and perform more traditional gender roles. A possible solution to this problem might be for mothers to stress the importance of autonomous behavior to their sons. Rather than being overinvolved, autonomy and agency might be better fostered by a more counterintuitive “hands-off” approach to parenting.

Implications for Practice

There are several ways that practitioners can assist their single-mother clients. It is essential that therapists help single mothers develop their support systems and take time to learn the resource environment of their clients. In addition, therapists can be more empathetic by being more flexible with single mothers such as not charging cancellation fees (Whisenhunt et al., 2019). Connect these efforts to promoting independence and empowerment. For instance, some extended family dynamics may not be healthy avenues for building reliable social support networks compared to community resources. Therapists will need to address this issue initially in order to have a better understanding of specific networks on which to focus.

From a parenting perspective, as therapists focus on strategies to empower their single-parent clients, they should also prioritize the importance of empowering their young adult children. This study implies that this will be very important when parenting young adult sons. Not only will less helicoptering be beneficial to the parent in terms of delegating energy via fostering autonomy, but it will impact the well-being and self-efficacy of the young adult children of single parents. Mothers put a lot of pressure on themselves in attempting to live up to the ideal created by societal expectations (Forbes et al., 2020). For single mothers, this pressure may be even more salient. Therapists need to address the unrealistic expectations institutionalized by current societal norms and focus more, and share knowledge, on the importance of balance in the family.

Particularly for single mothers of sons, therapists need to establish that backing off and providing sons with space to grow is not akin to failing as a parent. In addition, therapists should also emphasize that the inverse is also true. Hovering does not necessarily equate to successful development of children. In emphasizing the need for balance, practitioners can further guide single mothers to engage in practices more conducive to positive outcomes such as autonomy granting and appropriate maturity demands (Alegre, 2011).

For sons in the emerging adulthood stage seeking counseling, it will be important for them to first have a better understanding of the pressures associated with being a single parent and how this may impact parenting practices. This approach will foster an understanding that the parenting they may have experienced from their mothers is due to external factors and not particularly associated with individual behaviors of the sons. By doing so, clients will be able to address the negative impact of the parenting they received.

Limitations and Conclusion

Certainly, helicopter parenting needs further study and we offer several caveats to our research. First, this study is an analysis of cross-sectional data and only gives us a “snapshot” in time, making it difficult to determine cause and effect. Therefore, the relationships of causality are merely implied in our analysis and should be interpreted with caution. In addition, the measures of both helicopter parenting and the outcomes are self-reported. Self-reports have a number of well-known limitations, and these limits should also be considered by the reader. Still, it is important to focus on helicopter parenting in an attempt to shed further light on its impact on children and to further assess whether this parenting strategy will continue with the next generation of college students. Whether we call them Generation Z, iGen, or Generation Alpha, these children of millennials are just beginning to arrive on college campuses and it’s important to better understand whether this type of parenting is more normative than it was prior to the millennials and its overall repercussions for children, for families, and for college campuses.

Footnotes

Appendix

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 iD

Tom Buchanan

References

Abbot

R. A.

Ploubidis

G. B.

Huppert

F. A.

Kuh

Wadsworth

M. E. J.

Croudace

T. J.

(2006). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 76–90.

Ahrons

(2004). We’re still family: What grown children have to say about their parents’ divorce. Harper-Collins.

Alegre

(2011). Parenting styles and children’s emotional intelligence: What do we know? The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 19, 56–62.

Amato

P. R.

(1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 23–28.

Amato

P. R.

Cheadle

J. E.

(2008). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and children’s behavior problems: A comparison of adopted and biological children. Social Forces, 86, 1139–1161.

Arnett

J. J.

(2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Barber

B. L.

Demo

D. H.

(2006). The kids are alright (at least most of them): Links between divorce and dissolution and child well-being. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 289–311). Erlbaum.

Betz

N. E.

Hackett

(1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to understanding career choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 279–289.

10.

Blair-Loy

(2001). Cultural constructions of family schemas: The case of women finance executives. Gender and Society, 15(5), 687–709.

11.

Booher

(2007, January). Helicopter parents. Duke Magazine, 97, 1.

12.

Bruce

M. A.

Thornton

M. C.

(2004). It’s my world? Exploring black and white perceptions of personal control. Sociological Quarterly, 45(3), 597–612.

13.

Buchanan

Selmon

(2008). Race and gender differences in self-efficacy: Assessing the role of gender role attitudes and family background? Sex Roles, 58, 822–836.

14.

Bussey

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychology Review, 106, 676–713.

15.

Coles

R. L.

(2015). Single-father families: A review of the literature. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 7, 144–166.

16.

Daryanani

Hamilton

J. L.

McArthur

B. A.

Steinberg

Abramson

L. Y.

Alloy

L. B.

(2017). Cognitive vulnerabilities to depression for adolescents in single-mother and two-parent families. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 46, 213–227.

17.

Demo

D. H.

Fine

M. A.

(2010). Beyond the average divorce. Sage.

18.

Eccles

J. S.

(1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.

19.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Meece

J. L.

(1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43.

20.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

21.

Esposito

(2006). Helicopter parents touch down on campuses: Colleges try to cope with the recent trend of hovering parents by creating new staff positions and electronic newsletters. The Roanoke Times. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://www.roanoke.com/news/wb/60209

22.

Fomby

Cherlin

A. J.

(2007). Family instability and child-well-being. American Sociological Review, 72(2): 181–204.

23.

Forbes

L. K.

Donovan

Lamar

M. R.

(2020). Differences in intensive parenting attitudes and gender norms among U. S. mothers. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 28, 63–71.

24.

Freeman

M. B.

(2008). Love means always having to say you’re sorry: Applying the realities of therapeutic jurisprudence to family law. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 17, 215–241.

25.

Gecas

(1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291–316.

26.

Givertz

Segrin

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

27.

Grabowski

L. J. S.

Call

K. T.

Mortimer

J. T.

(2001). Global and economic self-efficacy in the educational attainment process. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 164–179.

28.

Grall

(2016). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2013 (Report No. P60-255). U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/P60-255.pdf

29.

Harris

H. L.

(2013). Counseling single-parent multiracial families. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 21, 386–395.

30.

Hays

1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press.

31.

Hetherington

M. E.

Kelly

(2002). For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered. WW Norton.

32.

Huta

Ryan

R. M.

(2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762.

33.

Jaccard

Turrisi

(2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). Sage.

34.

Jemmott

J. H.

Jemmott

L. W.

Spears

Hewitt

Cruz-Collins

(1992). Self-efficacy, hedonistic expectancies, and condom use intentions among inner-city black adolescent women: A social cognitive approach to AIDS risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Medicine, 13, 512–519.

35.

Kadison

DiGeronimo

T. F.

(2004). College of the overwhelmed: The campus mental health crisis and what to do about it. Harvard University Press.

36.

Keyes

C. L. M.

Shmotkin

Ryff

C. D.

(2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.

37.

Kohn

M. L.

Schooler

(1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Ablex.

38.

Land

Lamb

V. L.

Zheng

(2011). How are the kids doing? How do we know? Recent trends in child and youth well-being in the United States and some international comparisons. Social Indicators Research, 100, 463–477.

39.

Lane

(2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687–694.

40.

Lane

A. M.

Kyprianov

(2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32(3), 247–256.

41.

Lee

S. M.

Daniels

M. H.

Kissinger

D. B.

(2006). Parenting influences on adolescent adjustment: Parenting styles versus parenting practices. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14, 253–259.

42.

Lee

S. M.

Kushner

(2008). Single-parent families: The role of parents and child’s gender on academic achievement. Gender and Education, 20, 607–621.

43.

LeMoyne

Buchanan

(2011). Does hovering matter: Helicopter parenting and its effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399–418.

44.

Miller

(2011). Falling back into gender? Men’s narratives and practices around first-time fatherhood. Sociology, 45, 1094–1109.

45.

Mizell

C. A.

(1999). African American men’s personal sense of mastery: The consequences of the adolescent environment, self-concept and adult achievement. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 210–230.

46.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nelson

(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.

47.

Raley

Bianchi

(2006). Sons, daughters, and family processes: Does gender of children matter? Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 401–421.

48.

Rath

Harter

(2010). Well-being: The five essential elements. Gallup Press.

49.

Ridgeway

(1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235.

50.

Ridgeway

(2005). Linking social structure and interpersonal behavior: A theoretical perspective on cultural schemas and social relations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 5–16.

51.

Ridgeway

(2011). Framed by gender: How inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.

52.

Ridgeway

Correll

(2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510–531.

53.

Rose

Brady

Yerkes

M. A.

Coles

(2015). “Sometimes they just want to cry for their mum”: Couples’ negotiations and rationalisations of gendered divisions of infant care. Journal of Family Studies, 21(1), 1–19.

54.

Rousou

Kouta

Middleton

Karanikola

(2013). Single mothers’ self-assessment of health: A systematic exploration of the literature. International Nursing Review, 60, 425–434.

55.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

56.

Ryff

C. D.

(1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

57.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

Hughes

D. L.

(2003). Status inequalities, perceived discrimination, and eudemonic well-being: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose and growth? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 275–291.

58.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

(2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 30–44.

59.

Schiffrin

H. H.

Liss

Miles-McLean

Geary

K. A.

Erchull

M. J

Tashner

(2013). Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9716-3

60.

Schwartz

C. E.

Keyl

P. M.

Marcum

J. P.

Bode

(2009). Helping others shows differential benefits on health and well-being for male and female teens. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 431–448.

61.

Segrin

Woszidlo

Givertz

Bauer

Murphy

M. T.

(2012). The association between overparenting, parent-child communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits in adult children. Family Relations, 61, 237–252.

62.

September

A. N.

McCarrey

Baronowsky

Parent

Schindler

(2001). The relation between well-being, imposter feelings, and gender role orientation among Canadian university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 218–232.

63.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercandante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

Rogers

R. W.

(1982). The Self-Efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.

64.

Shevenell

M. D.

Meteyer

(2018). Influences of femininity and maternal relationships on anxiety and adjustment in emerging adulthood. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 26, 369–377.

65.

Skowron

E. A.

Wester

S. R.

Azen

(2004). Differentiating of self mediates college stress and adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 69–82.

66.

Springer

K. W.

Pudrovska

Hauser

R. M.

(2011). Does psychological well-being change with age? Longitudinal tests of age and variations and further exploration of the multidimensionality of Ryff’s model of psychological well-being. Social Science Research, 40, 392–398.

67.

Tannenbaum

H. R.

Leaper

(2003). Parent–child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities. Developmental Psychology, 39, 34–47.

68.

Vespa

Lewis

J. M.

Kreider

R. M.

(2013). America’s families and living arrangements: 2012. U.S. Bureau of the Census.

69.

Wallerstein

J. S.

Kelly

(1980). Surviving the break-up: How children actually cope with divorce. Basic Books.

70.

Wallerstein

J. S.

Lewis

J. M.

(2007). Disparate parenting and step-parenting with siblings in the post-divorce family: Report from a 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Studies, 13, 224–235.

71.

Wallerstein

J. S.

Lewis

J. M.

(2008). Divorced fathers and their adult offspring: Report from a twenty-five year longitudinal study. Family Law Quarterly, 42, 695–711.

72.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.

73.

Whisenhunt

J. L.

Chang

C. Y.

Parrish

M. S.

Carter

J. R.

(2019). Addressing single parents’ needs in professional counseling: A qualitative examination of single parenthood. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 27, 188–198.

74.

Witt

S. D.

(1997, Summer). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 36(126), 253–259.