The Psychological Impact of Chinese Helicopter Parenting on Children: Concerning Self Cognition and Emotional Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In China, helicopter parenting is a phenomenon where parents exhibit over-protective and controlling behaviors towards their children, which has become a notable phenomenon in Chinese modern education. The main purpose of our paper is to delve into the negative effects of Chinese helicopter parenting may cause on children’s self-cognition and emotion regulation skills. To investigate these effects, we conducted a mixed-methods approach, which combined a questionnaire based on authoritative scales with in-depth case studies, which aims to quantitatively assess the prevalence and intensity of helicopter parenting practices, along with a qualitative understanding of the underlying psychological mechanisms. With reference to relevant psychological theories, we further analyzed children’s psychology in combination with the above survey results, then draw the following conclusions about the psychological impact of Chinese children under helicopter parenting: Firstly, over-protection and intervention by helicopter parents may prevent children from recognizing their own instincts, which can hinder the development of their self-cognition and intrinsic motivation. Additionally, over-protection by helicopter parents may lead to children’s inability to regulate their emotions, resulting in negative effects such as excessive anxiety and a lack of a sense of well-being. Therefore, we suggest that parents should balance care with growth space and respect children’s autonomy to turn their child into a well-rounded and confident adult in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".