Perfectionism and the Imposter Phenomenon in Academically Talented Undergraduates

Abstract

The imposter phenomenon is characterized as difficulty internalizing success due to feelings of inauthenticity or phoniness despite contrary evidence of competence. Academically talented students in undergraduate honors programs could be more vulnerable to the imposter phenomenon as compared with other undergraduates because of experiences surrounding perfectionism and participation in highly selective programs. In this study, researchers examined the relationship between gender, honors program participation, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon among undergraduates. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis indicate that socially prescribed perfectionism and honors program participation relate to higher levels of imposter feelings in an undergraduate sample. Implications and practical recommendations for researchers, educators, school counselors, and college administrators are discussed.

Keywords

academic talent honors imposter phenomenon multiple regression perfectionism

Undergraduate honors programs serve academically talented students who often have shown advanced learning needs during grades K–12 (e.g., gifted and talented identification, Advanced Placement participation, International Baccalaureate, early college entrance; Mammadov et al., 2018; Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Rinn & Plucker, 2004, 2019). Though honors programs differ across the more than 1,000 colleges and universities that offer them (National Collegiate Honors Council, 2020b), they share common features and are

characterized by in-class and extracurricular activities that are measurably broader, deeper, or more complex than comparable learning experiences typically found at institutions of higher education. Honors experiences include a distinctive learner-directed environment and philosophy, provide opportunities that are appropriately tailored to fit the institution's culture and mission, and frequently occur within a close community of students and faculty. (National Collegiate Honors Council, 2020a, p. 1)

Although honors programs offer more rigor and personalized attention (Seifert et al., 2007), they could also foster increased peer competitiveness (Kem & Navan, 2006). For individuals in highly selective or competitive school environments, factors such as identity formation (Erikson, 1968, 1982; Marcia, 1966, 1980), gendered stereotypes (Anthony et al., 2016; Kelly & Hutson-Comeaux, 2000; Lombardo et al., 2001), and overly critical self-evaluation can contribute to feelings of lower self-beliefs, particularly in their desired fields of interest (Bandura, 1994; Lane, 2015). Furthermore, the period of emerging adulthood, or the developmental period spanning ages 18 to 25 years, may add stress related to identity exploration, social relationships, and a newfound independence that encompasses the undergraduate experience (see Arnett, 2000).

Mofield and Parker Peters (2015) posited that high-achieving adolescents and those identified as gifted and talented often equate their self-worth with their achievements. The researchers suggest that as these individuals transition to young adulthood, their self-worth could be threatened when they do not achieve at the rate of performance that they are accustomed to in comparison with their peers, or when they fail to meet the expectations of their families. Indeed, several studies indicate that some undergraduate honors students have perfectionistic tendencies with familial and cultural underpinnings that may further contribute to the development of negative self-beliefs (Closson & Boutilier, 2017; Flett et al., 2002; Rinn & Plucker, 2019; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006). Mun and Hertzog (2019) noted that Asian American women who entered college early felt an internal struggle to achieve. Pressure to achieve stemmed from both high personal expectations as well as parental expectations during their transition to college. Additionally, several women in their sample experienced struggles with identity and self-worth as they moved from being the “top student in class to being surrounded by peers who were perceived as smarter than they were” (p. 134).

This feeling of inadequacy describes the big-fish–little-pond effect; this occurs when the comparison of one’s own academic achievement with that of others affects the development of academic self-beliefs (Marsh & Parker, 1984). Marsh et al. (2017) have found that students who attend more competitive peer environments (e.g., high-ability schools or programs) tend to have lower academic self-concepts, at least on entry to the school or program. When students feel as though they are not as capable as their peers in a new environment, and also that they do not belong, they experience what is known as the imposter phenomenon (see Rinn, 2020). Lane (2015) postulated that perfectionism, lack of self-validation, and varying motivational states (i.e., increased and decreased motivation) contributed to imposter feelings in their sample of undergraduates, the majority of whom were White females. The desire to be flawless can contribute to feelings of inadequacy in individuals, particularly in highly selective or competitive environments. Lane urged for more quantitative inquiry of the imposter experience among emerging adults. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between participation in an honors program, gender, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon among undergraduate students.

The Imposter Phenomenon

The imposter phenomenon is characterized as difficulty internalizing success due to experiencing a sense of falseness, inauthenticity, or phoniness, regardless and/or in spite of evidence of ability and/or achievement (Clance, 1985; Clance & Imes, 1978). Despite any external evidence to the contrary (e.g., academic achievements, advanced degrees, professional accomplishments), individuals with the imposter phenomenon believe that they have somehow deceived others regarding their intellect and work to prevent others from discovering their supposed lack of competence.

Based on the original work of Clance and Imes (1978), Lane (2015) developed a grounded theory of the imposter phenomenon experience for emerging adults, which is the foundational framework that guides the current quantitative inquiry. The theory describes the imposter experience as characterized by “perceived fraudulence, discrediting evidence of [one’s own] competence, and self-doubt” (Lane, 2015, pp. 119-120). Lane’s qualitative study on the imposter phenomenon among emerging adults found that they struggled with “logically recognizing” (p. 123) their accomplishments and abilities.

Studies have found internal and external factors that relate to the imposter phenomenon, including how attributional styles and perceived competence relate to the internalization of success or failures (Thompson et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2020; Ward, 1990). Attributions refer to an individual’s perception of the causes of outcomes, and attributional styles (i.e., internal vs. external; Abramson et al., 1978) describe how individuals explain meaningful events within their lives. Attributional styles may be related to gender or immediate environments associated with the college experience (Vaughn et al., 2020). Likewise, Lane (2015) found internal and external factors that contribute to the imposter phenomenon. Internal factors included high motivation, perfectionism, and the inability to self-validate. External factors included constant comparison with the performance or perceived ability of others and being assessed at school (e.g., content, cognitive, or achievement-based assessments). For instance, time periods designated for examinations (e.g., final exams, standardized testing) may affect the experience of the imposter phenomenon through imparting the fear of not achieving at a level comparable to their peers. More literature is needed to understand internal and/or external factors that relate to imposter feelings in both men and women who participate in more competitive learning environments that promote a “culture of genius” (Slank, 2019, p. 206), such as those typically seen in honors programs. As the imposter phenomenon is experienced by individuals who achieve success, even though they do not believe that they are capable, it is salient to understand how internal and external factors, such as perfectionism and participation in the academically and socially competitive environment of college, contribute to imposter feelings of undergraduate students who have achieved success academically as evidenced by admittance to an honors program.

Gender and the Imposter Phenomenon

The imposter phenomenon was originally coined to describe feelings of fraudulence in a sample of high-achieving women (Clance, 1985; Clance & Imes, 1978). Clance (1985) found that women experienced a paradoxical relationship between their feelings of accomplishment and what they actually accomplished. Later studies have demonstrated that both men and women experience the imposter phenomenon (e.g., Badawy et al., 2018; Caselman et al., 2006; Cusack et al., 2013; Lane, 2015). For instance, Caselman et al. (2006) found that experiences of the imposter phenomenon were related to self-beliefs (i.e., global self-worth) and were not gender-specific. However, they found that lack of perceived social support contributed more to adolescent female experiences of the imposter phenomenon than adolescent male experiences. Similarly, Kumar and Jagacinski (2006), in their study of 135 undergraduates, found that women had higher imposter fears than men, but different factors related to achievement goal orientation theory predicted those fears (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 2006). For men, imposter fears were primarily associated with ability-avoid goals (avoiding a demonstration of incompetence). For women, imposter fears were primarily associated with ability-approach goals (focusing on demonstrating one’s competence).

Badawy et al. (2018) and other scholars have found that males and females both experience different societal pressures and show signs of distress in relation to feelings of the imposter phenomenon. Cusack et al. (2013) examined the relationship between gender, mental health (i.e., perfectionism, test anxiety), and imposter phenomenon among undergraduate students. They found women to report higher levels of imposter feelings, as well as higher levels of perfectionism and test anxiety associated with imposter feelings. In their systematic review of the imposter phenomenon, Bravata et al. (2019) found 33 studies that analyzed gender effects with the imposter phenomenon, whereby 16 of the studies found women to have higher feelings of the imposter phenomenon than men. Although several studies have observed differences in gender within university samples, as well as a positive relationship to internal characteristics such as perfectionism, little research has focused on honors program participation, gender, and perfectionism in relation to imposter feelings.

Perfectionism

Perfectionism can be defined as trying to adhere to high standards and continuously engaging in “overly critical self-evaluations” (Curran & Hill, 2019, p. 410). Although typically referred to as a unidimensional construct, many researchers agree that perfectionism is a multidimensional construct that can be adaptive or maladaptive (Flett & Hewitt, 2014; Frost et al., 1990; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Slaney et al., 2001; Stairs et al., 2012; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). For this study, we utilized components of Hewitt and Flett’s (1991, 2004) conception of perfectionism that splits the construct into the following three dimensions: Self-oriented perfectionism can be characterized as having high personal standards for oneself. Socially prescribed perfectionism can be characterized as perceiving others to have high standards for oneself and the desire to gain acceptance by fulfilling those standards. Other-oriented perfectionism involves imposing unrealistically high standards for others. In this model, self-oriented perfectionism can be seen as adaptive, whereas socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism are maladaptive (Stoeber, 2012). In more recent studies, other-oriented perfectionism is not typically included in examining perfectionism (e.g., Rinn et al., 2019; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a; Stoeber et al., 2009; Stoeber & Otto, 2006;). Exclusion of other-oriented perfectionism is common among studies of high-ability and/or academically talented undergraduates because it relates to concerns of perfectionistic standards on others (Rinn & Plucker, 2019); therefore, we focus only on the self-oriented and socially prescribed dimensions of perfectionism for this study.

Perfectionism has been recognized as a hindrance to the psychological well-being and achievement of academically talented students (Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Speirs Neumeister, 2018) and has been examined numerous times among high-ability undergraduates (see Rinn & Plucker, 2019 for an overview). Much of the literature on perfectionism among high-ability undergraduates concerns the relationship between parenting and perfectionism (Miller et al., 2012; Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006) or outcomes of perfectionism (e.g., goal orientation, attributions for success, stress, depression; Rice et al., 2006; Speirs Neumeister, 2004b, 2004c; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2015).

Many studies have found that individuals experiencing the imposter phenomenon were more likely to engage in maladaptive perfectionistic behaviors such as overpreparing and ruminating over mistakes (Bravata et al., 2019; Cowie et al., 2018; Cusack et al., 2013; Vergauwe et al., 2015). Henning et al. (1998) found that socially prescribed perfectionism and imposter feelings accounted for 36% of the variance in the psychological distress of nursing, pharmacy, and medical students, whereby the other significant predictor was gender. Likewise, Fraenza (2016) concluded from her study of graduate students that socially prescribed perfectionism included a social component, and social influences (i.e., peers and teachers) could play a role in the development of the imposter phenomenon. Although these two studies did not examine academically talented undergraduates, their samples included individuals further along in the academic talent development trajectory (Subotnik et al., 2018) and can shed light on the possible experiences of individuals earlier on within their trajectory.

Despite a fair amount of research on perfectionism among academically talented undergraduates, there is a paucity of research that has examined perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon, and there have been no studies that have explored the possible interaction between honors program participation and perfectionism in relation to feelings of the imposter phenomenon with this sample. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2019) found that experiences of the imposter phenomenon mediated the relationship between perfectionism and depression and between perfectionism and anxiety, such that perfectionism was more likely to lead to both depression and anxiety among individuals scoring higher on a measure of the imposter phenomenon. For our study, rather than testing a double-mediated relationship of the imposter phenomenon with comorbid outcomes (i.e., anxiety, depression), we investigate the possibility that specific perfectionistic beliefs in undergraduates could interact with participation in an honors program resulting in higher levels of imposter feelings.

The Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to investigate how gender, honors program participation, and perfectionistic beliefs are related to imposter feelings in undergraduate students. Prior studies have examined the feelings of inadequacy and fraudulence, characteristic of the imposter phenomenon experience, in the context of gender and perfectionism, but this is the first study to explore gender, honors program participation, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon in tandem. We explore how the combination of experiences of one’s gender, participation in a highly competitive environment such as an honors program, and the pressure to adhere to high standards, whether set by oneself or by others, contribute to the beliefs undergraduates have about their ability to achieve, even when they meet or exceed the perceived standards. As such, the findings from this study may better inform administrators and faculty members working with undergraduate honors students on factors that may affect student mental health and honors program enrollment and retention.

Although this study is exploratory in nature, we had some predictions regarding the relationships between gender, honors program participation, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon (see Figure 1). Generally, we predicted that honors students and non-honors students would experience the imposter phenomenon. However, due to exposure to a more competitive environment, we predicted that honors students would report higher feelings of the imposter phenomenon. Furthermore, we predicted that an interaction between honors program participation and perfectionism would relate to feelings of the imposter phenomenon. Last, we predicted that women would experience higher feelings of the imposter phenomenon. The following research questions guided the study:

How do gender, honors program participation, and perfectionism relate to the imposter phenomenon in a sample of undergraduates?

To what extent does honors program participation moderate the relationship between perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon in a sample of undergraduates?

Figure 1.

Predicted interaction between honors program participation and perfectionism with the imposter phenomenon.

Method

Procedures

This study is part of a larger project examining social and emotional experiences of undergraduate students, and only the data relevant for the current study are reported. Participants were recruited by university faculty and doctoral research assistants to participate in a study related to the social and emotional experiences of undergraduates, resulting in a convenience sample. Participants had to be 18 years of age or older to participate in the study. Participant responses were collected anonymously via an online survey. Informed consent was obtained before the battery of instruments, and participants were able to stop the survey at any time.

Sample

The sample consisted of 190 female (77.86%) and 54 male (22.13%) undergraduate students. Within the sample (n = 244), 36.48% of participants were members of the honors program and 63.52% were not members of the honors program. Of the 89 students in this sample who were in the honors program, 67 participants were female (75.38%) and 22 participants were male (24.72%). Honors program admittance requires an application process and eligibility. Eligibility is determined by students’ standardized test scores (score of at least 1200 on math and verbal sections of the SAT or at least a 27 on the ACT), high school grade point average ≥ 3.75, and rank in the top 20% of their high school graduating class. The average age of participants was 21.38 years (SD = 5.06). Participants reported their ethnic/racial backgrounds as White (52.87%), Hispanic or Latinx (23.77%), African American or Black (8.20%), multiracial (7.38%), Asian American or Asian (6.15%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.01%), and other (0.01%). All students were enrolled in a Southwest university in the United States in their freshman year (22.13%), sophomore year (29.51%), junior year (25%), or senior year (22.54%). See Table 1 for more demographic data.

Table 1.

Undergraduate Demographic Characteristics.

Demographic	n	%
Honors college	89	36.48
Non-honors college	155	63.52
Females	190	77.86
Males	54	22.13
Honors females	67	75.28
Honors males	22	24.72
Non-honors females	123	79.35
Non-honors males	32	20.65
Total undergraduate sample	244	—
Race
White	129	52.87
Hispanic/Latinx	58	23.77
African American/Black	20	8.2
Multiracial	18	7.38
Asian	15	6.15
American Indian/Alaska Native	2	0.01
Other	2	0.01
Year in school
Freshman	54	22.13
Sophomore	72	29.51
Junior	61	25
Senior	55	22.54
Other	2	0.01

Measures

Academically talented was operationalized as participation in an undergraduate honors program, which is a typical way to operationalize academic talent in research conducted on high-ability undergraduates (see Rinn & Plucker, 2019). Gender and honors program participation variables were dummy coded to be utilized in the analyses (i.e., gender was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female; honors program participation was coded as 0 = non-honors, 1 = honors). Composite scores were created for each of the subscales of perfectionism, and scores of the imposter phenomenon were summed. To analyze possible interaction effects, self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism were mean-centered to account for potential multicollinearity and ease of interpretation of interaction terms between honors college participation and perfectionism.

The Imposter Phenomenon

The imposter phenomenon was measured using the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale (Clance, 1985), which consists of 20 items, and each item is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). To calculate a participant’s feelings of the imposter phenomenon, responses are summed. As indicated in the scale manual, scores of 40 or less indicate minimal feelings of the imposter phenomenon, 41 to 60 indicate moderate feelings, 61 to 80 indicate frequent feelings, and scores higher than 80 indicate intense feelings of the imposter phenomenon. The Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale evaluates the following: fear of failure, discounting of recognition from others, fear of evaluation, and fear that previous successes cannot be repeated. Sample items include “I can give the impression that I am more competent than I really am,” and “I often compare my ability to those around me and think they may be more intelligent than I am.” Previous studies using undergraduate student samples have found internal consistency scores that ranged from .90 to .96 (Chrisman et al., 1995; Gibson-Beverly & Schwartz, 2008). Within the current study, internal reliability of the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale was high (α = .91, 95% CI [.89, .93]).

Perfectionism

Perfectionism was measured using the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The MPS is a 45-item measure to which participants respond on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To calculate a participant’s perfectionistic beliefs, several items are reverse coded, and responses for each subscale are summed. Subscale scores range from 15 to 105. Higher scores on each subscale are indicative of higher perfectionistic beliefs. The MPS consists of three subscales (15 items each): self-oriented perfectionism (e.g., “I strive to be the best at everything I do”), socially prescribed perfectionism (e.g., “I find it difficult to meet others’ expectations of me”), and other-oriented perfectionism (e.g., “I can’t be bothered with people who won’t strive to better themselves”). Only self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism were used within our model, the rationale for which is noted earlier in this article. Alphas from the original validation of the scale range from .79 to .89 (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). In the current sample, reliability estimates were also high for self-oriented perfectionism (α = .92, 95% CI [.90, .93]) and socially prescribed perfectionism (α = .88, 95% CI [.86, .91]).

Analysis

Analyses were conducted using RStudio Version 1.2.1335 (RStudio Team, 2019). After assessing for missing data, we found that 23% of responses on the variable socially prescribed perfectionism and 16.8% of responses on the variable self-oriented perfectionism were missing due to survey nonresponse (i.e., participants did not finish the survey). Furthermore, Little’s (1988) missing completely at random test found evidence that the data (i.e., imposter phenomenon, gender, honors program participation, self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism) are missing completely at random (p = .535). This indicates that the missing data in our study meet the assumption to utilize estimation techniques like multiple imputation to minimize bias to parameter estimates; thus, we can maintain statistical power (over 80%) through preserving the sample size (Enders, 2010; Peugh & Enders, 2004). Using the mice (i.e., Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations) package within RStudio Version 1.2.1335, we performed 100 imputations using predictive mean matching for scale variables (i.e., self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, imposter phenomenon; Graham & Olchowski, 2007; Morris et al., 2014; van Buuren et al., 2020). Rubin’s combination rules were utilized to determine pool parameter estimates and variance statistics (Rubin, 1987, 1996).

Analyses began with descriptive and bivariate relationships to obtain means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the measured variables of self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and feelings of the imposter phenomenon (see Tables 1 and 2). To observe any mean differences between honors and non-honors students and scores on the imposter phenomenon, we utilized an independent sample t test. Likewise, we compared mean differences between honors and non-honors students and perfectionism (i.e., self-oriented, socially prescribed). To visualize these differences and to better understand the distribution of scores, we plotted the mean scores of honors program participation and the imposter phenomenon (see Figure 2), as well as the means of honors program participation with self-oriented perfectionism (see Figure 3) and socially prescribed perfectionism (see Figure 4).

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations for Gender, Honors College Participation, Perfectionism, and the Imposter Phenomenon in an Undergraduate Sample.

Variable	n	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Imposter phenomenon	244	64.24	14.36	—
2. Gender^a	244	.78	—	.12	—
3. Honors^b	244	.36	—	.21***	−.05	—
4. SOP	244	72.28	16.35	.30***	.10	.24***	—
5. SPP	244	57.63	12.87	.50***	.07	−.01	.47***	—

SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism.

0 = males and 1 = females. ^b0 = not enrolled in honors college and 1 = enrolled in honors college.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Raincloud plot of honors college participation and self-oriented perfectionism.

Figure 3.

Raincloud plot of honors college participation and socially prescribed perfectionism.

Figure 4.

Raincloud plot of honors college participation and imposter phenomenon.

Using the performance package in R, a multiple regression assessing the relationship between all individual predictors (i.e., gender, honors program participation, self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism) and imposter phenomenon was used to check model assumptions (i.e., outliers, heteroskedasticity, collinearity, normality, autocorrelations). Outliers were determined through Cook’s distance, Mahalanobis distance, and invariant coordinate selection (Lüdecke et al., 2019). Using all three methods, no outliers were detected. All other assumptions were met.

A hierarchical regression analysis was run to examine the relationship between gender, honors program participation, self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and the interaction among perfectionism (i.e., self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism) and honors program participation in predicting feelings of the imposter phenomenon with an undergraduate sample. In Step 1, we examined the main effect of how gender, honors program participation, and perfectionism relate to the imposter phenomenon. In Step 2, we examined secondary effects of adding interaction terms (i.e., honors program participation and self-oriented perfectionism, honors program participation and socially prescribed perfectionism) and how they relate to feelings of the imposter phenomenon.

As seen in Figure 1, a schematic diagram reflects the predicted interactions between honors program participation and perfectionism (i.e., self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism) with the imposter phenomenon.

Structure Coefficients and Effect Size

We report standardized beta coefficients, structure coefficients, R² effect sizes, and the incremental change in R² (i.e., ΔR) as a result of adding our interaction term to the moderation model. Structure coefficients were utilized in conjunction with standardized coefficients (β) to assess how each independent variable “relates to Ŷ scores independent of other predictors” (Yeatts et al., 2017, p. 86). Standardized weights are inherently affected by multicollinearity and can lead to misinterpretations regarding predictor roles, especially for variables that are highly correlated with other predictors. Although we did not have issues of collinearity within our variables, we still wanted to observe the individual contributions of predictors to the overall effect in our analysis. Structure coefficients provide a way to observe potential predictor contributions to the explained variance of the dependent variable, irrespective of shared contributions (Courville & Thompson, 2001; Henson, 2002). To evaluate the size of overall effects, we utilize Ferguson’s (2009) suggestions whereby a minimum effect is .04, a moderate effect is .25, and a strong effect is .64. Additionally, we did not solely base conclusions of the observed relationships on statistically significant p values; rather, we utilized effect sizes to determine the magnitude of the relationship among the predictors (i.e., perfectionism) and criterion (i.e., imposter phenomenon), the change in effect size (ΔR²) from Step 1 to Step 2 of the hierarchical regression, as well as how squared structure coefficients contribute to the overall R² effect (Henson, 2002, 2006).

Results

Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to first analyze the relationships between gender, honors program participation, self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon within an undergraduate sample (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations). We used all bivariate correlations of our predictors with the imposter phenomenon and overall R for the regression model to calculate structure coefficients and squared structure coefficients. These were analyzed to determine what variables “contribute to the overall R² effect” (Yeatts et al., 2017, p. 88) and how much each predictor can explain the effects.

Undergraduate honors students reported higher levels of the imposter phenomenon (M = 68.07, SD = 14.99) than students not participating in an honors program (M = 61.83, SD = 13.73), t(169.28) = 3.23, p < .001. Undergraduate honors students also reported higher scores on self-oriented perfectionism (M = 77.67, SD = 17.34) than students not in an honors program (M = 68.72, SD = 17.30), t(183.13) = 3.88, p < .001. However, there was no significant difference between honors students (M = 57.13, SD = 16.57) and non-honors students (M = 57.53, SD = 12.92) with regard to socially prescribed perfectionism, t(149.73) = −0.19, p = .847. For more detailed accounts of the distribution of our sample, see Figures 2, 3, and 4.

Hierarchical Regression and Moderation Analysis

In Block 1, the overall main effects of gender, honors program participation, self-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism were assessed. The overall model was statistically significant, R² = .3093, F(4, 239) = 26.75, p < .001, and accounts for 30.93% of the variance in the imposter phenomenon, a moderate overall effect. Specifically, honors program participation (β = .217, p < .001) and socially prescribed perfectionism (β = .497, p < .001) were statistically significant predictors of the imposter phenomenon. Gender (β = .097, p = .075) and self-oriented perfectionism (β = .007, p = .908) were not statistically significant predictors of the imposter phenomenon. Squared structure coefficients represent the overall amount of variance that predictors explain of the overall R² effect size that cannot be attributable to other variables (Yeatts et al., 2017). The squared structure coefficients of socially prescribed perfectionism (r_s² = .821) and honors college participation (r_s² = .140) indicate that these predictors can explain 96.1% of the overall effect size obtained (30.93% of variance).

Honors Program Participation and Perfectionism

In Block 2, the secondary effects of gender, honors program participation, socially prescribed perfectionism, self-oriented perfectionism, and interaction terms (i.e., honors program participation and self-oriented perfectionism, honors program participation and socially prescribed perfectionism) in an undergraduate sample were assessed. The overall model was statistically significant, R² = .3140, F(6, 237) = 18.08, p < .001, ΔR² = .005, and accounts for 31.40% of the variance in the imposter phenomenon, a moderate overall effect. Compared with the main effect in Block 1, the inclusion of the interaction term explained an additional 0.005% of the overall variance in feelings of the imposter phenomenon. Similar to the main effect, honors program participation (β = .209, p < .001, r_s² = .138) and socially prescribed perfectionism (β = .557, p < .001, r_s² = .899) were the only statistically significant predictors of the imposter phenomenon. Gender (β = .103, p = .058, r_s² = .047), self-oriented perfectionism (β = −.059, p = .476, r_s² = .539), and the interaction terms of honors program participation and self-oriented perfectionism (β = .095, p = .231, r_s² = .426) and honors program participation and socially prescribed perfectionism (β = −.083, p = .337, r_s² = .598) were not statistically significant predictors of the imposter phenomenon.

The squared structure coefficients of socially prescribed perfectionism (r_s² = .808) and honors program participation (r_s² = .138) indicate that these predictors can explain 94.6% of the overall effect size obtained (31.40% of variance). This illustrates that a large portion of the variance in feelings of the imposter phenomenon can be explained by these two predictors. Socially prescribed perfectionism is more strongly related to feelings of the imposter phenomenon and contributes the most to the overall effect; however, honors program participation still contributes to the overall effect. Structure coefficients and squared structure coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression and Moderation Analysis for Gender, Honors, and Perfectionism to Imposter Phenomenon.

Variable	B	95% CI for B		SE B	β	$r^{2}$	$r_{s}^{2}$	R ²	ΔR²
Variable	B	LL	UL	SE B	β	$r^{2}$	$r_{s}^{2}$	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1
Constant	59.10**	55.53	62.66	3.90				.309	.309
Gender^a	3.37	−0.34	7.09	1.89	.097	.218	.048
Honors^b	6.52**	3.2	9.85	1.69	.217**	.374	.140
SOP	0.01	−0.10	0.11	0.05	.007	.543	.295
SPP	0.50**	0.38	0.62	0.06	.497**	.906	.821
Step 2								.314	.005
Constant	58.73***	55.12	62.34	1.83
Gender^a	3.60	−0.14	7.33	1.90	.103	.216	.047
Honors^b	6.28**	2.93	9.64	1.70	.209**	.371	.138
SOP	−0.05	−0.18	0.08	0.07	−.059	.539	.291
SPP	0.56**	0.39	0.74	0.09	.557**	.899	.808
Honors^{a *}SOP	0.13	−0.08	0.34	0.11	.095	.426	.181
Honors^{b *}SPP	−0.12	−0.37	0.13	0.13	−.083	.598	.358

Note. LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism.

0 = males and 1 = females. ^b0 = not enrolled in honors program and 1 = enrolled in honors program.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the relationship between gender, honors program participation, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon in an undergraduate sample. Within the hierarchical regression, we found honors program participation and socially prescribed perfectionism to be statistically significantly related to the imposter phenomenon, whereby socially prescribed perfectionism had the strongest relationship with the imposter phenomenon. Although our interactions were not predictive of the imposter phenomenon, the main effects of honors program participation and socially prescribed perfectionism were significant predictors of the imposter phenomenon, although gender and self-oriented perfectionism were not. Details of our findings are discussed as follows.

The Imposter Phenomenon and Perfectionism

The overall results of the hierarchical regression indicate that honors program participation and socially prescribed perfectionism predict reported feelings of the imposter phenomenon, and the model indicated a moderate overall effect (Ferguson, 2009). Specifically, an examination of the squared structure coefficients indicates that the individual predictor of socially prescribed perfectionism contributed most to the overall effect of the imposter phenomenon, meaning those who score higher on socially prescribed perfectionism will have higher scores of the imposter phenomenon. This finding is consistent with previous research on perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon, whereby researchers found that higher scores of perfectionism related to feelings of the imposter phenomenon (Bravata et al., 2019; Cusack et al., 2013). Similarly, Bravata et al. (2019) found that students with higher scores of imposter phenomenon had fears related to “maintaining their social standing and not wanting to display imperfection to others” (p. 1254).

Those who score highly on socially prescribed perfectionism feel that other people impose unrealistic standards on them and expect them to be perfect. If they fail to meet these expectations, they believe that others will be overly critical of them and feel constant pressure to be perfect (Stoeber, 2016). Research literature suggests that socially prescribed perfectionists have an increased risk for anxiety, depression, suicidality, and hopelessness (Hewitt et al., 2017), especially if they experience a major setback where they believe others to be highly critical and if they have difficulty framing criticism from a positive perspective (Stoeber, 2016).

Furthermore, some research suggests that if individuals believe that others expect certain characteristics of them that they do not feel they possess, they are motivated to correct discrepancies of themselves (Badawy et al., 2018). As this relates to the imposter phenomenon and our findings, individuals who believe that they are seen as competent by others (but believe otherwise themselves), will believe that they need to perform perfectly in order to continue to meet these high expectations. Our findings echo previous research that points to social factors like the influence of peers, teachers, and parents in informing the development of perfectionism and negative self-beliefs and/or imposter feelings (Badawy et al., 2018; Cowie et al., 2018; Fraenza, 2016; Miller et al., 2012; Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Thompson et al., 2000).

Lane (2015) noted that internal factors, such as perfectionism and increased motivational states, and external factors, such as engaging in social comparison, could heighten experiences of the imposter phenomenon. Similar to findings by Kumar and Jagacinski (2006), we found that both males and females experience imposter feelings. Furthermore, within their study, the relationship between students’ avoidance of demonstrating incompetence in performance-based (i.e., ability-avoid and ability-approach) goal orientations was related to imposter feelings, whereas our study found that the high expectations students set for themselves based on how they feel others expect them to perform (i.e., socially prescribed perfectionism) are related to higher levels of imposter beliefs. The findings from our study and several other studies suggest that perceived social pressures are indicative of higher levels of imposter beliefs (Bravata et al., 2019; Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2020).

Future research should explore a third construct or confounding variable that explains the development of socially prescribed perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon. Due to the social nature of both constructs of socially prescribed perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon, there may be some underlying factor that explains both constructs (e.g., social comparison, anxiety), or another predictor, such as attributional style (Abramson et al., 1978; Thompson et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2020; Ward, 1990), that interacts with perfectionistic beliefs to increase levels of imposter beliefs.

The Imposter Phenomenon and Honors College Participation

Our results indicate that there is a meaningful difference between honors students and non-honors students in their reported imposter beliefs. Honors students reported higher scores of the imposter phenomenon than non-honors students (Figure 4). However, both honors students and non-honors students reported scores within the range of 61 to 80, which indicates frequent feelings of the imposter phenomenon (Clance, 1985). Thus, although honors students report frequent feelings of the imposter phenomenon, non-honors students do so as well. Though our results show that honors college participation does not moderate any relationship among other predictors and the imposter phenomenon, Block 1 of the hierarchical regression model indicates that honors program participation (β = .217, p < .001) has a weak positive relationship with self-reported feelings of the imposter phenomenon, which is in line with our prediction that honors students would report higher experiences of the imposter phenomenon. Furthermore, honors program participation as an individual predictor explains 14% of the overall effect (30.93% of the variance). From our findings, there is an implication that higher levels of imposter phenomenon can be attributed to honors program participation. It is possible that participation in an honors program positions high-achieving students in academic and social circles that lead to more critical social comparisons against others who are also achieving at very high levels. As suggested by the big-fish–little-pond effect, students placed in competitive environments often experience decreases in academic self-concept when making such upward social comparisons (Marsh et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2014). Students in competitive environments may also be more likely to experience the imposter phenomenon. However, it may also be that students who are high achieving or high ability simply have higher levels of imposter feelings. More research is needed that controls for precollege variables (e.g., self-beliefs prior to enrolling in postsecondary education) and investigates imposter feelings over time to clarify the relationship between honors program participation and the imposter phenomenon.

More research is needed to explore factors that predict feelings of the imposter phenomenon among academically talented undergraduates, as well as among academically talented individuals at other points along the talent development trajectory. At the postsecondary level, a comparison group of academically talented/non-honors students may be useful in teasing apart individual and contextual factors that affect one’s experience with the imposter phenomenon. Research on the imposter phenomenon would benefit from a deeper theoretical exploration of the construct as it pertains to the development of talent, as well as research that asks why, when, and for whom it occurs (see Dai & Rinn, 2008 for a similar exploration of related issues regarding the development of self-beliefs and the big-fish–little-pond effect).

The Imposter Phenomenon and Gender

Like in Lane’s (2015) study, we had a sample of undergraduate students who were primarily White females. Perhaps it is no surprise then that our results similarly indicate that undergraduates who identify as either male or female both experience the imposter phenomenon. Contrary to our prediction regarding women having higher levels of imposter feelings, gender was not a statistically significant predictor of the imposter phenomenon in this study. This further supports research findings that the imposter phenomenon is experienced by both males and females (Clance & O’Toole, 1987; Cokley et al., 2015). Bravata et al. (2019) found women reported higher feelings of the imposter phenomenon than men in 16 out of 33 studies, indicating that gender is less relevant to the imposter phenomenon than previously believed or found.

It is possible that changing conceptions of gender (i.e., identity and gendered stereotypes; Eagly et al., 2020; Jacobson & Joel, 2019) over time contribute to the conflicting findings regarding gender and the imposter phenomenon. The notion of the imposter phenomenon was originally derived from a study of women not long after the height of the women’s liberation movement (Clance, 1985; Clance & Imes, 1978). Decades later, binary conceptions of gender alone do not predict imposter feelings. Future research should look at other internal characteristics and behaviors related to gender differences and how those characteristics specifically relate to the imposter phenomenon (e.g., performance behaviors, reactions to feedback; Badawy et al., 2018). Also, individuals who identify as non-binary have yet to be included in a study on the imposter phenomenon, to the authors’ knowledge. Future explorations of the imposter phenomenon and gender should explore the relationship using a non-binary operationalization of gender.

Implications for Practice

Colleges and universities considering the student support they provide in both traditional and honors programs may see the need for an increased focus on recognizing indicators of the imposter phenomenon and the maladaptive manifestations of perfectionism. Our findings support that honors students who believe others to have high expectations of their achievements could report higher levels of imposter feelings. Individuals who have higher levels of imposter feelings often engage in “workaholic behaviors leading to exhaustion and increasing the risk for burnout” (Parkman, 2016, p. 52). Honors programs need to evaluate the atmospheres of their programs and promote mental health resources in an effort to help students cope with maladaptive perfectionism and imposter feelings in order to mitigate risks of students opting out of an honors program, or leaving college altogether.

There is evidence to suggest that psychological interventions may be effective in helping students work through feelings of negative self-beliefs. For example, previous research examining the effects of virtual scenarios intended to uncover and address the imposter phenomenon among medical interns suggests that there may be potential benefits to targeted interventions (Ramsey & Spencer, 2019). Findings from the pilot study indicated that role-playing techniques and discussing and processing one’s experiences of the imposter phenomenon mitigated feelings of self-doubt. These interventions may be similarly useful when addressing the imposter phenomenon in other high-achieving undergraduates.

Increased awareness could help normalize experiences for students, which facilitates coping with the imposter phenomenon (Henning et al., 1998; Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006; Lane, 2015; Parkman, 2016). Additionally, an awareness of the behaviors and characteristics associated with both the imposter phenomenon and perfectionism could aid K–12 and postsecondary educators and administrators in supporting their students’ development when engaging in teaching and mentoring (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2018; Subotnik et al., 2011). Subotnik et al. (2011) stress that academically talented students who engage in competitive environments “only rarely have access to psychological coaching” (p. 25) and that committed educators should have a goal to implement such coaching in order to aid the development of students’ talents.

Honors programs may utilize mentors, formal and informal, and other positive influences to help students better adapt to the stress of imposter phenomenon (Ramsey & Brown, 2018). Students benefit from knowing that they are not alone in their experiences of imposter phenomenon and they can also learn effective coping strategies from their mentors. Multiple studies have documented the positive benefits of mentorship, which can promote a sense of belonging and confidence for college students and improve academic achievement and school retention (Colvin & Ashman, 2010; Dennehy & Dasgupta, 2017; Hernandez et al., 2017). College counseling centers can also help students navigate negative self-beliefs related to socially prescribed perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon.

To aid students in developing healthy self-beliefs as they transition from K–12 to higher education, administrators should be intentional in establishing a vertical relationship between gifted identification, services in elementary school, advanced academic opportunities in middle school and high school, and the transition to postsecondary experiences. This alignment could provide a greater focus on students’ academic and psychosocial needs as they develop their talents and for life beyond K–12 schooling, including providing more opportunities for students to adopt healthy self-beliefs and healthy coping behaviors when faced with academic challenges that could help them in adulthood (Marsh et al., 2017; Subotnik et al., 2011).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study has limitations that should be addressed in future research. The cross-sectional nature of our study was a notable limitation and does not address causality of our variables. Future research should consider a study design that can evaluate causal relations and generate estimates of causal effects (e.g., regression discontinuity design, a longitudinal design). Also, the sample collected was predominantly female and White. Future studies should include a broader sample, including students from different types of postsecondary institutions throughout the country, and examine demographic group differences and how they may interact with one another. Future studies should replicate and extend this study by analyzing the relationships between gender (using a non-binary operationalization), demographic variables (especially, ethnicity/race), and other psychological constructs that relate to the imposter phenomenon. We have included code in R for individuals who are interested in replication of our design (see Online Supplemental Material). Those interested in replication should consider wide-scale collaborations, such as multiteam collaboration projects across labs, whereby multiple teams simultaneously conduct the same study to increase credibility and generalizability of findings across a variety of contexts (Makel et al., 2019).

Something not addressed within this study were developmental influences (e.g., social or identity development) that contribute to perfectionism in academically talented students as they relate to feelings of the imposter phenomenon. The continual discounting of one’s abilities and persistent fear of failure have been attributable to perceived social expectations; however, this should be inclusive of perceived parental expectations and family dynamics (Miller et al., 2012; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a). Future analyses should incorporate parental expectations (Mun & Hertzog, 2019) and explore how familial pressure could affect experiences of the imposter phenomenon, particularly for diverse populations. Additional insights could be gained from a qualitative or mixed methods inquiry to explore the nuances of specific groups and individuals from developmental perspectives.

Conclusion

In our examination of gender, honors program participation, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon in an undergraduate sample, our findings indicate that socially prescribed perfectionism and the imposter phenomenon are important constructs to consider among students who participate in an honors program and those who do not. Though gender and self-oriented perfectionism were not found to be meaningfully related to the imposter phenomenon in either honors program or non-honors program participants, socially prescribed perfectionism and honors program participation were statistically significant predictors of the imposter phenomenon. Of particular salience is our finding that socially prescribed perfectionism was the strongest predictor of imposter phenomenon within our sample. These findings emphasize the importance of social support and promoting accurate evaluations of the expectations of others when setting standards of accomplishment for oneself.

Supplemental Material

Badge_Form_GCQ_IPPerf_Revised91520 – Supplemental material for Perfectionism and the Imposter Phenomenon in Academically Talented Undergraduates

Supplemental material, Badge_Form_GCQ_IPPerf_Revised91520 for Perfectionism and the Imposter Phenomenon in Academically Talented Undergraduates by Lindsay Ellis Lee, Anne N. Rinn, Kacey Crutchfield, Jessica K. Ottwein, Jaret Hodges and Rachel U. Mun in Gifted Child Quarterly

Supplemental Material

GCQ_IPPerf_CAB – Supplemental material for Perfectionism and the Imposter Phenomenon in Academically Talented Undergraduates

Supplemental material, GCQ_IPPerf_CAB for Perfectionism and the Imposter Phenomenon in Academically Talented Undergraduates by Lindsay Ellis Lee, Anne N. Rinn, Kacey Crutchfield, Jessica K. Ottwein, Jaret Hodges and Rachel U. Mun in Gifted Child Quarterly

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

A preprint of this paper is available at

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Science Disclosure Statement

The data analyzed in this study are not available for purposes of reproducing the results. The code used to generate the findings reported in the article are available for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the study at . The R Code can be used for anyone interested in multiple imputation and using multiple regression. There were no newly created, unique materials used to conduct the research.

ORCID iDs

Lindsay Ellis Lee

Anne N. Rinn

Kacey Crutchfield

Jessica K. Ottwein

Jaret Hodges

Rachel U. Mun

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online at

Author Biographies

Lindsay Ellis Lee is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of North Texas with a concentration in gifted and talented education. Her research interests include gifted program evaluation, equitable access for advanced opportunities, creativity, methodology, and psychosocial development of talented students. Additionally, her experience as an advanced placement teacher and instructional leader has fueled her interest in systemic factors that impact advanced learning design within schools. She currently serves as the assistant editor for the Journal of Advanced Academics and co-chair for the NAGC Research & Evaluation Network Graduate Student Committee.

Anne N. Rinn, PhD, is a professor of Educational Psychology at the University of North Texas, where she also serves as director of the Office for Giftedness, Talent Development, and Creativity. She has a PhD in educational psychology from Indiana University and a BS in Psychology from the University of Houston Honors College. Her research focuses on the social, emotional, and psychosocial development of high-ability individuals. She is the author of Social, Emotional, and Psychosocial Development of Gifted and Talented Individuals (Rinn, 2020) and a coeditor of From Giftedness to Gifted Education: Reflecting Theory in Practice (Plucker et al., 2017). She is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Advanced Academics.

Kacey Crutchfield, MS, is a doctoral student at the University of North Texas, where she is studying educational psychology with a concentration in gifted and talented education. Her experience teaching in K–12 public schools continues to influence her interests in policy and individual experiences within gifted and talent development environments. Her research focuses on academically advanced students’ psychosocial development, the preparation and continuing education of teachers of advanced students, and the intersection between teacher and student experiences.

Jessica K. Ottwein is a doctoral student at the University of North Texas where she studies educational psychology and gifted and talented education. Her research interests center on furthering equitable access to advanced learning opportunities for students from traditionally underrepresented populations. She is particularly interested in intersectionality and its role in the development of academic self-beliefs, motivation, and career aspirations.

Jaret Hodges is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas in Educational Psychology. His interests are in underrepresentation, policy, and rurality in gifted education.

Rachel U. Mun is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas in Educational Psychology. She received her PhD in Education, Learning Sciences and Human Development from the University of Washington. She was also a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Connecticut with the National Center for Research on Gifted Education conducting research on identifying and serving underrepresented gifted learners. Her research interests are two tiered and best described as an intersection between culture, gifted education, and socioemotional well-being. At the microlevel, she explores socioemotional development and decision making for high-ability students (emphasis on immigrants) within family, peer, and academic contexts with the goal to promote well-being. At the macrolevel, she examines ways to improve equitable identification and services for K–12 high-ability learners from diverse populations. She has published in Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, and Roeper Review.

References

Abramson

L. Y.

Seligman

M. E.

Teasdale

J. D.

(1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49

Ames

(1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In Schunk

D. H.

Meece

J. L.

(Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anthony

A. K.

Okorie

Norman

(2016). When beauty brings out the beast: Female comparisons and the feminine rivalry. Gender Issues, 33(1), 311-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9158-5

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Badawy

R. L.

Gazdag

B. A.

Bentley

J. R.

Brouer

R. L.

(2018). Are all impostors created equal? Exploring gender differences in the impostor phenomenon-performance link. Personality and Individual Differences, 131(September), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.044

Bandura

(1994). Self-efficacy. In Ramachaudran

V. S.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Academic Press.

Bravata

D. M.

Watts

S. A.

Keefer

A. L.

Madhusudhan

D. K.

Taylor

K. T.

Clark

D. M.

Nelson

R. S.

Cokley

K. O.

Hagg

H. K.

(2019). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252-1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1

Caselman

Self

(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

Chrisman

S. M.

Pieper

W. A.

Clance

P. R.

Holland

C. L.

Hughes

(1995). Validation of the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 456-467. https://doi.irg/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_6

10.

Clance

P. R.

(1985). The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming the fear that haunts your success. Peachtree.

11.

Clance

P. R.

Imes

S. A.

(1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 241-247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006

12.

Clance

P. R.

O’Toole

M. A.

(1987). The impostor phenomenon: An internal barrier to empowerment and achievement. Women & Therapy, 87(3), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015V06N03_05

13.

Closson

L. M.

Boutilier

R. R.

(2017). Perfectionism, academic engagement, and procrastination among undergraduates: The moderating role of honors status. Learning and Individual Differences, 57(1), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.010

14.

Cokley

Awad

Smith

Jackson

Awosogba

Hurst

Stone

Blondeau

Roberts

(2015). The roles of gender stigma consciousness, imposter phenomenon, and academic self-concept in the academic outcomes of women and men. Sex Roles, 73(9), 414-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0516-7

15.

Colvin

J. W.

Ashman

(2010). Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611261003678879

16.

Courville

Thompson

(2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164401612006

17.

Cowie

M. E.

Nealis

L. J.

Sherry

S. B.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(2018). Perfectionism and academic difficulties in graduate students: Testing incremental prediction and gender moderation. Personality and Individual Differences, 123(March), 223-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.027

18.

Curran

Hill

A. P.

(2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410-429. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138

19.

Cusack

C. E.

Hughes

J. L.

Nuhu

(2013). Connecting gender and mental health to imposter phenomenon feelings. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 18(2), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204.JN18.2.74

20.

Dai

D. Y.

Rinn

A. N.

(2008). The big-fish-little-pond effect: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 283-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9071-x

21.

Dennehy

T. C.

Dasgupta

(2017). Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(23), 5964-5969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613117114

22.

Dweck

C. S.

(2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

23.

Eagly

A. H.

Nater

Miller

D. I.

Kaufmann

Sczesny

(2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494

24.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

25.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

26.

Erikson

E. H.

(1982). The life cycle completed. W. W. Norton.

27.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2009). Is psychological research really as good as medical research? Effect size comparisons between psychology and medicine. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015103

28.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

(2014). Proposed framework for preventing perfectionism and promoting resilience and mental health among vulnerable children and adolescents. Psychology in Schools, 51(9), 899-912. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21792

29.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

Oliver

J. M.

Macdonald

(2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89-132). American Psychological Association.

30.

Fraenza

C. B.

(2016). The role of social influence in anxiety and the imposter phenomenon. Online Learning, 20(2), 230-243. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.618

31.

Frost

R. O.

Marten

P. A.

Lahart

Rosenblate

(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967

32.

Gibson-Beverly

Schwartz

J. P.

(2008). Attachment, entitlement, and the imposter phenomenon in female graduate students. Journal of College Counseling, 11(2), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2008.tb00029.x

33.

Graham

J. W.

Olchowski

A. E.

(2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9

34.

Hamachek

D. E.

(1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15(1), 27-33.

35.

Henning

Shaw

(1998). Perfectionism, the imposter 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

36.

Henson

R. K.

(2002). The logic and interpretation of structure coefficients in multivariate general linear model analyses [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED467381

37.

Henson

R. K.

(2006). Effect-size measures and meta-analytic thinking in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 601-629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005283558

38.

Hernandez

P. R.

Bloodhart

Barnes

R. T.

Adams

A. S.

Clinton

S. M.

Pollack

Godfrey

Burt

Fischer

E. V.

(2017). Promoting professional identity, motivation, and persistence: Benefits of an informal mentoring program for female undergraduate students. PloS One, 12(11), e0187531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187531

39.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456-470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

40.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(2004). Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

41.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

Mikail

S. F.

(2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Guilford Press.

42.

Jacobson

Joel

(2019). Self-reported gender identity and sexuality in an online sample of cisgender, transgender, and gender-diverse individuals: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research, 56(2), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1523998

43.

Kelly

J. R.

Hutson-Comeaux

S. L.

(2000). The appropriateness of emotional expression in women and men: The double-bind of emotion. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 515-528.

44.

Kem

Navan

J. L.

(2006). Gifted students in college: Suggestions for advisors and faculty members. NACADA Journal, 26(2), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-26.2.21

45.

Kumar

Jagacinski

C. M.

(2006). Imposters have goals too: The imposter phenomenon and its relationship to achievement goal theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.014

46.

Lane

J. A.

(2015). The imposter phenomenon among emerging adults transitioning into professional life: Developing a grounded theory. Adultspan Journal, 14(2), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/adsp.12009

47.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). Missing data adjustments in large surveys (with discussion). Journal of Business Economics and Statistics, 6(1), 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1988.10509663

48.

Lombardo

W. K.

Cretser

G. A.

Roesch

S. C.

(2001). For crying out loud—The differences persist into the ’90s. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 45(7), 529-547. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014862714833

49.

Lüdecke

Makowski

Waggoner

Patil

(2019). Performance: Assessment of regression models performance (R package version 0.4.7). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/performance/performance.pdf

50.

Makel

M. C.

Smith

K. N.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. M.

(2019). A path to greater credibility: Large-scale collaborative education research. AERA Open, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419891963

51.

Mammadov

Hertzog

N. B.

Mun

R. U.

(2018). An examination of self-determination within an alumni of an early college entrance program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218781745

52.

Marcia

J. E.

(1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281

53.

Marcia

J. E.

(1980). Identity in adolescence. In Adelson

(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 109-137). Wiley.

54.

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

J. W.

(1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213-231. https://doi.org/10/1037/00222-3514.47.1.213

55.

Marsh

H. W.

Pekrun

Murayama

Arens

A. K.

Parker

P. D.

Guo

Dicke

(2017). An integrated model of academic self-concept development: Academic self-concept, grades, test scores, and tracking over 6 years. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000393

56.

Miller

A. L.

Lambert

A. D.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2012). Parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity in high-ability and high-achieving young adults. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(4), 344-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212459257

57.

Miller

A. L.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2017). The influence of personality, parenting styles, and perfectionism on performance goal orientation in high ability students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(4), 313-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17730567

58.

Mofield

E. L.

Parker Peters

(2015). The relationship between perfectionism and overexcitabilities in gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 405-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607324

59.

Morris

T. P.

White

I. R.

Royston

(2014). Tuning multiple imputation by predictive mean matching and local residual draws. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(75), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-75

60.

Mun

R. U.

Hertzog

N. B.

(2019). The influence of parental and self-expectations on Asian American women who entered college early. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(2), 120-140. https://doi.10.1177/0016986218823559

61.

National Collegiate Honors Council. (2020a). Definition of honors education. https://www.nchchonors.org/directors-faculty/definition-of-honors-education

62.

National Collegiate Honors Council. (2020b). Find your honors home. http://www.nchcguide.com/

63.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

(2018). Talent development as a framework for gifted education: Implications for best practices and applications in schools. Prufrock Press.

64.

Parkman

(2016). The imposter phenomenon in higher education: Incidence and impact. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 16(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/hea.12061_11

65.

Peugh

J. L.

Enders

C. K.

(2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525-556. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525

66.

Ramsey

Brown

(2018). Feeling like a fraud: Helping students renegotiate their academic identities. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25(1), 86-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2017.1364080

67.

Ramsey

J. L.

Spencer

A. L.

(2019). Interns and imposter syndrome: Proactively addressing resilience. Medical Education, 53(5), 504-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13852

68.

Rice

K. G.

Leever

B. A.

Christopher

Porter

J. D.

(2006). Perfectionism, stress, and social (dis)connection: A short-term study of hopelessness, depression, and academic adjustment among honors students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 524-534. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.524

69.

Rinn

A. N.

(2020). Social, emotional, and psychosocial development of gifted and talented individuals. Prufrock Academic Press.

70.

Rinn

A. N.

Plucker

J. A.

(2004). We recruit them, but then what? The educational and psychological experiences of academically talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800106

71.

Rinn

A. N.

Plucker

J. A.

(2019). High-ability college students and undergraduate honors programs: A systematic review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(3), 187-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219855678

72.

Rinn

A. N.

Soles

K. L.

Ferguson

Smith

K. N.

(2019). Psychological profiles among high ability undergraduate students. High Ability Studies, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1607721

73.

RStudio Team. (2019). RStudio: Integrated development for R (Version 1.2.1335). https://rstudio.com

74.

Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696

75.

Rubin

D. B.

(1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of American Statistical Association, 91(434), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476908

76.

Seifert

T. A.

Pascarella

E. T.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

(2007). The effects of honors college participation on experiences of good practices and learning outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0007

77.

Slaney

R. B.

Rice

K. G.

Mobley

Trippi

Ashby

J. S.

(2001). The Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069030

78.

Slank

(2019). Rethinking the imposter phenomenon. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22(1), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09984-8

79.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2004a). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 259-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800402

80.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2004b). Interpreting successes and failures: The influence of perfectionism on perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(4), 311-335. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2004-320

81.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2004c). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800306

82.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2018). Perfectionism in gifted students. In Stoeber

(Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 135-154). Routledge.

83.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Finch

(2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000304

84.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Fletcher

K. L.

Burney

V. H.

(2015). Perfectionism and achievement motivation in high-ability students: An examination of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592502

85.

Stairs

A. M.

Smith

G. T.

Zapolski

T. C. B.

Combs

J. L.

Settles

R. E.

(2012). Clarifying the construct of perfectionism. Assessment, 19(2), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411663

86.

Stoeber

(2012). The 2× 2 model of perfectionism: A critical comment and some suggestions. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 541-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.029

87.

Stoeber

(2016). Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt–Flett multidimensional perfectionism scale. Assessment, 25(5), 578-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659740

88.

Stoeber

Otto

(2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295-319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2

89.

Stoeber

Otto

Dalbert

(2009). Perfectionism and the big five: Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.004

90.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

91.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(Eds.). (2018). The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent. American Psychological Association.

92.

Thompson

Davis

Davidson

(1998). Attributional and affective responses of impostors to academic success and failure outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 381-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00065-8

93.

Thompson

Foreman

Martin

(2000). Impostor fears and perfectionistic concern over mistakes. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(4), 629-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00218-4

94.

Van Buuren

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Vink

Schouten

Robitzsch

Doove

Jolani

Moreno-Betancur

White

Gaffert

Meinfelder

Gray

(2020). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations (Version 3.9.0). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mice/mice.pdf

95.

Vaughn

A. R.

Taasoobshirazi

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

96.

Vergauwe

Wille

Feys

De Fruyt

Anseel

(2015). Fear of being exposed: The trait-relatedness of the imposter phenomenon and its relevance in the work context. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 565-581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9382-5

97.

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), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.005

98.

Ward

G. R.

(1990). The relationships among attributional styles, motivational orientations and the impostor phenomenon among high-achieving undergraduate students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of New Mexico.

99.

Wilson

H. E.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

Little

C. A.

Reis

S. M.

(2014). A model of academic self-concept: Perceived difficulty and social comparison among academically accelerated secondary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214522858

100.

Yeatts

P. E.

Barton

Henson

R. K.

Martin

S. B.

(2017). The use of structure coefficients to address multicollinearity in sport and exercise science. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 21(2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2016.1259162

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB

0.02 MB