Helicopter parenting usually represents excessive control by parents over their children, its essence lies in parents systematically depriving their children of opportunities to assume autonomous responsibility at critical developmental stages, all under the guise of “ensuring their children’s success” (Bradley-Geist & Olson-Buchanan, 2014). Previous research has shown that creativity itself has a significant genetic effect and is a relatively stable cognitive potential, however, its direction may be influenced by the environment (Velázquez et al., 2015). At the same time, creative resources may be strategically redirected based on an individual’s motivational state. Prior research has shown that when individuals perceive their freedom as threatened, they experience a motivational state comprised of anger and negative cognitions. This state drives them to restore their freedom, leading to rule-breaking and destructive behaviors (Rains & Turner, 2007). When intact creativity coexists with a motivation that is antagonistic or norm-violating, malevolent creativity emerges (Cropley et al., 2008). Moreover, the research conducted by Wang (2023a) reported that parental rejection and over-protection are positively correlated with Chinese college students’ malevolent creativity, while parental emotional warmth negatively predicts malevolent creativity. As an extreme form of over-protection, helicopter parenting may similarly channel creative potential toward socially harmful ends. Therefore, we infer that helicopter parenting may be associated with malevolent creativity of college students.

The family environment is the family context in which an individual grows and develops (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). On the one hand, parents’ parenting styles, as one of the constituent factors of the family environment, have a close mutual influence relationship with the family environment. First of all, the family environment, as the primary place for an individual’s socialization, its quality largely depends on the parenting style adopted by parents. As a micro-system that influences children’s development, the internal interaction patterns of the family, especially the parenting behaviors of parents, will directly shape the emotional atmosphere and functional characteristics of the family, and determine its socialization function (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Moreover, research on emerging adults indicates that over-controlled helicopter parenting is closely related to the family environment. Specifically, both parent-reported and child-reported perceptions of over-control are significantly positively associated with a critical family environment (Segrin et al., 2015).

On the other hand, the quality of the family environment is an important factor influencing the development of an individual’s malevolent creativity. Firstly, research shows that within the family environment, excessive emotional distance between teenagers and their parents, a lack of protection and support among family members, an absence of family unity, and the family’s neglect of order and organization are all closely related to an individual’s destructive behavior (Kuznetsova & Rychkova, 2021). Furthermore, the family environment is closely related to an individual’s creative behavior. Specifically, a negative family environment, such as a neglectful family environment, is one of the significant external triggers for malevolent creativity (Zhang et al., 2025). Based on the essential characteristics of malevolent creativity, it can be speculated that a positive family environment may be negatively linked with an individual’s malevolent creative behaviors. Furthermore, based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that the helicopter parenting style may be associated with an adverse family environment, which in turn may be related to higher levels of malevolent creative behavior.

The moral identity is the core component related to moral traits, values and beliefs in an individual’s self-concept, reflecting the extent to which an individual internalizes moral qualities as self-identity. It was divided into two dimensions, which includes internalization and symbolization. Internalization refers to the degree to which moral traits are integrated into one’s self-concept, while symbolization refers to the extent to which these moral traits are manifested in external behaviors (Aquino & Reed II, 2002). Moral identity theory posits that moral behavior depends not only on moral judgment but also on whether moral traits are integrated into an individual’s self-concept. When a person regards morality as a core part of themselves, moral identity becomes a crucial motivational foundation for inhibiting immoral behavior (Blasi, 1983). Previous studies have shown that there is a strong connection between moral identity and moral behavior, suggesting that the moral identity may serve as an important source of motivation for moral behavior. This is manifested by the fact that individuals with high moral identity may be more willing to donate to charities or engage in altruistic behaviors (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Therefore, for contemporary college students, the cultivation of moral identity is particularly important.

The helicopter parenting style with excessive parental control may have a significant negative impact on the development of an individual’s moral identity. Firstly, from the perspective of the internalization dimension of moral identity. Previous study based on the Self-Determination Theory showed that parents’ psychological control can weaken their children’s sense of self-determination, forcing them to passively follow external norms rather than truly identify with moral values (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). It hinders the process of moral internalization. Furthermore, from the perspective of the symbolization dimension, authoritarian parenting and psychological control over children are positively correlated with the moral evasion tendency of teenagers (Jiang et al., 2025), which is manifested as the evasion of moral responsibility and the rationalization of immoral behavior (Bandura et al., 1996), it increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in immoral behavior, then further weakens the stability of individuals’ moral identity (Detert et al., 2008).

Meanwhile, there may also be a certain correlation between an individual’s moral identity and their malevolent creativity. Firstly, malevolent creative behavior can serve as an expression of the low moral identity symbolization dimension. Individuals with a higher moral identity have a stronger motivation to maintain their moral image, thereby preventing themselves from engaging in immoral behaviors (Blasi, 1983). From the perspective of social cognitive theory, moral identity is a self-concept organized and established by an individual around moral characteristics, and it is a kind of moral cognitive schema (Aquino & Kay, 2018), individuals with high moral identity can restrain the exertion of their own malevolent creativity to a greater extent. Specifically, research shows that when an individual’s moral identity is at a high level, even if the individual has a relatively high tendency towards malevolent creative behavior, they are less likely to exhibit malevolent creative behavior. On the contrary, when an individual’s moral identity is at a low to medium level, the behavioral tendency of malevolent creativity is more likely to be transformed into actual manifestations of malevolent creativity (Gao et al., 2022). Therefore, it can be hypothesized that helicopter parenting may be linked to lower moral identity in individuals, which in turn may be associated with the emergence of malevolent creativity in individuals.

The family environment, as an important place for individual socialization, has a profound influence on the formation and development of an individual’s moral identity. Research has shown that parent-child interaction patterns in the family environment have a profound impact on children’s moral cognition and emotional experience, and the high-quality interaction between parents and children has a positive impact on children’s moral development (Kochanska & Murray, 2000). In addition, the family can influence an individual’s moral cognition and behavior through various means, including the behavior of parents, the quality of family communication and the basic structure of family and so on (Wang, 2023b). Meanwhile, beyond the influence of immaterial factors in the family environment on an individual’s moral identity, material environmental factors have also been shown to affect its development. For example, based on the moral identity model, social structural factors such as family socioeconomic status have a direct predictive effect on individuals’ moral identity, and families with high socioeconomic status may provide more educational resources and social support for their children, which may promote the development of their moral reflection and prosocial behavior (Hart, 2005). In addition, parents’ education level and socioeconomic status also affect their childrearing approaches and communication skills, thereby influencing their children’s moral development (Tan & Yasin, 2020). Therefore, it can be inferred that a positive family environment may be positively correlated with an individual’s moral identity.

This study integrates three complementary theoretical perspectives to explain how helicopter parenting may be associated with malevolent creativity. First, Psychological Reactance Theory (Brehm & Brehm, 2013) points that when individuals perceive that their behavioral freedom is threatened or deprived, they typically experience psychological reactance and develop a strong motivation to restore the threatened freedom. This oppositional motivation increases the likelihood of rule-challenging and destructive behaviors. It provides a motivational explanation for the direct link between helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity. Meanwhile, Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1966) points that excessive parental control may alter the emotional dynamics of the entire family system rather than functioning as an isolated behavioral style. It indicates that parenting behaviors do not operate in isolation but reshape the entire family’s emotional climate. Finally, Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) posits that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness, is a prerequisite for psychological well-being and high-quality motivation. Conversely, the frustration of these needs can lead to a range of maladaptive outcomes, including moral internalization. These frameworks provide a theoretical basis for the hypothesized serial mediation model.

In the Chinese cultural context, family relationships are strongly influenced by confucian values that emphasize filial piety, family obligation, and respect for parental authority. Parents are generally expected to play an active and enduring role in guiding their children’s development, particularly in educational and moral domains (Chuang et al., 2018). Meanwhile, compared with Western societies that often prioritize independence and early autonomy, Chinese families tend to place greater emphasis on parental involvement and interdependence between parents and children (Gao et al., 2021). As a result, parental monitoring and guidance frequently extend into late adolescence and even the college years. Furthermore, the tendency of Chinese-style “helicopter parenting” to overemphasize academic success and conformity (Zong & Hawk, 2022). It makes China a unique context for examining whether perceived excessive control, even when culturally sanctioned, still carries risks for maladaptive outcomes. Understanding this cultural nuance is essential for advancing cross-cultural theories of parenting and development.

A convenience sample of 489 college students comprised the study sample (56.2% female students). The majority of the participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 23 years old, with 426 (87.1%) of them. Moreover, there was 1 (0.2%) under the age of 18, 60 (12.3%) aged between 24 and 28, and 2 (0.4%) over the age of 28. There are 45 (9.2%) freshmen, 177 (36.2%) sophomores, 141 (28.8%) juniors and 126 (25.8%) seniors and above.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Jining Medical University (JNMC-2021-YX-015). All participants provided informed consent after being informed of the study details, and their voluntary participation was assured. The questionnaires were distributed online through the questionnaire survey platform “Wenjuanxing” (https://www.wjx.cn).

We utilized Model 6 in PROCESS 4.1 compiled by Hayes (2013) to investigate the mediating effect of family environment and moral identity between helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity. To enhance the comparability of model coefficients, all predictor variables were standardized (z-score standardization) prior to conducting the chain-mediation model analysis. Furthermore, given that the variables were significantly correlated with one another, there might be collinearity concerns. We assessed collinearity using variance inflation factors (VIFs). The results showed that the VIF values for all variables ranged from 1.05 to 1.30 (all below 2), and tolerance values ranged from 0.77 to 0.95 (all above 0.1), indicating no significant collinearity.

The Bootstrap method was used to examine the mediation model and calculate the 95% confidence interval with 5000 Bootstrap sampling times. Serial mediation analysis was conducted with gender, grade as control variables, providing a robust test of our hypothesized pathways. This analytical approach allowed us to quantify the unique and sequential mediating roles of family environment and moral identity, to assess the plausibility of the underlying causal process.

Because the data were collected using the subjects’ self-report method, this may lead to common method bias. Therefore, the Harman test was used to assess the common method bias in this study. The results showed that 13 factors had eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor explained 19.79 percent of the overall variation, which was below the 40% threshold (Zhou & Long, 2004), suggesting that the common methodological biases did not pose a significant threat in this study.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for helicopter parenting, family environment, moral identity and malevolent creativity. The correlation analysis revealed a statistical association among all study variables. Helicopter parenting was positively correlated with malevolent creativity (p < 0.001), and negatively correlated with family environment (p < 0.01). Moral identity was negatively correlated with helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity (p < 0.001). Family environment was positively correlated with moral identity (p < 0.001), and negatively correlated with malevolent creativity (p < 0.001). Regarding the control variables, gender and grade showed a weak negative correlation (p < 0.05), and grade was also weakly negatively correlated with helicopter parenting (p < 0.05). The preliminary results of the correlation analysis support the theoretical expectations of this study: helicopter parenting is associated with a more negative family environment, lower moral identity, and higher malevolent creativity; while a positive family environment is related to higher moral identity, and both are associated with lower malevolent creativity. These initial correlations provide the necessary premise for testing more complex sequential mediation paths.

Based on the significant correlations among helicopter parenting, family environment, moral identity, and malevolent creativity, further mediation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships between these variables.

Table 2 and Figure 2 present the results of the regression analysis. After controlling for irrelevant variables, results showed that helicopter parenting significantly positively predicted malevolent creativity (β = 0.421, p < 0.001). This provides support for our main effect hypothesis (H1), indicating that parents’ over-controlling behavior is associated with higher levels of malevolent creativity, while it significantly negatively predicted family environment (β = −0.149, p < 0.001) and moral identity (β = −0.142, p < 0.001). This discovery indicates that excessive control is not only directly linked to negative outcomes, but is also indirectly associated with family environment and moral identity. Moreover, from a practical perspective, the standardized coefficient indicates that for every one standard deviation increase in helicopter parenting, malevolent creativity increases by 0.421 standard deviations. Therefore, even moderate shifts in parenting practices may contribute to measurable differences in developmental outcomes. In addition, Family environment significantly positively predicted moral identity (β = 0.440, p < 0.001), which implies that a positive family atmosphere is an important factor in fostering an individual’s moral identity, and constitutes the core link of our sequential mediation model. Finally, when both the family environment and moral identity are taken into account simultaneously. The family environment significantly negatively predicted malevolent creativity (β = −0.278, p < 0.001). Additionally, moral identity significantly negatively predicted malevolent creativity (β = −0.220, p < 0.001). At this point, although the direct predictive effect of helicopter parenting on malevolent creativity remains significant, the effect value has decreased (β = 0.334, p < 0.001). This change suggests that both the family environment and moral identity jointly explain part of the correlation between helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity. These results indicated that the serial mediating effect of family environment and moral identity between helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity is significant. Additionally, grade showed a weak positive predictive effect on malevolent creativity in the first regression model (β = 0.086, p < 0.05), but this effect became non significant after family environment and moral identity were included in the model. Gender did not demonstrate any significant predictive effect in all models.

Furthermore, the complete model that includes two mediating variables (R² = 0.354) provides a significantly greater explanatory power for malevolent creativity compared to the baseline model that only includes helicopter parenting (R² = 0.181). This substantial increase in explanatory power indicates that incorporating the family environment and moral identity into the model can greatly deepen our understanding of the causes of malevolent creativity, surpassing the explanatory framework based solely on a single parenting behavior.

To quantify the effects of these indirect paths, we conducted a Bootstrap mediation effect test. Table 3 shows the mediating effect values of family environment and moral identity between helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity. After controlling for demographic variables, the effect value of helicopter parenting on malevolent creativity was 0.421, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.340, 0.503] (excluding 0), indicating a significant overall effect. The total indirect effect value was 0.087, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.040, 0.140], and the direct effect value was 0.334, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.261, 0.408], both excluding 0. This indicates that the total indirect effect and the direct benefit are both significant. Moreover, the 95% confidence intervals of all three mediating paths did not include 0, which indicated that the three paths were all significant. These not only demonstrate the roles of family environment and moral identity as independent mediating variables, but also confirm their theoretical conception as sequential mediators. Furthermore, the total indirect effect accounted for 20.67% of the total effect. The proportions of the indirect effects for the three pathways were 9.74%, 7.36%, and 3.33%, respectively.

Understanding helicopter parenting is essential for clarifying how creativity is shaped and channeled toward either constructive or harmful outcomes. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the concepts of helicopter parenting and malevolent creativity were initially developed in Western contexts. Within the Chinese cultural framework, behaviors that might be labeled as “helicopter parenting” in a Western context, such as high levels of parental control, may be interpreted in China as expressions of parental love and responsibility rather than merely as restriction (Wang et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the significant associations observed in the present study suggest that even within a cultural framework where parental involvement is expected, perceived excessive control may still have negative implications for moral development and creativity. Future cross-cultural research is needed to further examine the measurement invariance and functional equivalence of these constructs across cultures. Meanwhile, an alternative interpretation should be acknowledged. Because helicopter parenting was assessed through retrospective self-report, it remains possible that individuals with stronger malevolent creative tendencies may reinterpret or reconstruct their childhood experiences as more controlling.

In conclusion, the findings of this study carry several practical implications for educators and parents. Firstly, parents should grant children more autonomy, aiming to reduce the likelihood that an over-controlling parenting style leads to malevolent creativity. Secondly, fostering a warm, cohesive, and low conflict family atmosphere can serve as a protective factor against malevolent creativity. Thirdly, parents and educators should consciously model and reinforce moral behavior, helping children internalize moral standards. Meanwhile, for college students, particularly those from high risk family backgrounds, university based mental health services should be made available. Overall, multi level interventions targeting parenting practices, family dynamics, and moral development are needed to reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in malevolent creativity.

A serial mediation model explains that helicopter parenting is not only directly related to the formation of an individual’s malevolent creativity, but also indirectly related to an individual’s malevolent creativity through the mediating effects of the family environment and moral identity, respectively. This finding not only promotes the understanding of the influencing factors and mechanism of malevolent creativity among college students, but also provides a new perspective on the complex relationship between family upbringing styles and the psychological development of college students.

However, there are also deficiencies in this study. Firstly, this study adopts a cross-sectional design, which is difficult to reveal the causal relationship among variables. In the future, longitudinal studies and experimental methods can be used to further explore the causal relationship among various variables. Secondly, this study adopted the method of questionnaire survey, making it difficult to determine whether the respondents’ answers were consistent with the actual situation. Moreover, only college students from one Province of China were selected for study and findings may not generalize to other settings. Last but not least, the present study relied on retrospective self-reports of helicopter parenting, which may be subject to memory reconstruction bias. Individual’ current psychological characteristics, including malevolent creativity tendencies, may influence how they recall and interpret their parents’ past behaviors. It is therefore possible that participants with higher malevolent creativity reconstruct their childhood parenting experiences as more controlling, independent of the objective parenting practices they actually experienced. Future research should adopt longitudinal or multi-informant designs to better disentangle temporal ordering and reduce potential attribution bias.