The Career-Related Parental Involvement Scale: Development and Validation Among College Senior Emerging Adults in India and the U.S.

Abstract

The senior year in college is a pivotal time for emerging adults as they plan and make career decisions for their post-college lives. During this challenging transition, parents may be a safeguard; however, little research identifies how parents are involved in their emerging adult’s career development. The present study examined career-related parental involvement (CRPI; for mothers and fathers separately) from the perspective of graduating seniors in India and the US to develop and validate a new CRPI scale. Participants (India_n = 1544; US_n = 247) completed the CRPI scale and other related measures. Findings suggest that the 20-item CRPI scale represents three dimensions of career involvement across cultures and parents: Support, Interference, and Disengagement. Results supported the scale’s convergent and concurrent validity (e.g., negative association between disengagement and parent-emerging adult relationships). Notable role differences between parents were observed across cultures. Implications include the use of this scale across diverse cultures.

Keywords

Parental involvement career college seniors emerging adults India

Parenting of emerging adults is qualitatively and developmentally different from parenting of young children and adolescents (Aquilino, 2006; Lowe & Dotterer, 2017). Because emerging adults often live outside their family’s home, manage their day-to-day activities, and assume more autonomy as they prepare for adult roles, parents typically transition from a leading to a supporting role so that their children can have more independence in decision-making. This prompts a change in the quality and quantity of parental involvement (PI), recently redefined as multidimensional strategies parents employ to facilitate emerging adults’ academic, developmental, and well-being outcomes (Lowe & Dotterer, 2017). While this new definition of PI is constructive and useful, absent are strategies for the domain of work, which is a focal part of identity development during emerging adulthood that sets the stage for career success in adulthood (Arnett, 2015; Schwartz et al., 2013). As such, research is warranted to characterize how parents are involved in their emerging adult’s career development, particularly across cultures as parenting is culturally situated (Bornstein, 2012).

The overarching purpose of the study was to examine the characteristics of career-related PI (CRPI) among college senior emerging adults in India and the U.S. who are facing the transition out of college. We chose to examine CRPI amongst college-attending emerging adults versus non-college attending emerging adults as the former are more likely to be exploring their career identity via the opportunities afforded to them at college, such as extracurricular activities, internships, and coursework. Relatedly, this structural difference in college attendance might also vary how parents are involved in emerging adults’ career development. As such, in the present study we first examined the dimensionality of CRPI by assessing the factor structure of items developed from an existing measure (Dietrich & Kracke, 2009) and a pilot qualitative study on the parents’ involvement in the career planning of Indian and American college seniors (see Alexander & Chauhan, 2020 for findings on the Indian sample). Second, given that most work on parenting during emerging adulthood lacks assessing differences between mothers and fathers (e.g., Fingerman et al., 2012), we explored the extent to which college seniors’ report of their mothers’ and fathers’ career-related PI differed both within and across cultures. Third, we validated our new CRPI scale by testing its association with existing measures on parents’ career-related behaviors and the quality of the parent-emerging adult relationship, as prior theory and research indicate that the emotional quality of the relationship influences how parenting strategies are perceived by children (Darling & Stenberg, 1993).

Career Development During Emerging Adulthood

Emerging adulthood (ages 18–29) entails exploring life choices before assuming adult-related responsibilities (Arnett, 2000, 2015). One key aspect of these explorations is to prepare and plan for stable and meaningful work by clarifying their career interests and abilities through working part-time/short-term, attending interviews, or doing internships (Arnett, 2015). Such career explorations can often be long, difficult, and uncertain (Hunter et al., 2012), particularly in the senior year of college when the entry to work is imminent. The final year of college is a culmination of the tertiary educational experience whereby firmer commitments to one’s career path are likely to be made as students anticipate and prepare for their upcoming transition out of college (Montgomery & Côté, 2003). However, difficulties abound with completing coursework successfully amidst searching for jobs as seniors must meet employer expectations of having both soft (e.g., good communication) and technical skills (Selingo, 2016). Furthermore, macro-contextual challenges related to the socio-political climate and labor market can also influence, complicate, and strain college seniors’ career development (Marshall & Butler, 2016). To meet these challenges and manage stress, seniors can benefit from reflecting on their undergraduate educational experiences (e.g., discussions with peers, academic advisor), which informs next steps towards attaining a post-college career (e.g., developing a resume; Hunter et al., 2012).

Continued research on the senior year experience is needed to not only refine previous work on post-college career transitions (e.g., Marshall & Butler, 2016; Murphy et al., 2010), but to also identify helpful resources for seniors as they make high-stakes educational and career decisions (Hunter et al., 2012). Importantly, because the post-college transition is often successfully navigated with the help of significant others (Marshall & Butler, 2016), scholarship on how parents can help seniors manage the uncertainty and stress of career decisions, goals, and plans is warranted.

Career-Related Parental Involvement (CRPI)

Definitions of PI in childhood and adolescence have highlighted implicit (e.g., fostering academic motivation) and explicit means (e.g., attending parent–teacher meetings) by which parents socialize educational and occupational values and academic achievement to maximize future career success (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Based on older adolescents, Dietrich and Kracke (2009) were the first scholars to define parents’ career-related behaviors in terms of three dimensions: (a) support (offering guidance when children need encouragement to explore various career possibilities), (b) interference (hindering children from independently developing and executing career plans), and (c) lack of engagement (refusing or lacking ability to be involved in children’s career planning).

Among college-going emerging adults, general definitions of PI have been proposed. Wartman and Savage (2008) defined PI as parents’ interest in students’ college lives as indicated through appropriate amounts of support and encouragement giving. Most recently, Lowe and Dotterer (2017) defined PI as comprising parental support-giving (providing different types of support ranging from emotional to practical), parent–student contact (frequency of communication via different modes ranging from texting to in-person), and parental academic engagement (inquiring about academic learning, grades, and plans). While these definitions highlight aspects of PI that are developmentally appropriate for emerging adults in college, they do not include parents’ strategies for supporting career pursuits. Particularly, less is known about how mothers and fathers may differentially engage in the career development of emerging adults.

Maternal and Paternal Involvement

In the traditional mother–father family form, some mothers and some fathers play different roles and utilize different socialization strategies across the lifespan. For children and adolescents, fathers typically provide instrumental assistance in the form of finances and disciplining, and mothers typically provide emotional support in the form of encouragement and caregiving (e.g., Brooks, 2004; Finley et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2011; Phares et al., 2009; Yaffee, 2020). In emerging adulthood, similar role differences have been found wherein some mothers are reported as providing empathy and guidance, and some fathers as providing financial support and to be more disciplinarian (e.g., verbal aggressiveness) (Finley & Schwartz, 2004; Nelson et al., 2011; Oliveira et al., 2020). Regarding career-related PI, differences between mothers’ and fathers’ support have been documented in shaping adolescent’s career roles and expectations, with mothers typically providing affective support (e.g., spending time) and fathers typically providing instrumental support (e.g., monetary help; Finley et al., 2008; Phares et al., 2009). Regarding the limited research on career-related PI among emerging adults, mothers are generally reported to play a critical role in instilling confidence in their daughters’ abilities to pursue their career aspirations (Li & Kerpelman, 2007).

Altogether, the present study adopted and integrated the conceptualizations by Dietrich and Kracke (2009) and Lowe and Dotterer (2017) to define mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in career development of emerging adults as a range of behavioral, cognitive, and affective strategies that facilitate college students’ career preparation and planning. It is likely that parents’ strategies for career-related involvement with their emerging adults reflect three dimensions: support, interference, and lack of engagement. Literature based on children and adolescents defines support in terms of four dimensions—instrumental assistance (e.g., help with completing classwork), career modeling (e.g., parents sharing their work experiences), verbal encouragement (e.g., motivate to earn good grades), and emotional support (e.g., available to talk when their offspring is worried about career; Gordon & Steele, 2015). Interference is defined as parents placing constrains on the exploratory behavior of older adolescents by controlling their career preparation, goal engagement, and choices (Dietrich & Kracke, 2009). While some parents provide support and some impose their opinions, there are other parents who are inadequately involved or not interested in their children’s career development. Termed as lack of engagement, such parents provide minimal structure, guidelines and feedback, and place fewer expectations on their children (Farkas & Grolnick, 2010). Two major factors are likely to influence these perceived dimensions of involvement: a) the emotional quality of the parent-emerging adult relationship (Darling & Stenberg, 1993), and b) cultural context, whereby societal expectations and values define the particular roles and behaviors of mothers, fathers, and emerging adults in the family ecosystem (Bornstein, 2012; Miller et al., 2017). Given that the senior year is so poignant, the present study examined seniors’ perspectives of CRPI and how it might vary across parent–child relationship quality and cultural context, specifically in predominantly individualistic and collectivistic cultures.

Career-Related Parental Involvement and Culture

CRPI is situated in culture. The distinctive patterns of beliefs and practices that are shared by a group of people influence how and to what degree parents are engaged in their children’s career planning and decision-making (Bornstein, 2012). To illustrate the link between culture and PI, an examination of the existing measurement of parental career-related behaviors by Dietrich and Kracke (2009) is necessary. The 15-item parental career-related behavior scale (PCB) is comprised of three subscales: (a) support, (b) interference, and (c) lack of engagement. This was developed from reports of European older adolescents and has been administered to Chinese undergraduates living in China (Guan et al., 2015). Findings across these studies reflect the importance of attending to cultural context. Specifically, Chinese participants reported higher parental support (M = 5.18 vs. Europeans’ M = 3.01), interference (M = 3.48 vs. Europeans’ M = 1.82), and lack of engagement (M = 2.85 vs. Europeans’ M = 1.62). At face value, results suggest Chinese emerging adults perceive their parents as more supportive, highly interfering, and less engaged in their career preparation and planning. However, these results and their inferences could be inaccurate as the PCB scale was administered without modifications to match the respective samples (cultural). For instance, it is likely that the PCB items on apprenticeship, which is based on the experiences of European adolescents (e.g., “My parents talk to me about apprenticeship opportunities in various careers”), is less relevant in the Chinese context where there is no mandatory apprenticeship before taking up full-time work, especially right after an undergraduate degree. It is, therefore, important to rephrase Eurocentric items to increase the PCB’s suitability for capturing parenting in culturally diverse samples and to examine the external validity of this revised measurement. As such, the present study developed a modified version of the PCB scale to examine career-related PI among college seniors in two different cultures, India and the U.S. These two cultures were chosen to maximize the opportunity to assess how career-related PI is situated in very different cultural contexts, given that India is a predominantly collectivistic culture where family expectations and gender-based role expectations largely guide individual’s career plans and behaviors (Verma & Saraswathi, 2002) and the U.S. is a predominantly individualistic culture where personal choice and autonomous decision-making are largely emphasized.

India: Expectations for Emerging Adults, Parents, and the Career Transition

Interdependence and group conformity are emphasized by Indian families as part of dharma (duty) and interlinked with definitions of the self. Parents also encourage children to enter gainful professions (e.g., medicine, engineering) that expand family and financial status as well as allow mobility in class (caste) hierarchies (Wang et al., 2012; Verma & Saraswathi, 2002). As a result, responsibility towards family was rated as the most important factor in the life making choices of urban emerging adults in India (Mitra & Arnett, 2019). As protégés of their parents, Indian emerging adults enter colleges and workplaces with these culturally shaped ideas and values, creating institutionalized norms and structures favoring relatedness and conformity. However, these norms are changing in today’s urban Indian society where patterns of interdependence often coexist with individual propensities towards autonomy and independence (Bansal, 2013; Sinha & Tripathi, 2003). These contrasting tendencies—individualistic and collectivistic values—are reflected in parents encouraging their daughters to receive higher education and enter lucrative jobs that allow for family support, enhance prospects of finding a suitable partner, and promote financial stability in case her marriage fails. At the same time, females are also expected to adhere to familial roles and responsibilities (Bansal, 2013). This balancing of autonomy with relatedness—sometimes at odds—has not been adequately reflected in the items of existing CRPI scales.

Moreover, gaining decent work has become a challenge for young in India, a country that is home to the largest population of 15–29-year-old in the world (Ghosh, 2020; International Labor Organization, 2018; Mitra & Verick, 2013). While growing enrollment in post-secondary education has resulted in more educated young, lack of relevant job opportunities and low-quality educational training have put youth entering the labor market in jeopardy (Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, 2015). Unemployment and underemployment are more rampant among the educated than the uneducated in urban areas and among women more than men (ILO, 2018). Such a situation is likely to postpone the transition out of college into one’s preferred choice of career.

America: Expectations for Emerging Adults, Parents, and the Career Transition

Individuality, self-assertion, and establishing personal independence are increasingly pursued to become an adult. For a majority of Americans, autonomy from parents is seen as a required step towards financial, emotional, and social independence (Arnett, 2015). In turn, as college students become graduates, most parents increasingly view their children as adults, as individuals with the ability to make independent decisions. Parents are expected to tolerate the normal separation from their emerging adult children that comes with autonomy giving. As the situation demands, parents play the role of a listener, peer, friend, and at other times as a coach and cheerleader (Goldsmith, 2018). Furthermore, emerging adults often continue to rely on parental support in many ways, in college and beyond (Arnett, 2015). This has been observed in the choice of residence for emerging adults. For the first time, 51% of emerging adults are living with parents due to economic (such as high college tuition, student-loan debts, and lack of affordable housing) and social factors (such as postponement of marriage) (Fry et al., 2020; Hess, 2019). Even among graduating college seniors, a TD Ameritrade survey has found 50% of them indicating plans to live in parents’ home due to financial reasons (e.g., high student-loan debts; Friedman, 2019). Furthermore, substantial increase in the frequency of contact between parents and emerging adults staying outside of parents’ home has been observed. In the national Clark Polls with emerging adults (Arnett & Schwab, 2012) and parents (Arnett & Schwab, 2013), 55% of 18–29-year olds and 56% of parents reported that they were in contact with each other “every day or almost every day.” Similarities in the reported level of contact indicate the continued connection between emerging adults on their parents. It is likely that they consider each other as their confidants and engage in advice seeking and giving. Compared to the adolescent years, therefore, the parent-emerging adult relationship may be undergoing changes from conflicts to companionship (Arnett, 2015).

Present Study and Hypotheses

The overarching purpose of the present study was to examine the characteristics of career-related PI (CRPI) reported by college seniors in India and the U.S. who are facing the transition out of college. In the American context, we hypothesized the emergence of three dimensions in career-related parental involvement, namely, parental support, interference, and disengagement. In the Indian context, we hypothesized a two-dimensional structure of career-related PI—support and lack of engagement—in which the support dimension would include the Eurocentric-dimensions of support and interference. Our reasoning for hypothesizing the combination of support and interference exclusively for Indian participants is found in the items for interference. For instance, while the item “Would talk me out of a career goal he/she does not like” may be interpreted as an interfering parental behavior in the U.S., it may not be interpreted as interfering in India where family opinions are largely considered in individual decision-making. Thus, this item, and others like it, may be considered as positive parental behavior in India. Further, considering the combined presence of individualizing and collectivizing tendencies among young Indians (Bansal, 2013; Sinha & Tripathi, 2003), it is possible that items reflecting autonomy and interdependence would be equally acknowledged.

Second, we explored the extent to which college seniors’ reports of their mothers’ and fathers’ CRPI differed. Based on research on adolescents and emerging adults (Finley et al., 2008; Phares et al., 2009), we hypothesized that seniors would report their mothers as largely providing emotional support (e.g., encouragement to pursue career interests) and fathers as largely providing instrumental support (e.g., supplying career-related materials) for career development.

Third, to test concurrent validity, we validated the new CRPI scale by testing its association with existing measures on parents’ career-related behaviors (PCB, Dietrich & Kracke, 2009) and expected moderate associations. Lastly, to test convergent validity, we explored links between CRPI and parent-emerging adult relationship quality (Darling & Stenberg, 1993) to assess if the emotional quality of the relationship was associated with perceptions of CRPI in India and the U.S. Moderate associations between CRPI and parent-emerging adult relationship were also hypothesized.

Method

Participants

Table 1 shows Asian Indian and American demographic characteristics for the present study. Asian Indian participants were recruited from six colleges and universities located in three states in South India, specifically Tamil Nadu (n_institution = 4), Kerala (n_institution = 1), and Karnataka (n_institution = 1), which represented liberal arts (n = 3), engineering (n = 2), and commerce disciplines (n = 1). Reports from 1544 college seniors (M_age = 20.12, SD = .97, Range = 12, 59% of female) were used (data from 44 participants was deleted due to a response rate of 75% and below on the variables of interest; the final n = 1544).

Table 1.

Basic Demographic Characteristics of Indian (n = 1544) and American (n = 247) Samples.

Demographic Variable	Indian Sample (Total n = 1544)	American Sample (Total n = 247)
Gender-n (%)	n = 1358	n = 247
Female	862 (59)	173 (70)
Male	599 (41)	74 (30)
Age (years)-M (SD)	n = 1359 20.12 (.97)	n = 246 22.10 (1.85)
Ethnicity-f (%) (for American sample only)		n = 246
Caucasian		184 (69.4)
African American		27 (11.4)
Latin		15 (7)
Asian American		18 (8.1)
Native American		2 (1.1)
Previous work Experience-f (%)	n = 1506	n = 305
Have done paid work for 3 months or more	101 (6.5)	205 (67.2)
Have done unpaid internships for 3 months or more	99 (6.4)	17 (5.6)
Have done volunteering for 3 months or more	47 (3.0)	8 (2.6)
No such work experience	1023 (66.3)	12 (3.9)
Living Situation-f (%)	n = 1271	n = 247
With parents	833 (57)	78 (31.6)
Not with parents	628 (43)	169 (68.5)
Mothers’ educational Status-f (%)	n = 1343	n = 247
Less than a high school degree	209 (15.6)	9 (3.6)
High school degree	289 (21.5)	38 (15.4)
Some college or vocational school	122 (9.1)	65 (26.3)
Undergraduate degree	480 (35.7)	85 (34.4)
Advanced degree (e.g., M.A.)	243 (18.1)	50 (20.2)
Fathers’ educational Status-f (%)	n = 1265	n = 246
Less than a high school degree	221 (17.8)	16 (6.5)
High school degree	289 (22.8)	59 (24)
Some college or vocational school	126 (10.0)	49 (19.9)
Undergraduate degree	393 (31.1)	64 (26)
Advanced degree (e.g., M.A.)	236 (18.7)	58 (23.6)
Parents’ Marital Status-f (%)	n = 1329	n = 247
Married	1292 (97.2)	174 (70.4)
Separated/divorced	21 (1.6)	46 (18.6)
Never married	5 (.4)	13 (5.3)
Other	11 (.8)	14 (5.7)
Parents’ financial assistance (college education)-M (SD)	n = 73585.24 (28.21)	n = 23845.66 (39.22)
Parents’ financial assistance (living expenses)-f (%)	n = 1483	n = 239
Self	24 (1.6)	54 (22.6)
Parents	1205 (81.3)	74 (31.0)
Combination of self and parents	40 (2.7)	79 (33.1)
Loans	8 (.5)	21 (8.8)
Other	6 (.4)	11 (4.6)

American participants enrolled in 4-year Bachelor degree programs were recruited nationwide via: (a) Facebook, where the study information was posted on senior class group pages, and (b) Qualtrics, an experience management company (https://www.qualtrics.com/) that distributed the survey. Reports from 247 college seniors (M_age = 22.10 years, SD = 1.85, Range = 10, 70% female; 64% Caucasian) were used (data from 58 participants was deleted due to a response rate of 75% and below on the variables of interest; the final n = 247). Of the 247 American participants, seven were recruited from Facebook groups and 240 were recruited from Qualtrics.

Procedure

For Indian participants, the first author obtained permission from the head and teaching staff at each institution to visit and recruit seniors in-person during regularly scheduled classes. During recruitment, the aims of the present study were first discussed along with explaining participation was voluntary and confidential. Interested students were offered the paper-and-pencil or online survey (i.e., URL written down on the classroom blackboard) and consent was obtained prior to the start of the survey across both modalities—survey completion occurred immediately after recruitment, took approximately 45 min, and the first author remained in the classroom to answer questions. Upon completing the survey, participants voluntarily enrolled in a raffle to win an Amazon gift card worth INR1000 (approx. $14.43). A total of 869 participants entered the raffle, of which 20 winners were selected and sent e-gift cards.

For American participants, a recruitment flyer was posted in several Facebook groups of senior-year class of 2019 from colleges/universities across the U.S. The first author also collaborated with Qualtrics to recruit participants nationwide via traditional opt-in recruitment where individuals voluntarily joined a market research panel through website registration. Qualtrics used a combination of pre-target screening (i.e., pre-profiled demographic, behavioral, and geographic information gathered by Qualtrics about the panelists) and in-survey screening (study criteria, e.g., enrolled in a 4-year bachelor’s degree) to recruit the target audience. Consent was obtained prior to the start of the online survey, and compensation occurred via two procedures: a) Facebook participants had the opportunity to enter a raffle to win a $20 Amazon gift card (10 individuals entered; one winner was selected and sent the e-gift card), and b) Qualtrics participants received non-financial incentives as determined by the company (e.g., cash, gift cards).

Scale Development of Career-Related Parental Involvement

A mixed-methods approach was used to create the initial 40-items. First, a pilot, qualitative study was conducted with college seniors from India (n = 10) and the U.S. (n = 11). One-hour semi-structured interviews were conducted with American and Indian seniors. Questions focused on themes related to PI and career development and decision-making. Across participants, similarities in descriptions of PI were identified and categorized (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to form 10 items for the CRPI scale. These items represented parenting behaviors that facilitated individual growth (e.g., “Connects me with his/her contacts to seek help with my career goal”), emphasized the importance of valuing family expectations (e.g., “Is willing to support me financially if I choose a career goal that he/she approves”), and highlighted parent’s inability to sufficiently engage in career decisions (e.g., “Does not give me career advice when I am not sure about how to achieve my career goal”). Second, scales of pre-existing career-related PI measurements were examined, including the National Educational Longitudinal Study - Parent questionnaires (Catsambis, 2001), Family Influence scale (Fouad et al., 2016), Parent Career Behavior Checklist (Keller & Whiston, 2008), and a scale measuring over-controlling parenting, Helicopter Parenting scale (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012). 15 items were chosen from these scales, as they were similar in content across measures and relevant to emerging adulthood (e.g., “My parents have given me written material about specific careers,” Keller & Whiston, 2008; “My family’s career expectations for me are based on my gender,” Fouad et al., 2016). Third, because findings from the pilot study revealed participants reported parents provided emotional and functional support, which are key aspects of PI (Lowe & Dotterer, 2017) and align with Dietrich and Kracke’s (2009) PCB scale, the 15-items from PCB was also incorporated into the CRPI. However, to better suit the experiences of Indian and American college seniors, PCB items were modified. For example, to improve the comprehensibility of items across cultures, references to “apprenticeship” were changed to “internship/short term work” and references to “vocation” were changed to “career” (e.g., “Does not care about my career [vocational] preparation”). Other changes were also made to improve sentence structure; for example, “My parents try to put through their ideas of my future vocation” was revised to “Tries to impose his/her ideas on my future career goal.”

In summary, the initial CRPI scale had 40 items, composed of 10 from the pilot study, 15 from pre-existing measures, and 15 from the PCB scale. A team of four psychology professors and three doctoral students reviewed the initial items for comprehensibility and relevance to emerging adulthood. 10 items were dropped given the team’s feedback that they were irrelevant or repetitive (e.g., “My parents interfere too much with my vocational preparation,” which was from the PCB scale).

The final CRPI scale had 30 items that were the same for mothers and fathers. The stem for all items was “When I think about my [Parent 1/2]’s involvement in my career, I feel that my [Parent 1/2…].” Mother and father were indicated as Parent 1 or Parent 2, or vice versa. Example items (1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much) included “Will try to support me financially if I experience difficulty in achieving my career goal” and “Expects me to pursue career goals that do not reflect poorly on our family.” Prior to completing the CRPI, two questions were posed to prompt thoughts about one’s career (i.e., “What is your long-term career goal at this point?” and “What types of efforts/activities are you currently engaging in to help you achieve this long-term career goal?”).

Measures

Career-Related Parental Involvement

The CRPI’s 30-item scale assessed mothers’ and fathers’ career involvement (1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much). Negatively worded items were reverse scored.

Parental Career-Related Behaviors

(Dietrich & Kracke, 2009). Because the 15-item PCB scale measures adolescents’ perceptions of parents’ career involvement, it served to assess concurrent validity of the CRPI scale. Consistent with previous administration of the PCB, participants responded to the original 15-items (i.e., retaining the terms “apprenticeship” and “vocation”) considering their mothers and fathers together. The three dimensions of PCB were assessed on a 4-point scale (1 = Does not apply to 4 = Fully applies), including support (e.g., “my parents talk to me about my vocational interests and abilities”), interference (e.g., “my parents interfere too much with my vocational preparation”), and lack of engagement (e.g., “my parents don’t care about my vocational preparation”). Aligning with previous literature (Dietrich & Kracke, 2009), Cronbach’s alphas were adequate for Indians (support α = .82; interference α = .82; lack of engagement α = .79) and Americans (support α = .87; interference α = .85; lack of engagement α = .79).

Emotional Quality of Parent-Emerging Adult Relationship

(Blyth et al., 1982). This 8-item scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very much) measured emerging adults’ perceived closeness and intimacy in their relationships with mothers and fathers separately (e.g., “How much does he/she understand what you’re really like?” As relationship quality influences how parenting is perceived (Darling & Stenberg, 1993), this scale served to assess convergent validity of the CRPI scale. Cronbach’s alpha for mothers (Indian α = .94; American α = .92) and fathers (Indian α = .96; American α = .93) were adequate.

Data Analytic Plan

Prior to factor analysis, descriptive statistics and inter-item correlations for all scales were examined for the Indian (n = 1544) and American samples (n = 247). Results indicated all items were interval data and normally distributed.

Next, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on 50% of the total sample selected randomly from India and the U.S. in IBM SPSS 25. Four EFAs were conducted: Indian mothers, Indian fathers, American mothers, and American fathers. First, data were assessed for suitability for factor analysis. Across the four samples, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .86 and greater and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (Indian_mothers: χ² = 8920.78, p < .001; Indian_fathers: χ² = 9025.99, p < .001; American_mothers: χ² = 2409.28, p < .001; American_fathers: χ² = 2789.87, p < .001), suggesting the data were appropriate for factor analysis. Then, EFA with principal axis factoring extraction and oblimin rotation was conducted across the four samples. These methods were chosen because principle axis extraction is best suited for estimating interrelationships between items, and oblimin rotation is used when underlying factors are likely to correlate but remain distinct. Factor retention was determined by eigenvalues, scree plots, and the presence of three or more items per factor (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995). Items were retained on a factor if the loading was ≥.60 and loaded onto the second highest factor ≤.30 (.6/.3 rule; Matsunaga, 2010; Walker & McKinney, 2019).

The four EFA solutions were tested for goodness of fit by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remaining 50% of the data from India and the U.S. The following fit indices were obtained via RStudio Version 1.1.463 and utilized to assess the factor structure’s quality of fit: comparative fit index (CFI ≥.90), root-mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA ≤.08), standardized root-mean squared residual (SRMR ≤.08), and chi-square statistic (χ²; Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005; Meyers et al., 2013). CFA is a more stringent and accurate test than EFA, and offers changes to the EFA solution to improve quality (Walker & McKinney, 2019). As such, the resulting four CFA solutions were modified by removing items that did not fulfil the .6/.3 rule (Matsunaga, 2010; Walker & McKinney, 2019) or did not load across both Indian and American samples.

The final CFA models were tested for measurement invariance across cultures for each parent (i.e., Indian and American mothers/fathers). Invariance testing was carried out by conducting multiple group analysis (MGA) and the following cutoffs were used: ΔCFA <.02, ΔRMSEA <.015, and ΔSRMR <.03. Configural (how well does the overall factor structure fit for all groups), metric (presence of similar factor loadings of items across groups to make comparisons of correlations and path coefficients), and scalar invariance (equivalence of item intercepts across groups to make mean comparisons) were tested.

Results

Part 1: EFA and CFA Results for the CRPI scale

Indian Sample

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Performed on 50% of the sample (mothers n = 836; fathers n = 783), a 5-factor solution was identified based on eigenvalues greater than 1.00, accounting for 99% and 99.93% of the common variance for CRPI in mothers and in fathers, respectively. Because the fifth factor was represented by two items across results for mothers and fathers, the EFA was re-run specifying a four-factor solution. The 4-factor solution was also untenable (i.e., fourth factor had two items). A 3-factor solution was specified and deemed suitable (i.e., eigenvalues >1.0, each factor was represented by at least 3 items; Table 3). Factor 1, “Support,” explained most of the common variance in items for maternal and paternal CRPI, followed by “Interference” (Factor 2) and “Disengagement” (Factor 3). The same 10-items were eliminated from the mother and father scales based on the .6/.3 rule and presence of redundant items (see Table 2). The remaining 20-items were utilized for CFA.

Table 2.

Deleted Items Before and After Conducting CFA for Indian and American Samples.

Item	Items Deleted Before CFA	Items Deleted After CFA
1. Tells me what I should or should not do in my career preparation	Indian	American
2. Compares my career goal with those of other people around my age	Indian	American
3. Gives me written and/or online materials about careers he/she wants me to pursue	Indian	American
4. Is willing to support me financially if I choose a career goal that he/she approves	Indian & American
5. Is available to talk when I am stressed about my career goal	Indian & American
6. Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she knows too little about different careers	Indian	American
7. Does not give me written and/or online materials about different internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal	Indian & American
8. Will try to support me financially if I experience difficulty in achieving my career goal	Indian & American
9. Has career advice for me that is based on my gender	Indian & American
10. Tries to push me in a certain direction regarding my future career goal	Indian	American

Note. These items were deleted to abide by the .6/.3 rule (e.g., “Is available to talk when I am stressed about my career goal”) and to reduce the presence of highly redundant items (e.g., “Does not give me written and/or online materials about different internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal” was deleted as it represented the existing item “Gives me written and/or online materials about different internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal.”).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The remaining 50% of the sample was utilized for CFA (mothers n = 708, fathers n = 761). Across samples, a model with one second-order latent factor (mothers’/fathers’ career involvement) and three first-order latent factors (support, interference, and disengagement) was identified, each specified by the items that reflect the respective construct (Table 3). The 20-item model had an acceptable fit for mothers (χ² (167) = 793.71, p < .001; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .05; CFI = .89) and fathers (χ² (167) = 738.13, p < .001; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .05; CFI = .90). The three first-order latent factors included support (8 items; mother: α = .89, father α = .90), interference (4 items; mother α = .70, father α = .70), and disengagement (8 items; mother α = .87; father α = .86). Although the chi-square statistics indicated a lack of model fit, because this statistic is overly sensitive when applied to large samples (Kline, 2005), we prioritized the CFA goodness of fit measures to determine model quality. As such, given the RMSEA, SRMR, and the CFI were within the cutoff ranges (see Table 5; except for mothers’ involvement which had marginal adequate fit), we deemed both models to be an acceptable representation of the data (e.g., Kline, 2005).

Table 3.

Indian EFA and CFA Results for CRPI Factors for Mothers (n = 708) and Fathers (n = 680).

		Factors
Item #	Item	Support	Interference	Disengagement
5	Talks with me about internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal	.74 (.78)	.04 (.00)	.03 (.03)
1	Talks with me about career interests and abilities	.69 (.74)	.05 (.03)	−.06 (−.09)
18	Connects me with his/her contacts to seek help with my career goal	.72 (.64)	.02 (−.01)	.06 (.02)
3	Supports me in getting an internship/short-term work	.70 (.70)	−.01 (−.06)	.03 (.05)
19	Gives me advice when I am not sure about how to achieve my career goal	.71 (.73)	.01 (.02)	−.04 (−.02)
2	Encourages me to seek information about careers I am interested in	.66 (.79)	−.09 (−.11)	−.10 (−.03)
17	Gives me written and/or online materials about different internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal	.67 (.68)	.05 (.03)	.09 (.07)
4	Gives advice on the choice of careers available to me	.63 (.70)	.23 (.11)	−.12 (−.07)
8	Tries to impose his/her ideas on my future career goal	−.03 (−.07)	.76 (.79)	−.03 (−.01)
6	Has his/her own ideas about my future career goal and tries to influence me accordingly	.03 (−.02)	.71 (.74)	−.04 (−.06)
9	Would talk me out of a career goal he/she does not like	−.05 (−.06)	.68 (.62)	.01 (.01)
22	Expects me to pursue career goals that will reflect positively on our family	.03 (.03)	.43 (.40)	−.03 (−.01)
15	Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she faces difficulties at work themselves	.09 (.04)	−.07 (−.03)	.74 (.69)
26	Does not motivate me to achieve my career goal	−.03 (−.01)	.09 (.09)	.66 (.67)
27	Is not available to talk when I am stressed about my career goal	.06 (−.03)	.03 (.03)	.69 (.69)
14	Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she is too busy	.03 (−.02)	−.05 (.04)	.76 (.65)
29	Does not give me career advice when I am not sure about how to achieve my career goal	−.04 (−.08)	.05 (−.02)	.64 (.66)
12	Does not care about my career preparation	.01 (−.00)	−.02 (−.05)	.69 (.73)
30	Cannot support me financially if I experience difficulty in achieving my career goal	−.01 (.09)	.09 (−.04)	.57 (.69)
11	Is not interested in my future career	.01 (.08)	.03 (.06)	.63 (.68)
	Eigenvalues	7.23 (7.67)	4.89 (4.73)	1.99 (1.97)
	% Of variance	54 (56)	35 (33)	11(11)

Notes. Paternal factor loadings are noted within parentheses.

Bolded numbers represent the items that comprise each factor.

A total of 20 items were analyzed after deleting 10 items not meeting the .6/.3 rule.

American Sample

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Performed on 50% of the sample (mothers n = 99, fathers n = 127), a 5-factor solution was identified based on eigenvalues greater than 1.00, accounting for 99.99% of the common variance for CRPI in mothers and fathers, respectively. Because the fifth factor was represented by two items across results for mothers and fathers, the EFA was re-run specifying a 4-factor solution. The 4-factor solution was also untenable (i.e., fourth factor had two items). A 3-factor solution was specified and deemed suitable (i.e., eigenvalues >1.0, each factor was represented by at least 3 items; Table 4). Factor 1, named “Support,” explained most of the common variance in items for maternal and paternal CRPI, followed by “Interference” (Factor 2) and “Disengagement” (Factor 3). The same 5-items were eliminated from the mother and father scales to abide by the .6/.3 rule and reduce the presence of redundant items (Table 2). The remaining 25 items were utilized for CFA.

Table 4.

American EFA and CFA Results for CRPI Factor Loadings for Mothers (n = 142) and Fathers (n = 127).

		Factors
Item #	Item	Support	Interference	Disengagement
5	Talks with me about internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal	.66 (.75)	.06 (.20)	−.18 (−.09)
1	Talks with me about career interests and abilities	.60 (.85)	−.05 (−.00)	−.24 (−.06)
18	Connects me with his/her contacts to seek help with my career goal	.56 (.58)	−.08 (.29)	−.11 (−.13)
3	Supports me in getting an internship/short-term work	.52 (.83)	−.07 (−.05)	−.22 (−.02)
19	Gives me advice when I am not sure about how to achieve my career goal	.54 (.74)	.08 (.00)	−.28 (−.14)
2	Encourages me to seek information about careers I am interested in	.67 (.85)	−.02 (−.09)	−.14 (−.04)
17	Gives me written and/or online materials about different internship/short-term work opportunities related to my career goal	.82 (.47)	.05 (.41)	.11 (−.17)
4	Gives advice on the choice of careers available to me	.75 (.58)	.20 (.29)	.07 (−.13)
25^*	Gives me written and/or online materials about careers he/she wants me to pursue	.48 (.41)	.40 (.44)	.14 (−.10)
8	Tries to impose his/her ideas on my future career goal	.15 (−.12)	.76 (.82)	.17 (.01)
6	Has his/her own ideas about my future career goal and tries to influence me accordingly	.04 (−.04)	.80 (.78)	−.01 (.04)
9	Would talk me out of a career goal he/she does not like	−.01 (−.05)	.75 (.73)	.04 (−.10)
10^*	Tries to push me in a certain direction regarding my future career goal	.27 (.07)	.44 (.79)	.07 (−.05)
24^*	Compares my career goal with those of other people around my age	−.17 (.−1)	.53 (.60)	.11 (.19)
7^*	Tells me what I should or should not do in my career preparation	.19 (.24)	.68 (.64)	−.12 (−.04)
22	Expects me to pursue career goals that will reflect positively on our family	−.21 (.05)	.71 (.59)	−.32 (.11)
26	Does not motivate me to achieve my career goal	−.28 (−.18)	.21 (.13)	.46 (.68)
27	Is not available to talk when I am stressed about my career goal	−.24 (−.38)	.07 (.27)	.63 (.50)
29	Does not give me career advice when I am not sure about how to achieve my career goal	−.40 (−.10)	.02 (.01)	.44 (.77)
12	Does not care about my career preparation	−.11 (−.13)	−.02 (.27)	.61 (.62)
11	Is not interested in my future career	−.21 (−.12)	.18 (.20)	.42 (.58)
15	Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she faces difficulties at work themselves	−.11 (.17)	.14 (−.03)	.52 (.68)
30	Cannot support me financially if I experience difficulty in achieving my career goal	.08 (−.07)	.03 (−.05)	.76 (.50)
14	Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she is too busy	−.06 (.06)	.13 (.05)	.55 (.63)
13^*	Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she knows too little about different careers	−.39 (−.03)	.12 (−.04)	.19 (.57)
	Eigenvalues	7.69 (8.83)	4.46 (4.96)	1.81 (1.68)
	% Of variance	58 (59)	32 (32)	10 (9)

Notes. Paternal factor loadings are noted within parentheses.

Bolded numbers represent the items that comprise each factor.

A total of 25 items after deleting 5 items (e.g., Item no. 21 “Is willing to support me financially if I choose a career goal that he/she approves” as it did not meet the .6/.3 rule).* Indicates 5 items that were deleted in the final CFA model. CFA values for the final 20 items are provided in parenthesis.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The remaining 50% of the sample was utilized for CFA (mothers n = 148, fathers n = 127). Across samples, a model with one second-order latent factor (mothers’/fathers’ career involvement) and three first-order latent factors (disengagement, interference, support) was identified, each specified by the items that reflect the respective construct (Table 4). The 25-item model demonstrated poor fit for mothers (χ² (406) = 3137.14, p < .001; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .08; CFI = .84) and fathers (χ² (371) = 5161.11, p < .001; RMSEA = .09; SRMR = .10; CFI = .84).

After reviewing the pattern of item loadings in the 25-item model for both mothers and fathers, five items were eliminated based on the .6/.3 rule and presence of redundant items (Table 2 & 4; Tables 3 & 5). The final model for mothers’ CRPI (χ² (167) = 290.41, p < .001; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .08; CFI = .92) adequately fit to the data. The final model for fathers’ CRPI marginally fit the data (χ ² (167) = 339.27, p < .001; RMSEA = .09; SRMR = .08; CFI = .89). No modifications were made to the fathers’ model to preserve consistency of items across cultures and parents.

Table 5.

Final CFA Model Fit Indices for Indian and American Samples.

CRPI Scale	χ²	Df	CFI	RMSEA	90% CI RMSEA	SRMR
Indian sample
Mothers	822.66	186	.90	.07	[0.065, 0.074]	.05
Fathers	775.44	186	.90	.07	[0.063, 0.073]	.05
American sample
Mothers	290.41	167	.92	.07	[0.067, 0.083]	.08
Fathers	339.27	167	.89	.09	[0.076, 0.104]	.08

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; df = degrees of freedom; CRPI-M = Career-Related Parental Involvement – Mother Form; CRPI-F = Career-Related Parental Involvement – Father Form; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

The 20-item, 3-factor model of maternal and paternal career involvement were each represented by three dimensions—support (8 items; mother α = .89, father α = .94), interference (4 items; mothers α = .80, father α = .82), and disengagement (8 items; mother α = .90; father α = .88) (Table 4). While the chi-square statistics were significant, we prioritized the CFA goodness of fit measures given the sensitivity of chi-square. Since the RMSEA, SRMR, and the CFI were within prescribed cutoff ranges (Table 5), we deemed both models an acceptable representation of the data (Kline, 2005).¹

Descriptive Statistics

To explore differences in CRPI scales across cultures, paired samples t-tests were conducted (Table 6). Results indicated American seniors, as compared to Indian seniors, reported lower mean scores for paternal support. Differences between mothers’ and fathers’ CRPI within cultures were also assessed (Table 7). Indian seniors reported higher mean scores for paternal interference and disengagement while American seniors reported higher mean scores for maternal support and paternal disengagement. Finally, correlational analyses between the CRPI scales across parents and cultures were conducted (see Table 7).

Table 6.

Descriptive Statistics and Comparisons Between Mothers’ and Fathers’ CRPI Within and Across Indian and American Samples.

Dimensions of Career-Related PI						Dimensions of Career-Related PI
Indian Sample	Mother M (SD)	Observed Range	Father M (SD)	Observed Range	t-test (Within Cultures Fathers versus Mothers)		t-test (Across Cultures—Mothers)	t-test (Across Cultures—Fathers)
1. Support	27.15 (8.02)	8–40	26.82 (8.36)	8–50	−.21
2. Interference	9.85 (4.07)	4–20	10.08 (4.24)	4–31	−2.23^*	1. Support	−1.39	−3.39^**
3. Disengagement	12.66 (6.21)	8–40	13.44 (6.48)	8–40	−4.85^***
						2. Interference	.23	−.74
American sample
1. Support	26.23 (7.76)	8–40	24.07 (9.19)	8–40	4.84^***	3.Disengagement	.16	−.10
2. Interference	9.93 (4.29)	4–20	9.77 (4.47)	4–20	.41
3. Disengagement	12.46 (5.86)	8–40	13.43 (6.47)	8–40	−2.20^*

Note. PI = Parental Involvement. Across cultures = Compares (a) mothers in American and Indian cultures, and (b) fathers in American and Indian cultures. Within cultures = Compares (a) mothers and fathers in Indian culture, and (b) mothers and fathers in American culture.

^***p < .001, ^**p < .01, ^*p < .05.

Table 7.

Correlations for the CRPI Scale in Mothers and Fathers Across Indian and American Samples.

Dimensions of Career-Related PI	1	2	3
Indian Sample
1. Support	(.49^***)	.16^***	−.40^***
2. Interference	.16^***	(.55^***)	.13^***
3. Disengagement	−.31^***	.23^***	(.56^***)
American sample
1. Support	(.39^***)	.28^***	−.55^***
2. Interference	.02	(.42^***)	.11
3. Disengagement	−.54^***	.23^***	(.40^***)

^***p < .001,^**p < .01.

Note. Correlations between corresponding mother and father factors are parenthesized and presented in the diagonals. Right of the diagonal is the correlation of father variables and left of the diagonal is the correlation of mother variables.

Multiple Groups Analysis

MGAs were conducted to establish whether the CFA model in Table 5 was invariant across mothers and fathers (i.e., Indian and Americans). Results indicated that configural invariance was achieved, suggesting the overall CRPI factor structure fits well for maternal and paternal career involvement across Indian and American cultures. Metric invariance was also achieved, suggesting similar factor loadings for CRPI items across cultures to facilitate comparisons of correlations and path coefficients. Finally, scalar invariance was established only for CRPI-F scale, suggesting equivalence of item intercepts for comparison across Indian and American paternal involvement. For Indian and American mothers, scalar invariance was not established as the ΔCFI <.02 cutoff was not met (ΔCFI = .015). Hence, mean comparisons across Indian and American CRPI-M scale were not undertaken.

Part 2: Scale Validation

Concurrent Validity

Across mothers’ and fathers’ in both cultures, CRPI Support was positively correlated with PCB-Support and negatively correlated with PCB-Lack of Engagement; however, the latter negative correlation was stronger among Americans, z = -2.87, p = .004. Across parents and cultures, CRPI Interference was positively correlated with PCB-Interference; but this correlation was stronger among fathers, z = 2.54, p = .01. Except for American fathers, CRPI Interference was positively correlated with PCB-Lack of Engagement. For mothers and fathers, CRPI Disengagement was positively correlated with PCB-Interference and PCB-Lack of Engagement, and negatively correlated with PCB-Support; however, the former correlation was stronger among American mothers versus American fathers, z = 2.31, p = .02. See Table 8 for results.

Table 8.

Correlation Analyses Testing the CRPI’s Concurrent (PCB) and Convergent (Relationship Quality) Validity.

CRPI Forms	PCB-Support		PCB-Interference		PCB-Lack of Engagement		EQPCR
	Indian	American	Indian	American	Indian	American	Indian	American
Support
Mothers	.57^**	.62^**	−.05	−.04	−.29^**	−.46^**	.29^ (.29^)	.56^ (.26^)
Fathers	.61^**	.63^**	−.01	−.01	−.30^**	−.32^**	.26^ (.35^)	.00 (.00)
Interference
Mothers	.03	.05	.54^**	.72^**	.16^**	.16^**	−.04 (.01)	−.17^** (−.04)
Fathers	.03	.12	.52^**	.59^**	.12^**	.07	−.05 (.01)	−.05 (−.09)
Disengagement
Mothers	−.30^**	−.46^**	.33^**	.22^**	.59^**	.64^**	−.25^ (−.24^)	−.52^ (−.17^)
Fathers	−.30^**	−.47^**	.29^**	.20^**	.56^**	.50^**	−.21^ (−.31^)	−.22^ (−.56^)

^**p < .01., ^*p < .05.

Notes. CRPI-M = Career-related Parental Involvement – Mothers, CRPI-F = Career-related Parental Involvement – Fathers, PCB = Parental Career-related Behaviors, EQPCR = Emotional Quality of Parent–Child Relationship. PCB scores refer to both parents, as reports for mothers and fathers are combined. EQPCR scores refer to mothers and fathers separately, and the emotional quality of relationship with fathers is noted in parentheses.

Convergent Validity

Across mothers and fathers in both cultures, CRPI Support was positively correlated with maternal and paternal relationship quality. The strength of this positive association was two times greater for American fathers (z = 5.06, p < .001) and mothers (z = 4.82, p < .00). Across parents and cultures, CRPI Disengagement was negatively correlated with maternal and paternal relationship quality. This negative association was strongest among mothers, z = −3.9, p < .001. Furthermore, the strength of these negative associations was two times stronger among Americans: maternal disengagement and mother–child relationship quality, z = 4.62, p < .001, maternal disengagement and father–child relationship quality, z = 5.59, p < .001, paternal disengagement and father–child relationship quality, z = −12.29, p < .001. Lastly, there was a negative correlation between maternal Interference and maternal relationship quality among Americans. See Table 8 for results.

Discussion

Parents are often an important source of support as their emerging adults navigate developmental challenges such as transitioning out of college and into a career (Arnett, 2015; Tanner, 2006). However, the ways in which parents are involved in the career lives of their emerging adults across cultures and between mothers and fathers are not well understood. The overarching aim of the study was to investigate the characteristics of CRPI among college seniors living in two contexts, India and the U.S. To accomplish this aim, we first developed a multidimensional, culturally and developmentally sensitive measurement for career-related parental involvement (CRPI), and then assessed its psychometric properties across samples (i.e., American and Indian mothers and fathers). We also sought to validate the CRPI scale by examining its association with an existing measure, parents’ career-related behaviors, and measures of relationship quality between parents and emerging adults.

Scale Development of Career-Related Parental Involvement Scale

The final 20-item scale was represented by three dimensions across Indian and American cultures and mothers and fathers: Support (8 items), Interference (4 items), and Disengagement (8 items). While these results supported the hypothesis for Americans, the support-interference hypothesis for Indians was rejected, indicating Indian participants distinguished between parental support and interference. This adds strength to the description of the 21^st century Indian emerging adult as balancing interdependent and independent values (Bansal, 2013; Sinha & Tripathi, 2003). Further, because reliability coefficient analyses of the CRPI scale demonstrated good to excellent internal reliability across cultures and parents, there is evidence to support utilization of our new CRPI scale among college seniors living in different cultural contexts. For example, both interdependence- (e.g., “Expects me to pursue career goals that will reflect positively on our family”) and independence-supporting parental strategies (e.g., “Encourages me to seek information about careers I am interested in”) were reflected in the scales.

Finally, we confirmed the validity of this scale across cultures by observing if the scale items captured the same construct for different participants. Configural and metric invariances were established for CRPI-M and CRPI-F scales, and scalar invariance for CRPI-F scale alone across samples. As such, our findings provide some support for the CRPI scale as a culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate assessment tool to investigate college seniors’ perspectives on parents’ career involvement.

It is important to note that the final model for the American sample showed an adequate, but not good, fit. Because we wanted our new scale to have a set of items that could be administered to emerging adults from different contexts, we retained consistent items in the scale across cultures which may have affected model fit. However, the MGA results provide confidence that the CRPI scale can be used for comparisons across cultures that have different value ideologies and cultural ecosystems. Future research should build on our findings and investigate the quality of this new scale by testing it in different populations (e.g., Indian American emerging adults in the US vs. Indian emerging adults in India). Particularly, researchers should explore the relevance of existing and deleted items in diverse cultures to strengthen the validity of the current scale.

Characteristics of Career-Related Parental Involvement: Similarities and Differences Across Cultures and Parents

Consistent with Lowe and Dotterer’s (2017) conceptualization of PI and Dietrich and Kracke’s (2009) multidimensional PCB scale, the results of the present study indicate that CRPI during emerging adulthood is multifaceted, composed of support, interference, and disengagement. Support is defined as providing guidance and emotional support during emerging adults’ career explorations, interference as controlling the career goals and pursuits of emerging adults, and lack of engagement as providing little to no advice or support to emerging adults’ career planning due to parents’ stress or lack of knowledge.

Results from the current study suggest that parents’ career involvement during emerging adulthood is implicit and situation-specific. Generally, parents may no longer initiate occupational plans and activities for their college-going emerging adults as they may have done during the high school years (Lowe & Dotterer, 2017). For instance, an item in the Support dimension, “Connects me with his/her contacts to seek help with my career goal,” indicates that parents share their personal and professional contacts to aid their college-aged children’s career goal-planning. These behaviors reflect a sharing of social capital to promote career development in which emerging adults are responsible for making connections. Other items in the Support subscale represented emotional and instrumental support such as active discussion, advice-giving, and provision of career-based materials. Thus, during emerging adulthood parents are likely to take a step back to allow their emerging adult to lead or self-direct their career decisions. These results align with the recentering process in parent-emerging adult relationships (Tanner, 2006), which takes place in some form across diverse cultures. An item in the Disengagement dimension, “Cannot support my career preparation, because he/she faces difficulties at work themselves,” reflects the inability of parents to engage in the career lives of their college students. Because career identity development is more refined during emerging adulthood compared to adolescence, emerging adults’ career choices themselves may be more specific and niche. As such, parents may be disengaged because they possess little knowledge on the demands, expectations, and skills needed for these careers. Complicating this is the work stress likely to be faced by parents. Other items in the Disengagement subscale represented emotional distance and little to no availability. Research on disengagement, an understudied parenting construct (Neblett & Cortina, 2006), needs attention during emerging adulthood due to its known effects on career adaptability and exploration (Dietrich & Salmela-Aro, 2013; Dietrich & Salmela-Aro, 2016; Farkas & Grolnick, 2010).

Interfering parental behaviors were characterized as intrusive. This included discouragement of and disagreement with emerging adults’ career aspirations via coercing consideration of parents’ career wishes. For children and adolescents, any form of interference that only involves psychological control is not beneficial (Barber, 1994; Soenens et al., 2009). Conversely, for emerging adults, interference that involves both behavioral and psychological control is detrimental (Nelson et al., 2011; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012). At the same time, what behaviors constitute parental interference can be variably defined across cultural and person factors. This may be the reason why researchers have documented mixed findings on its effects (positive—e.g., Fingerman et al., 2012; negative—e.g., Gordon & Steele, 2015). The present study’s interference scale also had the least number of items as the number of items that were commonly agreed upon between Indian and American participants were fewer compared to support and disengagement items. Across cultures, parental interference was characterized as promoting family name by directing emerging adults’ career ideas and choices. This was done by discouraging career exploration of and commitment to certain careers choices that parents deemed unsuitable or less lucrative. Continued investigation of interfering parental behaviors is pivotal to establish its cultural similarities and differences.

Despite similarities in CRPI across cultures, there were notable differences between mothers and fathers in both cultural settings. Indian mothers were considered more interfering and Indian fathers were considered more disengaged. Similar differences between American mothers and fathers were found in the Support and Disengagement subscales, where mothers were rated as more supportive and fathers were rated as more disengaged. These results are consistent with the study hypothesis that the role of mothers is to serve as a primary caregiver and career advisor (Finley et al., 2008; Phares et al., 2009). For example, to succeed in the post-college transition, mothers can help emerging adults decide between two career choices and offer emotional support when challenges arise. Moreover, our findings align with previous work that suggests parenting practices reflect cultural norms and values (Bornstein, 2012) which is reflected across our items (e.g., “Expects me to pursue career goals that will reflect positively on our family”).

Together, the CRPI scale is represented by three subscales—support, interference, and disengagement. Indian and American participants mentioned receiving parental support more than interfering or disengaging behaviors. Regarding parent differences, mothers were described as more supportive (in Americans) or interfering (in Indians) than fathers. Indian and American fathers were described as being similar in disengagement. Cultural differences were fewer with the exception of Indian fathers as being more supportive than their American counterparts. This demonstrates the need for future research on parenting during emerging adulthood, specifically the role differences between mothers and fathers.

Validity

Another aim was to validate the CRPI scale as an appropriate measure of parental involvement in emerging adults’ career development. Regarding concurrent validity, results showed that the Support subscales were positively correlated with PCB-Support and negatively correlated with PCB-Lack of Engagement, suggesting that the Support subscale taps parenting behaviors that are consistent with existing conceptualizations of parental support, but distinct from that of parental lack of engagement (Dietrich & Kracke, 2009). The negative association between Support and Lack of Engagement was stronger for Americans, suggesting that American parents, more than Indian parents, are perceived as either strongly supportive or strongly disengaged. Such a conclusion warrants further examination of the role of culture in individuals’ definitions of appropriate parental involvement (Bornstein, 2012), in that support and disengagement may have particular salience and meanings for members of each cultural group.

For the Interference subscale, the relationship with PCB-Interference was in the positive direction, suggesting that similar aspects of parental interference were assessed. With the exception of American paternal involvement, the Interference subscales across samples were positively correlated with PCB-Lack of Engagement. While the effect sizes for these correlations were small, they could indicate that emerging adults similarly perceive interfering and disengaging behaviors. This interpretation is supported by findings from Guan et al.’s study (2015) that found negative effects of interference and lack of engagement on Chinese undergraduates’ career adaptability. As such, it is possible that interfering and disengaged parents are perceived as unable to appropriately engage in their emerging-adult children’s lives. Another explanation for these correlations could be that when parents who are disengaged involve themselves into their emerging adults’ career lives, their involvement behaviors are perceived as intrusive given that they have not been consistently involved in a positive manner. Altogether, we recommend future investigation to unpack the relationship between interference and disengagement in other cultural settings.

Regarding convergent validity, results showed that Support was positively associated with relationship quality with mothers and fathers, suggesting that perceptions of positive parent–child relationships are linked with perceiving positive parental support (Darling & Stenberg, 1993; Lowe & Dotterer, 2017). For Disengagement, the negative association with relationship quality for mothers and fathers suggests that perceptions of negative parent–child relationships go hand-in-hand with perceptions of inadequate parental engagement. Culturally, these associations were stronger for American mothers and fathers, suggesting that relationship quality is an important construct to consider when examining CRPI among American families. A negative association was observed between the American maternal interference and relationship quality with mothers, suggesting that interfering maternal behaviors are linked to perceptions of negative mother–child relationships. This is a point to consider for American mothers who may overly control their emerging adults’ lives without paying commensurate attention on building congenial parent–child relationships. In contrast, for Indians, Support and Disengagement subscales were related to relationship quality but not Interference, suggesting that the emotional quality of parent–child relationship is a barometer for assessing how supportive or disengaged parents are perceived to be among Indians. More specifically, supportive parenting may be perceived by emerging adults who have a good relationship with parents while disengaged parenting may be reported by emerging adults who perceive a less cordial relationship with parents.

Limitations and Overarching Conclusions

The present study has shortcomings. First, the study was cross-sectional in both cultural contexts, which prevents cause-and-effect inferences. Future work using longitudinal designs would benefit our understanding of how PI changes across the course of the senior-year and after the post-college transition takes place. Second, neither sample was nationally representative. Specifically, the Indian sample was solely recruited from South India and more likely to represent the experiences of these college seniors than those living in North India as variations in racial (e.g., Dravidian in the South, Aryan in the North), social (e.g., higher educational attainment in the South), and cultural factors (e.g., a unique language is spoken in each Southern state with English as the common language; Hindi is commonly spoken across the North) exist. Future work has to understand parenting constructs within sub-cultural groups in the Indian landscape. Relatedly, there was a large divergence between the work experiences, or lack thereof, of Indian and American emerging adults, which reflects different cultural norms for the preparation of adulthood. The majority of both samples, about 66%, reported opposite ends of the work experience scale: Indian emerging adults reported “no work experience” while American emerging adults reported “paid work for 3 months or more.” It follows that CRPI will be shaped by these cultural norms on working, or not. For instance, perhaps Indian emerging adults rated their fathers as more interfering than American emerging adults because their lack of work experience prompted their fathers to insert themselves more heavily into their career development. Future work should consider cultural norms around working when examining how parents are involved in emerging adults’ career development.

Third, the study examined PI in the context of college-attending emerging adults who comprise 20% of emerging adults in the U.S. attending a 4-year institution (Arnett, 2016). Hence the findings of the study may not apply to non-college going emerging adults. Future research should examine whether the different CRPI strategies identified in this study apply to non-college going emerging adults. Fourth, the final scale was developed based on the traditional, mother–father family composition. Depending on the family constellation, PI can have distinct characteristics and differential effects. For example, a single-parent household, same-sex parent household, or a grandparent-led household may have uniquely different involvement strategies compared to the traditional family. Despite this limitation, the criteria for study participation did not exclude individuals from non-traditional family types (e.g., single parent households) and participants had the flexibility to indicate who they were describing as Parent 1 and 2. Moreover, because a range of parental involvement strategies—both positive and negative—were included as items, the scale is likely to apply to college seniors across different family compositions. Future research that examines the scale validity across different family forms is greatly encouraged to not only identify potential differences in involvement and its links to emerging adult career outcomes, but to also ensure the scale is inclusive across family compositions. Other limitations include single-reporter bias (only the reports of college seniors were utilized), lack of information on family composition (e.g., existence of a sibling, which could influence PI), and the absence of assessing CRPI’s criterion validity (e.g., the link between the new CRPI scale and outcome measures on career-related decision making and well-being for emerging adults).

Despite these shortcomings, the findings from the present study have important implications in describing the nature of CRPI among graduating college seniors from different cultural backgrounds. We established the multidimensionality of CRPI, perceived importance of dimensions across cultures, and the salience of PI in the career domain during emerging adulthood. Importantly, results suggest not all kinds of PI may be considered helpful and that mothers and fathers are differentially involved across cultures. As such, our study supports PI as a resource for emerging adult’s career development when parents show that they care, communicate regularly, and respect their emerging adult’s decision-making autonomy. At times, emerging adults may need emotional support throughout the ups and downs of finding a stable and gratifying career; other times, emerging adults may need more direct, instrumental involvement such as parent’s editing of a resume. Regardless, it is important to encourage parents to adapt and match their involvement strategies based on their emerging adult’s needs, both voiced and perceived. For instance, if an emerging adult is struggling with finding a direction with career opportunities, they would benefit from more parental direction (e.g., finding job opportunities) accompanied with emotionally supportive behaviors (e.g., available to talk). If an emerging adult is engaged and exploring various career possibilities, then they would benefit from continued support (e.g., available to talk) but less interfering parental behaviors (e.g., telling what to do or not do). These findings are beneficial for parents of college-going emerging adults, mental health practitioners, and college counselors who can appropriately provide the necessary support and guidance during times of parent-emerging adult conflict.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (Fall 2017 Grant-in-Aid program).

ORCID iD

Achu Johnson Alexander

Note

Author Biographies

Achu Johnson Alexander, Ph.D., earned her Doctorate in Developmental Psychology from Clark University under the mentorship of Dr. Jeffrey J. Arnett. Her research interests lie at the intersection of culture, career development and college student learning and development of emerging adults. Her mixed-methods dissertation focused on the career engagement of graduating college seniors in preparation for their post-college lives in two contexts, urban India and U.S. In her current role as Assistant Professor of Psychology at Anna Maria College, she continues her doctoral research by examining the effects of the pandemic on career engagement of college students and exploring ways to recruit and retain students in college. She is currently serving as the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chair at her institution. Outside of her institution, she remains active in scholarship through leadership roles and conference presentations in various professional and academic organizations, such as the Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood, New England Psychological Association, and American Psychological Association.

Katie Lowe, Ph.D., completed her Doctorate in Human Development and Family Studies at Purdue University, and was a Postdoctoral Research Scholar at Clark University under the mentorship of Dr. Jeffrey Arnett. She has taught for the Department of Psychology at Clark University and Harvard University, and was awarded Certificates of Teaching Excellence from Harvard. Her research aims to understand the contribution of contextual (i.e., school, family, sport) and individual factors to youths’ academic and developmental outcomes (e.g., mental health, independence) from adolescence to emerging adulthood to inform programs supporting youth. Dr. Lowe's research has been funded by the National Collegiate Athletic Association and she has been an invited speaker for Harvard and Boston University on parent involvement during the college years.

References

Alexander

A. J.

Chauhan

. (2020). Parents and emerging adults in India. In Ashdown

Faherty

(Eds.), Parents and caregivers Across cultures: Positive development from infancy through adulthood (pp. 217–230). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35590-6_15

Aquilino

W. S

. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Ed.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193–217). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11381-008

Arnett

J. J

. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469,

Arnett

J. J

. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press.

Arnett

J. J

. (2016). College students as emerging adults: The developmental implications of the college context. Emerging Adulthood, 4(3), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815587422

Arnett

J. J.

Schwab

. (2012). The Clark university poll of emerging adults: thriving, struggling, & hopeful. Clarku. http://www2.clarku.edu/clark-poll-emerging-adults/pdfs/clark-university-poll-emerging-adults-findings.pdf

Arnett

J. J.

Schwab

. (2013). The Clark University Poll of Parents of Emerging Adults, Parents and their grown kids. Harmony, support, and (occasional) conflict. http://www2.clarku.edu/clark-poll-emerging-adults/pdfs/clark-university-poll-parents-emerging-adults.pdf

Bansal

. (2013). Youth in contemporary India: Images of identity and social change. Springer science & business media.

Barber

B. K

. (1994). Cultural, family, and personal contexts of parent-adolescent conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(2), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/353106

10.

Blyth

D. A.

Hill

J. P.

Thiel

K. S

. (1982). Early adolescents' significant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(6), 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538805

11.

Bornstein

M. H

. (2012). Cultural approaches to parenting. Parenting, 12(2–3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683359

12.

Brooks

. (2004). ‘My mum would be pleased as punch if I actually went, but my dad seems a bit more particular about it’: Parental involvement in young people’s higher education choices. British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000237202

13.

Catsambis

. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children's secondary education: Connections with high school seniors' academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5(2), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014478001512

14.

Darling

Stenberg

. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

15.

Dietrich

Kracke

. (2009). Career-specific parental behaviors in adolescents’ development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.005

16.

Dietrich

Salmela-Aro

. (2013). Parental involvement and adolescents' career goal pursuit during the post-school transition. Journal of Adolescence, 36(1), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.10.009

17.

Dietrich

Salmela-Aro

. (2016). Emerging adults and work: A model of phase-adequate engagement. In Arnett

J. J.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp. 334–348). Oxford University Press.

18.

Farkas

M. S.

Grolnick

W. S

. (2010). Examining the components and concomitants of parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation & Emotion, 34(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9176-7

19.

Fingerman

K. L.

Cheng

Y.-P.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Zarit

Furstenberg

Birditt

K. S

. (2012). Helicopter parents and landing pad kids: Intense Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74(4), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00987.x

20.

Finley

G. E.

Mira

S. D.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structure, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering, 6(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0601.62

21.

Finley

G. E.

Schwartz

S. J

. (2004). The father involvement and nurturant fathering scales: Retrospective measures for adolescent and adult children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258453

22.

Fouad

N. A.

Kim

S. Y.

Ghosh

Chang

W. H.

Figueiredo

. (2016). Family influence on career decision making: Validation in India and the United States. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714565782

23.

Friedman

. (2019). 50% of millennials are moving back home with their parents after college. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/06/06/millennials-move-back-home-college/?sh=5bec3905638a

24.

Fry

Passel

J. S.

Cohn

(2020, September 4). A majority of young adults in the U.S. live with their parents for the first time since the Great Depression . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/.

25.

Ghosh

M. D

. (2020). Youth can be a clear advantage for India. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/youth-can-be-a-clear-advantage-for-india/article30897179.ece

26.

Goldsmith

. (2018). Emerging adults’ relationships with their parents. Clinical Science Insights.

27.

Gordon

V. N.

Steele

G. E

. (2015). The undecided college student: An academic and career advising challenge. Thomas Publishers.

28.

Grimm

L. G.

Yarnold

P. R

. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. American Psychological Association.

29.

Grolnick

W. S.

Slowiaczek

M. L

. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65(1), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00747.x

30.

Guan

Wang

Liu

Jia

Fang

(2015). Career-specific parental behaviors, career exploration and career adaptability: A three-wave investigation among Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.007.

31.

Hess

A. J

. (2019). The cost of college increased by more than 25% in the last 10 years—here’s why. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/cost-of-college-increased-by-more-than-25percent-in-the-last-10-years.html

32.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F

. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362

33.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R.

34.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M

. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record.

35.

Hunter

M. S.

Keup

J. R.

Kinzie

Maietta

. (2012). The senior year: Culminating experiences and transitions. University of South Carolina, national resource center for the first-year experience and students in transition.

36.

International Labor Organization (2018). India: decent work country programme (2018-2022). https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–-asia/–-ro-bangkok/–-sro-new_delhi/documents/publication/wcms_650119.pdf

37.

Keller

B. K

Whiston

S.C

. (2008). The role of parental influences on young adolescents’ career development. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707313206

38.

Kline

R.B

. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd Edition). The Guilford Press.

39.

Kerpelman

. (2007). Parental influences on young women’s certainty about their career aspirations. Sex Roles, 56(1–2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9151-7

40.

Lowe

Dotterer

A. M

. (2017). Parental involvement during the college transition: A review and suggestion for its conceptual definition. Adolescent Research Review. 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0058-z

41.

Marshall

E. A.

Butler

. (2016). School-to-Work transitions in emerging. In Arnett

J. J.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp. 316–333). Oxford University Press.

42.

Matsunaga

. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854

43.

Meyers

L. S.

Gamst

Guarino

A. J.

(2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd Edition). Sage Publications.

44.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd Edition). Sage Publications.

45.

Miller

J. G.

Akiyama

Kapadia

. (2017). Cultural variation in communal versus exchange norms: Implications for social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000091

46.

Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India (2015). National policy for skill development and entrepreneurship. http://www.skilldevelopment.gov.in/assets/images/SkillIndia/policybooklet-Final.pdf

47.

Mitra

Verick

(2013). Youth employment and unemployment: an Indian perspective . ILO Asia-Pacific. Working paper series, international labour organization.

48.

Montgomery

M. J.

Côté

J. E

. (2003). College as a transition to adulthood. In Adams

G. R.

Berzonsky

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp.149–172). Blackwell Publishing.

49.

Murphy

K. A.

Blustein

D. L.

Bohlig

A. J.

Platt

M. G

. (2010). The college-to-career transition: An exploration of emerging adulthood. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00006.x

50.

Neblett

N. G.

Cortina

K. S

. (2006). Adolescents’ thoughts about parents’ jobs and their importance for adolescents’ future orientation. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.11.006

51.

Nelson

L. J.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

Evans

C. A.

Carroll

J. S

. (2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9584-8

52.

Oliveira

Fonseca

Sotero

Crespo

Relvas

A.P

. (2020). Family dynamics during emerging adulthood: Reviewing, integrating, and challenging the field. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12386

53.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.03.007

54.

Phares

Fields

Kamboukos

. (2009). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9200-7

55.

Schwartz

S. J.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Luyckx

Meca

Ritchie

R. A

. (2013). Identity in emerging adulthood: Reviewing the field and looking forward. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813479781

56.

Selingo

J. J

. (2016). Two-thirds of college grads struggle to launch their careers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/05/two-thirds-of-college-grads-struggle-to-launch-their-careers

57.

Sinha

Tripathi

R. C

. (2003). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In Saraswathi

T. S.

(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in human development: Theory, research and applications (pp. 192–210). Sage Publications.

58.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

Sierens

. (2009). How are parental psychological control and autonomy-support related? A cluster-analytic approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00589.x

59.

Tanner

J. L

. (2006). Recentering during emerging adulthood: A critical turning point in life span human development. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 21–55). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11381-002

60.

Verma

Saraswathi

T. S

. (2002). Adolescence in India: Annotated bibliography. Rawat publications.

61.

Walker

C. S.

McKinney

. (2019). Parental discipline in emerging adulthood: The creation and validation of the domains of young adult discipline scale (DYADS). Emerging Adulthood, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696819851433

62.

Wang

K. T.

Puri

Slaney

R. B.

Methikalam

Chadha

. (2012). Cultural validity of perfectionism among Indian students: Examining personal and family aspects through a collectivistic perspective. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175611423109

63.

Wartman

K. L.

Savage

. (2008). Parental involvement in higher education: Understanding the relationship among students, parents, and the institution. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(6), 1–125.

64.

Yaffe

(2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6.