Emotional Detachment Moderates Associations Between Students’ Perceptions of Parental Support and First-Year College Adjustment: Generational Status Differences

Abstract

First-year college students (N = 384) self-reported parental support, emotional detachment from parents, and college adjustment. Higher levels of parental social support were associated with greater academic adjustment, social adjustment, and institutional attachment. Higher levels of emotional detachment were associated with greater institutional attachment. Emotional detachment moderated the association between parental support and college adjustment, with the nature of moderation differing by generational status. For first-generation students, higher levels of parental social support were associated with greater levels of academic adjustment when students were less detached from parents, but lower levels of academic adjustment when students were more detached from parents.

Keywords

college adjustment achievement parental support emotional autonomy first-generation college students

Obtaining a bachelor’s degree is associated with higher employment status and higher income levels. In 2015, individuals who obtained a bachelor’s degree had 64% higher median earnings than those with just a high school diploma ($50,000 versus $30,500; McFarland et al., 2017). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that approximately 44% of students enroll in college immediately after completing high school (McFarland et al., 2017). The transition to college is associated with new academic expectations and increased responsibilities. This transition can be stressful, and reports of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and sleep deprivation are high during the initial transition to college (Doane et al., 2015; Drake et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2014; Terry et al., 2013). The psychological distress experienced by college students may contribute to low retention rates. NCES reports that only 59% of students who enroll in 4-year institutions graduate within 6 years, and students who report higher levels of adjustment to the college environment are more likely to remain enrolled and graduate (Kolkhorst et al., 2010; Schnuck & Handal, 2011; Woosley, 2003). Receiving support from parents and having positive relationships with parents predicts better adjustment during first year of college and potentially protects students from dropping out (Kolkhorst et al., 2010; Schnuck & Handal, 2011). At the same time, parents’ over-involvement in the lives of college students can have negative effects on well-being and academic performance (Klein & Pierce, 2009; Mounts, 2004; Schiffrin et al., 2014; Shadach & Ganor-Miller, 2013). Therefore, this study fills an existing gap in the literature by considering the manner in which parental support and the closeness of students’ relationships with parents interact to predict adjustment during the first year of college.

Theoretical Framework: Second Individuation Process of Adolescence

Blos (1979) theorized that the “second individuation” process of adolescence plays a critical role in supporting positive emotional development. This second individuation process requires adolescents to establish independent identities while maintaining emotional connections to parents. During late adolescence, some individuals attend college and engage in identity exploration in the context of decreased time spent with parents at home. Many first-year college students live away from home for the first time (Schwartz, 2016), resulting in dramatic increases in decision-making outside of the direct supervision of parents. Yet despite physical distance from parents, college students still reply on parents for support and fare best when they have close emotional connections to parents (Hall et al., 2017).

Individuation during adolescence occurs when reliance on parents decreases and independent decision-making increases through “emotional disengagement from parental ego support” (Blos, 1979, p. 78). Another characteristic of individuation is “increasing responsibility” for one’s own actions (Blos, 1979, p. 83). The post-secondary context promotes development of conscious decision-making without reliance on parents for approval. It is important for college students to be able to make independent decisions that will lead to positive outcomes. At the same time, college students need emotional support from parents to manage stress and experience better adjustment (Hall et al., 2017). The second individuation process suggests that as children mature, emotional autonomy in the context of close and supportive relationships with parents is the optimal end goal. Late adolescents need to develop a strong and independent sense of self in order to maintain intimate relations without losing their own identities (Kegan, 1982).

Adjustment in College

Adjustment in college is multifaceted and includes dimensions of academic adaptation, psychological adaptation, social adaptation, and commitment to college (Baker & Siryk, 1986; Yazedjian et al., 2007). Students who self-report greater adjustment across these domains are considered to be more positively adjusted to college. Students who score lower in these areas are considered to be less positively adjusted.

Academic adjustment reflects educational performance and experiences. It has been operationalized in terms of grade point average (GPA), motivation to study and attend classes, meeting academic goals, and instructors’ evaluations (Baker & Siryk, 1986; Chemers et al., 2001). Students who expect to do well at the beginning of their college experiences have better academic performance later on than students who expect to do worse (Chemers et al., 2001). Social adjustment refers to satisfaction and engagement with interpersonal relationships and social events. Students who are socially well-adjusted report lower levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and stress; and increased self-esteem (English et al., 2017; Friedlander et al., 2007; Hall et al., 2017). Personal-emotional adjustment refers to students’ psychological and somatic states (Baker & Siryk, 1986). It is typically operationalized in terms of students’ self-reports of their responses to pressures in stressful academic and social situations (Friedlander et al., 2007; Katz & Somers, 2017; Pittman & Richmond, 2008; Schnuck & Handal, 2011). The transition to college is associated with steep declines in feelings of psychological and social well-being, as well as sharp inclines in levels of psychological distress (Conley et al., 2014). Institutional attachment is indicative of students’ overall satisfaction and decisions to commit to their specific college (Baker & Siryk, 1986). Attachment to the institution can serve as a motivation for students to work hard so they can remain at the institution until graduation. Students who have stronger commitment to attend a school are more likely have initial optimism which then leads to better academic performance (Chemers et al., 2001).

Understanding adjustment defined in these four ways is an important area of inquiry in research involving college students because of its implications for students’ experiences while in college and the manner in which they view the value of the college experience. Positive adjustment among college students is associated with lower levels of stress and depression, less loneliness, and greater feelings of self-efficacy during the transition to college (Hall et al., 2017; Friedlander et al., 2007). Negative adjustment among college students is associated with poorer mental health and well-being (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1992; Conley et al., 2014). It is more likely that students with better adjustment will perceive college education as a beneficial investment and commit to achieving their educational goals (Hackman & Dysinger, 1970). Students with poor adjustment experience lower retention rates and a general lack of integration into the college environment (Tinto, 1975).

Parental Support as a Predictor of Adjustment in College

First-year college students may not have had time to form close peer relationships at school, so they are more likely to seek support from parents than students later in their college careers. Students who feel supported by parents have better psychological and academic adjustment including lower levels of loneliness and greater levels of happiness and self-worth (Hall et al., 2017; Holahan et al., 1994; Kolkhorst et al., 2010). They also report higher levels of social adjustment and more positive relationships with friends (Mounts et al., 2006). Parental support also moderates the association between student personality factors and levels of overall college adjustment. Students who report higher levels of shyness and maladaptive coping skills have better adjustment when they are supported by their parents (Katz & Somers, 2017). Parental support is important across the transition to college, because some students may not be ready to become fully independent overnight. Therefore, the first research goal of this study was to consider the extent to which parental support is helpful for students during their first year of college.

Emotional Detachment as Moderating Associations Between Parental Support and Student Adjustment

The transition to college represents a critical step towards achieving healthy and appropriate emotional independence from parents (Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002; Lopez et al., 1988). However, emotional independence should not be confused with emotional detachment, which occurs when students seek independence in the absence of healthy attachments to parents (Mattanah et al., 2011; Ryan & Lynch, 1989). Detached relationships from parents have the potential to disrupt attainment of emotional independence. Late adolescents who are more emotionally detached from parents report a lower sense of self-worth, while late adolescents who score lower on emotional detachment have more positive perspectives of self (Ryan & Lynch, 1989). In turn, a stronger sense of self-worth supports confidence in independent decision making. Consistent with this premise, students who are securely attached to their parents access less parental support while in college (Kolkhorst et al., 2010).

Successful individuation during the young adult years has been theorized to involve both increases in student independence and continued closeness with parents (Blos, 1979). Accordingly, parental support can be conceptualized as playing different roles in relation to the adjustment of college students, depending on the emotional context within which it occurs. Parental support is more likely to benefit college student adjustment when it is experienced in concert with close relationships with parents, as opposed to detached relationships between students and their parents. The second research goal in this study was to determine whether the relationship between parental support and adjustment among first-year college students is moderated by the extent to which students report emotional detachment from parents.

Generational Status Differences

As much as parental support is beneficial for college students’ transition to college, Dennis et al. (2005) found that this relationship was weaker for first-generation college students for whom peer support was a stronger predictor of overall adjustment than parental support. First-generation college students are defined as those with caregivers who did not obtain a baccalaureate degree (Department of Health, 1965). In a longitudinal study conducted between 2002 and 2012, approximately 70% of continuing-generation students enrolled in 4-year institutions, and 42% of them graduated. In contrast, only 40% of first-generation students enrolled in 4-year college, and just 20% of them attained a bachelor’s degree (McFarland et al., 2017). There is a critical need for research that considers factors that support the success of first-generation students attending secondary institutions. Parental support during the transition to college has been found to be beneficial for students’ adjustment as they face stressors in the college environment (Hall et al., 2017). The first year of college is particularly an important time to study parental support, as students during this transition are becoming increasingly autonomous within a setting that does not include their parents (Friedlander et al., 2007; Mattanah et al., 2004). Within this context, first-generation college students report receiving less emotional and informational support from parents than continuing-generation college students (Sy et al., 2011). The third research goal of this study was to consider whether there were generational status differences in associations between parental support and college adjustment, as well as the manner in which such associations were moderated by emotional detachment.

Current Study

The second individuation process of adolescence perspective frames the present study by suggesting that parental support continues to impact college students’ adjustment during a time of growing independence and responsibilities – but that its impact depends on the nature of emotional connections between students and their parents. The first focus of this paper was to determine the influences of parental support on several types of adjustment during the first year of college. Our hypothesis was that parental support would be associated with higher levels of student adjustment. The second focus of this paper was to consider students’ emotional detachment as a potential moderator of associations between parental support and student adjustment. We predicted that the positive association between parental support and student adjustment would be stronger at lower levels of student detachment. The third purpose of this paper was to examine whether the associations among parental support, student detachment, and adjustment during the first year of college might vary based on student generational status. Given that this topic has been infrequently studied, we made no specific hypotheses about expected findings, considering our analyses to be exploratory.

Method

Participants

Participants were traditional first-year college students from a large public university located in the southeastern region of the United States (N = 348). Students were 90.5% female (n = 315) and 9.5% male (n = 33). Their ages ranged from 17 to 20 years of age (M_age = 18.3 years; SD = .53). Students reported weighted high school grade point averages (GPAs) ranging from 1.65 to 5.50 (M_gpa = 3.85; SD = 0.54). Students identified themselves as Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American (n = 134; 38.5%), Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American (n = 127; 36.5%), Latino or Hispanic American (n = 31; 9%), Multiethnic (n = 31; 9%), East Asian or Asian American (n = 12; 3.4%), South Asian or Indian American (n = 7; 2%), Native American or Alaskan Native (n = 3; 0.9%), and Other (n = 3; 0.9%). Eighty percent of students lived away from home (75% on-campus, 5% off-campus). The three most frequently identified primary caregivers were mothers (n = 281, 80.7%), fathers (n = 47, 13.5%), and grandmothers (n = 13, 3.7%). With respect to the primary caregivers’ levels of education, participants reported that 9.5% of caregivers had earned partial high school or middle school education (n = 30), 26.4% of caregivers had earned a high school diploma (n = 92), 30.5% caregivers had some level of college or specialized training (n = 106), 24.7% of caregivers had earned a four-year college degree (n = 86), and 9.8% of caregivers received graduate training after college (n = 34). In terms of financial difficulty managing the expense of attending college, 20.7% of students reported it had not been difficult at all (n = 72), 44.5% of students reported it had been a little difficult (n = 155), 27% of students reported it had been moderately difficult (n = 94), and 7.8% of students reported it had been extremely difficult (n = 27).

Procedures

Data were collected from college students aged 18 to 20 enrolled in an introductory social science course at the participating university. Students provided consent for participation through IRB approved consent forms. All students enrolled in the course were given the option of participating in the study by completing questionnaires online or completing an alternative written assignment to receive the same amount of extra credit assigned for participation in the study.

Measures

Potential Control Variables

Given that levels of college adjustment can vary based on demographic characteristics, the following were considered as potential control variables: gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (Black, White, Other) dummy coded with White as the reference group, age, high school grade point average (GPA), living arrangement (On campus dorm or apartment, off campus, home with parents) dummy coded with on-campus living as the reference group, work hours, difficulty managing cost of college (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = moderately, 4 = extremely), and primary caregiver identity dichotomized as mother = 1, other = 0.

Generational Status

Generational status was coded based on student reports of caregivers’ education levels. Students were asked to indicate the highest education level for each identified caregiver as less than 8th grade (1), junior high school - 8th grade (2), partial high school - 9th, 10th or 11th grade (3), high school graduate (4), one or two years of college or specialized training (5), graduate of a four-year college (6), or received graduate training after college (7). Students who categorized both parents as 1 to 4 were considered to be first-generation college students. Students who categorized either parent as 5 or 6 were considered to be continuing-generation college students. First generation students were coded as 0; continuing generation students were coded as 1.

Parental Support

College students’ perceptions of parental support were measured using the academic and social support subscales from the Parent Support for the College Transition Measure (PSCT; Mounts, 2004). This scale measures the extent to which parents support their children while they are attending college. The PSCT contains 34 items each of which refers to a supportive behavior in which parents may engage. It was originally developed with three subscales: social support (fifteen items; α = .91), academic support (eleven items; α = .85), and financial support (not utilized for the current study). Students respond to each item by indicating the extent to which they agree that their parent/caregiver engages in the described behavior using 4-point Likert scale with (1) indicating strongly agree and (4) indicating strongly disagree. A sample item on the social support subscale is, “Helped me resolve problems with roommates or friends.” A sample item on the academic support is, “Helped me with homework.” Items on each subscale are averaged to yield summary scores with higher scores indicative of more support in each area. Previous researchers using this measure have reported that higher scores on the PSCT are related to greater sociability, lower levels of loneliness, and more positive friendship quality among college students (Mounts et al., 2006).

Emotional Detachment

College students completed the Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). In designing the measure, Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) conceptualized emotional autonomy as decreased reliance on others, such as parents and peers, and increased reliance on self, and believed it to be a positive attribute of adolescents. Emotional autonomy was defined as growing independence from parents while maintaining a healthy connection to them (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). However, Ryan and Lynch (1989) later reported that the EAS actually assessed the level of emotional detachment from caregivers, rather than aspects of the emotional individuation process, because higher scores were associated with lower levels of adolescent adjustment. Emotional detachment is the feeling of separation from caregivers through perceptions of parental rejection (Ryan & Lynch, 1989). These two constructs are highly correlated (high levels of autonomy are related to low levels of detachment), yet conceptually distinct. For the current study, we focused on twelve items (α = .81) as the emotional detachment subscale. Sample items on this subscale are “He/she knows everything there is to know about me” (reverse coded), “I try to have the same opinions as his/her” (reverse coded), “There are some things about me that he/she doesn't know,” and “Even when he/she and I disagree, he/she is always right” (reverse coded). Responses are on a 4-point Likert scale with (1) indicating strongly disagree and (4) indicating strongly agree. Higher scores indicate greater emotional detachment from parents. Higher scores on the EAS are associated with lower self-esteem and lower grades in school among adolescents (Lamborn & Groh, 2009). In other words, this subscale has been demonstrated to have concurrent validity as an indicator of feelings of separation among adolescents, which is associated with both psychological and academic risk.

College Adjustment

Students’ adjustment to college was measured with the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1986). This scale measures the experiences of college students in the college environment. The 67 items scale was originally designed to have four subscales which assess four aspects of adjustment in college: academic (24 items, α = .84), social (21 items, α = .85), personal-emotional (15 items, α = .87), and institutional attachment (7 items, α = .82). Academic adjustment assesses students’ perceptions of their intellectual performance and motivation in class. A sample item is “I have been keeping up-to-date on my academic work.” Social adjustment evaluates students’ experiences in social settings with peers and school activities. A sample item is “I have several close social ties at college.” Personal-emotional adjustment measures the psychological and physical well-being of college students. A sample item is “I have been having a lot of headaches lately.” Institutional attachment refers to students’ willingness to commit and continue their college education. A sample item is “I expect to complete my bachelor’s degree at this college.” Students rate all items on a 9-point Likert scale with (1) indicating doesn't apply to me at all and (9) indicating applies very closely to me. Items on each subscale are averaged to yield summary scores. Previous researchers have found higher scores on the SACQ scale are associated with more positive adjustment in terms of academic self-efficacy, social skills, lower levels of negative feelings, and commitment to college (Feldt et al., 2011).

Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1, separately for first-generation and continuing-generation students.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations among Model Variables.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Parental Social Support		–	.77***	−.53***	.22*	.25**	.13	.04
2. Parental Academic Support		.73***	–	−.51***	.11	.18*	.08	−.02
3. Emotional Detachment		−.47***	−.41***	–	−.16	−.20*	−.12	.15
4. Academic Adjustment		.24***	.25***	−.05	–	.42***	.55***	.59***
5. Social Adjustment		.36***	.29***	−.21**	.55***	–	.25**	.45***
6. Personal-Emotional Adjustment		.11	.12	.03	.52***	.31***	–	.37***
7. Institutional Attachment		.23**	.17*	.04	.64***	.59**	.49***	–
Mean:	First−Generation	−0.05	−0.07	−0.02	5.90	5.61	5.40	6.82
	Continuing−Generation	0.10	0.13	0.05	6.15	5.67	5.43	7.19
SD:	First−Generation	0.60	0.61	0.46	0.99	1.30	1.44	1.64
	Continuing−Generation	0.58	0.54	0.48	1.00	1.14	1.52	1.62
N:	First−Generation	223	223	214	216	216	216	216
	Continuing−Generation	117	117	110	112	112	112	112

Note. Correlations for first-generation students are below the diagonal; correlations for continuing-generation students are above the diagonal.

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

Results

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients

Bivariate correlations for all model variables are presented in Table 1, separated by generational status. Among first-generation students, higher levels of parental academic support were associated with higher levels of parental social support, r(223) = .73, p < .001. Higher levels of academic adjustment were associated with higher levels of social adjustment, r(216) = .55, p < .001, higher levels of personal-emotional adjustment, r(216) = .52, p < .001, and higher levels of institutional attachment, r(216) = .64, p < .001. Higher levels of social adjustment were associated with higher levels of personal-emotional adjustment, r(216) = .31, p < .001, and higher levels of institutional attachment r(216) = .59, p < .001. Higher levels of personal-emotional adjustment were associated with higher levels of institutional attachment, r(216) = .49, p < .001. Parental social support and emotional detachment were negatively correlated, r(214) = −.47, p < .001, and parental academic support and emotional detachment were negatively correlated, r(214) = −.41, p < .001. Higher levels of parental social support were associated with higher levels of academic adjustment r(216) = .24, p < .001, higher levels of social adjustment r(216) = .36, p < .001, and higher levels of institutional attachment r(216) = .23, p < .001. Higher levels of parental academic support were associated with higher levels of academic adjustment r(216) = .25, p < .001, higher levels of social adjustment r(216) = .29, p < .001, and higher levels of institutional attachment r(216) = .17, p = .012. Higher levels of emotional detachment were associated with lower levels of social adjustment r(213) = −.21, p = .002.

Among continuing-generation students, parental academic support and parental social support were positively correlated such that more parental academic support was associated with more parental social support, r(117) = .77, p < .001. Higher levels of academic adjustment were associated with higher levels of social adjustment, r(112) = .42, p < .001, higher levels of personal-emotional adjustment, r(112) = .55, p < .001, and higher levels of institutional attachment, r(112) = .59, p < .001. Higher levels of social adjustment were associated with higher levels of personal-emotional adjustment, r(112) = .25, p = .008, and higher levels of institutional attachment r(112) = .45, p < .001. Higher levels of personal-emotional adjustment were associated with higher levels of institutional attachment, r(112) = .37, p < .001. Parental social support and emotional detachment were negatively correlated, r(110) = −.53, p < .001, and parental academic support and emotional detachment were negatively correlated, r(110) = −.51, p < .001. Higher levels of parental social support were associated with higher levels of academic adjustment r(112) = .22, p = .023, and higher levels of social adjustment r(112) = .25, p = .007. Higher levels of parental academic support were associated with higher levels of social adjustment r(112) = .18, p = .05. Higher levels of emotional detachment were associated with lower levels of social adjustment r(110) = −.20, p = .034.

Preliminary Analyses

Four regression analyses were performed entering all potential covariates, parental social support, parental academic support, and emotional detachment as predictors of each of the 4 types of adjustment (academic, social, personal-emotional, institutional attachment) to determine which potential covariates should be included in the model. The results indicated that only high school GPA and difficulty managing the cost of college were significantly associated with the four measures of adjustment. These two variables were retained as controls in all subsequent analyses.

Research on helicopter parenting has suggested that high levels of parental involvement may be detrimental to college students’ well-being (Schiffrin et al., 2014). Accordingly, regression analyses were conducted to examine whether there was a quadratic effect of emotional detachment in relation to each of the college adjustment outcomes. A quadratic term for emotional detachment was computed by multiplying the emotional detachment variable by itself. Then, regression analyses were conducted for each of the four adjustment outcomes with emotional detachment and the quadratic emotional detachment variables entered simultaneously as predictors. Emotional detachment was significantly associated with academic adjustment, β = −.13, p = .038, and social adjustment, β = −.23, p = .001. However, the quadratic emotional detachment was not significantly associated with any of the four types of college adjustment. Therefore, only linear effects of emotional detachment were considered in subsequent analyses.

Model Predicting Adjustment in College From Parental Support and Detachment

The overall main effects model was tested using IBM SPSS Amos 25. Model fit indicates how well the model being tested matches the data. Fit statistics used to assess the fit of the model were the chi-square statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A good model fit for the chi-square statistic is when the statistic is non-significant at p > 0.05. However, the chi-square statistics is sensitive to sample size in that large samples mostly result as significance, while small samples lack the power to distinguish between good and poor fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Kenny & McCoach, 2003). The desired model fit is determined by values of CFI greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and values of RMSEA lower than .07 (Steiger, 2007). The model included both types of parental support (social, academic) and emotional detachment as predictors of the four adjustment outcomes (academic, social, personal/emotional, institutional attachment). The included controls were high school GPA and difficulty managing cost of college. All the residual variables were allowed to covary. Parental social support, parental academic support, and emotional detachment were all allowed to covary with one another. This model was a good fit to the data (χ²(7) = 18.596, p = .01, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.07). The regression paths for this model are shown in Table 2. The R squared values for the full model were .12 for academic adjustment, .12 for social adjustment, .08 for personal-emotional adjustment, and .12 for institutional attachment. The control variable of high school GPA predicted higher levels of academic adjustment, B = .44, β = .24, SE = .10, p < .001, personal-emotional, B = .33, β = .12, SE = .14, p = .021, and institutional attachment, B = .75, β = .25, SE = .16, p < .001. The control variable of greater difficulty managing cost of college was associated with lower levels of personal-emotional adjustment, B = −.40, β = −.24, SE = .09, p < .001. Higher levels of parental academic support did not predict any indicator of adjustment to college. Higher levels of social support were associated with greater levels of academic adjustment, B = .29, β = .18, SE = .13, p = .03, social adjustment, B = .60, β = .29, SE = .17, p < .001, and institutional attachment, B = .68, β = .25, SE = .22, p = .002. Higher levels of emotional detachment predicted higher levels of institutional attachment, B = .71, β = .20, SE = .21, p < .001.

Table 2.

Parental Support and Emotional Detachment as Predictors of Adjustment in College.

Predictors	B	β	SE	p
Academic Adjustment
High School GPA	0.44	0.24	0.10	<.001
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	−0.11	−0.09	0.06	0.069
Parental Academic Support	0.15	0.09	0.13	0.257
Parental Social Support	0.29	0.18	0.13	0.030
Emotional Detachment	0.05	0.03	0.13	0.681
Social Adjustment
High School GPA	0.19	0.08	0.12	0.125
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	0.02	0.01	0.08	0.826
Parental Academic Support	0.04	0.02	0.16	0.798
Parental Social Support	0.60	0.29	0.17	<.001
Emotional Detachment	−0.19	−0.07	0.16	0.231
Personal-Emotional Adjustment
High School GPA	0.33	0.12	0.14	0.021
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	−0.40	−0.24	0.09	<.001
Parental Academic Support	0.10	0.04	0.20	0.613
Parental Social Support	0.17	0.07	0.20	0.413
Emotional Detachment	0.08	0.03	0.19	0.680
Institutional Attachment
High School GPA	0.75	0.25	0.16	<.001
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	0.04	0.02	0.10	0.711
Parental Academic Support	0.09	0.03	0.21	0.680
Parental Social Support	0.68	0.25	0.22	0.002
Emotional Detachment	0.71	0.20	0.21	<.001

Note. N = 348; Model fit (χ²(7) = 18.596, p = .01, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.07).

Model Predicting Adjustment in College From Parental Support, Detachment, and the Interaction of Parental Support and Detachment

Developing the Interaction Model

The overall interaction model was tested using IBM SPSS Amos 25. The model included both types of parental support (social, academic) as predictors of the four adjustment outcomes (academic, social, personal/emotional, institutional attachment). The moderator was emotional detachment and it was included in the model as predictor along with interaction terms for parental academic support and emotional detachment, and for parental social support and emotional detachment. Parental support variables and detachment were all mean centered prior to computation of interaction terms. The included controls were high school GPA and difficulty managing cost of college. This model was initially a poor fit to the data (χ²(35) = 1167.95, CFI = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.30). In order to improve model fit, variables and residuals were allowed to covary based on the modification indices. Specifically, all the residual variables were allowed to covary, and the two interaction terms were allowed to covary. Parental social support, parental academic support, and emotional detachment were all allowed to covary. After each change to the model, the fit was checked, and changes to the model stopped when all modification indices dipped below 10. After making these adjustments, the model fit dramatically improved, χ²(17) = 63.41, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09. Next, the model was trimmed by testing the model fit repeatedly and removing the nonsignificant interaction term with the lowest regression coefficient each time until every remaining interaction was significant. The interaction terms for emotional detachment and parental social support predicting academic and personal-emotional adjustment were the only ones that remained in the model (see Appendix). The final interaction model was a good fit to the data, (χ2(13) = 45.534, CFI = .964, RMSEA = .085).

Multiple Group Analysis With Generational Status

Prior to conducting the multiple group analysis, the sample was split into two groups: first-generation and continuing-generation students. Multiple group analyses were then conducted separately for main effects and interaction models. To test for differences in path coefficients between first-generational and continuing generation students, chi-square difference tests were conducted. These involved first specifying a multigroup model with all regression paths freely estimated in the two groups, then specifying a multigroup model with all of the paths in the regression model constrained to equality across the two groups. A statistically significant increase in chi-square after constraining the path coefficients to equality would indicate that some paths varied statistically across the two groups, indicating some paths were moderated by generational status. If this test was significant, then a multiple group analysis was used in AMOS to determine if the coefficients differed for first and continuing generation students. Then, the critical ratio test was used to identify the specific paths that were significantly different based on the generational status. Chi-square difference tests were conducted both for the main effects model and for the interaction model.

For the main effects model, this chi-square difference test indicated that models did not differ significantly, $Δ$ χ²(7) = 10.21, p =.177. Main effects of parental support (social, academic) and student detachment on indicators of adjustment in college did not differ based on generational status.

The chi-square difference test for the interaction model indicated that there was a significant generational status difference in the strength of regression coefficients, $Δ$ χ²(13) = 48.377, p = .001. Structural paths were investigated using critical ratio tests with a 95% confidence level; Z score values less than −1.96 or greater than 1.96 indicated paths that differed based on generational status. Three structural paths significantly differed across groups. The regression paths comparing first-generation and continuing-generation students are shown in Table 3. The R squared values for first generation interaction model were .19 for academic adjustment, .14 for social adjustment, .05 for personal-emotional adjustment, and .10 for institutional attachment. The R squared values for continuing generation interaction model were .14 for academic adjustment, .08 for social adjustment, .25 for personal-emotional adjustment, and .05 for institutional attachment.

Table 3.

Contrast of First-Generation and Continuing Generation Regression Analyses Predicting College Adjustment from Parental Support, Emotional Detachment and Interaction Terms.

	First-generation students				Continuing-generation students
Predictor	B	β	SE	p	B	β	SE	p
Academic Adjustment
High School GPA	0.38	0.20	0.12	<.001	0.51	0.28	0.16	<.001
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	−0.09	−0.08	0.07	0.223	−0.16	−0.13	0.10	0.128
Parental Academic Support	0.26	0.16	0.14	0.071	−0.17	−0.09	0.24	0.489
Parental Social Support	0.36	0.21	0.16	0.023	0.33	0.18	0.26	0.204
Emotional Detachment	0.09	0.04	0.15	0.543	−0.22	−0.11	0.22	0.304
Parental Social Support × Emotional Detachment	−0.66	−0.23	0.14	<.001	0.15	0.05	0.21	0.474
Social Adjustment
High School GPA	0.28	0.12	0.15	0.065	0.02	0.01	0.19	0.917
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	0.01	0.00	0.09	0.960	0.06	0.05	0.12	0.608
Parental Academic Support	0.08	0.04	0.19	0.663	−0.09	−0.04	0.28	0.746
Parental Social Support	0.66	0.30	0.20	0.001	0.49	0.23	0.29	0.084
Emotional Detachment	−0.14	−0.05	0.20	0.466	−0.27	−0.12	0.26	0.302
Personal-Emotional Adjustment
High School GPA	0.24	0.09	0.18	0.172	0.60	0.22	0.23	0.008
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	−0.24	−0.14	0.11	0.030	−0.77	−0.42	0.15	<.001
Parental Academic Support	0.20	0.09	0.22	0.373	0.11	0.04	0.35	0.751
Parental Social Support	0.22	0.09	0.24	0.366	−0.30	−0.10	0.37	0.428
Emotional Detachment	0.25	0.08	0.23	0.282	−0.13	−0.04	0.31	0.684
Parental Social Support × Emotional Detachment	−0.25	−0.06	0.25	0.307	0.81	0.19	0.35	0.021
Institutional Attachment
High School GPA	0.96	0.31	0.19	<.001	0.37	0.13	0.27	0.167
Difficulty Managing Cost of College	0.05	0.03	0.12	0.642	0.01	0.00	0.18	0.968
Parental Academic Support	0.09	0.04	0.24	0.691	−0.09	−0.03	0.41	0.822
Parental Social Support	0.79	0.28	0.26	0.002	0.49	0.16	0.41	0.230
Emotional Detachment	0.74	0.21	0.25	0.003	0.70	0.21	0.37	0.058

Note. N = 348; Model fit (χ2(26) = 93.911, CFI = .931, RMSEA = .087).

First, the association between difficulty managing the cost and personal-emotional adjustment significantly differed, z = −2.87, p < .05, for first-generation, β = −.14, p = .03, and continuing generation students, β = −.42, p < .001. This indicated that difficulty managing the cost of college was more strongly associated with personal-emotional difficulties among first generation students.

Second, the association between the parental social support x emotional detachment interaction term and academic adjustment significantly differed based on generational status, z = 2.476, p < .05 and was only significant for first generation students (standardized regression coefficients β = −.23, p < .001 for first generation students, β = .05, p = .474 for continuing generation students).

Third, the association between the parental social support x emotional detachment interaction term and personal-emotional adjustment significantly differed across groups, z = 3.21, p < .05 and was only significant for continuing generation students (β = −.06, p = .307 for first generation students, β = .19, p = .021 continuing generation students).

Probing for Significant Interactions

In order to understand the meaning of the significant interaction effects, online utilities (http://quantpsy.org/interac t/mlr2.htm) were used to conduct regions of significance testing (Preacher et al., 2019).

For first-generation students, we probed the interaction term of parental social support and emotional detachment as predicting academic adjustment. The results of the Regions of Significance test for this interaction is displayed in Figure 1. Higher levels of parental social support were associated with higher academic adjustment for students who were moderately to extremely low on emotional detachment (0.05 and below on centered detachment variable, 51.5% of the sample). Higher levels of parental social support were associated with lower academic adjustment for students who were extremely high on emotional detachment (1.19 and above on centered detachment variable, 2% of the sample). This indicates that parental social support was helpful to students’ academic adjustment when they were moderately to highly attached to their parents, and hurtful when students were very detached from their parents.

Figure 1.

Regions of Significance Finding Probing the Interaction of Parental Support and Emotional Detachment on Academic Adjustment for First-Generation Students.

The second interaction that was probed was for continuing-generation students and was the interaction term for parental social support and emotional detachment as a predictor of personal-emotional adjustment. Figure 2 shows that for continuing generation students who were extremely low on emotional detachment (−1.75 and below on centered detachment variable, a score that was only theoretically possible for continuing-generation students but not observed in this sample), higher levels of parental social support were associated with lower personal-emotional adjustment. For continuing generation students who were extremely high on emotional detachment (2.11 and above on centered detachment variable, a score that was also only theoretically possible for continuing-generation students but not observed in this sample), higher levels of parental social support were associated with higher personal-emotional adjustment. Given that these patterns were not observed in the current sample for continuing generation students, we do not discuss them further.

Figure 2.

Regions of Significance Finding Probing the Interaction of Parental Social Support and Emotional Detachment on Personal-emotional Adjustment for Continuing-Generation Students.

Discussion

The current study examined parental support as a predictor of college adjustment and the moderating role of emotional detachment with respect to this association, as well as considering whether such associations varied for first-generation versus continuing-generation students. Regardless of generational status, higher levels of parental social support were associated with greater levels of academic adjustment, social adjustment, and institutional attachment, but parental academic support did not predict any indicators of adjustment to college. Higher levels of emotional detachment were associated with greater levels of institutional attachment. For first generation students, a significant interaction term indicated that higher levels of parental social support were associated with higher academic adjustment when students scored moderately to extremely low on emotional detachment. In contrast, higher levels of parental social support were associated with lower academic adjustment for students who were extremely high on emotional detachment.

Effects of Parental Support and Emotional Detachment on Adjustment in College

The main effects of parental support and emotional detachment in relation to indicators of adjustment to college did not differ for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Our first hypothesis was partially supported in that higher levels of social support were associated with three of our four indicators of positive adjustment to college; however, academic support was not associated with adjustment to college. Our findings are consistent with existing research that has reported parental social support being related to higher levels of academic self-efficacy (Nicpon et al., 2006), higher grade point average (Cutrona et al., 1994), and more positive friendship quality (Mounts et al., 2006). It was perhaps not surprising that social support from parents did not predict personal-emotional adjustment, as first year students tend to report more psychological adjustment problems than upper-class students (Lapsley et al., 1989). It may be that personal and emotional difficulties are normative during the first year of college, regardless of levels of social support from parents. Also consistent with our findings, other researchers have also found that parental academic support does not explain a significant proportion of variance in college adjustment (Katz & Somers, 2017). Academic support may require more physical presence, whereas social support is something that can be provided through technological communications even when children are living out of the parental home and attending college.

The second hypothesis was that higher levels of emotional detachment would predict lower levels of college adjustment. This hypothesis was not supported in that students in our sample who reported higher levels of emotional detachment actually had higher levels of institutional attachment. Perhaps students who are more emotionally autonomous from parents are comfortable emotionally committing to attending college, which allows them to form attachments to the institution itself and the people in it. It is also possible that students who are more emotionally autonomous feel less pressure in selecting a college based on parental preferences and attended one of their top personal preferences, leading to greater institutional commitment upon enrollment.

Emotional Detachment as a Moderator of Association Between Parental Support and College Adjustment

The interaction of parental support and emotional detachment in relation to indicators of adjustment in college was only significant for first generation students.

First-Generation Students

We hypothesized a stronger positive association between parental support and college adjustment when students were lower in emotional detachment, and this was supported for first-generation students. Our findings indicated that parental social support was helpful to first-generation students’ academic adjustment when they were somewhat less detached from (more connected to) their parents. Higher levels of parental social support were actually hurtful when students were very detached from their parents.

Parents of first-generation college students lack personal knowledge concerning college experiences and the college environment. Previous researchers have found that first-generation college students perceive lower levels of parental support than continuing-generation students (Sy et al., 2011). When students are closer to their parents (lower in detachment), they may find it easier to receive parental support and discuss the stressful experiences of transitioning to college. In such cases, lower levels of parental knowledge about college may matter less than the fact that parents are aware of their children’s concerns and trying to assist them in processing their emotions and coming up with possible solutions. When students are more emotionally detached from their parents, parents’ efforts to support students may be perceived by students as pressure rather than support, thus potentially creating extra stress for students and hindering students’ success.

Results of regions of significance testing indicated that associations between parental social support and academic adjustment among first-generation college students were particularly noteworthy among students scoring in the lowest 51.5% and the highest 5% on emotional detachment. It is important to remember that parental social support is still important and beneficial to college students (in terms of academic adjustment, social adjustment, and institutional attachment), regardless of generational status, as indicated by main effects for the full sample indicating such associations. However, social support has special meaning for a select group of first-generational students who are at the extremes in terms of their detachment from parents, over and above these overall benefits. Graduation rates are lower for first-generation students, and it is harder for them to succeed in college (Ishitani, 2003) in part because they have lower levels of confidence, and academic competence in particular, than continuing generation college students (Pratt et al., 2019). Many first-generation students enter college without understanding how the higher education system works and face potential financial and social challenges that hinder their success. However, parents of first-generation college students use social support during childhood to cultivate adaptive skills and self-confidence that will allow children to effectively cope during stressful or challenging situations as young adults (Cutrona et al., 1994). During the college years, such parental social support continues to act as a buffer from a stressful environment (de la Iglesia et al., 2014; Mackinnon, 2012), but is most beneficial when first generation students maintain close relationships with parents across the transition to post-secondary education. This additional information concerning the meaning of parental support for students in the highest and lowest ranges of emotional detachment provides important nuance that contextualizes the conditions under which parents’ social support for the college experience is most – and least – likely to benefit students.

Continuing-Generation Students

For continuing-generation students, probing of a statistically significant interaction term indicated that parental social support was helpful to personal-emotional adjustment when students were extremely high on detachment from parents, but hurtful when students were extremely low on detachment to parents. However, no students within our sample were observed in either of the extremes of emotional detachment. These findings may be statistically significant but might not reflect the levels of emotional detachment experienced by first year continuing generation college students. Based on Blos’ (1967) second individuation process of adolescence, college students are growing in independence. Levels of emotional individuation among continuing-generation students vary, but continuing-generation students might not perceive themselves to be extreme in terms of detachment (or attachment) to their parents. Continuing-generation students might approach the transition to college with more confidence than first-generation students, and their parents may promote independence as a result of their own experiences attending and completing college. Continuing-generation students may find it easier to transition to college than first-generation students due to preparation provided by parents before students attend college or because they know they can reach out to their parents for help. For these reasons, levels of emotional detachment among continuing generation students might not be extreme enough to moderate associations between parental support and personal-emotional adjustment despite the theoretical possibility of such moderation effects suggested in the Regions of Significance analysis.

Strengths and Limitations

This study contributes to the understanding of first-generation and continuing-generation students’ college adjustment by articulating the roles that parental support and student emotional detachment play in relation to such adjustment. However, this study did involve several limitations. The data collection method involved self-report questionnaires administered at one point in time. This restricts the ability to demonstrate causality. Parental support and emotional detachment can only be considered as associated with college adjustment and not predictive of it. When measuring parental support, parents’ reports and observational measures were not available, and only the students’ perceptions of their parents were examined. However, students’ perceptions of their parents are important to consider given that parenting has meaning predominantly based on how it is experienced by children. Students’ perceptions of their parents may be more meaningful than parenting data that is obtained from other sources. In addition, the sample was collected at a single four-year university with majority of the participants (90%) being female. This hinders the ability to generalize findings to male students, students attending two-year institutions, or students attending college in other regions of the United States or other countries. A strength of this project was that collecting a sample from this particular university resulted in a sample with more than half of participants (66%) being first-generation students. This allowed for a study that makes a strong contribution to the growing literature on the experiences of first-generation college students.

Implications

This research indicated that emotional detachment is important to consider when looking at the associations between college students’ adjustment and parental support during the first year of college, a time of growing independence and responsibility. Ideally, late adolescents continue to individuate from parents while maintaining a healthy emotional connection to them. Parental support was found to be helpful for students in terms of a range of types of adjustment to college, but this study showed that the nature of these associations depends in part on both students’ generational status and the extent to which they are emotionally detached from their parents. The findings from this study may be of use to parents and college administrators who wish to support student success in college. The most effective efforts to support academic success in college should recognize the importance of parental support, student emotional detachment, and student generational status. Future research should consider additional factors that may moderate the associations between parental support and college adjustment. Rather than simply assuming that more parental support is better for college adjustment, it is important to allow space to consider how the impact of support is contextualized by characteristics of individual students.

Appendix

Final Multiple Group Analysis Model after Fitting and Trimming.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Grace Y. Lee

Author Biographies

Grace Y. Lee is a PhD student in the Human Development and Family Studies department at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research interest broadly includes parent-child relationships during transition to adulthood. She is also interested in the bidirectional and longitudinal influence between parenting practices and student self-regulation in a higher education setting.

Anne C. Fletcher is a Professor in the department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Dr. Fletcher studies parenting and parent-child relationships across ages ranging from middle childhood through early adulthood, as well as physiological stress reactivity in early adolescence. Her research program involves qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

References

Aspinwall

L. G.

Taylor

S. E.

(1992). Modeling Cognitive Adaptation: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Impact of Individual Differences and Coping on College Adjustment and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 989.

Baker

R. W.

Siryk

(1986). Exploratory intervention with a scale measuring adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(1), 31–38.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Blos

(1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22(1), 162–186.

Blos

(1979). Adolescent passage. International Universities Press.

Chemers

M. M.

L. T.

Garcia

B. F.

(2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64.

Conley

C. S.

Kirsch

A. C.

Dickson

D. A.

Bryant

F. B.

(2014). Negotiating the transition to college: Developmental trajectories and gender differences in psychological functioning, cognitive-affective strategies, and social well-being. Emerging Adulthood, 2(3), 195–210.

Cutrona

C. E.

Cole

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Russell

D. W.

(1994). Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 369–378.

de la Iglesia

Stover

J. B.

Liporace

M. F.

(2014). Perceived social support and academic achievement in Argentinean college students. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(4), 637–649.

10.

Dennis

J. M.

Phinney

J. S.

Chuateco

L. I.

(2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236.

11.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. (1965). Higher Education Act of 1965. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/triohea.pdf

12.

Doane

L. D.

Gress-Smith

J. L.

Breitenstein

R. S.

(2015). Multi-method assessments of sleep over the transition to college and the associations with depression and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(2), 389–404.

13.

Drake

E. C.

Sladek

M. R.

Doane

L. D.

(2016). Daily cortisol activity, loneliness, and coping efficacy in late adolescence: A longitudinal study of the transition to college. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(4), 334–345.

14.

English

Davis

Wei

Gross

J. J.

(2017). Homesickness and adjustment across the first year of college: A longitudinal study. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 17(1), 1–5.

15.

Feldt

R. C.

Graham

Dew

(2011). Measuring adjustment to college: Construct validity of the student adaptation to college questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44(2), 92–104.

16.

Friedlander

L. J.

Reid

G. J.

Shupak

Cribbie

(2007). Social support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 259–274.

17.

Hackman

J. R.

Dysinger

W. S.

(1970). Commitment to college as a factor in student attrition. Sociology of Education, 43(3), 311–324.

18.

Hall

D. E.

McNallie

Custers

Timmermans

Wilson

S. R.

Van den Bulck

(2017). A cross-cultural examination of the mediating role of family support and parental advice quality on the relationship between family communication patterns and first-year college student adjustment in the United States and Belgium. Communication Research, 44(5), 638–667.

19.

Holahan

C. J.

Valentiner

D. P.

Moos

R. H.

(1994). Parental support and psychological adjustment during the transition to young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(2), 215–223.

20.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

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

21.

Ishitani

T. T.

(2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 433–449.

22.

Katz

Somers

C. L.

(2017). Individual and environmental predictors of college adjustment: Prevention and intervention. Current Psychology, 36(1), 56–65.

23.

Kegan

(1982). The evolving self. Harvard Press.

24.

Kenny

D. A.

McCoach

D. B.

(2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 333–351.

25.

Klein

M. B.

Pierce

J. D.

Jr , (2009). Parental care aids, but parental overprotection hinders, college adjustment. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 11(2), 167–181.

26.

Kolkhorst

Yazedjian

Toews

(2010). A longitudinal examination of parental attachment, college adjustment, and academic achievement. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 22(1), 9–25.

27.

Lamborn

S. D.

Groh

(2009). A four-part model of autonomy during emerging adulthood: Associations with adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 393–401.

28.

Lapsley

D. K.

Edgerton

(2002). Separation-individuation, adult attachment style, and college adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(4), 484–492.

29.

Lapsley

D. K.

Rice

K. G.

Shadid

G. E.

(1989). Psychological separation and adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(3), 286–294.

30.

Lee

Dickson

D. A.

Conley

C. S.

Holmbeck

G. N.

(2014). A closer look at self-esteem, perceived social support, and coping strategy: A prospective study of depressive symptomatology across the transition to college. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(6), 560–585.

31.

Lopez

F. G.

Campbell

V. L.

Watkins

C. E.

(1988). Family structure, psychological separation, and college adjustment: A canonical analysis and cross-validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(4), 402–409.

32.

Mackinnon

S. P.

(2012). Perceived social support and academic achievement: Cross-lagged panel and bivariate growth curve analyses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(4), 474–485.

33.

Mattanah

J. F.

Hancock

G. R.

Brand

B. L.

(2004). Parental attachment, separation-individuation, and college student adjustment: A structural equation analysis of mediational effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 213–225.

34.

Mattanah, J. F., Lopez, F. G., & Govern, J. M. (2011). The contributions of parental attachment bonds to college student development and adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 565–596.

35.

McFarland

Hussar

de Brey

Snyder

Wang

Wilkinson-Flicker

Gebrekristos

Zhang

Rathbun

Barmer

Bullock Mann

Hinz

(2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). U.S. Department of education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144

36.

Mounts

N. S.

(2004). Contributions of parenting and campus climate to freshmen adjustment in a multiethnic sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(4), 468–491.

37.

Mounts

N. S.

Valentiner

D. P.

Anderson

K. L.

Boswell

M. K.

(2006). Shyness, sociability, and parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 68–77.

38.

Nicpon

M. F.

Huser

Blanks

E. H.

Sollenberger

Befort

Kurpius

S. E. R.

(2006). The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen's academic performance and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(3), 345–358.

39.

Pittman

L. D.

Richmond

(2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343–362.

40.

Pratt

I. S.

Harwood

H. B.

Cavazos

J. T.

Ditzfeld

C. P.

(2019). Should I stay or should I go? Retention in first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(1), 105–118.

41.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2019). Simple intercepts, simple slopes, and region of significance in MLR 2-way interaction. http://quantpsy.org/interact/mlr2.htm

42.

Ryan

R. M.

Lynch

J. H.

(1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60(2), 340–356.

43.

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.

44.

Schnuck

Handal

P. J.

(2011). Adjustment of college freshmen as predicted by both perceived parenting style and the five-factor model of personality. Psychology, 2(4), 275–282.

45.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2016). Turning point for a turning point. Emerging Adulthood, 4(5), 307–317.

46.

Shadach

Ganor-Miller

(2013). The role of perceived parental over-involvement in student test anxiety. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 585–596.

47.

Steiger

J. H.

(2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.

48.

Steinberg

Silverberg

S. B.

(1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57(4), 841–851.

49.

S. R.

Fong

Carter

Boehme

Alpert

(2011). Parent support and stress among first-generation and continuing-generation female students during the transition to college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 13(3), 383–398.

50.

Terry

M. L.

Leary

M. R.

Mehta

(2013). Self-compassion as a buffer against homesickness, depression, and dissatisfaction in the transition to college. Self and Identity, 12(3), 278–290.

51.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

52.

Woosley

S. A.

(2003). How important are the first few weeks of college? The long-term effects of initial college experiences. College Student Journal, 37(2), 201–208.

53.

Yazedjian

Purswell

Sevin

Toews

(2007). Adjusting to the first year of college: Students’ perceptions of the importance of parental, peer, and institutional support. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(2), 29–46.