Helicopter Parenting Is Unrelated to Student Success and Well-Being: A Latent Profile Analysis of Perceived Parenting and Academic Motivation During the Transition to University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined helicopter parenting (e.g., intervening, assisting with tasks that emerging adults are capable of performing independently) during the transition to university relative to positive parenting (autonomy support, warmth, age-appropriate involvement) and academic motivation. Participants were n = 460 full-time, first-year undergraduates who completed surveys in September and December. In a latent profile analysis, differences were prominent for positive parenting (three profiles featured relatively low, moderate, and high levels). Amotivation was highest in combination with lower positive parenting. Intrinsic motivation was highest in combination with higher positive parenting; helicopter parenting was similar across profiles and was not meaningfully associated with end-of-semester well-being. End-of-semester outcomes were poorest for low positive parenting, but supplemental analyses showed disadvantages were already evident in September. Perceptions of parents during the transition to university likely reflect continuity from adolescent parenting environments. Results do not support the narrative that helicopter parenting is common or a barrier to student success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".