Helicopter Parenting Style and Parental Accommodations: The Moderating Role of Internalizing and Externalizing Symptomatology

Abstract

High parental involvement has been linked to positive outcomes; however, helicopter parenting may result in negative outcomes. The behaviors demonstrated by “helicopter parents” resemble parental accommodations, which are behavior modifications intended to alleviate their child’s distress. The current study examined the relation between helicopter parenting and parental accommodations, while also examining child internalizing and externalizing symptomatology as possible moderators. Parents (N = 400) of children (ages 4–11) from across the United States completed surveys and rating scales. Parents, who endorsed higher levels of helicopter parenting, endorsed significantly higher levels of accommodations than parents who endorsed lower levels of helicopter parenting. Results suggested helicopter parenting differed depending on the types of accommodations provided. This study provides additional clarity for the construct of helicopter parenting and suggests that parents higher in this construct may exhibit difficulties related to accommodating their child’s diagnostic symptoms.

Keywords

helicopter parenting parental accommodations parental involvement internalizing symptoms externalizing symptoms

Parental involvement includes behaviors such as spending quality time with the child and participating in shared communication (Barnes et al., 2000; Goncy & van Dulmen, 2010; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004). Parental involvement also impacts a variety of other parenting behaviors influential for child development, such as positive parenting strategies, limit setting, and monitoring (Unnever et al., 2003). High parental involvement is associated with positive child outcomes such as academic success and positive social development (Areepattamannil, 2010; Locke et al., 2016), while low involvement predicts a trajectory of negative outcomes including poor academic achievement, early engagement in substance use, and delinquency (Demuth & Brown, 2004; Unnever et al. 2003; Zellman & Waterman, 1998). A growing body of literature suggests there may be an optimum level of parental involvement that maintains a positive relationship with the child, while also promoting child autonomy (Locke et al., 2016). Overparenting, or helicopter parenting, involves the provision of excessive levels of involvement that are developmentally inappropriate and has been linked to poor academic and psychological outcomes (Locke et al., 2016; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; Schiffrin et al., 2014; Segrin et al., 2012).

Helicopter Parenting

Helicopter parenting occurs when parents demonstrate developmentally inappropriate involvement in improving their child’s personal and academic success (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). In general, helicopter parenting has primarily been examined in the undergraduate college population, and in that population, helicopter parenting often includes behaviors such as completing their child’s assignments, selecting courses their child takes, and insisting that professors improve their child’s grades (Locke et al., 2016). College-aged students with helicopter parents have demonstrated lower general self-efficacy, lower peer communication, more peer alienation, and decreased peer trust (van Ingen et al., 2015). Other problems among students who report having helicopter parents include higher levels of depression and increased use of prescription drugs to treat depression (Schriffin et al., 2014). Padilla-Walker and Nelson (2012) surveyed undergraduate students and found that children of “helicopter parents” perceived their parents as involved and emotionally supportive but experienced a lack of sufficient autonomy. Reports from emerging adults also indicate helicopter parenting potentially fosters a family environment that impairs the relationship between the child and parents, as well as the child’s relationships with others (Segrin et al., 2012).

Whether or not helicopter parenting is well-intentioned, the consequences of their actions result in the child exhibiting problems with the development of independence, maturation, social competency, and coping skills to deal with negative consequences or failure (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Schiffrin et al., 2014; Segrin et al., 2012; van Ingen et al., 2015). Further, if the child does not perceive the parent as well intentioned, they may report perceiving these behaviors as parental “psychological control” (Barber, 1996; Barber & Harmon, 2002). Psychological control occurs through a process of conditional regard (Segrin et al., 2012)—the parent expresses affection toward their child based on behaviors they perform and withdraws affection when the child does not perform a desired behavior, without regard for the child’s perspective on the behavior (Assor et al., 2004). Psychological control has been found to be positively associated with helicopter parenting (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012). Further, like helicopter parenting, “psychological control” is associated with the development of maladaptive psychological and social behaviors such as lower levels of self-esteem, depression, and defiance (Barber, 1996; Barber & Harmon, 2002).

Although research is limited concerning the effects of helicopter parenting on children, studies have discussed the effects of overinvolvement on the development of disorders. Otto and colleagues (2016) found a strong association between maternal overinvolvement and anxiety disorders in children, particularly with depressive comorbidity. In addition, Rathert and colleagues (2011) found that psychological control was positively associated with proactive aggression, which is primarily shaped by environmental factors. Parents who demonstrate psychological control potentially model such behavior for their children and teach them controlling techniques (Rathert et al., 2011).

Parental Accommodation

Parental accommodations are a form of parental overprotection exhibited through parental behavior modifications intended to alleviate their child’s distress (Lebowitz et al., 2014; Thompson-Hollands et al., 2014). Parental accommodations were first introduced in the obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) literature and later extended to anxiety disorders. For both OCD and anxiety disorders, findings suggest that parental accommodations are correlated with the child’s expression of future symptomatologies (Caporino et al., 2012; Lebowitz et al., 2014). Specifically, parents of children with OCD report accommodating through providing reassurance, facilitating avoidance, watching the child complete rituals, waiting for the child, refraining from saying or doing things, facilitating compulsions, and participating in compulsions (Francazio et al., 2016; Storch et al., 2015). Parental accommodations for children with anxiety disorders include providing reassurance, providing items, and avoiding things/places in which the child experiences distress (Futh et al., 2012; Storch et al., 2015); however, Lebowitz and colleagues (2014) found no differences in types of accommodations when comparing OCD and anxiety disorder populations. In either case, accommodations result in a variety of negative outcomes including negative affect in parents, child anger or aggression when accommodations are not provided, less therapeutic gains, and increased symptom severity (Futh et al., 2012; Lebowitz et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015). The type and frequency of parental accommodations has yet to be measured in a range of other psychological conditions (Lebowitz et al., 2014; Norman et al., 2015), but evidence suggests that accommodations may occur in a variety of disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorders; Russell et al., 2013; Storch 2015; separation anxiety disorder, miscarried helping in diabetes adherence; Harris et al., 2008).

Research focusing on accommodations in the attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) population is limited, though it indicates parents may accommodate externalizing behaviors (Caporino et al., 2012; Storch et al., 2015) as well as organizational problems (Sibley et al., 2016) observed in children with ADHD. Increased parental accommodation is associated with externalizing behavior problems, and withholding accommodations results in anger and outbursts from the child toward the parent (Lebowitz et al., 2014; Storch et al., 2015). While not empirically tested, it may be that parents of children with ADHD engage in accommodations to reduce parental distress (e.g., embarrassment, conflict, exhaustion) related to their child’s externalizing behaviors or due to misperceptions about their child’s diagnosis (i.e., their child is unable to complete most tasks independently). In one study, Sibley and colleagues (2016) found that most parents who report involvement in management of their child’s external environment use three distinct strategies. These strategies included exercising parental control (i.e., monitoring their child and providing assistance as well as rewards and consequences based on the adolescent’s performance), collaborating with their adolescent through contracting and creating checklists with the teacher for the adolescent, or assisting with the adolescent’s homework by completing a portion. In this study, the parental control and homework assistance strategies granted the least autonomy, with parental control resulting in high parental somatization and homework assistance related to inattention and depressive symptomatology in the sample of adolescents with ADHD (Sibley et al., 2016).

Literature regarding depressive symptoms and parental accommodations is sparse. In general, Peterson and Palermo (2004) found that such parental accommodation behaviors are related to higher depressive and anxiety symptoms. When examining the pain psychology literature, research indicates a relationship between parental encouragements of illness behavior (e.g., increased attention, special privileges when their child discusses pain-related experiences) with increased depressive symptomatology (Walker et al., 1993). Operant conditioning (e.g., increased attention, avoidance of chores) when in pain may vary by child age, with parents providing less encouragement and reinforcement of illness behavior in adolescence, while promoting more autonomy in managing their pain experience (Bijttebier & Vertommen, 1999). More specifically, parental encouragement and reinforcement of pain occur through parental accommodation (e.g., allowing their child to avoid daily activities; Walker et al., 1993). It may also be that this operant learning varies by child age, with parents providing less encouragement and reinforcement of illness behavior in adolescence, while promoting more autonomy in managing their pain experience (Bijttebier & Vertommen, 1999). Thus, accommodating behaviors related to depression (e.g., remaining in bed, avoiding undesirable situations) and anxiety may in fact exacerbate psychological and somatic symptomatology.

Current research has not evaluated accommodations across a range of diagnostic symptomatology, and it is possible that accommodations exhibited by parents will differ depending on child symptomatology (e.g., anxiety, depression, inattention, externalizing behaviors). Storch and colleagues (2015) demonstrated common accommodations by parents of children with anxiety including providing reassurance, facilitating avoidance, and change in family routine; in contrast, parental accommodations reported for children with ADHD included helping their child organize school materials, completing homework for their child, or talking for the child (Sibley et al., 2016). Storch and colleagues (2015) suggested that parents who did not provide accommodations reported their child experienced severe distress and negative beliefs; thus, it may be that parents of anxious children are motivated to accommodate in order to reduce distress or negative beliefs. Although types of accommodations have been less studied among parents of children with depression, accommodations such as avoidance of activities may be related to a similar motivation to reduce distress (Futh et al., 2012). In contrast, parents of children with externalizing behaviors and inattention difficulties may have a different motivation for engaging in accommodation such as reduction of problematic behaviors (e.g., tantrums, activity level, egress) and alleviating parental distress associated with attempting to assist their child. However, providing accommodations results in negative outcomes such as increased symptomatology, functional impairment, and increased caregiver burden (Francazio et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Storch et al., 2015). While parental involvement is important for achieving positive child outcomes (Schiffrin et al., 2015), the associations between helicopter parenting and parental accommodations with increased symptom severity are problematic for child development.

Overall, the helpfulness of accommodations appears to fall on a continuum, with the extremities of either low or high accommodation behaviors correlating with negative consequences for children. At younger ages, parents are typically more involved with their child to provide appropriate support throughout childhood development. Such involvement is often exhibited in behaviors such as providing positive reinforcement or reassurance to their child who is concerned with their performance and assisting the child with tasks that may be difficult. These behaviors are appropriate in moderation, and they become problematic when the parents’ level of involvement inhibits opportunities for the parent to promote developmentally appropriate self-soothing and problem-solving. For example, it is more helpful for a parent to allow their child to engage in support-seeking behaviors and encourage joint coping to ensure healthy child development (Havighurst et al., 2010). It is important to identify the accommodation behaviors that may result from helicopter parenting in early childhood to interrupt the predicted trajectory with college-aged children who experience negative outcomes as a result of helicopter parenting behaviors (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012).

Current Study

The current study investigated the effects of helicopter parenting on a sample of preschool and school-aged children. We examined the types and amount of helicopter parenting among these age groups and how it manifested across anxious depressive, and ADHD-related symptomatologies. Specifically, we explored how accommodation behaviors function in the context of helicopter parenting and how these behaviors may differ across children with internalizing and externalizing symptoms.

Due to the gaps in our understanding of the relation between helicopter parenting and accommodations, we sought to explore the following five hypotheses. First, we predicted that those higher in helicopter parenting would provide greater accommodations to their children than parents lower in this parenting style. Second, as an exploratory hypothesis, we aimed to examine whether associations would differ among helicopter parenting and specific types of accommodation behaviors (e.g., participation in the task, modification of routine). Third, we predicted that the level of internalizing or externalizing symptomatology would moderate the association between helicopter parenting and accommodations, such that parents of children with higher levels of anxious, depressive, inattentive, or hyperactive symptomatology would show increased levels of accommodations compared to parents of children without those symptomatologies. Finally, we aimed to examine whether parents of children with anxiety and depression diagnoses (internalizing symptomatology) would exhibit different types of accommodations than those with ADHD diagnoses.

Method

Participants

The current study surveyed a total of 400 parents of children between the ages of 4 and 11. Participants were recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; 69.7%) and snowball sampling (30.3%). Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study prior to completing the survey. The present sample was primarily Caucasian (79%), female parents (83.3%), biological parents (92.5%), and recruited via MTurk (69.7%) who completed the measures outlined below. Children of the parents sampled were almost evenly split female (52.3%) and male (47.7%). The average survey completion time for participants was 54 min. Sample sizes and percentages of demographic information collected for the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.
Participant Demographics.

Demographic Characteristic n %

Relationship to child

Biological parent 370 92.5

Adoptive parent 12 3.0

Step parent 8 2.0

Legal guardian 8 2.0

Other 2 0.5

Parent race/ethnicity

Black (African American, Caribbean) 23 8.5

Latino 20 5.0

Caucasian (White, not of Latino, or Asian descent) 316 79.0

Asian 11 2.8

Native American 4 1.0

Arab 1 0.3

Other 15 3.5

Parent gender

Female 333 83.3

Male 66 16.5

Other 1 0.3

Parent age

18–24 8 2.0

24–34 164 41.0

35–44 181 45.3

45–54 47 11.8

Parent marital status

Never married 50 12.8

Married 293 75.1

Divorced/separated 37 9.5

Other 10 2.6

Annual household income

<$20,000 26 6.7

$20,000–40,000 73 18.7

$41,000–60,000 79 20.3

$61,000–80,000 71 18.2

>$80,000 141 36.2

Child gender

Female 209 52.3

Male 190 47.5

Other 1 0.2

Child age

4–5 122 29.0

6–7 100 23.9

8–9 87 20.7

10–11 91 21.6

Child diagnoses

ADHD 41 9.8

Anxiety 27 6.4

Depression 9 2.1

Other ^a 46 14.5

Note. N = 400. ADHD = attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

^a Other is comprised of bipolar disorder (0.2%), learning disability (3.3%), autism spectrum disorder (2.9%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (1.1%), and medical conditions (4.3%).

Procedures

MTurk

Two prescreening questions were completed prior to the main survey to determine whether the participant was between the ages of 18 and 65 and the parent of a child between the ages of 4 and 11. All who completed the prescreening questions were awarded USD$0.01. If participants endorsed these eligibility criteria, lived in the United States and had at least a 70% MTurk approval rating, they were assigned qualification to access the main survey of the study. Participants who did not meet the requirements were assigned the qualification of “ineligible” and could not access the main survey. Eligible participants were sent a message through MTurk to notify them of their eligibility to complete the main survey; this included a link to the survey as well as information regarding compensation. Upon completion, participants were rewarded USD$0.25.

Snowball sampling

An email was sent by researchers to parents (e.g., school-based parent groups) and clinicians and researchers who work with parents detailing the eligibility requirements and providing a link to the survey through Qualtrics.XM. They were also asked to forward the email to others they knew who would qualify. Additionally, a brief description and link were posted to Facebook along with a request to share the post with others. Participants were required to endorse that they were 18 years or older and the parent of a child between the ages of 4 and 11. Upon completion of the survey, participants were directed to provide their email address for entry into a raffle for two USD$25 gift certificates.

Measures

Demographics Questionnaire

The Demographics Questionnaire consisted of 28 items pertaining to various domains. Questions regarding both the parent and child variables included ethnicity, gender, biological sex, and age. The questions related to family characteristics included family relationships, number of people living in the home, total number of children, sibling order, and children’s ages. Parent-specific questions included primary language, marital status, highest level of education, estimated annual income, mental health concerns, and where parents were recruited for the study. Additional questions regarding child variables were child’s diagnoses, medications prescribed, as well as school-related and past mental health services provided to child. The items relevant for analyses in this study included child age, child gender, child diagnoses, parent ethnicity, and estimated annual income.

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)—1½–5, 6–18 (CBCL/1½–5, CBCL/6–18)

The CBCL is a broadband measure administered to parents in order to measure their child’s functioning across a range of emotional and behavioral domains (Achenbach & Ruffle, 2000). Parents rate statements describing their child on a 3-point scale. The profile developed from the scores of the CBCL parent report indicates how the child compares to normative peers in symptomatology such as anxious/depressed, withdrawn, sleep problems, somatic problems, aggressive behavior, and destructive behaviors (Achenbach & Ruffle, 2000). There are 99 items on the CBCL/1½–5 and 119 items on the CBCL/6–18. The CBCL test–retest reliability estimates range from .68 to .92 (M = .85) for the CBCL/1½–5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) and from .82 to .94 (M = .88) for the CBCL/6–18 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Over a 12-month period, the stability of scale scores ranges from .52 to .76 (Mean = .61) for the CBCL/1½–5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) and from .31 to .82 (Mean = .65) for the CBCL/6–18 (Achenbach & Rescorla 2001). In our current study, the internal consistency was high for both the CBCL/1½–5 (.97) and the CBCL/6–18 (.97). The internal consistency of the CBCL/1½–5 scales ranged from .68 to .90 and on the CBCL/6–18 ranged from .73 to .88.

Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS)

The SCAS is a 38-item Narrowband Rating Scale developed to assess anxiety symptoms in children (Spence, 1998). The six subscales assess for Panic Attacks and Agoraphobia, Separation Anxiety Disorder, Social Phobia, Physical Injury Fears, OCD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The SCAS shows high internal consistency for the total scale (.92), acceptable internal consistency for each subscale (.60–.73), acceptable test–retest reliability over a 6-month period (.60), and convergent validity with the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) (.71; Spence, 1998). The internal consistency for the total scale in the current sample was high (.94). The internal consistencies for each subscale, Panic Attacks and Agoraphobia (.91), Separation Anxiety Disorder (.80), Social Phobia (.79), Physical Injury Fears (.63), OCD (.86), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (.81), were acceptable.

Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale–Parent Version (DBRS-PV)

The DBRS-PV is a brief (26-item) Narrowband Rating Scale used to assess inattention, hyperactivity–impulsivity, and oppositional defiant behavior among school-aged children (Barkley & Murphy, 1998). The DBRS-PV contains 18 items that assess inattention and hyperactivity–impulsivity, and 8 items that assess oppositional behaviors. Parents rate how often these symptoms occurred in the past 6 months using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The DBRS-PV has high internal consistency (.80–.92; Friedman-Weieneth et al., 2009). For the current study, the internal consistency of the DBRS-PV was high (.96).

Family Accommodation Scale–Parent Report (FAS-PR)

The FAS-PR measures how often parents provide accommodations to eliminate or reduce their child’s distress associated with OCD-related behaviors (Lebowitz at al., 2012; Thompson-Hollands et al., 2014). The FAS-PR is composed of 12 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always). Three subscales have been validated in the literature including, Participation (participating in tasks with the child), Modifications (modifications or removal of tasks or routines), and Consequences (family and parent consequences of not providing the accommodation; Flessner et al., 2011). The total score and Participation and Modification subscale scores were examined in this study. In relation to its use in the OCD literature, the FAS-PR Total Scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .90; Flessner et al., 2011). The FAS-PR Total Scale also exhibits good convergent validity with the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale total (r = .32, p ≤ .001), the Brief Symptom Inventory total scores (r = .32, p ≤ .05), and the Child OCD Impact Scale–Child Report total scores (r = .32, p ≤ .01; Flessner et al., 2011). For the current study, the 12 questions of the FAS-PR were adapted to reflect accommodations of general behaviors as opposed to OCD-specific behaviors. In the current study, the internal consistency of the adapted 12-item scale (.85) was high.

Locke Parenting Scale (LPS)

The LPS is used to assess a parent’s tendency to engage in a helicopter parenting style through the assessment of a parent’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that may contribute to overparenting (Locke et al., 2016). Nine items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Items assess the parent’s perceived role in the parent–child relationship (e.g., parental responsibility to ensure happiness and reduce distress, and their necessity in promoting the child’s success). Subscales include Ensuring Constant Happiness and Befriending. The LPS has high stability over a 16- to 19-month interval (r = .77) and internal consistency of .73 for the total scale (Locke et al., 2016). The internal consistency of the total scale was .83 for the current study.

Data Analytic Overview

Data were exported from Qualtrics.XM into an SPSS file and analyzed using SPSS Statistics Version 25. Correlational analyses were used to address Hypotheses 1 and 2 regarding the relation between helicopter parenting and parental accommodations. Linear regressions were conducted to determine potential moderators that may affect the relation between helicopter parenting and accommodations. Moderation analyses and bootstrapping were conducted using an add-on for SPSS called PROCESS (Hayes, 2018). Variables were centered for analysis. An independent samples t test was conducted for Hypothesis 4 to assess whether a difference existed between diagnostic categories and amount of accommodations utilized. Further, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to investigate specific behaviors within the diagnostic categories detailed in Hypothesis 4.

To account for user-missing data, a missing value analysis was conducted to determine patterns of missing values. The planned analysis variables included the subscales of the CBCL, DBRS, FAS, and LPS. The results of the missing value analysis are presented in Table 2. Little’s (1986) MCAR test obtained for these data indicated a χ² = 56.76 (df = 228, p = 1.00), which indicates that data were missing completely at random and imputation would not bias inferences. Data for the DBRS and CBCL were imputed as well as used as predictors for missing DBRS and CBCL values. Similarly, the FAS items were imputed as well as used as predictors for FAS values, and the LPS items were imputed and used as predictors for missing LPS values. Child gender, parent ethnicity, child diagnosis, and annual income were used as predictors for the DBRS, CBCL, FAS, and LPS, but they were not imputed. An automatic imputation was selected with five imputations completed. Missing data for the SCAS were not imputed, as above 50% of the data for that variable is missing.

Table 2.
Missing Value Analysis: Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, Missing Data, and Number of Extremes for Selected Variables.

Variable N M SD Missing No. of Extremes

Count % Low High

CBCL Anxiety 342 54.86 7.74 78 18.6 0 27

CBCL Somatization 357 55.83 7.69 63 15.0 0 9

CBCL Withdrawal 354 55.16 7.72 66 15.7 0 39

CBCL Attention 365 56.45 8.09 55 13.1 0 22

CBCL Aggression 341 53.83 6.61 79 18.8 0 29

LPS Total 325 28.56 5.99 95 22.6 3 0

LPS Ensuring 325 20.34 3.79 95 22.6 4 0

LPS Befriending 325 9.21 3.03 95 22.6 0 0

FAS Total 334 22.72 6.09 86 20.5 0 6

FAS Participation 334 14.54 3.63 86 20.5 14 5

FAS Modification 334 8.18 3.23 86 20.5 0 9

DBRS Inattention 356 6.34 6.18 64 15.2 0 14

DBRS Hyperactivity 356 6.36 6.09 64 15.2 0 20

DBRS Oppositional 356 3.95 4.86 64 15.2 0 26

Note. FAS = Family Accommodation Scale; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; LPS = Locke Parenting Scale; DBRS = Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale.

Results

Correlational analyses were conducted to assess the relation between helicopter parenting and parental accommodations. There was a positive relation between helicopter parenting (M = 29.52, SD = 5.49) and accommodations (M = 22.73, SD = 5.64), demonstrating a small effect size (r = .14, p < .01). Correlational analyses were also conducted to assess the relation between helicopter parenting and types of accommodations provided. There was a positive relation between helicopter parenting (M = 29.52, SD = 5.49) and participation accommodations (M = 14.56, SD = 3.37) demonstrating a small effect size (r = .18, p < .001), but no significant relation between helicopter parenting (M = 29.52, SD = 5.49) and modification accommodations (M = 8.16, SD = 3.04; r = .07, p = .19).

Linear regressions were conducted to assess whether the relation between helicopter parenting (X) and accommodations (Y) was moderated by scores on internalizing (i.e., SCAS and CBCL) and externalizing (i.e., CBCL and DBRS) symptomatology. The results of the moderation analyses are presented in Table 3. Main effects demonstrated that helicopter parenting was significantly associated with greater use of accommodations, and having a child with diagnostic symptomatology was also associated with greater use of accommodations. Overall, the presence of internalizing symptomatology moderated the relation between helicopter parenting and accommodations specifically for withdrawal (B = .02, p < .05) and separation anxiety (B = .02, p < .05). When withdrawal is at the mean, there is a statistically significant positive relation between levels of helicopter parenting and accommodations (b = .10, confidence interval [CI] = [.01, .20], t = 2.07, p < .05). Further, there is a statistically significant positive relation between helicopter parenting and accommodations (b = .26, CI [.14, .39], t = 4.10, p < .001) when withdrawal is high. Similarly, there is a statistically significant positive relation between levels of helicopter parenting and accommodations when separation anxiety is at the mean (b = .24, CI [.10, .39], t = 3.39, p < .01) as well as when separation anxiety is high (b = .51, CI [.24, .78], t = 3.74, p < .001). Externalizing symptomatology did not significantly moderate the relation between helicopter parenting and accommodations in the present sample (Bs = .01–.02, ps = .09–.31).

Table 3.
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Summary Predicting Parental Accommodations From Helicopter Parenting and Presence of Clinical Symptomatology in Their Child.

Variable B SE t p Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Accommodations for CBCL

FAS total

Constant 22.75 .26 87.19 .000 22.23 23.26

CBCL anxiety 0.27 .04 6.67 .000 0.19 0.35

LPS 0.18 .06 3.30 .001 0.07 0.29

LPS × CBCL Anxiety 0.02 .01 1.91 .057 0.00 0.04

FAS total

Constant 22.72 .27 85.00 .000 22.19 23.24

CBCL somatic 0.22 .04 5.07 .000 0.14 0.31

LPS 0.16 .06 2.67 .008 0.04 0.28

LPS × CBCL Somatic 0.01 .01 1.26 .210 −0.01 0.03

FAS total

Constant 22.72 .26 89.06 .000 22.22 23.23

CBCL withdrawal 0.29 .03 3.36 .000 0.22 0.35

LPS 0.16 .05 8.64 .001 0.06 0.25

LPS × CBCL Withdrawal 0.02 .01 2.65 .008 0.00 0.03

FAS total

Constant 22.71 .26 88.54 .000 22.21 23.22

CBCL attention 0.27 .04 7.17 .000 0.20 0.35

LPS 0.15 .06 2.67 .008 0.04 0.27

LPS × CBCL Attention 0.01 .01 1.39 .166 −0.01 0.03

FAS total

Constant 22.74 .25 89.53 .000 22.24 23.24

CBCL aggression 0.36 .05 7.72 .000 0.27 0.45

LPS 0.17 .05 3.22 .001 0.07 0.27

LPS × CBCL Aggression 0.02 .01 1.69 .091 0.00 0.03

Accommodations for SCAS

FAS total

Constant 22.73 .42 54.21 .000 21.90 23.55

SCAS OCD 0.39 .08 5.10 .000 0.24 0.55

Locke Parenting Scale (LPS) 0.23 .08 3.04 .003 0.08 0.39

LPS × SCAS OCD −0.01 .02 −0.70 .483 −0.04 0.02

FAS total

Constant 22.72 .42 54.57 .000 21.90 23.54

SCAS social phobia 0.31 .06 5.32 .000 0.19 0.42

LPS 0.29 .08 3.57 .000 0.13 0.46

LPS × SCAS Social Phobia 0.01 .01 0.61 .545 −0.02 0.03

FAS total

Constant 22.70 .40 56.40 .000 21.90 23.49

SCAS panic/agoraphobia 0.47 .08 6.07 .000 0.32 0.63

LPS 0.25 .08 3.19 .002 0.10 0.40

LPS × SCAS Panic/Agoraphobia 0.01 .02 0.53 .596 −0.02 0.04

FAS total

Constant 22.67 .40 56.78 .000 21.88 23.46

SCAS Separation Anxiety 0.29 .04 6.67 .000 0.20 0.37

LPS 0.28 .07 3.89 .000 0.14 0.43

LPS × SCAS Separation Anxiety 0.02 .01 2.29 .023 0.00 0.04

FAS total

Constant 22.71 .44 51.88 .000 21.88 23.46

Physical injuries fear 0.16 .05 3.32 .001 0.07 0.25

LPS 0.24 .08 2.84 .005 0.07 0.40

LPS × Physical Injuries Fear 0.00 .01 0.00 .997 −0.02 0.02

FAS total

Constant 22.70 .42 54.37 .000 21.88 23.52

SCAS generalized anxiety 0.27 .05 5.09 .000 0.16 0.37

LPS 0.26 .08 3.14 .002 0.10 0.42

LPS × SCAS Generalized Anxiety 0.00 .01 0.35 .728 −0.02 0.03

Accommodations for DBRS

FAS total

Constant 22.73 .26 88.56 .000 22.22 23.23

DBRS inattention 0.36 .05 7.06 .000 0.26 0.46

LPS 0.16 .06 2.67 .008 0.04 0.27

LPS × DBRS Inattention 0.01 .01 1.02 .309 −0.01 0.03

FAS total

Constant 22.73 .26 89.21 .000 22.23 23.23

DBRS hyperactivity/impulsivity 0.39 .05 8.05 .000 0.29 0.48

LPS 0.17 .06 2.99 .003 0.06 0.27

LPS × DBRS Hyperactivity/Impulsivity 0.01 .01 1.06 .289 −0.01 0.03

FAS total

Constant 22.78 .26 86.80 .000 22.26 23.30

DBRS oppositional 0.48 .07 6.54 .000 0.34 0.63

LPS 0.20 .06 3.66 .000 0.09 0.31

LPS × DBRS Oppositional 0.02 .02 1.62 .105 −0.01 0.05

Note. N = 400. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 1,000. LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval; FAS = Family Accommodation Scale; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; SCAS = Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale; DBRS = Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale; FAS = Family Accommodation Scale; OCD = obsessive-compulsive disorder.

An independent samples t test was conducted to determine whether parents of children with a diagnosis (i.e., anxiety, depression, or ADHD) utilized a greater number of accommodations compared to parents of children without these diagnoses. The sample size, means, and standard deviations are provided in Table 4. On average, parents of children with anxiety, depression, or ADHD diagnoses (M = 26.19, SD = 7.75) endorsed significantly higher levels of total accommodations than parents of children without these diagnoses, M = 22.17, SD = 5.02, t(61.41) = 3.72, p < .001. Parents of children with the diagnoses endorsed higher levels of participation accommodations (M = 15.96, SD = 4.32) than those of children without these diagnoses, M = 14.34, SD = 3.14, t(63.44) = 2.68, p < .01. Additionally, there was a significant difference in the amount of modification accommodations provided by parents of children with these diagnoses (M = 10.23, SD = 4.26) compared to parents of children without these diagnoses, M = 7.83, SD = 2.67, t(60.90) = 4.04, p < .001.

Table 4.
Sample Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations for Diagnoses.

Variable N M SD

Total accommodations

ADHD, anxiety, or depression 55 26.19 7.75

No diagnoses 345 22.17 5.02

Participation accommodations

ADHD, anxiety, or depression 55 15.96 4.32

No diagnoses 345 14.34 3.14

Modification accommodations

ADHD, anxiety, or depression 55 10.23 4.26

No diagnoses 345 7.83 2.67

Note. ADHD = attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether the type of accommodations differed among the three diagnostic conditions, anxiety, depression, and ADHD. An analysis of variance showed the effects of child diagnosis on total accommodations were not significant, F(2, 52) = .29, p = .752. Further, the effects of child’s diagnosis on participation, F(2, 52) = .37, p = .693, and on modification accommodations, F(2, 52) = .39, p = .680, were not significant. The data from the ANOVA are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.
One-Way Analysis of Variance for Types of Accommodations as a Function of ADHD, Depression, and Anxiety Diagnoses.

Variable and Source Sum-of-squares df MS F p

Total accommodations

Between 35.35 2 17.68 .29 .752

Within 3,211.284 52 61.76

Total 3,246.63 54

Participation accommodations

Between 14.08 2 7.04 .37 .693

Within 993.05 52 20.00

Total 1,007.13 54

Modification accommodations

Between 14.45 2 7.22 .39 .680

Within 967.46 52 18.61

Total 981.90 54

Discussion

The current study examined associations among helicopter parenting and parental accommodations and how certain child characteristics may influence these behaviors. Results indicate that parents who engage in higher levels of helicopter parenting also engage in more accommodating behaviors. Specifically, those high in helicopter parenting style tend to exhibit participation accommodations, such as assisting their child in avoiding upsetting stimuli, managing their child’s behavior, and providing items for their child’s behavior; however, the results suggest there is no significant relation between helicopter parenting and modification accommodations. The differences in the type of accommodations displayed by those high in helicopter parenting suggest helicopter parenting primarily involves active participation in assisting their child and reducing negative behaviors rather than modifications to the family routine. This is consistent with research in college populations suggesting those high in helicopter parenting are inappropriately involved with ensuring their child’s success (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; van Igen et al., 2015).

Results also indicate that parents of children with clinical diagnoses (i.e., anxiety, depression, ADHD) engage in higher levels of both participation and modification accommodations than parents of children without a diagnosis. This finding suggests that child symptomatology may affect how parents conceptualize their child’s disorder, associated impairments, and capabilities (Futh et al., 2012). Although analyses could not be conducted on the interaction between diagnostic status and helicopter parenting on accommodations due to the small number of children meeting diagnostic status, the examination of interaction effects for higher versus lower levels of diagnostic symptomatology suggested significant effects for withdrawal and separation anxiety symptomatology. Even though children with diagnostic symptomatology may require greater accommodation than normative peers, findings from the current study suggest that parents high in helicopter parenting style may be more likely to provide too much accommodation or accommodations that limit self-efficacy and autonomy. Further, results suggest that parents accommodate internalizing symptomatology (i.e., social anxiety and withdrawal) significantly more than externalizing symptomatology. Such a finding suggests that parents respond to anxiety-related symptoms by accommodating, while they may respond to externalizing behaviors more punitively or with frustration (Khamis, 2006; Woodward et al., 1998).

According to Merlo and colleagues (2009), parents who engage in fewer accommodating behaviors may exhibit better outcomes following cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The current findings suggest that it is important to monitor parental overinvolvement and accommodations for children across a range of diagnostic symptomatology to ensure the best outcomes. These baseline ratings may provide useful treatment targets both in types of accommodation behaviors that may arise during treatment and in attitudes about parent involvement and child autonomy. General behavioral parent training or CBT targets could be individualized to promote self-efficacy based on this baseline data, emphasizing greater shaping of behavior toward independence, both during active treatment, and in considering modification to intervention strategies as children age.

Limitations

Although our study sheds light on several novel areas, limitations exist due to our sample and measurement. One limitation relates to the way the measure of helicopter parenting functioned in the current sample. Locke and colleagues (2016) delineated two subfactors of helicopter parenting in the LPS, including “ensuring constant happiness” and “befriending.” For this sample, Items 6, 8, and 9 loaded on the Appropriate subscale, yet also demonstrated loadings close to cutoff for the Alternate subscale. Factor loadings for the relevant items are presented in Table 6. To conservatively address this issue, we chose to only examine the helicopter parenting total score in analysis. Additional inquiry into how subscale behaviors of helicopter parenting are associated with accommodations would provide useful clinical implications in a larger sample of helicopter parenting. Second, the participants in our sample lacked diagnosed psychopathology as well as ethnic diversity. A more ethnically diverse sample and an increase in participants with diagnoses (i.e., depression, anxiety, ADHD) may lead to more robust results and ensure the generalizability of our findings to clinical populations. Further, increasing the sample of children with diagnoses would allow for additional clarification of diagnostic-specific accommodations. In terms of limitations related to our respondents, the current study consisted mostly of mothers and the results may not generalize to all parents. Future studies should aim to recruit more fathers and coparents to consider how their behaviors may impact child development. Lastly, attrition in the current study (completing all measures in the battery of assessments) was problematic due to our inability to provide higher compensation to parents. Our future examination of helicopter parenting will aim to recruit from clinical settings and provide higher compensation for participants.

Table 6.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Locke Parenting Scale (LPS).

Item Ensuring Befriending

LPS 6 .38 .50

LPS 8 .72 .37

LPS 9 .35 .71

Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.

Future Directions

Our study provides preliminary evidence for a relation between helicopter parenting and accommodations as well as of their potential association with child symptomatology. Specifically, our findings indicate a tendency for parents, particularly parents higher in helicopter parenting, to provide more accommodations to children who have heightened symptomatology or diagnoses, which likely exacerbates child symptomatology. Therefore, it is important for clinicians to monitor parental involvement and identify parental engagement in accommodations to redirect parental behaviors appropriately. A two-pronged approach to treatment is potentially necessary where the clinician addresses child symptomatology as well as ineffective parental accommodations. Psychoeducation regarding appropriate parental involvement (e.g., encouraging behavioral activation with a depressed child, promoting independence in organization skills for a child with ADHD) may serve an important role to ensure parents engage in and facilitate therapy exercises both in session and at home.

These initial findings indicate that further research is warranted regarding parental accommodation behaviors. As this study focuses on child characteristics, future studies should include analyses of parental characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, emotion regulation) that may impact engagement in accommodation behaviors. It is important to investigate the function of helicopter parenting to determine what encourages and maintains the associated parenting behaviors (e.g., accommodations). Further, longitudinal research could provide clarity regarding the trajectory of helicopter parenting and accommodations to highlight how and when the behavior becomes problematic and the implications for child adjustment.

Demographic Characteristic	n	%
Relationship to child
Biological parent	370	92.5
Adoptive parent	12	3.0
Step parent	8	2.0
Legal guardian	8	2.0
Other	2	0.5
Parent race/ethnicity
Black (African American, Caribbean)	23	8.5
Latino	20	5.0
Caucasian (White, not of Latino, or Asian descent)	316	79.0
Asian	11	2.8
Native American	4	1.0
Arab	1	0.3
Other	15	3.5
Parent gender
Female	333	83.3
Male	66	16.5
Other	1	0.3
Parent age
18–24	8	2.0
24–34	164	41.0
35–44	181	45.3
45–54	47	11.8
Parent marital status
Never married	50	12.8
Married	293	75.1
Divorced/separated	37	9.5
Other	10	2.6
Annual household income
<$20,000	26	6.7
$20,000–40,000	73	18.7
$41,000–60,000	79	20.3
$61,000–80,000	71	18.2
>$80,000	141	36.2
Child gender
Female	209	52.3
Male	190	47.5
Other	1	0.2
Child age
4–5	122	29.0
6–7	100	23.9
8–9	87	20.7
10–11	91	21.6
Child diagnoses
ADHD	41	9.8
Anxiety	27	6.4
Depression	9	2.1
Other ^a	46	14.5

Variable	N	M	SD	Missing	No. of Extremes
CBCL Anxiety	342	54.86	7.74	78	18.6	0	27
CBCL Somatization	357	55.83	7.69	63	15.0	0	9
CBCL Withdrawal	354	55.16	7.72	66	15.7	0	39
CBCL Attention	365	56.45	8.09	55	13.1	0	22
CBCL Aggression	341	53.83	6.61	79	18.8	0	29
LPS Total	325	28.56	5.99	95	22.6	3	0
LPS Ensuring	325	20.34	3.79	95	22.6	4	0
LPS Befriending	325	9.21	3.03	95	22.6	0	0
FAS Total	334	22.72	6.09	86	20.5	0	6
FAS Participation	334	14.54	3.63	86	20.5	14	5
FAS Modification	334	8.18	3.23	86	20.5	0	9
DBRS Inattention	356	6.34	6.18	64	15.2	0	14
DBRS Hyperactivity	356	6.36	6.09	64	15.2	0	20
DBRS Oppositional	356	3.95	4.86	64	15.2	0	26

Variable	B	SE	t	p	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Accommodations for CBCL
FAS total
Constant	22.75	.26	87.19	.000	22.23	23.26
CBCL anxiety	0.27	.04	6.67	.000	0.19	0.35
LPS	0.18	.06	3.30	.001	0.07	0.29
LPS × CBCL Anxiety	0.02	.01	1.91	.057	0.00	0.04
FAS total
Constant	22.72	.27	85.00	.000	22.19	23.24
CBCL somatic	0.22	.04	5.07	.000	0.14	0.31
LPS	0.16	.06	2.67	.008	0.04	0.28
LPS × CBCL Somatic	0.01	.01	1.26	.210	−0.01	0.03
FAS total
Constant	22.72	.26	89.06	.000	22.22	23.23
CBCL withdrawal	0.29	.03	3.36	.000	0.22	0.35
LPS	0.16	.05	8.64	.001	0.06	0.25
LPS × CBCL Withdrawal	0.02	.01	2.65	.008	0.00	0.03
FAS total
Constant	22.71	.26	88.54	.000	22.21	23.22
CBCL attention	0.27	.04	7.17	.000	0.20	0.35
LPS	0.15	.06	2.67	.008	0.04	0.27
LPS × CBCL Attention	0.01	.01	1.39	.166	−0.01	0.03
FAS total
Constant	22.74	.25	89.53	.000	22.24	23.24
CBCL aggression	0.36	.05	7.72	.000	0.27	0.45
LPS	0.17	.05	3.22	.001	0.07	0.27
LPS × CBCL Aggression	0.02	.01	1.69	.091	0.00	0.03
Accommodations for SCAS
FAS total
Constant	22.73	.42	54.21	.000	21.90	23.55
SCAS OCD	0.39	.08	5.10	.000	0.24	0.55
Locke Parenting Scale (LPS)	0.23	.08	3.04	.003	0.08	0.39
LPS × SCAS OCD	−0.01	.02	−0.70	.483	−0.04	0.02
FAS total
Constant	22.72	.42	54.57	.000	21.90	23.54
SCAS social phobia	0.31	.06	5.32	.000	0.19	0.42
LPS	0.29	.08	3.57	.000	0.13	0.46
LPS × SCAS Social Phobia	0.01	.01	0.61	.545	−0.02	0.03
FAS total
Constant	22.70	.40	56.40	.000	21.90	23.49
SCAS panic/agoraphobia	0.47	.08	6.07	.000	0.32	0.63
LPS	0.25	.08	3.19	.002	0.10	0.40
LPS × SCAS Panic/Agoraphobia	0.01	.02	0.53	.596	−0.02	0.04
FAS total
Constant	22.67	.40	56.78	.000	21.88	23.46
SCAS Separation Anxiety	0.29	.04	6.67	.000	0.20	0.37
LPS	0.28	.07	3.89	.000	0.14	0.43
LPS × SCAS Separation Anxiety	0.02	.01	2.29	.023	0.00	0.04
FAS total
Constant	22.71	.44	51.88	.000	21.88	23.46
Physical injuries fear	0.16	.05	3.32	.001	0.07	0.25
LPS	0.24	.08	2.84	.005	0.07	0.40
LPS × Physical Injuries Fear	0.00	.01	0.00	.997	−0.02	0.02
FAS total
Constant	22.70	.42	54.37	.000	21.88	23.52
SCAS generalized anxiety	0.27	.05	5.09	.000	0.16	0.37
LPS	0.26	.08	3.14	.002	0.10	0.42
LPS × SCAS Generalized Anxiety	0.00	.01	0.35	.728	−0.02	0.03
Accommodations for DBRS
FAS total
Constant	22.73	.26	88.56	.000	22.22	23.23
DBRS inattention	0.36	.05	7.06	.000	0.26	0.46
LPS	0.16	.06	2.67	.008	0.04	0.27
LPS × DBRS Inattention	0.01	.01	1.02	.309	−0.01	0.03
FAS total
Constant	22.73	.26	89.21	.000	22.23	23.23
DBRS hyperactivity/impulsivity	0.39	.05	8.05	.000	0.29	0.48
LPS	0.17	.06	2.99	.003	0.06	0.27
LPS × DBRS Hyperactivity/Impulsivity	0.01	.01	1.06	.289	−0.01	0.03
FAS total
Constant	22.78	.26	86.80	.000	22.26	23.30
DBRS oppositional	0.48	.07	6.54	.000	0.34	0.63
LPS	0.20	.06	3.66	.000	0.09	0.31
LPS × DBRS Oppositional	0.02	.02	1.62	.105	−0.01	0.05

Variable	N	M	SD
Total accommodations
ADHD, anxiety, or depression	55	26.19	7.75
No diagnoses	345	22.17	5.02
Participation accommodations
ADHD, anxiety, or depression	55	15.96	4.32
No diagnoses	345	14.34	3.14
Modification accommodations
ADHD, anxiety, or depression	55	10.23	4.26
No diagnoses	345	7.83	2.67

Variable and Source	Sum-of-squares	df	MS	F	p
Total accommodations
Between	35.35	2	17.68	.29	.752
Within	3,211.284	52	61.76
Total	3,246.63	54
Participation accommodations
Between	14.08	2	7.04	.37	.693
Within	993.05	52	20.00
Total	1,007.13	54
Modification accommodations
Between	14.45	2	7.22	.39	.680
Within	967.46	52	18.61
Total	981.90	54

Item	Ensuring	Befriending
LPS 6	.38	.50
LPS 8	.72	.37
LPS 9	.35	.71

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Informed consent to participate and to publish was obtained from all participants included in the study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

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

Sara R. Elkins

G. Thomas Schanding Jr.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

L. A.

(2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

L. A.

(2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.

Achenbach

T. M.

Ruffle

T. M.

(2000). The child behavior checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies. Pediatrics in Review, 21(8), 265–271.

Areepattamannil

(2010). Parenting practices, parenting style, and children’s school achievement. Psychological Studies, 55(4), 283–289.

Assor

Roth

Deci

E. L.

(2004). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 47–88.

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3286–3319.

Barber

B. K.

Harmon

E. L.

(2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15–52). American Psychological Association.

Barkley

R. A.

Murphy

K. R.

(1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A clinical workbook (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Barnes

G. M.

Reifman

A. S.

Farrell

M. P.

Dintcheff

B. A.

(2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 175–186.

10.

Bijttebier

Vertommen

, (1999). Antecedents, concomintants, and consequences of pediatric headache: Confirmatory construct validation of two parent-report scales. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22(5), 437–456.

11.

Caporino

N. E.

Morgan

Beckstead

Phares

Murphy

T. K.

Storch

E. A.

(2012). A structural equation analysis of family accommodation in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(1), 133–143.

12.

Demuth

Brown

S. L.

(2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 58–81.

13.

Flessner

C. A.

Sapyta

Garcia

Freeman

J. B.

Franklin

M. E.

Foa

March

J. S.

, (2011). Examining the psychometric properties of the Family Accommodation Scale-Parent-Report (FAS-PR). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(1), 38–46.

14.

Francazio

S. K.

Flessner

C. A.

Boisseau

C. L.

Sibrava

N. J.

Mancebo

M. C.

Eisen

J. L.

Rasmussen

S. A.

(2016). Parental accommodation predicts symptom severity at long-term follow-up in children with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(8), 2562–2570.

15.

Friedman-Weieneth

J. L.

Doctoroff

G. L.

Harvey

E. A.

Goldstein

L. H.

(2009). The disruptive behavior rating scale-parent version (DBRS-PV). Journal of Attention Disorders, 13(1), 42–55.

16.

Futh

Simond

L. M.

Micali

(2012). Obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: Parental understanding, accommodation, coping and distress. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(5), 624–632.

17.

Goncy

E. A.

van Dulmen

M. H. M.

(2010). Fathers do make a difference: Parental involvement and adolescent alcohol use. Fathering, 8(1), 93–108.

18.

Harris

M. A.

Antal

Oelbaum

Buckloh

L. M.

White

N. H.

Wysocki

(2008). Good intentions gone awry: Assessing parental “miscarried helping” in diabetes. Families, Systems, & Health, 26(4), 393–403.

19.

Havighurst

S. S.

Wilson

K. R.

Harley

A. E.

Prior

M. R.

Kehoe

(2010). Tuning into kids: Improving emotion socialization practices in parents of preschool children—Finding from a community trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1342–1350.

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

21.

Khamis

(2006). Family environment and parenting as predictors of attention-deficit and hyperactivity among Palestinian children. Journal of Social Service Research, 32(4), 99–116.

22.

Lebowitz

E. R.

Panza

K. E.

Bloch

M. H.

(2012). Family accommodation in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 12(2), 229–238.

23.

Lebowitz

E. R.

Scharfstein

L. A.

Jones

(2014). Comparing family accommodation in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety disorders, and nonanxious children. Depression and Anxiety, 31(12), 1018–1025.

24.

Lee

Steinberg

Phillips

Hart

Smith

Wetterneck

(2015). Examining the effects of accommodation and caregiver burden on relationship satisfactions in caregivers of individuals with OCD. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 79(1), 1–13.

25.

LeMoyne

Buchanan

(2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31(4), 399–418.

26.

Little

R. J. A.

(1986). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.

27.

Locke

J. Y.

Kavanagh

D. J.

Campbell

M. A.

(2016). Overparenting and homework: The student’s task, but everyone’s responsibility. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 26(1), 1–15.

28.

Merlo

L. J.

Lehmkuhl

H. D.

Geffken

G. R.

Storch

E. A.

(2009). Decreased family accommodation associated with improved therapy outcome in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 355–360.

29.

Norman

K. R.

Silverman

W. K.

Lebowitz

E. R.

(2015). Family accommodation of child and adolescent anxiety: Mechanisms, assessment, and treatment. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 28(3), 131–140.

30.

Otto

Kolmorgen

Sierau

Wies

von Klitzing

Klein

A. M.

(2016). Parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers of preschool age children with internalizing disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 381–395.

31.

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(5), 1177–1190.

32.

Peterson

C. C.

Palermo

T. M.

(2004). Parental reinforcement of recurrent pain: The moderating impact of child depression and anxiety on functional disability. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 5(1), 331–341.

33.

Rathert

Fite

P. J.

Gaertner

A. E.

(2011). Associations between effortful control, psychological control, and proactive and reactive aggression. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 42(2), 609–621.

34.

Russell

A. J.

Jassi

Fullana

M. A.

Mack

Johnston

Heyman

… Mataix‐Cols

(2013). Cognitive behavior therapy for comorbid obsessive‐compulsive disorder in high‐functioning autism spectrum disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Depression and Anxiety, 30(8), 697–708.

35.

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(8), 2322–2331.

36.

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(3), 548–557.

37.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

McBride

B. A.

M. R.

(2004). Unidimensional versus multidimensional perspectives on father involvement. Fathering, 2(2), 147–163.

38.

Segrin

Woszidlo

Givertz

Bauer

Taylor Murphy

(2012). The Association between overparenting, parent-child communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits in adult children. Family Relations, 61(2), 237–252.

39.

Sibley

M. H.

Campez

Perez

Morrow

A. S.

Merrill

B. M.

Altszuler

A. R.

Coxe

Yeguez

C. E.

(2016). Parent management of organization, time management, and planning deficits among adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(2), 216–228.

40.

Spence

S. H.

(1998). A measure of anxiety symptoms among children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(5), 545–566.

41.

Storch

E. A.

Salloum

Johnco

Dane

B. F.

Crawford

E. A.

King

M. A.

McBride

N. M.

Lewin

A. B.

(2015). Phenomenology and clinical correlates of family accommodation in pediatric anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 35, 75–81.

42.

Thompson-Hollands

Kerns

C. E.

Pincus

D. B.

Comer

J. S.

(2014). Parental accommodation of child anxiety and related symptoms: Range, impact, and correlates. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(8), 765–773.

43.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Pratt

T. C.

(2003). Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 471–500.

44.

van Ingen

D. J.

Freiheit

S. R.

Steinfeldt

J. A.

Moore

L. L.

Wimer

D. J.

Knutt

A. D.

Scapinello

Roberts

(2015). Helicopter parenting: The effect of an overbearing caregiving style on peer attachment and self-efficacy. Journal of College Counseling, 18(1), 7–20.

45.

Walker

L. S.

Garber

J. W.

Greene

J. W.

(1993). Psychosocial correlates of recurrent childhood pain: A comparison of paediatric patients with recurrent abdominal pain, organic illness, and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(2), 248–258.

46.

Woodward

Taylor

Dowdney

(1998). The Parenting and family functioning of children with hyperactivity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(2), 161–169.

47.

Zellman

G. L.

Waterman

J. M.

(1998). Understanding the impact of parent school involvement on children’s educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(6), 370–380.

Variable	N	M	SD	Missing		No. of Extremes
Variable	N	M	SD	Count	%	Low	High
CBCL Anxiety	342	54.86	7.74	78	18.6	0	27
CBCL Somatization	357	55.83	7.69	63	15.0	0	9
CBCL Withdrawal	354	55.16	7.72	66	15.7	0	39
CBCL Attention	365	56.45	8.09	55	13.1	0	22
CBCL Aggression	341	53.83	6.61	79	18.8	0	29
LPS Total	325	28.56	5.99	95	22.6	3	0
LPS Ensuring	325	20.34	3.79	95	22.6	4	0
LPS Befriending	325	9.21	3.03	95	22.6	0	0
FAS Total	334	22.72	6.09	86	20.5	0	6
FAS Participation	334	14.54	3.63	86	20.5	14	5
FAS Modification	334	8.18	3.23	86	20.5	0	9
DBRS Inattention	356	6.34	6.18	64	15.2	0	14
DBRS Hyperactivity	356	6.36	6.09	64	15.2	0	20
DBRS Oppositional	356	3.95	4.86	64	15.2	0	26