Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
The counterproductive effects of helicopter universities
C.W. Von Bergen
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Martin S. Bressler
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
ABSTRACT
Perhaps universities have gone too far in their attempts to provide the best learning
experience for our students? We have heard of helicopter parents who hover over their sons and
daughters, removing all obstacles their student might face and solve problems for them. Have
colleges and universities adopted this same kind of behavior in their attempt to be “student
oriented,” provide better customer service, and reduce student attrition rates? This paper
examines the pervasiveness of “helicoptering” and the detrimental effects when parents and
universities seek to control students instead of allowing them to learn responsibility.
Keywords: helicopter parenting, students, universities
The counterproductive effects, Page 1
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
“Universities cannot be viewed as a sanctuary for comfort but rather as a crucible
for confronting ideas and thereby learning to make informed judgments in
complex environments. Having one’s assumptions challenged and experiencing
the discomfort that sometimes accompanies this process are intrinsic parts of an
excellent education. Only then will students develop the skills necessary to build
their own futures and contribute to society.”
—University of Chicago President Robert J. Zimmer (2016)
INTRODUCTION
Decades ago under the in loco parentis principle university authorities had similar rights
as parents to manage student behavior on campus. Following World II, and what some would
call the Free Speech movement at colleges and universities, students demanded to be treated as
adults with fewer restrictions on their school behavior. Today, it seems that higher education is
once again assuming a parental role as students are requesting faculty and administrators to
protect them from ideas, words, and actions they find objectionable, offensive, and inconsistent
with their (usually liberal/progressive) beliefs (Langbert, Quain, & Klein, 2016).
This protection seems eerily reminiscent of the security provided to Jimmy by his mother
in the 2001 movie, Bubble Boy. Jimmy was supposedly born with an immunodeficiency disorder
which made him defenseless to infectious diseases that would kill him and was therefore raised
in a manufactured world of plastic tubes and bubbles provided by his well-intentioned, but
misguided mother. Over time, Jimmy falls in love with one of his caretakers and builds a
portable protective dome and travels cross country to prevent her from marrying another. At the
wedding, he removes his protective equipment declaring that he would rather die than stay in his
bubble, and discovers that he did not need the bubble after all—it was just part of a sinister but
well-meaning plan his overly-attentive mother developed to protect him from life’s unavoidable
dangers outside the bubble. Jimmy’s mother could be said to be emblematic of today’s helicopter
parents whose overly effortful parenting approach is deliberately chosen “… in a loving but
misguided attempt to enhance their child’s current and future personal and academic success”
(Locke, Campbell, & Kavanagh, 2012, p. 250).
While we present the concept of parental helicoptering behavior, this paper focuses on
helicopter institutions of higher education. We believe that many colleges and universities seem
to be continuing the excessive protection many of their emerging adult students (the time from
the end of adolescence to the young-adult responsibilities of a stable job, marriage, and
parenthood; Arnett, 2004) experienced in their grade schools and high schools. We first present
the topic of helicoptering parents and define helicopter parenting and then relate this concept to
universities. We then discuss what faculty and student affairs and counseling professionals can
do to address student concerns followed by a conclusion and summary.
HELICOPTER PARENTING
Baby-boomers (those persons generally born between 1946 and 1964) are considered to
be the best-educated and most affluent generation of parents. Those affluent, educated, babyboomer parents raised today’s college students. Gallo and Gallo (2001) report that these baby
boomers have made child-rearing an important element of their adulthood and wanted to give
their children the best, and their resources have enabled them to closely monitor and manage
The counterproductive effects, Page 2
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
many areas of their children’s lives, earning them the moniker “helicopter parents” because they,
like helicopters, hover right above their children (Coomes & DeBard, 2004).
These parents are referred to by a myriad of labels including: Velcro (difficulty in tearing
themselves away), bulldozer or lawnmower (removing obstacles in the path), tiger (overbearing
academically), concierge (handling everything for them), intrusive parenting (overly involved
with their offspring), overzealous parenting (fiercely protective), parenting out of control
(Nelson, 2010), and over-parenting (application of developmentally inappropriate parenting
tactics that exceed the needs of their child). In this paper, we use the label helicopter parent as a
descriptor that encompasses these various expressions, and that refers to excessive levels of
involvement, advice, problem-solving, control, protection, and abundant and unnecessary
tangible assistance in the service of their offspring’s well-being.
For younger children, many of these behaviors may be appropriate, but increasingly
research indicates that when applied to emerging adult children such actions may be
questionable. Helicopter parenting has been linked with psychological discomfort in young
adults such as increased depression and perceived stress as well as lower levels of life
satisfaction and self-acceptance (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Schiffrin et al., 2014).
Montgomery (2010) found a relationship between helicopter parenting and neuroticism, lower
openness to new experience, and dependency (van Ingen et al., 2015) reported that helicopter
parenting was correlated with alienation from peers and a lack of trust among colleagues.
Helicopter parenting has also been found to be positively associated with problematic personality
traits such as entitlement and narcissism (Locke et al., 2012; Munich & Munich, 2009) and
negatively correlated with positive traits such as self-efficacy (Givertz & Segrin, 2012).
Helicopter parenting may also prevent young adults from learning how to solve their problems
and take responsibility for their lives (Lythcott-Haims, 2015). Moreover, Kouros, Pruitt, Ekas,
Kiriaki, and Sunderland (2017) noted that helicopter parenting has been linked to a “poor
academic achievement, lower self-esteem and life satisfaction, poor peer relationships, and
greater interpersonal dependency, and female students are more vulnerable to these negative
effects than are males”. Overprotective parenting may also be linked with psychological
maladjustment (McLeod, Wood, & Weisz, 2007) such as anxiety (Hudson & Rapee, 2001) and
low self-worth (Laible & Carlo, 2004), and is believed to be a major cause of a rapidly growing
problem known as the failure-to-launch syndrome which Marano (2016) defines as the collective
name for the difficulties many young people today seem to have in assuming the self-sufficiency
and responsibilities of adulthood.
These findings should not be surprising. Child development research has reliably found
children to be more successful when they had parental involvement and support (Hiltz, 2015)—
but such helpful behavior can go too far leading to many problematic outcomes. Indeed, the idea
that positive phenomenon at excessive levels often become damaging is an old principle
embraced by Aristotle (“The Golden Mean”), Confucius (“The Doctrine of the Mean”), and the
Buddha (“Middle Way”). Moreover, the Yerkes-Dodson Law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908)
empirically demonstrated an inverted-U relationship between performance and arousal and more
recently Grant and Schwartz (2011) documented evidence from many different domains showing
that at high levels, virtuous effects begin to turn harmful. For instance, research suggests that
moderate levels of positive emotions enhance creativity, but high levels do not (Davis, 2008),
and that although happier people had greater longevity on average, extremely cheerful people
engage in risky behaviors (Martin et al., 2002) and live shorter lives (Friedman et al., 1993).
The counterproductive effects, Page 3
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Grant and Schwartz (2011) conclude their paper by suggesting that there are no virtues for which
costs do not emerge at high levels.
The purpose of adolescence is forming an identity, and the aim of parenting is to slowly
encourage independence, then delayed identity formation and dependence on one’s parents may
leave college students unprepared for real-life experiences. Specifically, children of helicopter
parents will often not learn to deal with the consequences of their poor decision-making if their
parents come to the rescue to handle their problems. When parents regularly save their children
from harmful consequences, children do not learn to overcome failure (Kantrowitz & Tyre,
2006). Over-parenting is crippling children as they move into adulthood, shaping a generation of
complainers unable to cope effectively with problems of everyday life once considered minor,
creating increasing feelings of entitlement (Givertz & Segrin, 2012), and unreasonable
expectations about what other people should do for them (Bradley-Geist & Olson-Buchanan,
2014). The parental helicoptering that children experienced in the primary and secondary grades
seems to have shifted to higher education.
Helicopter Parenting and Universities
Despite the overwhelmingly undesirable outcomes of helicopter parenting for emerging
adults (for a counterview see The National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007) many colleges
and universities are continuing the behaviors of the helicopter parents of today’s (millennial)
students in part because America has become a helicopter society and that it is not just parents
who have created this situation. According to Gray (2015), society has not helped prepare
students for the real world where they could fail, and because of that, students have not
developed “grit” and resilience. Moreover, college students often exhibit trauma in the face of
intellectual challenge and expect university officials to guard and comfort them from ideas and
words they perceive to conflict with their beliefs, opinions, and views—just as their helicopter
parents had done. This has led to some college officials referring to students as “‘crispies’ or
‘teacups’—so burned out that they can’t engage meaningfully in college life, or so fragile that
they break at the first sign of challenge” (Iarovici, 2014, p. 4). Because of students’ emotional
frailty faculty have become increasingly reluctant to give students low grades for poor
performance or to challenge them very much because of the subsequent emotional crises and
excessive handholding they would have to address in their offices (Gray, 2015). Junior faculty
members are much more likely to feel the pressure of getting good evaluations to obtain
promotions and tenure.
We began to notice the arrival of helicopter parents on college campuses in the early
2000s. Helicopter parents seem to maintain continuous contact with their college-aged adult
children as well as with the school administration. Cell phones, it seems, have become virtual
umbilical cords. With their adult children, such parents average 10.4 forms of communication
(e.g., e-mail, cell phone, text message) per week and students are calling parents to make
decisions about dropping a class, making a purchase, dealing with school setbacks (van Ingen et
al., 2015). Ultimately, helicopter parents may be hindering their adult children from learning
accountability, responsibility, and self-sufficiency (Ungar, 2009). They are likely adversely
affecting their adult children’s self-reliance and self-efficacy by sending them the message that
they cannot handle their own lives (van Ingen et al., 2015). These parents send their children to
college with the expectation that faculty and administrators will assume their parenting model
and campus counselors are increasingly expected to provide support for the typical stresses of
The counterproductive effects, Page 4
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
everyday university life including poor grades, soured relationships, and being responsible for
themselves for perhaps the first time in their life.
Although the intention of helicopter parents is to help insure that their adult college
student succeeds, some college counseling center practitioners contend that helicopter parents
have a negative impact that leaves their progeny with weakened autonomy, lowered resilience,
and an increased emotional frailty (Hofer, 2008). Indiana University psychologist Chris Meno
(2013) noted: “When children aren’t given the space to struggle through things on their own,
they don’t learn to problem-solve very well. They don’t learn to be confident in their own
abilities, and it can affect their self-esteem. The other problem with never having to struggle is
that an individual never experiences failure and can develop an overwhelming fear of failure and
disappointing others. Both the low self-confidence and the fear of failure can lead to depression
or anxiety.”
It is understandable then that students experiencing helicopter parenting expect to find
universities that should also want to protect them and keep them safe because the college
environment can be a challenging place, full of distractions and stressful events. Students leave
the support and comfort of their families and friends behind, and the familiarity of home, and
must live and learn with hundreds and perhaps thousands of strangers. Students are faced with
the challenge of adaptability and adjustment to manage the stressors of this significant life
transition (Miremadi, 2015), and they expect universities to assist them and ease these
difficulties—just as their parents did. Many students today want to be protected from speakers
whose views do not coincide with their own to be disinvited, they mandate that people who
espouse that all lives matter be silenced, they shout down critics of affirmative action and
abortion, they demonstrate when (usually) conservative presenters are invited to campus, and
they pressure administrators that organizations like the National Rifle Association, and groups
supporting the U.S. military and Christians be banned from colleges.
Some students feel the need to be sheltered from facing intellectual challenges and any
conflicting ideas, thoughts, and words despite research showing the value of dissent, not for the
truth that it may or may not hold or for its ability to persuade, but rather for the thinking that it
generates. Minority influence theory (Nemeth, 2011) has repeatedly demonstrated that
controversial views and accompanying dissent encourage the more complex thought that is more
inquisitive and creative. On the other hand, majority views stimulate convergent thinking where
people tend to focus on the mainstream perspective issue and thus limit the range of possibilities
leading to intolerance and an unwillingness to consider different options that are not necessarily
apparent at first—something most universities, at least historically, have endorsed.
Students ask for safe spaces, trigger warnings, elimination of micro-aggressions, freedom
from speech they perceive as unsettling and hateful, and a world cleansed of perspectives
offensive to them. And university administrators seem to want to help them just as did Jimmy’s
mother did. They are accused of practically covering students in an institutional bubble wrap to
prevent them from getting hurt or experiencing stress (Klick & Mitchell, 2016). This is
understandable because of many of these millennial students “… haven’t developed skills in how
to soothe themselves, because their parents have solved all their problems and removed the
obstacles. They don’t seem to have as much grit as previous generations,” says Dan Jones, past
president of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (Wilson,
2015, p. 4).
Moreover, this cohort finds it difficult to hear ideas that conflict with those they want to
believe and are increasingly being derisively called “snowflakes” because they are perceived as
The counterproductive effects, Page 5
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
fragile as a speck of snow. Their behavior is being described by some of the following article
titles: “Emotional Coddling Doesn’t Help College Students—It Hurts Them;” “On the
Infantilization of the College Campus;” “The Coddling of the American Mind;” and “The
Snowflake Generation: Real or Imagined?” These students are easily offended. For example, a
student at a prestigious university filed a complaint that his roommate had an American flag on
the wall and it was offensive to him. Another student felt traumatized because her roommate had
called her a “bitch,” and two students requested counseling after seeing a mouse in their
residence off-campus. Reports indicate that today’s graduates are now bringing their parents to
job interviews and organizations are hosting “take your parents to work” days for young
millennials (Berman, 2013).
These higher education officials think that helping their students is what is best for them,
but they may be inadvertently hurting their student’s chances of success. They want to soften
every difficulty and cushion every tumble. The problem is that many of these over-protected
students are frequently denied any meaningful consequences for their behavior and therefore
miss out on the opportunity to learn valuable life lessons from the mistakes they make and the
difficulties they encounter (Sirota, 2017). Learning from troubles and failure is an old finding,
and eminent philosopher John Stuart Mill believed it to be central to the autonomy of—and even
the value of—human beings. Shielding people from life’s errors and missteps, in Mill’s view,
deprives them of the opportunity to flourish (Elder & Cosgrove, 2007). Lahey (2015) more
recently echoes precisely these sentiments in her book The Gift of Failure.
Despite the overall negative impact of helicoptering institutions, some believe that
helicoptering parents help students. Lipka (2007) presented findings from the National Survey of
Student Engagement (NESSE) in which “38 percent of freshmen and 29 percent of seniors were
reported to be more active and satisfied with college.” Likewise, “helicopter institutions” can
play an important active role in student education. The survey points to what they call “deep
learning,” based on four important learning activities. For freshmen, Learning Communities
utilizing activities outside of class and discussion groups were found to be important in
developing “critical-thinking skills, self-understanding, and social lives” (Lipka, 2007). Among
seniors, key learning activities included “study abroad, research with a faculty member, and a
major project, capstone course, or internship” (Lipka, 2007, p. 4). Despite this earlier study, a
growing body of research suggests that colleges and universities have gone too far in running
student lives.
Addressing Helicopter Students in Universities through Perspective Taking
Gray (2015) has argued that we have become a “helicopter society” and associated with
this trend, students and their parents are asking—and sometimes demanding—that college and
university personnel be substitute parents (Wilson, 2015). These social forces often entail
requests for safe spaces, trigger warnings, and freedom of micro-aggressions and speech that
they find distasteful and which they do not agree. Rather than universities providing safety for
students from opposing ideas and beliefs, higher education professionals must give students the
freedom they need for psychological growth. Colleges must work towards a culture of belonging
that does not sacrifice free speech and rational discussions. This can neither be done when
students are overprotected, nor by telling students “you’re just too sensitive—get over it.”
What is needed may be an emphasis on developing empathy and the ability to understand
and share the feelings of others. This is especially important since research by Konrath, O’Brien,
The counterproductive effects, Page 6
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
and Hsing (2011) found that college students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980,
with an especially steep drop in the past ten years, and almost 75 percent of students today rating
themselves as less empathic than the average student 30 years ago. Konrath et al. (2011)
indicated that part of the explanation for decreased levels of empathy for young people might be
because of changes in parenting styles in the 1980’s when parents focused on nurturing if not
spoiling children—helicoptering parenting.
To counter these social forces, we suggest an increased emphasis on perspective taking.
Perspective taking is often defined as the capacity to infer another’s thoughts, feelings, or
internal states or knowledge (Borke, 1971; Chandler & Greenspan 1972), and an individual’s
awareness of informational states in oneself and others (Baron-Cohen, 1995; Premack &
Woodruff, 1978). These definitions converge on perspective taking as a cognitive process that
entails trying to understand or considering another’s viewpoint (Caruso, Epley, & Bazerman,
2006; Parker, Atkins, & Axtell, 2008; Sessa, 1996) by “deliberately adopting their perspective”
(Caruso et al., 2006, p. 203). The processes involved are subject to conscious control and can be
modified by training and awareness (Parker et al., 2008; Sessa, 1996).
Perspective taking is significant and a key marker of human cognitive (Epley & Caruso,
2009) and moral maturity (Kohlberg, 1976). For example, Piaget (1932/1965) identified the
ability to adopt a non-egocentric view as one of the stages that children must pass through as
they develop and Kegan (1982) and Labouvie-Vief (2005) view perspective taking as a core
dimension of human growth. Young children before age 4 have difficulty recognizing that others
may have beliefs that may differ significantly from their own (Flavell, 1986; Perner, 1991;
Wimmer & Perner, 1983) but come to appreciate this as an ordinary occurrence in daily life as
they get older (Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001).
The benefits of successful perspective taking may include increased social understanding
and harmony (Deutsch, 1993). Perspective taking promotes cognitive self-other overlap, results
in less activation of stereotypes, and improves intergroup attitudes (Galinsky & Moskowitz,
2000) and therefore leads people to do less stereotyping of “out-groups” and engage in less
stereotype-driven fear and hostility resulting in reduced impulsive and aggressive behavior
(Richardson, Green, & Lago, 1998). Competent perspective-takers respond less aggressively
when provoked (Richardson, Green, & Lago, 1998), and they develop more positive
relationships with others with different beliefs (Gehlbach et al., 2015). Also, perspective taking
fosters cooperation (Johnson, 1975), promotes moral reasoning and development (Hoffman,
2000), encourages altruistic behavior (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1995), reduces prejudice
(Rokeach, 1960), and facilitates conflict resolution (Deutsch, 1993). On a practical level, the
understanding of others leads to better collaboration, social and awareness in a variety of ways
regarding needs assessment, planning, execution, oversight, and communication. Accurate
perspective taking may lead to increased levels of trust, respect, and strong interpersonal
relationships.
Two important constituencies at the college level that may be able to address the needs of
today’s students include counseling and student affairs professionals and faculty members. Both
groups must strike the right balance between support and challenge and to promote active
perspective taking. Several approaches that can be employed (some more appropriate to one
group than the other) are described below.
Just as many different teaching methodologies can be valuable (lecturing, assigning
group work, blending in-person and online work, etc.), many different approaches to perspective
taking can be effective or ineffective. Perspective taking activities, such as role plays (Bigelow,
The counterproductive effects, Page 7
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
1994a), interior monologs (Christensen, 2000) written reflections on others’ fictional
experiences, and reading and replying to narratives of the experiences of others are promising
pedagogies (Lindley & Rios, 2004). Faculty might consider creating classrooms where there is
volatility and vulnerability (Henry, 1993-1994) where dominant ideologies are challenged
(Mayo, 2002) and where classrooms are designed that address difficult or tension-filled learning
encounters. Students can learn and thrive in such environments because they feel empowered to
take risks by expressing their distinctive insights and dissenting with others’ viewpoints (Holly
& Steiner, 2005) and where students will face opposing views. Boostrom (1998) notes that it is
the responsibility of professors to help students recognize that they “need to hear other voices in
order to grow … to be able to respond to those voices, to criticize them, to challenge them, and
to sharpen our perspectives through the friction of dialogue” (p. 407). Faculty members are
encouraged to follow Baxter Magolda’s (2000) suggestion and stand by students during times of
transition by showing support for students, yet urging deeper levels of thinking. Challenging
discussions can create opportunities for students to learn how to deal more openly with the
hostility, tension, and emotions that transpire when challenging biases, prejudices, and
unfamiliar perspectives (Bell, Washington, Weinstein, & Love, 1997). Indeed, assignments
should be created that incorporate perspective-taking skills of students and enhance their
complex thinking and empathetic abilities (Schoem, Hurtado, Sevig, Chesler, & Sumida, 2001).
Interestingly, Galinsky & Moskowitz (2000) found that asking participants to describe a
day in the life of an out-group member from an out-group member’s perspective was more
effective for reducing favoritism of the in-group than describing ways in which the in-group and
out-group member were similar or describing a time when the participant behaved similarly to an
out-group member. Moreover, Mendoza (1997; cited in Gehlbach, 2004) found some evidence
that imaging how the other was feeling was more effective than asking them to imagine the other
person’s situation, and Oswald (1996) found that perspective taking focused on feelings led to
more helping than perspective taking focused on thoughts.
Gehlbach (2017) provides further suggestions that can enhance perspective taking that
can be incorporated in any class. One proposition simply requires that teachers ask multiple
students to give different responses to complex questions. Teachers could also restructure their
questions so that multiple answers could be given; for example, “What are some possible reasons
why workers were not motivated in the film you just saw?” rather than posing questions that
invite a single correct answer as in “Why were the workers not motivated in the film you just
saw?” Faculty can also ask students to play devil’s advocate or to restate each other’s points
before responding to them. When disagreements or interpersonal conflicts arise, it should be
considered the norm for students to explain their positions and to listen while others explain their
position.
A second proposal offered by Gehlbach (2017) is to subtly have students delay making
judgments about others and as an alternative consider the sources for another person’s behavior.
The idea here is to gather more information before rushing to judgment by asking questions like,
“Why do you think she might have done that?” or “What’s his rationale for what happened?”
When students develop the habit of investigating others’ perspectives rather than rushing to
judge them, the more skilled they will become at looking for clues that might illuminate others’
decisions and behaviors. Consider the negative stereotyping of Duke University’s men’s lacrosse
players as privileged, thuggish, and racist by many in the media, the District Attorney of
Durham, North Carolina, the Durham police, politically correct Duke University professors, and
Duke University administrators in 2006 when three white members of the team were charged
The counterproductive effects, Page 8
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
with raping a young African-American woman at a 2006 house party (Taylor, 2006). On April
11, 2007, the North Carolina Attorney General dropped all charges and declared the three players
innocent of the rape allegations and added that they were victims of a “tragic rush to accuse”
(Beard, 2007). Unfortunately, this vindication occurred after the players were severely thrashed;
for example, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson denigrated the accused players as
“privileged white kids who play lacrosse,” adding, “It’s impossible to avoid thinking of all the
black women who were violated by drunken white men in the American South over the
centuries” (Robinson, 2006).
A third behavior offered by Gehlbach (2017) is providing opportunities for students to
practice perspective taking and receive feedback on their accuracy. It is critically important to
put students in situations where it is acceptable to make errors and thereby receive feedback that
might otherwise be elusive. For instance, before the start of a classroom debate, an educator can
ask students to predict which peers will make which arguments. This makes the social
perspective taking process explicit. As the debate unfolds, students can see how accurately or
inaccurately they predicted their classmates’ beliefs. In time, this should assist students to think
more critically about how they understand others and the information they rely upon in
developing their perspective. Instructors might also consider ways to increase interaction with
fellow students such as team projects and assignments. Role playing is another approach faculty
can use to put students in situations perhaps unfamiliar to them and to experience being in
another role and to operate from that perspective. After the role play, feedback can be obtained
from students.
Marangoni, Garcia, Ickes and Teng (1995) discovered that it was possible to enhance
individuals’ empathic accuracy by providing them with feedback. Such class-based training
might be especially useful if it involves interaction with targets, thereby providing opportunities
for increased familiarity, liking, feeling part of the same in-group, and so on, and if it includes
exercises to bring the tacit differences in perspectives to conscious awareness. They also found
that target familiarity enhanced the accuracy of which one understood another’s perspective. An
obvious way in the classroom to acquire greater knowledge of the target and their context is
through more exposure and interaction with the target in group assignments, thereby increasing
the opportunity for the motivated observer to learn about the target’s background, personality,
and situation.
However, the opportunity for greater interaction alone is unlikely to be sufficient. Such
interactions must co-occur with the motivated goal of trying to take the others’ perspective or
active perspective taking. Thus, in small group assignments, it would be beneficial to have
students not only focus on the content of the team effort but also on its process. As part of the
process evaluation, instructors could implement a simple active perspective taking manipulation
in which participants are asked to periodically put themselves in the shoes of other team
members and view the content from the others’ viewpoint.
Feedback could be given by asking individuals to predict how others might see the
situation and compare that to predictions they made (Moore, 2005). Thus, it is active perspective
taking which is most likely to lead to positive outcomes. Perspective taking, as an emergent team
process, helps teams to capitalize on their diversity on tasks by fostering the sharing, discussion,
and integration of diverse viewpoints and information.
Meditation is one established means for promoting empathy and perspective taking
(Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007; Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel,
2008; Leppma & Young, 2016) and is probably more appropriate for counseling professionals.
The counterproductive effects, Page 9
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Loving-kindness meditation (LKM) is a type of mindfulness meditation and a compassion-based
meditation that incorporates cognitive and emotional aspects. LKM escalates warm feelings and
caring for oneself as well as for others. The practice begins with directing loving-kindness, or
compassion, toward one’s self. As friendship, respect, and love or compassion develop with
oneself, the practice then expands to include others (Salzberg, 1995).
A final key point is that higher education students and faculty and staff believe that
perspective taking is important. Dey and Associates (2010) surveyed over 23,000 students and
8,000 professionals (faculty, student affairs personnel, and academic administrators) and found
that college students believe that perspective taking should be part of their higher education
experience. Approximately 93 percent of student respondents indicated that they “strongly
agree” or “somewhat agree” that an “essential goal” of college should be to prepare students to
take others perspectives seriously. Higher education professionals stand ready as well, with 97
percent of faculty members, academic administrators, and student affairs professionals agreeing
that perspective taking should be an essential goal of a college education.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Buddha’s (560-480 B.C) father shielded him from suffering during his childhood,
essentially creating a truly safe space for his son. The father made sure his son’s life was as
perfect as possible, offering him everything wonderful and nothing negative or upsetting. But
one day the Buddha left the castle, and when he viewed the sufferings of growing older,
sickness, and death, he was obliged to find the cause of human misery and in the process attained
enlightenment. In some regards, this is comparable to the film of the Bubble Boy who was only
able to become fully human when he left the refuge of his plastic bubble and experienced life
without this protection. Many college students today are looking for answers as well but will not
find security in safe places, trigger warnings, or calls for campuses free from ideas they do not
share but by civilly interacting with others and trying to better understand others’ outlooks. Such
empathy need not require that students accept others’ beliefs or behavior but may lessen fears
and lead to more productive relationships.
While colleges in many ways may seem like homes away from home, protecting students
and keeping them safe from sexual and physical assaults, providing food, recreational
opportunities, and health services and more, they are not homes; administrators are not parents
and university students are not children. University professionals can help students navigate the
ups and down of college life not by protecting them but by asking them to tackle ideas and
conduct unfamiliar to them, perhaps even objectionable to them. This confrontation can begin by
learning perspective taking and can start as an element in college orientation programs for new
and beginning students. Consistent with this view, Dallas psychologist Jeannie Whitman, who
specializes in stress and trauma-related disorders, said “What makes us sick, I mean
pathologically sick, is the avoidance of things, where we try to start trying to manipulate and
massage our lives so we don’t see anything that might be stressful. We have to live in this world,
and we’re going to be subject to things that are distressing” (quoted in Dembling, 2016).
Educators should not protect students from thoughts and messages they find upsetting or
wrong. Oftentimes, speech protected by the First Amendment, may offend or unsettle
conventional thinking and this is good. Universities should not be safe havens from disturbing
ideas and speech according to Mark Yudof (2015), former president of the University of
California and former chancellor of the University of Texas. It is one thing to condemn and quite
The counterproductive effects, Page 10
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
another to censor or punish. Universities and colleges are among the very few places in
American culture where one encounters others with different points of view and have the
opportunity to engage in vigorous debate. Bruni (2017) indicates that “If anything, colleges owe
students turbulence, because its’ from a contest of perspectives and an assault on presumptions
that truth emerges—and, with it, true confidence.” It is a place described by David Hodge,
former president of Miami University, where intellectual collisions can occur. “Colleges are
places where students learn and grow through intellectual collisions in and out of class, with
professors and staff, and peers…” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2013).
Nevertheless, it seems that many universities are becoming helicopter institutions willing
to soothe their students’ every struggle and where individuals can retreat from ideas and
perspectives that may conflict with their own. As we began, we end with a quote from the
University of Chicago: “For members of the University community, as for the University itself,
the proper response to ideas they find offensive, unwarranted and dangerous is not interference,
obstruction, or suppression. It is, instead, to engage in robust counter-speech that challenges the
merits of those ideas and exposes them for what they are. To this end, the University has a
solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and
deliberation but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it” (Stone, 2012).
Perspective taking can assist individuals in their quest for enlightenment and faculty and
counseling and student affairs professionals can significantly assist in such efforts, rather than
providing them students safe places. Perspective taking may provide the balance that has been
touted for millennia.
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. (2011, September 20). A manual for “Helicopter Parents” to land their aircraft, The
New York Times, retrieved 05/03/2017 from
https://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/helicopter-landing/comment-page-1/
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens though the
twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.
Averill, A. (2013, February 20). Helicoptering parenting college students: study shows ill effects.
Christian Science Monitor. P. N.PAG.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge:
Bradford Books, MIT Press.
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1995). Immorality from empathy-induced altruism:
When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
1042-1054.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2000). Teaching to promote holistic learning and development. In M. B.
Baxter Magolda (Ed). Linking student development, learning, and teaching. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 82, 88-98. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Beard, A. (2017, April 12). Prosecutors Drop Charges in Duke Case. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20070526075138/http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/11/national/a113721D83.DTL
Bell, L. A., Washington, S., Weinstein, G., & Love, B. (1997). Knowing ourselves as instructors.
In M. Adams, L. E. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.) Teaching for diversity and social justice: A
sourcebook (pp. 299-310), New York: Routledge.
The counterproductive effects, Page 11
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Berman, J. (2013, September 11). Millennials Now Bringing Their Parents Along On Job
Interviews. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/parent-jobinterview_n_3907447.html
Bigelow, B. (1994). Role plays: Show, don’t tell. In B. Bigelow, L. Christiansen, S. Karp, & B.
Bigelow (Eds.), Rethinking our classrooms (pp. 117-124). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking
Schools.
Bliss, J., & Burgess, M. N. (2012). My MacGuffin: Business as a spiritual practice.
Bloomington, IN: Balboa Press.
Boostrom, R. B. (1998). “Safe spaces”: Reflections on an educational metaphor. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 30(4), 397-408.
Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children—egocentrism or empathy.
Developmental Psychology, 5, 263-269.
Bradley-Geist, J. C., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2014). Helicopter parents: An examination of the
correlates of over-parenting of college students. Education & Training, 56, 314-328.
Bruni, F. (2017). The Dangerous Safety of College. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-safety-ofcollege.html?_r=0
Burleson, B. R., & Caplan, S. E. (1998). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCrosky, J. A. Daly, &
M. M. Martin (Eds.), Communication and personality (pp. 233-286). Creskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Caruso, E. M., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). The costs and benefits of undoing
egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 857-871.
Chandler, M. J., & Greenspan, S. (1972). Ersatz egocentrism: a reply to H. Borke.
Developmental Psychology, 7, 104-106.
Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the
power of the written word. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2013). What is College For? Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Is-College-For-/138683
Cline, F. W., & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting with love and logic: Teaching children responsibility.
Colorado Springs, CO: Piñon Press.
Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. (Eds.). (2004). Serving the millennial generation [Special issue].
New Directions for Student Services, 2004(106).
Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of
dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 560–565.
Davis, M.A. (2008). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 25-38.
Dembling, S. (2016, December 4). Oh, No, Here We Go Again. Dallas Morning News, Retrieved
from https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-dallas-morning-news/20161204/28403907654
2963
Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 48, 510-517.
Dey, E. L., and Associates. (2010). Engaging diverse viewpoints: What is the campus climate for
perspective taking? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
The counterproductive effects, Page 12
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Elder, L., & Cosgrove, R. (2007). John Stuart Mill: On Instruction, Intellectual Development,
and Disciplined Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/JohnStuartMill.pdf
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D.
Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental
simulation (pp. 297-311). New York: Psychology Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1986). The development of children’s knowledge about the appearance-reality
distinction. American Psychologist, 41, 418-425.
Fredrickson, B., Cohn, M., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build
lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build
consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,
1045-1062.
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui,
M. H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 176-185.
Furedi, F. (2016). The Rise of Safe Space Segregation. Retrieved from http://www.spikedonline.com/newsite/article/the-rise-of-safe-space-segregation/18905#.WOA_2tKgseg
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype
expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 384-392.
Gallo, E., & Gallo, J. J. (2001). Silver spoon kids: How successful parents raise responsible
children. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.
Gayle, B. M., Cortez, D., & Preiss, R. W. (2013). Safe spaces, difficult dialogues, and critical
thinking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2),
Article 5.
Gehlbach, H. (2004). A new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach to
conceptualizing an aptitude. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 207-236.
Gehlbach, H. (2017). Learning to walk in another’s shoes. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(5), 8-12.
Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A., Karutz, C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015). Many
ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its
effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 523-532.
Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2012). The association between overinvolved parenting and young
adults’ self-efficacy, psychological entitlement, and family communication.
Communication Research, 41, 1111-1136.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity
of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61-76.
Gray, P. (2015). Declining Student Resilience: A Serious Problem for Colleges. In Psychology
Today retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedomlearn/201509/declining-student-resilience-serious-problem-colleges
Hamilton, L. (2016, May 13). The Partnership Between colleges and Helicopter Parents. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/05/thepartnership-between-colleges-and-helicopter-parents/482595/
Henry, A. (1993-1994). There are no safe places: Pedagogy as powerful and dangerous terrain.
Action in Teacher Education, 15(4), 1-4.
Hiltz, J. (2015). Helicopter parents can be a good thing. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 26-29.
The counterproductive effects, Page 13
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Hofer, B. K. (2008). The electronic tether: Parental regulation, self-regulation, and the role of
technology in college transitions. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 20, 9–24.
Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holley, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom
environment. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49-64.
Hudson, J. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2001). Parent-child interactions and anxiety disorders: An
observational study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1411-1427.
Hurd, (2015, October 11). “Helicopter Colleges” Confront Lack of “Grit” in Students. Retrieved
05/03/2017 from https://drhurd.com/2015/10/11/what-is-true-grit-and-where-did-it-go
Iarovici, D. (2014). Mental health issues and the university student. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Johnson, D. W. (1975). Cooperativeness and social perspective taking. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 31, 241-244.
Kantrowitz, B., & Tyre, P. (2006, May 22). The fine art of letting go. Newsweek, 147, 48-49, 5254, 56-58.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
King, P. M. (2000). Learning to make reflective judgments. In M. B. Baxter Magolda (Ed).
Linking student development, learning, and teaching. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 82 (pp. 15-26). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Klick, J., & Mitchell, G. (2016, Summer). Infantilization by regulation. Markets & Morality, 3237.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In
T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues
(pp.31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in
American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Review 15(2) 180-198.
Kouros, C. D., Pruitt, M. M., Ekas, N. V., Kiriaki, R., & Sunderland, M. (2017). Helicopter
parenting, autonomy support, and college students’ mental health and well-being: The
moderating role of sex and ethnicity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(3), 939949.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (2005). Self-with-other representations and the organization of the self.
Journal of Research in Personality, 39(1), 185-205.
Lahey, J. (2015). The gift of failure. New York: HarperCollins.
Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and
control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 19, 759-782.
Langbert, M., Quain, A. J., & Klein, D. B. (2016). Faculty voter registration in economics,
history, journalism, law, and psychology. Econ Journal Watch, 13(3), 422-451.
LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its
effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399-418.
Leppma, M., & Young, M. E. (2016). Loving-kindness meditation and empathy: A wellness
group intervention for counseling students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94,
297-305.
The counterproductive effects, Page 14
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Lindley, L., & Rios, F. (2004). Taking stands for social justice. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly,
2(2), 89-106.
Lipka, S. (2007, November 9). Helicopter parents help students, study finds. Chronicle of Higher
Education. p. 4.
Locke, J., Campbell, M. A., & Kavanagh, D. J. (2012). Can a parent do too much for their child?
An examination by parenting professionals of the concept of overparenting. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 249-265.
Lythcott-Haims, J. (2015). How to raise an adult: Break free of the overparenting trap and
prepare your kid for success. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Marangoni, C., Garcia, S., Ickes, W., & Teng, G. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically
relevant setting, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 854-869.
Marano, H. E. (2016). The “Failure to Launch” Epidemic. Retrieved from Psychology Today at
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nation-wimps/201612/the-failure-launchepidemic
Martin, L. R., Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Criqui, M. H., & Schwartz,
J. E. (2002). A life course perspective on childhood cheerfulness and its relation to
mortality risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1155-1165.
Mayo (2002). The binds that tie: Civility and social differences. Educational Theory, 52(2), 169186.
McLeod, B. D., Wood, J. J., & Weisz, J. R. (2007). Examining the association between parenting
and childhood anxiety: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 155-172.
Meno, C. (2013). “Helicopter Parents” Stir Up Anxiety, Depression. Retrieved from
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/6073.html
Miremadi, D. (2015). Student Resilience and Healthy Coping are Key to Student Well-Being.
Retrieved from https://www.naspa.org/about/blog/student-resilience-and-healthy-copingare-key-to-student-well-being
Montgomery, N. (2010). The negative impact of helicopter parenting on personality. Poster
session presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological Science,
Boston, MA.
Moore, D. A. (2005). Myopic biases in strategic social prediction: Why deadlines put everyone
under more pressure than everyone else. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31(5), 668-679.
Munich, R. L., & Munich, M. A. (2009). Overparenting and the narcissistic pursuit of
attachment. Psychiatric Annals, 39, 227-235.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences That Matter: Enhancing Student
Learning and Success. Retrieved from
http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report/docs/withhold/NSSE_2007_Annual_
Report.pdf
Nelson, M. K. (2010). Parenting out of control: Anxious parenting in uncertain times. New
York: New York University Press.
Nemeth, C. J. (2011). Minority influence theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of theories in social psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 362377). New York: Sage
Norcross, J. C., Krebs, P. M., & Prochaska, J. O. (2011). Stages of change. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 67, 143-154.
The counterproductive effects, Page 15
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic
concern and altruistic helping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(5), 613-623.
Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W. B., & Axtell, C. M. (2008). Building better work places through
individual perspective taking: A fresh look at a fundamental human process. In G.
Hodgkinson & K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 149-196). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgment of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York: Free
Press. (Original work published 1932)
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a “theory of mind”? Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 4, 515-526.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change:
Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
Rainey, A. (2006, April 14). Survey provides further evidence of high parental involvement with
college students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 39-43.
Richardson, D. R., Green, L. R., & Lago, T. (1998). The relationship between perspectivetaking and nonaggressive responding in the face of an attack. Journal of Personality, 66,
235–256.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems
and personality systems. New York: Basic Books.
Robinson, E. (2006, April 25). Tough Questions in Durham. Retrieved from http://www.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401395.html
Salzberg, S. (1995). Loving-kindness: The revolutionary art of happiness. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.
Schiffrin, J. H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., Geary, K. A., Erchull, M. J., & Tasher, T. (2014).
Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 548-557.
Schoem, D., Hurtado, S., Sevig, T., Chesler, M., & Sumida, S. H. (2001). Intergroup dialogue:
Democracy at work in theory and practice. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup
dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace (pp.121). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Segrin, C., Givertz, M., Swaitkowski, P., & Montgomery, N. (2015). Overparenting is associated
with child problems and a critical family environment. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 24, 470-479.
Sessa, V. I. (1996). Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 101-115.
Sirota, M. (2017). Helicopter Parents Are Raising Unemployable Children. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marcia-sirota/helicopter-parents-employment_b_16329884.
html
Stone, G. (2012). Statement on Principles of Free Inquiry, by Prof. Geoffrey Stone. Retrieved
from https://news.uchicago.edu/behind-the-news/free-expression/statement-principlesfree-inquiry
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
The counterproductive effects, Page 16
Research in Higher Education Journal
Volume 33
Taylor, S. Jr. (2006, April). An Outrageous Rush to Judgment. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/an-outrageous-rush-tojudgment/304904/?single_page=true
Thompson, E. (2001). Empathy and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5-7), 132.
Ungar, M. (2009). Overprotective parenting: Helping parents provide children the right amount
of risk and responsibility. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 258–271.
van Ingen, D. J., Freiheit, S. R., Steinfeldt, J. A., Moore, L. L., Wimer, D. J., Knutt, A. D.,
Scapinello, S., & Roberts, A. (2015). Helicopter parenting: The effect of an overbearing
caregiving style on peer attachment and self-efficacy. Journal of College Counseling, 18,
7-20.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development:
The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655-684.
Wilson, R. (2015, August 31). An Epidemic of Anguish. Retrieved from the Chronicle of Higher
Education at http://campusmentalhealth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AD-CHEMentalHealth_How-to-Help-a-Student.pdf
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function
of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103-128.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habitformation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.
Yudof, M. (2015, January 15). Don’t expect universities to act as parents. Dallas Morning News,
p. 4p.
Zimmer, R. J. (2016, August 26). Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education. Retrieved from
the Wall Street Journal at https://www.wsj.com/articles/free-speech-is-the-basis-of-atrue-education-1472164801
The counterproductive effects, Page 17