1265310
research-article2024
GCQXXX10.1177/00169862241265310Gifted Child QuarterlySnyder et al.
Registered Report
Context-Dependent Social Comparison
and Imposter Phenomenon: An
Experimental Vignette Approach
Gifted Child Quarterly
2024, Vol. 68(4) 264­–278
© 2024 National Association for
Gifted Children
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241265310
DOI:
10.1177/00169862241265310
journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq
Kate E. Snyder1 , Maxwell I. Bartley1, and Allison Fowler2
Abstract
Recent research into imposter phenomenon, or internal feelings of questioning competence, has shifted away from conceptua­
lizing the feeling as an individual characteristic that requires an individual solution toward instead examining the role of context.
We used a 2 (Generational Status: First Generation vs. Continuing Generation) × 3 (Environment: Classroom vs. Peer vs.
Administration) × 2 (Social Comparison: Present vs. Absent) experimental vignette design. Overall, we found that, for both firstand continuing-generation students, social comparison messages differentially impacted imposter feelings depending on context,
with the most elevated levels in social comparison messages from administrators and peers. Findings contribute to a better
understanding of structural conditions that exacerbate or lessen imposter feelings at highly selective post-secondary institutions.
Keywords
ANOVA/MANOVA, experimental design, beliefs, college students, social/emotional
I have challenged fate to chess and am now attempting to keep
all my confidence from puddling in my boots. What if I’m the
only one betting on myself because everyone but me can see I
am not suited to play at all?
―Mackenzi Lee,
The Lady’s Guide to Petticoats and Piracy
At times, successes can be difficult to internalize and
acknowledge, especially in academic settings (Ibrahim et al.,
2023). Despite studying, working hard, and achieving any
number of goals or accolades, many successful individuals
attribute their success to external factors rather than acknowledging their intellectual capacity. If these feelings are persistent and accompanied by feelings of fraudulence, it can be
understood as imposter phenomenon. Imposter phenomenon
occurs when an individual chronically credits success to
sources external to themselves. An estimated 70% of people
report experiencing imposter phenomenon at some point in
their lives (Sakulku & Alexander, 2011), even in adolescence
(Caselman et al., 2006) and among faculty (Vaughn et al.,
2020), and it can lead to numerous detrimental consequences
and psychological distress (Parkman, 2016).
Recently, discussion of imposter phenomenon has shifted
away from conceptualizing the feeling as an individual characteristic that requires an individual solution toward considering the context as the source of the problem; in other words,
it is not an individual problem but a structural problem1
(Chrousos & Mentis, 2020; Mullangi & Jagsi, 2019; Yang &
Gentry, 2022). There is a lack of research that specifically
explores how interactions with others in different academic
settings may lead to higher or lower levels of imposter feelings. The question then shifts from asking who is most likely
to experience imposter feelings to the types of contexts that
may elicit imposter feelings differently for distinct groups
of individuals. Understanding the influence of these factors
will help determine if certain environments and conditions
promote imposter phenomenon feelings; ultimately, these
findings can be used to restructure contexts with the goal of
minimizing imposter feelings.
Theoretical Background
Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1989) posits that human
behavior is driven by personal, environmental, and behavioral
factors. Personal factors include goals, beliefs, emotions, selfevaluation, self-efficacy, and cognition. Environmental factors
include social models, instruction, and feedback. Behavioral
factors include effort, persistence, and achievement. Together,
1
Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA
Spalding University, Louisville, KY, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Kate E. Snyder, Department of Psychology, Bates College, Pettengill Hall,
Lewiston, ME 04240-6020, USA.
Email: kate.snyder@aspeninstitute.org
Snyder et al.
these factors interact with each other and motivate human
behavior. Understanding this model helps inform our understanding of academic outcomes and motivation within academic settings (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
The model of triadic reciprocity in Social Cognitive
Theory is built on the idea that the three main factors of person, environment, and behavior are always in reciprocal
interaction. If a student has high confidence (person factor)
including the belief that they can execute the behaviors necessary to achieve a certain outcome, they are more likely to
engage in behaviors linked to academic success, such as setting goals and studying (e.g., Prat-Sala & Redford, 2010).
These behaviors and feelings are influenced by environmental factors, such as the way in which information is presented
and feedback from instructors (Schunk & DiBenedetto,
2020). When exploring something like imposter phenomenon feelings (person), the presence of social comparison
(environment), and the setting where this comparison occurs
(environment) are important factors to consider due to the
reciprocal nature of behaviors, environments, and personal
processes (French et al., 2008). Using Social Cognitive
Theory as a grounding framework, we aim to investigate
how environments impact imposter feelings among undergraduates at an elite institution.
Triadic reciprocity may reveal why environments can
have such an important impact on something, such as imposter phenomenon. If the environments students find themselves in promote higher levels of imposter phenomenon,
students may feel incompetent and out of place. This may, in
turn, influence behavioral factors, such as withdrawal, leading to a feedback loop of academic stress and self-doubt
linked to imposter phenomenon (Parkman, 2016). As illustrated in Figure 1, we are targeting one aspect of these reciprocal interactions by testing the influence of social
comparison-infused environments on imposter feelings,
particularly for first-generation students. In this way, we are
exploring the link between environment and person with a
focus on how different components of environments in college can influence students’ imposter feelings, dependent on
personal characteristics, such as first-generation college student status.
Imposter Phenomenon: Person Factors
Triadic reciprocation provides a framework for broadly
understanding imposter phenomenon (person) by considering antecedents (environment) and consequences (behavior).
In the section below, we provide a review of imposter phenomenon beliefs in relation to other person characteristics,
including academic talent and college generational status.
Imposter phenomenon was a concept first named by
Clance and Imes (1978) to describe highly successful
women who felt intellectually unqualified and inadequate.
These feelings persisted despite ample evidence that suggested otherwise. Often, individuals who experience
265
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Triadic Reciprocation for
Current Study.
imposter phenomenon fear that they will be exposed as a
fraud and deem themselves unworthy of the praise and recognition they receive for their accomplishments. Selfdeclared imposters attribute their success to good luck,
chance, or error rather than intelligence and skill (Clance &
Imes, 1978). These initial findings led to a body of research
dedicated to understanding the prevalence and impact of
imposter phenomenon. Imposter phenomenon may be more
common among academically talented students (Lee et al.,
2021), including women at the tenured professor level of
academia (Vaughn et al., 2020), and can lead to psychological distress (Henning et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2019) and
academic self-sabotage (Want & Kleitman, 2006).
Perfectionism can be understood as rigorous self-evaluation and the tendency to set high standards for oneself.
Students who report high levels of perfectionism also report
high levels of imposter phenomenon (Dudău, 2014; Lee
et al., 2021; Parkman, 2016). Often, perfectionism can be
adaptive if these high standards increase pressure to perform
and work hard but they become maladaptive when they
undermine perceived ability and confidence. Perfectionists
may set standards that are too high and when those standards
are not met or exceeded, they may become overly critical of
their performance (Wang et al., 2019). Specific factors of
perfectionism, such as doubting one’s ability to perform at
the expected level, fear of making mistakes, and perceived
high standards of others sustain feelings of imposter phenomenon (Pannhausen et al., 2020). In addition, imposter
phenomenon is positively correlated with perfectionistic
feelings, such as seeking validation from others, being sensitive to criticism, and over-analysis of less than perfect results
(Dudău, 2014).
Specifically, socially prescribed perfectionism occurs
when individuals believe that other people have high expectations of them. This is often accompanied by fear that they
will be unable to live up to these expectations. Socially prescribed perfectionism has been correlated with negative
266
evaluations of social comparison and has been significantly
correlated with depression (Wyatt & Gilbert, 1998) and
imposter phenomenon (Lee et al., 2021). Socially prescribed
perfectionism and imposter phenomenon share a common
thread of self-doubt and inadequacy. If students feel they
need to set high standards to maintain good academic standing and live up to expectations placed on them, they may be
unable to achieve these standards which can lead to negative
emotions of imposter phenomenon. They may experience
feelings of fraudulence and fear that others will recognize
them as an imposter.
Students who are academically talented may be more
likely to experience imposter phenomenon (Lee et al., 2021);
higher levels of imposter phenomenon were found among
undergraduates enrolled in honors programs when compared
with the larger undergraduate population, leading the authors
to suggest that students who are in competitive programs
or enrolled in highly selective schools may be more likely
to experience feelings of imposter phenomenon. These contexts tend to be more competitive due to the nature of selective programs. It is not yet known, however, if this heightened
competition is exacerbated within specific environments on
campus. For example, students may be aware of the competitive nature of a school in specific environments, such as the
classroom or an administration setting (e.g., hearing messages from the college president about the prestigious accomplishments of attending students). These settings may remind
students of the high caliber of their peers whereas situations
outside of these settings, such as a casual social interaction
with their peers, may not have the same effect. Exploration
into the nuance of competitive environments is therefore an
intriguing area of investigation for imposter phenomenon.
Clance and Imes focused specifically on successful
women, but experiencing imposter phenomenon is not limited to any particular demographic (Clark et al., 2014; Cokley
et al., 2013). However, gender, race, ethnicity, and other identity markers may impact pervasiveness of imposter phenomenon (Cokley et al., 2013), including first-generation status in
higher education (Canning et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2022;
Peteet et al., 2015). High rates of imposter phenomenon have
been found in many college populations and extend to faculty,
staff, and students (Parkman, 2016). These feelings are influenced by several factors, including perfectionism (Lee et al.,
2021; Pannhausen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019), academic
talent (Lee et al., 2021), and perceived classroom competition
(Canning et al., 2020). Understanding the factors that influence imposter phenomenon may help explain how certain
environments foster or diminish these feelings.
Environmental Factors in Imposter Phenomenon
Research stemming from Social Cognitive Theory has long
demonstrated the importance of examining environmental
influences on person-related factors, including motivation
and more. For example, competitive environments
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
detrimentally impact confidence, mental health, and learning
(Canning et al., 2020; Cokley et al., 2013). These types of
environments can encourage students to compare themselves
with their peers and pit students against each other. In these
settings, students gauge their success and competence by
comparing themselves with other students rather than focusing on their own accomplishments (Canning et al., 2020).
Classroom competition can lead to feelings of fraudulence
and self-doubt, both components of imposter phenomenon.
High levels of competition positively correlate with anxiety,
depression (Posselt & Lipson, 2016), and self-doubt (Cokley
et al., 2013). Using an experience sampling method, researchers observed that daily feelings of class competition in STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
courses were related to daily imposter feelings, especially
among first-generation students (Canning et al., 2020), highlighting how personal factors interact with environments in
shaping fluctuations in imposter feelings.
The created environment within classrooms can also lead
to imposter feelings. For example, classroom goal structure
places emphasis on differences among students and only
showcases the work of the highest achievers in the classroom. This type of classroom structure has been shown to
lead to higher levels of academic self-sabotage (Urdan,
2004). In addition, classroom environments that focus on
competing for grades can increase performance in a small
portion of students while decreasing performance in other
students. In these competitive classrooms, students report
more disruptive behaviors and cheating (Meece et al., 2006).
Returning to the triadic model of reciprocity (Bandura,
1978), environments, behaviors, and personal processes are
always in interaction with each other. If the prevalence of
imposter phenomenon is to be prevented in academic settings, environmental influences must be considered.
In undergraduate institutions, classroom competition may
not be limited to the classroom space. Among adolescents at
a college preparatory high school, competition was seen as
toxic and detrimental whereas comparison was seen as a
healthy behavior (Rizza & Reis, 2001). Students reported
that the nature of competition pitted students against each
other while comparison was used to gauge relative success
(Rizza & Reis, 2001). However, the line between comparison and competition can be difficult to determine. Certain
students may perceive specific behaviors as healthy comparison whereas other students may perceive this behavior as
competition and react negatively (person-related influences
on environment). Distinctions between students’ intelligence
and academic success are made in settings outside of the
classroom. These comparisons can occur in casual conversations, students often ask other students how they did on various assignments. They may share other results, such as test
scores, including results from standardized tests, such as the
American College Test (ACT) or SAT (Rizza & Reis, 2001).
Depending on how this interaction is perceived, it may determine the consequences of said comparison. Conversely,
Snyder et al.
perceiving support from peers is associated with lower
imposter feelings among adolescents (Caselman et al., 2006),
suggesting that peers can both contribute to and protect
against imposter feelings (Yang & Gentry, 2023).
Environments may be considered as containing social
comparison to varying degrees, and social comparison
between students may come from several different sources.
Students may feel pressured to compare themselves with
others by teachers, other students, or even the institution they
attend. When students believe that they outperform their
peers they typically feel better than those who feel they
underperform their peers (Strickhouser & Zell, 2015). Social
comparison can increase anxiety in individuals who believe
they are lower scoring than their peers and often reduce
effort when forced to compete (Bedard & Fischer, 2019).
When students believe they are less competent than their
peers at a task it can hinder cognitive engagement and reduce
effective learning (Micari & Drane, 2011). This social competition may lead to similar psychological distress associated
with competitive classroom environments.
Constant pressure to perform and achieve can be detrimental; imposter phenomenon feelings are positively correlated with increased levels of depression (McGregor et al.,
2008; Posselt & Lipson, 2016), anxiety (Cokley et al., 2013;
Posselt & Lipson, 2016), psychological distress (Henning
et al., 1998), and minoritized student status stress; understood as the additional stressors minority students face
related to racism, discrimination, traumatic stress, educational hegemony, insensitive comments, and questions of
belonging (Cokley et al., 2013). Pressures to perform are
unique environmental factors that impact both behavioral
and personal factors, and may lead to increased likelihood of
imposter phenomenon. Little research has been done on how
different environments impact imposter phenomenon and if
sources of competition and comparison matter. The undergraduate setting is an important area to focus on due to the
prevalence of imposter phenomenon in higher education and
the numerous ways competition and comparison can persist
in this environment (Parkman, 2016).
Institutions of higher education are typically competitive
in nature and may foster negative social comparison between
students (Dijkstra et al., 2008). As college degrees become a
requirement for many entry-level jobs, colleges and universities have become even more competitive (Brankovic et al.,
2018). Degrees from elite universities have become even
more desirable (Killgore, 2009). Highly selective colleges
may deny more than 90% of applicants (Shemmassian,
2021), potentially leading to competitive environments at
those schools. Environments can influence and exacerbate
feelings of inadequacy in students who may already have
seeds of self-doubt, which can in turn lead to negative consequences associated with perceived competition and
imposter phenomenon. Exploration into how specific environments at a selective institution impact prevalence and
nature of imposter phenomenon may reveal how these
267
environments can be better suited for students and prevent
this harmful phenomenon.
Current Study
When environments become more competitive, students
may be more likely to experience imposter phenomenon and
highly selective schools may especially contain pockets of
environments in which imposter phenomenon feelings are
more likely. The competitive nature of an elite school can
become pervasive, leading to it being present in multiple
environments within an institution (Rizza & Reis, 2001).
Viewed within this context framework, the question changes
from “who is most likely to experience imposter feelings”
to “how do student characteristics interact with features of
context to shape imposter feelings?” In this way, we are testing the Environment to Person link of triadic reciprocation
within Social Cognitive Theory.
In this study, we explored how the presence of competition
and social comparison impact imposter feelings in different
environments at a highly selective liberal arts college, and
how these effects may be intensified among first-generation
students compared with continuing generation students.
We built on prior phenomenological inquiry into the lives of
talented first-generation college students (e.g., Hébert, 2018)
by exploring how environmental context may differentially
impact imposter feelings based on generational status.
Following research by Canning et al. (2020), we examined
imposter feelings through a context-dependent, state lens (vs.
a more stable, trait lens). We used a mixed design with both a
between-subjects factor (generational status) and within-subjects factors (higher education setting and presence of social
comparison). Within this experimental vignette design, participants were asked to imagine various scenarios where
social comparison is either made salient or not to understand
how perceived competitive status impacted imposter phenomenon feelings across different environments.
The within-subjects component of the design allowed us
to manipulate environmental conditions and social comparison while maintaining a consistent perspective through a
singular participant. Each vignette was specifically written
for this study with an intention of creating an imagined
experience for the participants. Three environments were
used in this study: classroom, peer, and administration.
Using these different environments, we examined how
imposter phenomenon feelings are impacted by various
environments and sources.
We used a 2 (Generational Status: First Generation,
Continuing Generation) × 3 (Environment: Classroom,
Peer, Administration) × 2 (Social Comparison: Present,
Absent) experimental vignette mixed design. Generational
status served as the between-subjects variable and both
environment and social comparison served as within-subjects variables. We asked if the presence of social comparison interacted with academic settings to intensify imposter
268
feelings in certain contexts, and if this effect would be
intensified among first-generation students compared with
continuing-generation students. Our hypotheses were as
follows:
Hypothesis 1: We hypothesized a statistically significant
main effect of social comparison, such that, imposter phenomenon feelings would be higher when social comparison is present compared with when social comparison is
absent.
Hypothesis 2: In addition, we predicted a statistically significant Environment × Social Comparison interaction,
such that, when social comparison is present, imposter
phenomenon would be highest in peer and administration
environments, compared with classroom environments.
The peer environment in which this occurs may exacerbate these feelings because the source of social comparison is direct from peers. As in social and classroom
settings, the administration and admission teams play an
essential role in the perceived competitiveness of a college. In a formal setting where awareness of competition
comes from the college itself, students may feel a sense of
inadequacy or alienation from the institution. If the college brings attention to the excellence of its students,
some students may feel unqualified to be a part of the
institution and report high levels of imposter feeling.
Hypothesis 3: Finally, we drew from prior findings
(Canning et al., 2020) in hypothesizing a statistically significant three-way interaction, such that, the aforementioned interaction pattern (Hypothesis 2) would be stronger
among first-generation students compared with continuing-generation students. In other words, we expected that
social comparison environments would elicit strongest
imposter feelings among first-generation students compared with continuing-generation students.
Method2
Participants
Data were collected from undergraduate students at an elite
small liberal arts institution in New England in the United
States during the Winter 2023 semester. Acceptance rate
for the 2022–2023 class was 13.7% (Bates College Office
of Institutional Research, Analysis, and Planning, 2022),
making it highly selective. The institution has held a testoptional admissions policy for decades but provides information on SAT and ACT scores for students who choose to
submit when applying; the interquartile range for those
scores describes an ACT composite of 32 to 33, SAT
Evidence-based Reading and Writing of 710 to 745, and
SAT Mathematics of 720 to 760.
Participants were recruited from psychology courses as
part of the departmental participant pool and through other
means, including flyers posted around campus and email
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
listservs. In addition, participants were given the choice to
receive psychology course credit for their participation or be
entered into a raffle to win one of several gift cards to a popular local bakery. For the past several admitted classes to this
institution, the percentage of students identifying as firstgeneration has held steady at approximately 12% (Bates
College 2020, 2021, 2022); accordingly, we intentionally
attempted to over-sample from this population by posting
targeted flyers and posting recruitment materials to particular email listservs.
The following inclusion criteria were used: enrollment as
a full-time student at the college and at least 18 years of age,
passing the manipulation check question, and responding
“yes” to the question asking for a commitment to provide
thoughtful responses. Based on previous research using commitment requests (Geisen, 2022), this type of commitment
request has an approximate 5% failure rate; accordingly, we
accounted for this in our sample size recruitment plan.
Previously collected pilot data (Bartley, 2022) served as
an approximate estimate of effect size for the current study.
We collected data from 37 undergraduates at this institution
using similar vignettes and a similar, single-item indicator of
imposter feelings from the Clance Imposter Phenomenon
Scale (Chrisman et al., 1995): “I would be afraid that people
important to me would find out that I’m not as capable as
they think I am.” We observed a statistically significant
Setting × Social Comparison interaction, F(2, 72) = 16.92,
p < .001, ηp2 = 0.32.
For the current study, we used G*Power Version 3.1.9.7
(Faul et al., 2007) to conduct an a priori power analysis to
determine the necessary sample size for the current study.
Instead of relying on the moderate effect size from the pilot
study, we opted to use a more conservative effect size estimate of Cohen’s f = .1 to ensure an adequately large sample.
To detect a small effect, the required sample size for our
analysis is 216 participants. To meet this requirement and to
conservatively account for the anticipated 5% failure rate,
we planned to recruit 250 participants with a stated stopping
rule of ceasing data collection when Qualtrics reported 250
completed participant responses.
Nearing the end of the term and after exhausting numerous
recruitment efforts, including Psychology Department participant pool, flyers posted around campus, announcements in
institution-wide emails, postings in relevant student email
listservs, and tabling events at the dining hall, we deviated
from our pre-registered planned sample size of 250 by 2%,
closing recruitment with 245 completed responses. Of the 72
participants who began the survey but did not complete it, the
average length of progress through the survey was 18.5%
completion, with just over half of the non-complete participants (n = 39) exiting the survey after the informed consent
page. Of the 245 participants with a recorded completion
in Qualtrics, we excluded two participants for selecting “I
can’t promise either way” to the commitment check question
in which participants were asked to promise to provide
Snyder et al.
269
Table 1. Language Used in Vignettes.
Environment
Social
comparison
Classroom
Present
Classroom
Absent
Peer
Present
Peer
Absent
Administration
Present
Administration
Absent
Text of vignette
As you settle into your seat for the first class at Bates College, you turn your attention toward your new
professor. They begin to review key points from the syllabus and start to talk about how the course
will be structured. You listen closely. The professor explains that some assignments will be graded on a
curve. This means your grade will partially depend on how well other students in the class perform
It is the start of your first semester at Bates College. You choose where to sit and the class begins. Your
new professor is beginning to review key points from the syllabus. The professor begins to discuss how
the class is structured, so you listen carefully. The professor states that it is their hope each student will
come to find the course content interesting and relevant for their lives
You are sitting in a common room with a few of your new friends one fall afternoon during your first
semester at Bates College. The conversation eventually turns toward high school experiences. Everyone
begins to share something about themselves from high school. One friend in the group mentions that
they were valedictorian. Another friend chimes in by sharing their SAT scores. A third friend shares the
number of Advanced Placement courses they took
It’s an autumn afternoon during your first year at Bates College. You are sitting in a common room with
some new friends. One friend puts on a sweatshirt and makes a comment about the seasonal weather.
Another friend mentions the leaves beginning to change and notes how pretty the scenery is during this
time of year. You look out the window and notice all of the vibrant colors in the trees.
It’s time for the new student orientation event at Bates College. The next speaker is [President], the
president of Bates College. She takes the podium to welcome all first-year students and their families.
As part of her welcome message, she begins to list the accomplishments of your fellow classmates.
Your peers in the incoming class are national chess champions, founders of nonprofit organizations, and
published authors. You see other students smiling as their accomplishments are noted
You are sitting in the Bates new student orientation event. The president of Bates College, [President],
takes the podium to welcome all of the first-year students and their families. She begins to speak. She
begins to explain the fascinating history of buildings on campus. You learn that one particular building
was constructed in 1917. The building used to be the primary dining hall for the college
thoughtful answers to all questions, leaving 243 participants
(9.9% first generation). Following the predetermined manipulation check rules approved in Stage 1, the total number of
participants was reduced from 243 to 143.
The final sample of 143 participants (Mage = 19.8, SDage =
1.37) contained representation across class years (39.9% first
year, 23.1% sophomore, 16.8% junior, 20.3% senior). The
13 first-generation students represented 9.1% of the final
sample, close to the 12% first-generation rate of the college.
Most of the sample self-identified as White (63.4%) and also
included participants who identified as Black or African
American (2.8%), Hispanic or Latino/a (4.9%), and Asian
(6.3%). A substantial number of students listed specific identities not captured by broad categories (e.g., multiracial,
Chinese, Italian). Self-reported grade point average (GPA) for
the sample was relatively high (M = 3.71, SD = .35).3
Measures and Materials
Each of the six vignettes was written specifically for this
study and is included in Table 1. Vignettes were written to
highlight the three environments (classroom, peer, and
administration) at the institution where academic competition may exist. We manipulated the social comparison nature
of each environment by highlighting specific direct comparisons with other students. Each setting focused on student
comparisons from a different source, either from a professor
(classroom condition), peers in a social setting (social con­
dition), or the school’s administration (administration
condition). Vignettes were written from the perspective of a
first-year student who is not yet established in the college
environment and may be still learning the norms at the college. Each vignette was between 69 and 76 words in length.
Imposter Feelings. Following each vignette, participants
were asked to report on imagined feelings of imposter phenomenon using a measure described in the work of Canning
et al. (2020), which was adapted from an earlier scale developed by Leary et al. (2000). Canning and colleagues used
the measure to examine daily fluctuations in imposter feelings for STEM courses. To link stated feelings of imposter
phenomenon with our vignettes, participants were asked to
imagine how they would feel in the specific scenario using
the item stem, “In this situation, I would feel . . .” A sample
item reads, “In this situation, I would feel . . . like people
might find out that I am not as capable as they think I am.”
The full set of items is displayed in Table 2. Each of the four
items was measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale, phrased
for this study, such that, higher ratings reflected stronger
feelings of imagined imposter phenomenon (1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = somewhat
disagree, 5 = disagree, 6 = strongly disagree). Canning
270
Table 2. Items in State Imposter Phenomenon Scale.
. . . people might find out that I am not as capable as they think
I am
. . . my successes were due to some kind of luck
. . . afraid others would discover how much knowledge or ability
I really lack
. . . like an “imposter”
Note. All items are preceded by the stem, “In this scenario, I would feel . . .”
et al. (2020) reported good evidence of internal consistency
reliability (α = .86) among college students in a study
designed to examine daily changes in imposter feelings due
to classroom environments.
For all six vignette scenarios, we averaged the four items
together to create composite measures of state imposter phenomenon feelings for that specific scenario, resulting in six
measures of contextually influenced imposter feelings. To
account for any item-level missing data, scale scores were created by averaging all non-missing items, a technique known as
available item analysis (Parent, 2013). We set a tolerance level
of 25%, such that, participants must have responded to at least
three of the four items for their scale score to be created for
that scenario. Higher scores indicate greater presence of
imposter feelings while lower scores indicate a weaker presence of imposter feelings. Using Omega total as an indicator
of internal consistency reliability (McNeish, 2018), observed
internal consistency across the six vignettes was strong, ranging from .84 (classroom setting, social comparison present) to
.92 (peer setting, social comparison present).
Manipulation Check. A manipulation check question served
as a measure of both quality control and construct validity
for the social comparison variable. Participants were given
brief, one-sentence descriptions of all six scenarios and
asked to indicate which of those are settings in which people
are likely to compare themselves with others. Failing to
identify the three scenarios with social comparison present
is considered a manipulation check failure. The text of the
question is shown below with social comparison options
highlighted in italics. Order of the options was randomized
for each participant:
From the list on the left, check the box if the setting describes a
situation in which people would generally be inclined to
compare themselves to others. (President [Last Name] describes
accomplishments of the incoming class; President [Last Name]
explains the history of a building; A professor explains that
grading will be done using a curve; A professor explains their
hope for students to find the course content interesting; A group
of friends discuss the autumn leaves; A group of friends share
their high school achievements).
Difficulty of manipulation check questions varied, ranging from 95% of participants correctly identifying “a group
of friends discuss the autumn leaves” as not being a situation
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
in which people would generally be inclined to compare
themselves with others, to 71% of participants correctly
selecting “a professor explains that grading will be done on
a curve” as such a situation. Per our Stage 1 protocol plan,
all selections must be correct for participants’ data to be
included; therefore, any participants not passing all mani­
pulation check questions correctly were omitted from the
analysis sample.
Demographics. The following demographic data were collected4: class year, age, race, ethnicity, overall GPA, and firstgeneration college status. We asked about generational status
using an item from Canning et al. (2020): “Are you first in
your family to attend college?” (yes, no). Asking the students
to report their status captures their perceptions of being first
or continuing generation. All other demographic questions,
except first-generation status, included an open-ended
response to ensure all students were able to communicate relevant identity markers (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014).
Procedure
We used Qualtrics, a virtual survey platform, to conduct the
study. Each participant was first asked to provide informed
consent. Participants were informed that the research project
was focused on studying how undergraduates feel in different college settings. The survey began with a question asking
participants to commit to providing thoughtful responses
(e.g., DeBell, 2022). After reporting demographic data,
participants were instructed to take one minute to imagine
themselves as a first-semester student on the college campus.
They were asked to write about what they were thinking,
feeling, and doing during that semester, and encouraged to
write a minimum of 25 words; generally, participants wrote
more than this (M = 41.2 words).
Next, participants were provided with instructions on the
remainder of the survey and informed they would be shown a
series of hypothetical scenarios that would imagine them to
report on how they would feel in each situation. Instructions
for each vignette repeatedly reminded participants to think
about their responses to the questions (measuring imposter
phenomenon) in relation to that specific situation. We used the
randomization tool on Qualtrics for the purpose of counter­
balancing vignettes to minimize order effects, ensuring that
vignettes from the same setting (e.g., administration) were not
shown directly adjacent. All counterbalancing conditions were
evenly distributed through randomization, suggesting effective counterbalancing. The survey concluded with manipulation check questions and a question asking students to share
thoughts on what they think the study was designed to test.
After completion, participants were debriefed and offered
the opportunity to receive psychology course credit or enter
the raffle. The raffle was the more popular option, with 59.4%
of the sample choosing this method of compensation. The
Institutional Review Board of Bates College [study identifier
Snyder et al.
# EC3_22_01] deemed this study to be exempt under Category
104(d)(3)(i)—Benign Behavioral Interventions.
Results
We used Jamovi (2022), Version 2.3.28, to conduct analyses, with data processing completed in SPSS. A one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a marginally significant difference in GPA by generational status, F(1,13)
= 4.36, p = .06, such that, continuing-generation students
reported somewhat higher GPA (M = 3.73, SD = .32) compared with first-generation students (M = 3.44, SD = .13).
Per our Stage 1 protocol, our alpha cutoff value for including GPA in the full model was .05; therefore, we did not
include GPA as a covariate.
We examined statistical assumptions prior to conducting
the analyses. Mauchly’s test of sphericity revealed a violated
assumption for the Environment × Social Comparison interaction (p = .02), leading us to adopt the Greenhouse-Geisser
correction for this interaction effect. Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances revealed violations for only two of the
six cells: peers–social comparison absent (p = .01) and
administration–social comparison present (p = .01).
Our overall research question asked if participants would
imagine heightened levels of imposter feelings when social
comparison messaging was present, but that these levels
would vary across contexts. Accordingly, all hypotheses
were tested using a 2 (Generation) × 2 (Social Comparison)
× 3 (Environment) mixed ANOVA. We hypothesized a main
effect of social comparison (Hypothesis 1), qualified by a
two-way Environment × Social Comparison interaction,
such that, when social comparison is present, imposter
phenomenon would be highest in peer and administration
environments, compared with classroom environments
(Hypothesis 2). In addition, we hypothesized that the twoway Environment × Social Comparison interaction would
be qualified by a statistically significant Generation ×
Environment × Social Comparison three-way interaction,
such that, social comparison in those certain contexts would
result in greater imposter feelings for first-generation students compared with continuing-generation students.
The main effect of social comparison (Hypothesis 1) was
supported, F(1,141) = 81.58, p < .001, ηp2 = .37, such that,
imposter feelings were substantially stronger when social
comparison messaging was present (M = 3.82, SE = .17)
than when it was absent (M = 2.35, SE = .12). In Hypothesis
2, we predicted this main effect would be further qualified by
an Environment × Social Comparison interaction, whereby
the effect of social comparison messaging would vary across
contexts. This hypothesis was supported, F(1.93, 271.76) =
15.23, p < .001, ηp2 = .01, suggesting that the effect of
social comparison messaging varies across contexts (see
Figure 2). Table 3 provides an overview of estimated marginal means, standard errors, and 95% confidence intervals
across all conditions.
271
We probed this interaction through post hoc comparisons
using a Bonferroni correction. Social comparison messaging
by professors (stating that students’ grades would depend on
how well they performed relative to peers) elevated feelings
of imposter phenomenon compared with a more benign messaging from professors that their hope was for students to
find the material interesting, t(141) = 4.08, pBonferroni < .001.
Imposter feelings in the neutral classroom context were not
statistically significantly different from those in the neutral
administration context, t(141) = 2.0, ns, but were higher
than those in the neutral peer context, t(141) = 3.78, pBonferroni
< .003. Phrased differently, classroom and administration
contexts seem to inherently promote imposter feelings even
with more neutral messaging, at least compared with neutral
peer contexts.
The effect of social comparison messaging also varied
across contexts. Although students perceived the same
amount of imposter feelings from social comparison messaging in the peer context (friends sharing GPA and standardized
test scores) and administration context (the president highlighting the accomplishments of the incoming class, t[141]
= −2.02, ns), social comparison messaging in the classroom
context resulted in weaker imposter feelings relative to both
the peer context with social comparison, t(141) = −3.16,
pBonferroni < .029, and the administration context with social
comparison, t(141) = −4.73, pBonferroni < .001. This effect is
generally consistent with our original hypothesis.
Our proposed three-way interaction (Hypothesis 3), such
that, the two-way Environment × Social Comparison interaction would be moderated by generational status, was not
supported, F(2,282) = .32, p = .72, ηp2 = .002. In other
words, we did not observe evidence for the hypothesis that
first- and continuing-generation students’ imposter feelings
would be differentially impacted by the interaction of environments and social comparison messaging. Given the relatively small cell size for first-generation students, however,
this finding should not be interpreted as strong evidence for
lack of an effect.
Discussion
The current study aligns with contemporary efforts to move
beyond prior paradigms of imposter phenomenon as a “syndrome” in which the problem is posited to be located within
an individual (Chrousos & Mentis, 2020; Mullangi & Jagsi,
2019; Yang & Gentry, 2023). In contrast, we take the view
that imposter phenomenon is sensitive to features of the
context, and that the solutions will likely be structural, not
individual. Drawing from Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive model of triadic reciprocation in which personal, cognitive, and behavioral factors are in constant interaction, we
hypothesized that student-level characteristics, such as generational status would interact with features of the environment to promote or lessen imposter feelings. Our selection
of three common contexts (peer, administration, and
272
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
Figure 2. Estimated Marginal Means (Environment × Social Comparison).
Note. Imposter feelings are on a 1 to 5 scale with higher scores reflecting stronger feelings of state imposter phenomenon. Error bars are 95% confidence
intervals.
Table 3. Estimated Marginal Means—Social Comparison × Environment.
95% confidence interval
Social comparison
Environment
M (SE)
Lower
Upper
Present
Classroom
Peer
Admission
Classroom
Peer
Admission
3.40 (.18)
3.88 (.20)
4.18 (.20)
2.68 (.16)
2.05 (.13)
2.32 (.16)
3.04
3.48
3.79
2.36
1.80
2.00
3.75
4.29
4.56
3.00
2.30
2.65
Absent
Note. We report estimated marginal means and standard errors.
classroom) represents common settings in which students
find themselves, and each context can vary in the level of
social comparison messaging present. As proposed by
Social Cognitive Theory, student behaviors are simultaneously influenced by, and reciprocally related to, environments and student beliefs (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020),
making imposter phenomenon feelings a potentially critical
link between students’ interactions with various college settings and later actions (French et al., 2008).
Although we had posited a three-way interaction between
generational status, environment, and social comparison
messaging, this was not supported by the data. Instead, a
hypothesized two-way interaction between environment and
social comparison emerged, such that, the effect of social
comparison messages was moderated by the setting in which
students experienced it. Specifically, certain contexts with
social comparison messaging (peers and administration)
were perceived as more likely to promote imposter feelings
than other contexts with social comparison messaging (classrooms). Research by Rizza and Reis (2001) suggests that students can acknowledge the differences between comparison
and competition and view the two phenomena as inherently
different. However, interpretation of comparison is not uniform across students. Some students may be more likely to
respond negatively to this comparison. Curiously, not all
neutral contexts were perceived as equal; classroom and
administration contexts with no social comparison messaging still induced more imposter feelings compared with the
peer context with no social comparison messaging.
Theoretical Implications
Findings from the current study make several theoretical contributions. First, fluctuations in imagined imposter feelings
speak to the critical need to reframe imposter phenomenon
as an individual stable trait toward an experience that can be
shaped by contextual features (e.g., Canning et al., 2020;
Rosenthal et al., 2021). This is not to say that imposter phenomenon does not have stable features; in fact, prior research
finds imposter phenomenon to be quite correlated with
aspects of personality (Bernard et al., 2002; Ross et al.,
2001; Ross & Krukowski, 2003). However, viewing the
Snyder et al.
construct of imposter phenomenon solely from this personality framework ignores the role of context in shaping fluctuating feelings that may, over time, stabilize into a more
crystallized imposter phenomenon. Drawing from the notion
of triadic reciprocation within Social Cognitive Theory will
be a helpful framework for future research investigating this
development.
Second, findings from our study take a more nuanced
approach to considering the role of contexts in shaping imposter phenomenon by moving beyond general tendencies to
engage in social comparison (e.g., Jensen & Deemer, 2020) to
examining how different environments infused with social
comparison messaging may elicit varying levels of imposter
feelings, as similarly encouraged by others as a critical direction for future research (Lee et al., 2021). However, this point
does require us to distinguish between environments with
messaging containing elements of social comparison, as we
have done in the current study, and social comparison as a
behavior (i.e., as outlined in Social Comparison Theory;
Festinger, 1954; Wood, 1989). A recent meta-analytic review
synthesizing six decades of social comparison research documented a general tendency for individuals to engage in
upward comparison effects when a comparison was available, in other words, choosing to compare with people of
greater ability, even though such comparison generally led to
decreases in personal ability appraisals (Gerber et al., 2018).
Therefore, although it seems reasonable to assume social
comparison behaviors would likely follow from contexts
infused with the potential for social comparison (a professor
grading on a curve, a college administrator highlighting
incoming class accomplishments, and peers sharing standardized test scores), further investigation into individual differences underlying this environment to behavior link would be
fruitful in more carefully disentangling message content and
likelihood to engage in social comparison behavior.
It was interesting to observe relatively lower levels of
imposter phenomenon feelings among the three vignettes
with social comparison, such that, social comparison messaging from a professor (that students would be graded on a
curve) seemed to have less of an impact than similar messaging from peers and college administration. Bold claims about
imposter phenomenon and professor social comparison messaging from the broader literature include the following:
“Grading on a curve likely exacerbates imposter syndrome
because law students naturally begin to compare themselves
to their peers whom they will compete with for grades, class
rankings, and—in some instances—jobs” (Grenardo, 2022,
p. 374); and while this messaging did result in greater imposter feelings compared with three contexts without social
comparison messages, it was still less than hearing social
comparison messages from peers and administration.
It is possible that hearing social comparison messaging in
classroom contexts is more commonplace to students at
highly selective institutions and thus less impactful. The
undergraduate institution where this research took place does
273
not require students to submit standardized test scores
with their application. Nonetheless, students may still use
these test scores to compare themselves with other students,
perhaps in an effort to size themselves up relative to peers.
Or, this difference may reflect a local dominance effect, such
that, comparing oneself against a smaller group is more
impactful than a similar comparison within a larger group
(Alicke et al., 2010; Zell & Alicke, 2009). Social comparison
messaging within a peer setting, then, may lead to high levels
of imposter phenomenon and may exert a negative impact on
self-worth and academic confidence (Canning et al., 2020;
Cokley et al., 2013; Posselt & Lipson, 2016).
A careful examination of the “neutral” contexts in the current study also reveals an interesting pattern; students do not
seem to interpret a seemingly benign message from professors as truly innocuous, and felt greater imposter feelings
hearing a professor describe their hopes for students to find
the material interesting than hearing friends discuss the
weather. This seems to suggest that students, at least those at
highly selective institutions, may perceive an inherent comparative essence in classrooms regardless of the messaging
that is given by faculty. If this is the case, this poses a potential challenge for faculty who aim to create inclusive classroom spaces, in that they may need to overcome this inherent
bias. Further inquiry into the role of authority figures in
inducing social comparison (i.e., rather than examining
social status of the comparison target [e.g., Locke, 2003]
considering social status in who conveys a comparative message) and imposter feelings, alongside other contextual features may prove fruitful in better understanding situations
likely to induce or intensify imposter feelings.
The finding of intensified imposter feelings in peer and
administration contexts is intriguing, particularly given substantial research documenting adolescents’ heightened sensitivity to peer presence and social feedback (Albert et al.,
2013; Eccles et al., 1997; Silva et al., 2016). This seems
especially true given the relatively high self-reported GPA of
students in the participant sample, suggesting an alreadycapable group. Following the earlier line of thought about
students perceiving some contexts as more naturally social
comparative, it is possible that students may not expect to
hear direct social comparison messaging from friends in a
social situation or from the administration at a welcome
event. Alternatively, it may be that students perceive being
“found out” by peers or discovering “I don’t belong” as a
greater threat than a potential poor course grade.
Educational Implications
Situated within the assumption that context shapes imposter
phenomenon and with evidence from our experimental
vignette design that social comparison messaging in particular contexts is especially likely to promote imagined feelings
of imposter phenomenon, several educational implications
follow from our findings. First, the finding that imposter
274
feelings were strongest when social comparison messages
came from peers and administration (even compared with
social comparison messages from faculty) speaks to the
need to pay attention to how imposter phenomenon can
manifest in these arguably under-studied contexts. Like
calls for inclusive teaching practices to create supportive
environments (e.g., Canning et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021),
administrators also have a responsibility to be mindful of
how language can impact students’ sense of themselves as
capable and belonging.
The administration–social comparison present vignette
used in this study used language adapted from the institution’s website (Bates College, 2020, 2021, 2022). When
first-year students arrive at the institution, they are welcomed
as a class and learn about their classmates’ accomplishments;
this information is some of the first impressions that students
have about their new peers. Although likely intended as
inspiring, language, such as “. . . this is another impressively
multi-talented Bates class. Crossing the quad this fall you
might pass a student who . . . coauthored an important astronomy research paper on exoplanets that contributed to the
2019 Nobel Prize in physics . . .” (Bates College, 2020) has
the potential to induce imposter phenomenon. This institution is certainly not alone in this practice. For example, the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill uses similar language on their admissions website in which they highlight
how many students in the incoming class rank first in their
high school class, among other accomplishments (UNC
Undergraduate Admissions, 2022).
Finally, the conceptual shift in moving from imposter phenomenon as a personal characteristic to one that may be
induced by environments (Chrousos & Mentis, 2020;
Mullangi & Jagsi, 2019; Yang & Gentry, 2022) holds implications for educators, counselors, and administrators. Rather
than viewing imposter phenomenon as something that is the
responsibility of a student to overcome (including college
counseling centers inviting students to “combat” or “conquer”
their imposter feelings), it may be more helpful to recast a
new perspective; that faculty, administration, staff, and students all have power to shape environments within institutions. Within the idea that students experience an institution
“one interaction at a time” (Vick, 2023), institutional cultures
are created collaboratively. Changes in reframing institutional
cultural practices around social comparison would likely
have positive effects on the mental health and well-being of
faculty, staff, and students (Parkman, 2016), especially given
that even faculty experience imposter phenomenon (Vaughn
et al., 2020). This shift in perspective encourages educators to
move from “fixing” a student toward shifting a culture.
Limitations and Future Directions
Findings from the current study must be considered within
the context of the design and population, including the
institutional context of highly selective colleges. Although
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
stronger in internal validity, which addresses prior calls to
investigate causality in imposter phenomenon among highly
capable students in elite contexts (Lee et al., 2021), the use of
an experimental vignette design naturally reduces ecological
validity, such that, students were asked to imagine themselves in hypothetical scenarios rather than experience environments firsthand. These vignettes were created by the third
author based on lived experience with each of the scenarios,
increasing the likelihood the scenarios felt realistic to the
participants. As noted previously, future research would also
benefit from more targeted examination of if and how participants engage in social comparison behaviors following
exposure to vignettes containing scenarios in which social
comparison is a likely possibility.
Overall, findings from the current study are important to
consider within the contextual features of both the participant
demographics and contextual features of the institution. The
overrepresentation of first-year students in the sample is perhaps a strength in that the first-year college vignettes may have
felt more salient. Reductions in the sample size due to stringent
manipulation check criteria may have also shaped the characteristics of the final sample of participants retained for analysis,
perhaps by omitting students who perceived any classroom setting as inducing feelings of social comparison. Although gender was not a planned analysis variable, the omission of gender
in the demographic questionnaire due to experimenter error did
not allow us to describe the sample with regard to gender composition, which should be considered a limitation given the origins of imposter phenomenon research as a highly gendered
phenomenon (e.g., Clance & Imes, 1978).
Relatedly, a more thorough incorporation of race into the
study’s design would better allow for a direct test of how race
and ethnicity interact with social comparison messages across
different contexts in higher education (Meadhbh Murray
et al., 2022). The majority of participants in our sample identified as White, reflecting the nature of a predominantly white
institution and providing a caveat to the conclusions drawn
from the findings, such that, these patterns may not generalize
toward more diverse samples. It will be particularly interesting to pursue inquiry into the contextual forces shaping
imposter phenomenon from a race-reimagined framework
(DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014), similar to calls from sociology to consider the uneven social and emotional labor of
marginalized students in exclusionary environments as contributing to imposter phenomenon (Meadhbh Murray et al.,
2022), findings pertaining to “hypervisibility” and imposter
phenomenon among first-generation women of color entering
college (Jackson et al., 2022), and the reality that imposter
phenomenon as a construct and subsequent measures were
derived from the experiences of White women and thus
deeply shaped by whiteness (Chakraverty, 2022). QuantCrit
is a useful tool for researchers in gifted education to better
understand how experiences, such as imposter phenomenon
are not colorblind constructs but rather, deeply entangled with
race (Priddie & Renbarger, 2023).
Snyder et al.
Finally, the relatively low number of first-generation students in the sample, despite targeted efforts to oversample
from this population, likely affected statistical power for the
test of the three-way interaction effect. Although it is still
correct to conclude the pattern of findings did not differ by
generational status, we urge caution in extrapolating to make
stronger conclusions given the relatively low number of
first-generation students in the sample. Clearly, additional
inquiry into contextual messaging, social comparison behaviors, and imposter phenomenon with first-generation college
students is needed. Further research in this realm, particularly qualitative in nature, would benefit from targeted consideration of how first-generation students may perceive,
react to, or even be protected from harmful impacts of
upward social comparisons given internal resources from
lived experiences (e.g., perceiving their social class backgrounds as an asset vs. weakness; Stephens et al., 2015).
Conclusion
By shifting the focus of imposter phenomenon research
from the individual to the context, we leveraged an experimental vignette design to examine if comparison-based
messages impacted imposter feelings differently depending
on context (classroom, peer, and administration settings),
and if these effects varied based on students’ generational
status in college. Overall, we found that, for both firstand continuing-generation students, social comparison messages differentially impacted imposter feelings depending
on context, with the most elevated levels resulting from
social comparison messages from administrators and peers.
These findings are a step toward a richer understanding of
structural features that may lessen or exacerbate imposter
feelings at highly selective post-secondary institutions.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Todd Kahan for his Qualtrics insights
and to Brian Pfohl for his wizardry with Qualtrics and SPSS.
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: Funding
for this study was provided by the Bates College Department of
Psychology.
Open Science Disclosure Statement
The data analyzed in this study are available for purposes of
reproducing the results at https://osf.io/ac57q/?view_only=f9721
12efd7e4403832c2d5397a9e553. The link contains the code used
275
to generate the findings reported in the article and may be used for
purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the study. The
link also contains the newly created, unique materials used to
conduct the research that are available for purposes of replicating
the procedure.
ORCID iD
Kate E. Snyder
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2563-9452
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
For this reason, we were intentional in our use of the term
“imposter phenomenon” versus the original term, “imposter
syndrome” as the latter suggests that it is a deficit inherent
to the individual.
All study materials may be accessed through the Open Science
Framework: https://osf.io/ac57q/?view_only=f972112efd7e44
03832c2d5397a9e553.
In checking descriptive statistics for GPA, two improbable
values were observed (“392” and “9”) and were removed prior
to analysis.
Gender was a planned variable but due to experimenter error,
was not included in the Qualtrics survey.
References
Albert, D., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). The teenage brain:
Peer influences on adolescent decision making. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 114–120. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0963721412471347
Alicke, M. D., Zell, E., & Bloom, D. L. (2010). Mere categorization
and the frog-pond effect. Psychological Science, 21, 174–177.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357718
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism.
American Psychologist, 33(4), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0003-066X.33.4.344
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.),
Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 1–60). JAI Press.
Bartley. (2022). Environments, social comparison & imposter
phenomenon: An experimental vignette study [Senior thesis].
Bates College.
Bates College. (2020, August 21). Numbers, facts, and insights
about the class of 2024. https://www.bates.edu/news/2020/08
/21/numbers-facts-and-insights-about-the-class-of-2024/
Bates College. (2021, August 20). Numbers, facts, and insights
about the class of 2025. https://www.bates.edu/news/2021/08
/20/numbers-fact-and-insights-about-the-class-of-2025/
Bates College. (2022, August 26). Bates has talent: Facts, trends,
and mad skills of the class of 2026. https://www.bates.edu/
news/2022/08/26/bates-has-talent-facts-trends-and-mad-skillsof-the-class-of-2026/
Bates College Office of Institutional Research, Analysis, and
Planning. (2022). Bates Facts 2022–2023. Bates College. https://
www.bates.edu/research/files/2024/07/Bates-Facts-20222023.pdf
Bedard, K., & Fischer, S. (2019). Does the response to competition depend on perceived ability? Evidence from a classroom
experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
159, 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.01.014
Bernard, N. S., Dollinger, S. J., & Ramaniah, N. V. (2002).
Applying the big five personality factors to the impostor
276
phenomenon. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(2), 321–
333. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_07
Brankovic, J., Ringel, L., & Werron, T. (2018). How rankings
produce competition: The case of global university rankings.
Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(4), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.
1515/zfsoz-2018-0118
Canning, E. A., LaCosse, J., Kroeper, K. M., & Murphy, M. C.
(2020). Feeling like an imposter: The effect of perceived
classroom competition on the daily psychological experiences
of first-generation college students. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 11(5), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1948550619882032
Caselman, T. D., Self, P. A., & Self, A. L. (2006). Adolescent
attributes contributing to the imposter phenomenon. Journal
of Adolescence, 29(3), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.07.003
Chakraverty, D. (2022). A cultural impostor? Native American
experiences of impostor phenomenon in STEM. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 21(1), ar15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.
21-08-0204
Chrisman, S. M., Pieper, W. A., Clance, P. R., Holland, C. L., &
Glickauf-Hughes, C. (1995). Validation of the Clance imposter
phenomenon scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3),
456–467. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_6
Chrousos, G. P., & Mentis, A. F. A. (2020). Imposter syndrome
threatens diversity. Science, 367(6479), 749–750. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.aba8039
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon
in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3),
241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006
Clark, M., Vardeman, K., & Barba, S. (2014). Perceived inadequacy: A study of the imposter phenomenon among college
and research librarians. College & Research Libraries, 75(3),
255–271. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-423
Cokley, K., McClain, S., Enciso, A., & Martinez, M. (2013). An
examination of the impact of minority status stress and impostor feelings on the mental health of diverse ethnic minority
college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 41(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.21611912.2013.00029.x
DeBell, M. (2022). Measuring political knowledge and not search
proficiency in online surveys. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 34(1), edac002. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ijpor/edac002
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Schutz, P. A. (2014). Researching race within
educational psychology contexts. Educational Psychologist,
49(4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.957828
Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., Van der Werf, G., Buunk, A. P., & van
der Zee, Y. G. (2008). Social comparison in the classroom:
A review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 828–879.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321210
Dudău, D. P. (2014). The relation between perfectionism and
impostor phenomenon. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 127(22), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2014.03.226
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman,
D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1997). Development during
adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit on young
adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003066x.48.2.90
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power
3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.
Human Relations, 7, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872
675400700202
French, B. F., Ullrich-French, S. C., & Follman, D. (2008). The psychometric properties of the Clance Impostor Scale. Personality
and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1270–1278. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.023
Geisen, E. (2022, August 4). Improve data quality by using a
commitment request instead of attention checks. https://www.
qualtrics.com/blog/attention-checks-and-data-quality/
Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison
theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin,
144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
Grenardo, D. A. (2022). The phantom menace to professional identity formation and law success: Impostor syndrome. University
of Dayton Law Review, 47(3), 369–382. https://ecommons.
udayton.edu/udlr/vol47/iss3/2
Hébert, T. P. (2018). An examination of high-achieving firstgeneration college students from low-income backgrounds.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0016986217738051
Henning, K., Ey, S., & Shaw, D. (1998). Perfectionism, the impostor
phenomenon and psychological adjustment in medical, dental,
nursing and pharmacy students. Medical Education, 32(5),
456–464. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00234.x
Ibrahim, F., Göddertz, D., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2023). An experimental study of the non-self-serving attributional bias within
the impostor phenomenon and its relation to the fixed mindset.
Current Psychology, 42(30), 26440–26449. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-022-03486-0
Jackson, A., Colson-Fearon, B., & Versey, H. S. (2022). Managing
intersectional invisibility and hypervisibility during the transition to college among first-generation women of color.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46(3), 354–371. https://doi.
org/10.1177/03616843221106087
Jamovi. (2022). The jamovi project (Version 2.3.13) [Computer
Software]. https://www.jamovi.org
Jensen, L. E., & Deemer, E. D. (2020). Attachment style and selfhandicapping: The mediating role of the imposter phenomenon. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 1259–1276. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09580-0
Killgore, L. (2009). Merit and competition in selective college
admissions. The Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 469–488.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0083
Leary, M. R., Patton, K. M., Orlando, A. E., & Wagoner Funk,
W. (2000). The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions,
reflected appraisals, and interpersonal strategies. Journal of
Personality, 68(4), 725–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/14676494.00114
Lee, L. E., Rinn, A. N., Crutchfield, K., Ottwein, J. K., Hodges,
J., & Mun, R. U. (2021). Perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon in academically talented undergraduates. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 65(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/001
6986220969396
Snyder et al.
Locke, K. D. (2003). Status and solidarity in social comparison:
Agentic and communal values and vertical and horizontal
directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(3), 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.619
McGregor, L. N., Gee, D. E., & Posey, K. E. (2008). I feel like a
fraud and it depresses me: The relation between the imposter
phenomenon and depression. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 36(1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.
2224/sbp.2008.36.1.43
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from
here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.
1037/met0000144
Meadhbh Murray, Ó., Tiffany Chiu, Y. L., Wong, B., & Horsburgh,
J. (2022). Deindividualising imposter syndrome: Imposter
work among marginalised STEMM undergraduates in the
UK. Sociology, 57(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385
221117380
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006).
Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic
achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Micari, M., & Drane, D. (2011). Intimidation in small learning
groups: The roles of social-comparison concern, comfort, and
individual characteristics in student academic outcomes. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 175–187. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1469787411415078
Mullangi, S., & Jagsi, R. (2019). Imposter syndrome: Treat the
cause, not the symptom. The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 322(5), 403–404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.
2019.9788
Pannhausen, S., Klug, K., & Rohrmann, S. (2020). Never good
enough: The relation between the impostor phenomenon and
multidimensional perfectionism. Current Psychology, 41,
888–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00613-7
Parent, M. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler
is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176
Parkman, A. (2016). The imposter phenomenon in higher education: Incidence and impact. Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice, 16(1), 51–60.
Peteet, B. J., Montgomery, L., & Weekes, J. C. (2015). Predictors of
imposter phenomenon among talented ethnic minority undergraduate students. The Journal of Negro Education, 84(2),
175–186. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.2.0175
Posselt, J. R., & Lipson, S. K. (2016). Competition, anxiety,
and depression in the college classroom: Variations by student identity and field of study. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(8), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.
2016.0094
Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 283–305. https://
doi.org/10.1348/000709909x480563
Priddie, C., & Renbarger, R. (2023). Connecting QuantCrit to gifted
education research: An introduction. Gifted Child Quarterly,
67(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221116636
Rizza, M. G., & Reis, S. M. (2001). Comparing and contrasting:
Stories of competition. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 54–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500108
277
Rosenthal, S., Schlussel, Y., Yaden, M., DeSantis, J., Trayes,
K., Pohl, C., & Hojat, M. (2021). Persistent impostor phenomenon is associated with distress in medical students.
Family Medicine, 53(2), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.22454/
FamMed.2021.799997
Ross, S. R., & Krukowski, R. A. (2003). The imposter phenomenon and maladaptive personality: Type and trait characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(3), 477–484.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00067-3
Ross, S. R., Stewart, J., Mugge, M., & Fultz, B. (2001). The
imposter phenomenon, achievement dispositions, and the FiveFactor model. Personality & Individual Differences, 31(8),
1347–1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00228-2
Sakulku, J., & Alexander, J. (2011). The impostor phenomenon.
International Journal of Behavioral Science, 6(1), 73–92.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and
Social Cognitive Theory. Contemporary Educational Psycho­
logy, 60, Article 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2019.101832
Shemmassian, S. (2021). Ivy league acceptance rates 2021: What
you’re up against. Shemmassian Academic Consulting. https://
www.shemmassianconsulting.com/blog/ivy-league-acceptancerates
Silva, K., Shulman, E. P., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2016). Peers
increase late adolescents’ exploratory behavior and sensitivity to positive and negative feedback. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 26(4), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12219
Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S., Hamedani, M. G., Destin, M., &
Manzo, V. (2015). A difference-education intervention equips
first-generation college students to thrive in the face of stressful
college situations. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1556–1566.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615593501
Strickhouser, J. E., & Zell, E. (2015). Self-evaluative effects of
dimensional and social comparison. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 59, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp
.2015.03.001
UNC Undergraduate Admissions. (2022, September 15). Meet
Carolina’s newest class. https://admissions.unc.edu/explore/
our-newest-class/
Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and
achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal
structures, and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.251
Vaughn, A. R., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Johnson, M. L. (2020).
Impostor phenomenon and motivation: Women in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 780–795. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1568976
Vick, B. S. (2023, May 25-28). From the classroom to the boardroom: Integrating DEIB for institutional impact. APS-STP
Teaching Institute.
Wang, K. T., Sheveleva, M. S., & Permyakova, T. M. (2019).
Imposter syndrome among Russian students: The link between
perfectionism and psychological distress. Personality and
Individual Differences, 143, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid
.2019.02.005
Want, J., & Kleitman, S. (2006). Imposter phenomenon and selfhandicapping: Links with parenting styles and self-confidence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40(5), 961–971.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.005
278
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2),
231–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.231
Wyatt, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism: A
study exploring their relationship with perceived social rank
and status. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1),
71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00146-3
Yang, Y., & Gentry, M. L. (2023). *Striving to excel in STEM:
Insights from underrepresented, minoritized graduate students
with high academic ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(2),
110–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221119208
Zell, E., & Alicke, M. D. (2009). Contextual neglect, self-evaluation, and the frog-pond effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97(3), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0015453
Author Biographies
Kate E. Snyder earned her MA and PhD in Developmental
Psychology from Duke University. In her research program, she
focuses on understanding the role of achievement motivation in the
development of academic underachievement, particularly among
academically gifted students. Her research has been published
Gifted Child Quarterly 68(4)
in Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Educational Psychologist, and many other outlets. She is currently
a Senior Curriculum Manager at the Aspen Institute College
Excellence Program where she develops curriculum for transformational reform and leadership initiatives.
Maxwell I. Bartley is a graduate of Bates College, double majoring
in both Psychology and Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies. During
college, he worked in the Bates College Office of Admission as a
Senior Fellow. He is currently a Senior Admissions Counselor at
the University of Chicago.
Allison Fowler, PhD, is an assistant professor and undergraduate
program director at the School of Professional Psychology at
Spalding University. She earned her Doctorate in Educational
Psychology, Measurement, and Evaluation from the University of
Louisville. Her lab (DREAM TEAM) involves collaboration with
both graduate and undergraduate students in research related
to achievement motivation and educational psychology broadly.
She teaches coursework in developmental psychology, statistics,
and research methods.
Manuscript received: December 8, 2022; Final revision received:
March 29, 2024; Accepted: April 20, 2024.