The Relation of the Impostor Phenomenon to Future Intentions of Mathematics-Related School and Work

Abstract

Currently, the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) jobs are expanding faster than the U.S. labor market; yet many individuals with STEM degrees choose to work in other fields. The present study uses social cognitive career theory as a framework for researching the impact of several variables on future expectations to continue in STEM. We measured math self-efficacy with the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales and impostorism from the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale. New measures of interest and future intentions were created. One hundred twenty-one undergraduates (47.1% women; median age = 21.00) enrolled in STEM majors completed an online survey. We hypothesized that math self-efficacy and interest would significantly predict future expectations and that impostorism would significantly add to this prediction. This theory was analyzed with a hierarchical multiple regression, and the hypothesis was supported by data from men. In the women’s model, only interest emerged as a significant predictor. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

impostor phenomenon self-efficacy social cognitive career theory gender career choice

Between 2008 and 2018, the U.S. job market is expected to add 1.2 million science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) jobs, an expansion greater than any other field save for health care (Carnevale, Smith, & Melton, 2014). Employers are in dire need of educated STEM workers; currently, there are 1.9 STEM job openings for each qualified worker (Change the Equation, 2015). With the expanded STEM market, approximately 65% of the new jobs will require employees who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in an STEM field. However, 43% of college graduates with an STEM degree opt for work outside of their field; of those who do choose STEM jobs, 46% leave within the first 10 years (Carnevale et al., 2014). The purpose of this research is to investigate possible factors that are keeping STEM graduates away from related occupations. Specifically, we consider the impact of the impostor phenomenon on future STEM intentions for students currently enrolled in STEM majors. We theorized that impostorism would influence the participants’ future STEM-related intentions above what their math self-efficacy and STEM interests did. Moreover, since women are vastly underrepresented in STEM employment in the United States (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012), we investigated gender differences in the impact of the impostor phenomenon. Our major research questions are as follows: Will the impostor phenomenon reduce a participant’s intentions to continue in an STEM field after graduation? Will this effect be different for men and women in STEM majors?

Literature Review

Social Cognitive Career Theory

In the years since Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) first developed their social cognitive career theory (SCCT), it has been the dominant framework in the career literature (Gore, 2006). SCCT is an expansion of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to the occupational domain, and it has been used to explain several work- and academic-related outcomes. The model considers the influence of personal-cognitive variables, behaviors, and the environment on each other. According to the theory, individuals weigh their confidence in their ability to succeed at a task (self-efficacy), their interest in the task, and other variables before they begin a behavior.

The present study considers three major components of SCCT: self-efficacy, interest, and future intentions. Similar to Lent and colleagues (2015), we use “future intentions” as a choice goal and the response variable in our analysis. Future intentions refer to the students’ expectation to continue in math-related areas after graduating college. We assumed that future intentions would temporally occur after math self-efficacy and interest. That is, individuals would consider their confidence in their success (self-efficacy) and their interest in their major before creating an intention for their postgraduation plans. Thus, we measured the effect of interest and math self-efficacy on future intentions to continue in STEM fields.

Furthermore, we expand on SCCT by considering the added effect of the impostor phenomenon to the model. In Bandura’s model (Bandura, 2000; H. Lee, Flores, Navarro, & Kanagui-Munoz, 2015), the person-cognitive variables of self-efficacy and outcome expectations predict interests and goals. We propose that the impostor phenomenon, another person-cognitive variable, should be added to the model in a similar location. In the present study, impostorism, like self-efficacy, will be a proximal variable that directly predicts future intentions.

Self-efficacy

One variable that has been shown to relate strongly to future career intentions and goals is self-efficacy (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Choi et al., 2012; Kim, 2014). Self-efficacy is a judgment of one’s own ability to complete the necessary behaviors to achieve in a given area. Bandura (1986) theorized that self-efficacy, even more than ability, affects choice, effort, and persistence; subsequent studies have upheld this theory (H. Lee, Flores, et al., 2015; Waller, 2006). Self-efficacy is highly influential over goals and behavior, as it determines how one uses one’s own skills and knowledge to accomplish a task.

Self-efficacy differs from self-concept in that the former is domain-specific (Fry, MacGregor, Hyland, Payne, & Chenoweth, 2015; Jameson & Fusco, 2014). The present study considers academic self-efficacy in math as an important contributor to future intentions in the same field. Prior research has found math self-efficacy to relate to various academic and career outcomes (Larson et al., 2015; Nauta & Epperson, 2003). One study (Larson et al., 2015) showed that high school students high in math/science self-efficacy were more likely to graduate with a bachelor’s degree than students low in self-efficacy. In a separate study (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998), math/science/engineering self-efficacy positively correlated with career aspirations. Even in participants as young as sixth grade, math self-efficacy positively predicted math and science career interests (Turner, Steward, & Lapan, 2004). Our research controls for students’ ability (via their grade point average [GPA]) while considering the relation between math self-efficacy and future career intentions.

Notably, math self-efficacy often shows gender differences, with men/boys reporting significantly more than women/girls (Gwilliam & Betz, 2001; Liu, 2009). Math self-efficacy has been proposed as one of the reasons for gender discrepancies in STEM (Byars-Winston & Fouad, 2008; Lindley, 2006). In the present study, we expected similar results: Men’s math self-efficacy would be higher than women’s.

Interest

Bandura (1986) posited that both self-efficacy and outcome expectations influence behavior through their association with interest. Subsequent research (Fouad, Smith, & Zao, 2002) has supported this theory. Several studies (Flores et al., 2014; Garriott et al., 2014) have found a strong, positive relation between self-efficacy and interest. A meta-analysis (Rottinghaus, Larson, & Borgen, 2003) found that math self-efficacy and math interests correlated at r = .73 but were distinct variables that independently affected career decision. Individuals who are confident they can be successful in an area are also likely to report being interested in that area, and thus, want to work there. In the present study, we analyze the effect of interest in one’s major on STEM-related employment.

Future intentions

One major purpose of SCCT was to explain career-related behavior (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000). According to SCCT, high self-efficacy leads to greater interest and, ultimately, higher career and life intentions (Gainor, 2006; Gore & Leuwerke, 2000). Individuals who are confident in their abilities in an area develop greater interest in that area; subsequently, they expect to do well in a related career. Several studies have supported this association. Kim (2014) found academic self-efficacy to mediate the effect of family background of career success expectancy. Some research (Lent et al., 2015; Navarro, Flores, Lee, & Gonzalez, 2014) has considered an intended persistence in an engineering major as the outcome variable. These studies found a strong, positive influence of self-efficacy and interests on intended persistence. In the present research, we define the ultimate behavioral construct in the model as future intentions, and we consider it a choice goal variable. We measured the students’ expectation to continue in a field related to their major in the employment sector.

The Impostor Phenomenon

One variable that has been theorized to affect future intentions is the impostor phenomenon (Clance & Imes, 1978; Fried-Buchalter, 1997). The impostor phenomenon is a pervasive feeling that one is a fraud; the belief that one’s achievements are due to temporary means such as luck or charm, rather than ability (Clance & Imes, 1978). Several studies (Cusack, Hughes, & Nuhu, 2013; Sonnak & Towell, 2000) have found impostorism to relate to poor mental health and psychological distress.

The impostor phenomenon relates to negative well-being; understanding the construct may help alleviate some of the psychological distress experienced by impostors. These negative correlates may dissuade people experiencing impostorism from working in STEM careers.

Impostor phenomenon and future intentions

Individuals experiencing impostorism often fear failure and discount their abilities (Fischer & Holtz, 2007; Fried-Buchalter, 1997); they experience extreme negative well-being including anxiety and depression (McGregor, Gee, & Posey, 2008; Thompson, Foreman, & Martin, 2000). As such, several researchers have proposed that impostors set goals far below their actual capabilities in order to avoid the negative correlates associated with impostorism (e.g., Fried-Buchalter, 1997; King & Cooley, 1995). Impostors may aspire to careers beneath their abilities or may not seek advancement in those careers (Clance & O’Toole, 1988). In theory, the impostor phenomenon relates to reduced future intentions and aspirations. However, to date, no research study has empirically investigated this claim. The purpose of the present study is to determine quantitatively if a negative relation between impostorism and future intentions exists.

Gender differences in the impostor phenomenon

In their initial research, Clance and Imes (1978) investigated impostorism in women only, and they proposed that it would be stronger in women than in men. Subsequent analyses have found mixed results with regard to gender differences; some research showed impostorism to affect more women than men (Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006; McGregor et al., 2008), while other research found equal levels between the genders (Caselman, Self, & Self, 2006; Cokley et al., 2015).

Importantly, the impostor phenomenon may affect men and women differently (Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006). King and Cooley (1995) found that women impostors spent more time on academic tasks than nonimpostors, but men did not display the same pattern. This may explain why Cokley and colleagues (2015) found that impostorism led to higher GPAs in women, but not in men. The women were academically helped by the impostor phenomenon, though their mental health may have been hindered. Men may be more likely to overcome the impostor phenomenon due to added social support (Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006) or verbal persuasion of influential others (Clance & O’Toole, 1988). Regardless, these studies show that the impostor phenomenon affects men and women differently in academic settings.

The impostor phenomenon is related to several negative outcomes and may reduce individuals’ future career intentions. Although it can affect all people, it may cause different experiences for men and women (Cokley et al., 2015; Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006). The present study investigates the effect of impostorism on an individual’s intention to continue in an STEM field after graduation. For, while some studies have theorized that the impostor phenomenon will reduce these expectations (e.g., Fried-Buchalter, 1997; King & Cooley, 1995), none have quantitatively analyzed this relation. The present research will attempt to fill this gap in the literature.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is, first, to analyze the relation of the impostor phenomenon to a future intention to work in an STEM-related area; and, second, to determine whether impostorism affects these future intentions differently for men and women. This study is the first of its kind to quantitatively investigate either of these questions. By analyzing these aspects of impostorism, we hope to understand and ultimately eliminate one of the barriers limiting the pool of potential STEM workers. We chose university students as our target population because we want to determine why individuals in STEM majors are not pursuing STEM after graduation.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research question 1: Do men and women differ on their reported levels of math self-efficacy, interest in major, impostorism, or future intentions?

Hypothesis 1: For Hypothesis 1, we expect to find gender differences on some, but not all, of our major variables. Specifically, as with previous literature (Gibson & Lawrence, 2010; Metz, Fouad, & Ihle-Helledy, 2009; Pajares, 1996), we expect the men to report greater math self-efficacy and higher intentions to continue in STEM. We do not expect any gender differences on interest in one’s major or the impostor phenomenon.

Research question 2: How do the major study variables relate to each other?

Hypothesis 2: We expect our variables to significantly correlate for Hypothesis 2. We theorize that GPA, math self-efficacy, and interest will positively relate to future intentions, while impostorism will negatively relate.

Research question 3: Will impostorism add to the prediction of future intentions above what math self-efficacy and interest do? Will these relations differ for men and women?

Hypothesis 3: For Hypothesis 3, we propose that math self-efficacy and interest will predict future intentions to continue in an STEM area. We expect the impostor phenomenon to add significantly to this model such that individuals high on self-efficacy and interest, while also low on impostor phenomenon, will have the greatest future intentions.

Method

Participants

One hundred twenty-one undergraduates (47.1% women) from a large, public university in the Southwestern United States participated in the present research by completing an online survey in exchange for either extra credit in their classes or a chance to win a small gift certificate. All students were enrolled in a math-intensive major (requiring four or more math courses) within the College of Natural Sciences or the School of Engineering. The most frequently listed majors were computer science (N = 19), biochemistry (N = 18), and mechanical engineering (N = 18). Not all majors were represented. The majority of participants self-identified as European American (38.0%), with Asian American (33.1%) and Hispanic (19.8%) being the next largest racial/ethnic groups. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 25 years, with a median age of 21.00 years. The grade breakdown was as follows: 12.4% were freshmen, 16.5% were sophomores, 22.3% were juniors, 44.6% were seniors, and 4.1% were in their fifth year or higher.

Measures

Demographics

This study contained a demographics section where participants reported their gender, race/ethnicity, and current GPA. GPA was included as a control variable and was quantified on a 4-point scale.

Interest

Interest was measured using the following 1 item: “I am interested in my major.” Students responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Although interest is typically measured with a multi-item scale (e.g., Byars-Winston & Fouad, 2008; Garriott et al., 2014), we felt it was appropriate to use only 1 item in order to accurately measure the intended construct (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009). One-item measures have been found to have strong test–retest reliability (de Boer et al., 2004), in addition to good convergent (Wanous & Hudy, 2001) and predictive validity (Nagy, 2002). We felt that an individual’s interest in her major would directly relate to her intention to continue in a related field after graduation; thus, we used the 1-item measure in our questionnaire.

Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale

The 20-item Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS; Clance, 1985) measures the level of impostorism an individual is experiencing. Although Clance did not provide demographics from her initial sample, several researchers (e.g., Cokley et al., 2015; Chrisman, Pieper, Clance, Holland, & Glickauf-Hughes, 1995; French, Ullrich-French, & Follman, 2008) have used the scale with undergraduate participants. Participants rate how strongly each statement applies to them on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). A sample item is “At times, I feel my success has been due to some kind of luck.” Responses were summed, and higher scores indicated greater levels of impostorism.

Chrisman, Pieper, Clance, Holland, and Glickauf-Hughes (1995) and French, Ullrich-French, and Follman (2008) reviewed the CIPS and found their samples to have strong psychometric properties. The scale scores showed strong construct validity, as impostors reported higher depression, self-monitoring, and social anxiety than nonimpostors. Additionally, the CIPS has demonstrated high internal consistency in samples, with researchers reporting Cronbach’s αs between .84 (Prince, 1989) and .96 (Holmes, Kertay, Adamson, Holland, & Clance, 1993). The present study had a strong reliability of .91.

Math self-efficacy

For the current study, I followed the example of Fast and colleagues (2010) by revising the Academic Self-Efficacy section of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 2000) to reflect self-efficacy in math courses specifically. The scale consists of 5 items which participants rate on a 5-point Likert-type response set from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores were summed, and higher values indicated greater math self-efficacy. A representative item is “I’m certain I can master the skills taught in my math courses.” Midgley and colleagues (2000) found the original subscale to have good internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .78) for their sample, while Fast and colleagues (2010) reported a high Cronbach’s α as well (α = .84). The present study had a strong internal reliability (α = .91).

Future intentions

The measure of future intentions was newly created for this study. Here, participants were directly asked about their expectations to work in STEM-related areas. Respondents indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale how much they agreed with the item from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The 1 item was “I expect to work in an area related to my major.”

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the statistical program SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp., 2013). Missing data were excluded on a casewise basis. The first hypothesis predicted gender differences on some of the major variables. This theory was tested with independent-samples t-tests to determine whether men and women significantly differ on their reported levels of math self-efficacy and future intentions, as we expected, and do not differ on interest and impostorism. For the second hypothesis, we expected that our major study variables would relate to each other. This theory was checked with a correlation analysis.

The third hypothesis predicted that impostorism would explain a significant amount of variance in future intentions above what interest and math self-efficacy already did. This prediction was tested with a hierarchical multiple regression. The first block contained the background variable of GPA, so that we could control for a student’s prior academic achievement. In Block 2, self-efficacy and interest were added to the prediction equation. Finally, Block 3 contained the impostor phenomenon in addition to the other variables. We expected to see an overall significant regression equation and a significant change in R ² from Block 2 to Block 3.

Assumptions

This study employed the use of a convenience sample of participants, so data are not completely random and independent, as some of the students were in the same classes. To meet the remaining assumptions, each of the predictors needed to be linearly related to future intentions. Additionally, the population of future intention values should be normally distributed and with equal variance for each predictor value. Shapiro-Wilks’s tests revealed that the impostor phenomenon was normally distributed (p = .823); however, none of the other variables met this requirement (ps < .05). Whitlock and Schluter (2015) argue that this assumption may be ignored when sample sizes are large. To assess the remaining assumptions, we created a residual plot of the predicted future intentions and the expected future intentions of students. The points were randomly scattered around the x-axis without patterning; thus, the remaining assumptions were met. The somewhat elliptical shape indicated that the data display multivariate normality (Whitlock & Schluter, 2015). Since no major assumptions were violated, we continued with the regression analysis.

Results

Hypothesis 1

Means and standard deviations for major study variables are listed by gender in Table 1. Results partially supported our hypotheses. Unlike our prediction in Hypothesis 1, men and women did not significantly differ on any of the major study variables (see Table 1). Men and women had statistically similar GPAs as well as levels of self-efficacy, interest in their major, impostorism, and future intentions of continuing in STEM fields.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Sample Size of Study Variables Listed by Gender.

Variable	Men			Women
Variable	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N	t	p
GPA	3.22	0.56	62	3.25	0.44	51	−0.350	.727
Self-efficacy	20.95	3.28	63	19.85	2.86	55	1.923	.057
Interest	3.81	1.19	64	4.14	0.77	57	−0.1773	.079
Impostorism	61.89	15.35	61	64.32	12.36	53	−0.924	.358
Future intent	3.84	1.35	64	3.93	1.15	55	−0.360	.719

Note. All t-test values nonsignificant.

Hypothesis 2

For Hypothesis 2, we expected that GPA, self-efficacy, and interest would positively relate to future intentions of continuing in an STEM field, while impostorism would negatively relate to it. Intercorrelations between study variables, separated by gender, are given in Table 2. Results partially supported our hypothesis.

Table 2.

Pearson Product–Moment Correlations Among Major Study Variables Separated by Gender.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
1. GPA		.169	.119	−.310*	.116
2. Self-efficacy	.068		.104	−.027	.322*
3. Interest	.266	.327*		.071	.366**
4. Impostorism	−.255	−.293*	−.364**		−.317*
5. Future intent	.194	.030	.523**	−.175

Note. Correlations for men are given above the diagonal. Correlations for women are given below the diagonal.

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

For men, self-efficacy and interest were positively associated with future intentions (r = .322 and .366 with p < .05 and p < .01, respectively). Men with high self-confidence in their math abilities who also reported a strong interest in their major were also more likely to intend to continue in a related field after graduation. Additionally, impostorism was negatively related to future intentions for men (r = −.317, p < .05). Students who felt like they were academic frauds in their major were less likely to want to continue in a related area. Unlike our prediction, however, GPA was unrelated to future intentions of the men.

The data from women showed different correlations. Like the men’s data, interest was highly correlated with future intentions (r = .523, p < .01), such that students interested in their major also expected to continue in a related field after graduation. However, unlike the men, neither self-efficacy nor impostorism correlated with future intentions for the women. Whether or not a woman thought she could succeed in an STEM field had no bearing on if she expected to continue in one. Again, GPA was unrelated to future intentions. A student’s grades had no relation to whether he or she intended to work in a related field.

Hypothesis 3

For the third hypothesis, we expected that self-efficacy and interest would positively predict future intentions after controlling for a student’s GPA. Moreover, we proposed that impostorism would significantly add to this prediction above what the other variables contributed. To analyze this hypothesis, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression equations for men and women students separately. We controlled for GPA in Block 1, and we added self-efficacy and interest to the prediction of future intentions in Block 2. In Block 3, we added the explanatory variable impostorism. Our data supported this hypothesis for men, but not for women (see Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Future Intentions From Major Study Variables for Men.

Block	Variables	β	p	R ²	p	Δ R ²	p
Block 1	GPA	.113	.400	.013	.400
Block 2	GPA	.050	.681
	Self-efficacy	.294*	.018
	Interest	.348**	.005	.225**	.003	.212**	.001
Block 3	GPA	−.061	.613
	Self-efficacy	.297*	.011
	Interest	.379**	.001
	Impostorism	−.350**	.005	.335***	<.001	.110**	.005

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

Table 4.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Future Intentions From Major Study Variables for Women.

Block	Variables	β	p	R ²	p	ΔR ²	p
Block 1	GPA	.146	.321	.021	.321
Block 2	GPA	.044	.744
	Self-efficacy	−.096	.496
	Interest	.512**	.001	.247**	.005	.226**	.003
Block 3	GPA	.045	.748
	Self-efficacy	−.095	.512
	Interest	.513**	.001
	Impostorism	.004	.979	.247*	.014	.000	.979

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

For men, GPA was not a significant predictor of future intentions in Block 1 (R ² = .013, ns). However, the addition of self-efficacy and interest in Block 2 caused a significant change in the model that resulted in an overall significant prediction equation (ΔR ² = .212, p = .001). Additionally, as we hypothesized, impostorism significantly added to the model in Block 3 (ΔR ² = .110, p = .005). In the final model, self-efficacy and interest positively predicted future intentions, while impostorism negatively did so. Men who were confident in their math abilities, interested in their major, and not experiencing impostorism were most likely to intend to continue in an STEM-related field after graduation. The overall equation explained 33.5% of the variance in future intentions.

The data from the women revealed very different results. As with the men, the addition of the explanatory variables self-efficacy and interest in Block 2 caused a significant change in the regression equation (ΔR ² = .226, p = .003). However, in Block 3, impostorism did not significantly add to the prediction of future intentions of women (ΔR ² < .001, p = .979). In the final model, only interest significantly related to the response variable. Women interested in their major were more likely to report expecting to continue in it, regardless of their self-efficacy or feelings of impostorism. The overall equation explained 24.7% of the variance in future intentions.

To analyze possible racial differences in our results, we repeated our analysis and added the variable race as a predictor in Block 1 of the regression equation. It was nonsignificant in all blocks (ps > .05), so we discontinued this line of analysis. However, it should be noted that this analysis would have very low power to detect differences among different races/ethnicities due to the small sample size.

Summary

Whereas men and women did not report statistically different levels of self-efficacy, interest, or impostorism, the effects of these variables on future intentions differed between the genders. For men, high self-efficacy and interest, coupled with low impostorism, predicted higher levels of intending to continue in STEM fields. However, for women, only high interest in their major related to their future intentions.

Discussion

SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) proposes a strong association among self-efficacy, interest, and behavior. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the impostor phenomenon also affected this relation for undergraduate students in STEM majors. We believed that impostorism would impact future career intentions above what math self-efficacy and interest did. We conceptualize the impostor phenomenon as a proximal contextual variable that directly predicts intentions. We believe it is a contextual variable because it directly affects choice. Lent, Brown, and Hackett (2000) found that proximal contextual variables can directly predict career barriers. We expect that the impostor phenomenon will act in a similar manner on future career intentions. Other researchers (Clance & Imes, 1978; Fried-Buchalter, 1997) have proposed that impostorism should have a negative relation with future intentions; thus, we wanted to know if this finding would hold true even after considering an individual’s GPA, math self-efficacy, and interest in their math-related major. Additionally, we thought that this model might differ for men and women since we believed that the impostor phenomenon would affect the genders differently. Our results mostly supported our hypotheses.

For our Hypothesis 1, we theorized that men and women would differ on their reported levels of math self-efficacy and future intentions but not in their levels of interest or impostorism. As several other studies (e.g., Gwilliam & Betz, 2001; Liu, 2009) have found, we expected men to have higher math self-efficacy than women; however, this prediction was not supported. One possible explanation for the nonsignificant findings on self-efficacy may be that our statistical power was too low. Post hoc analysis using the program G*Power (version 3.1.9.2; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) revealed that the paired comparison on self-efficacy had very low power to detect true differences (1 − β = .48). Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, and Lang (2009) recommend a power of at least .80 in order to avoid making a Type II error in analysis. Although men may actually have greater self-efficacy in the population, our data may not have been robust enough to detect it. Alternatively, the students in our study may actually have had similar levels of self-efficacy. Since the present research considers undergraduates in math-intensive majors only, our sample was much more selective than that of prior studies (Byars-Winston & Fouad, 2008; Gwilliam & Betz, 2001). Perhaps men in the general undergraduate population display greater math self-efficacy than the women, but this difference is not displayed in the restricted sample of students in STEM majors. Indeed, Concannon and Barrow (2012) found the men and women engineering students in their study to report equal levels of engineering self-efficacy. In our research, the STEM participants have chosen a discipline that requires an extensive mathematical ability; thus, the men and women in these majors may have equally high confidence in their math skills.

The specialized sample in our study may also account for the lack of gender differences in future intentions. Students who have resigned to take multiple college-level math classes may expect to continue in a related area, regardless of their gender. These results differ from those of Gibson and Lawrence (2010), who found that women had lower occupational intentions even after type of job was controlled. In addition to self-efficacy and future intentions, neither interest in one’s major nor the level of impostorism revealed differences between men and women. These results supported our hypothesis and replicated earlier studies (Caselman et al., 2006; Fried-Buchalter, 1997; Jagacinski, 2013).

For Hypothesis 2, we expected GPA, self-efficacy, and interest to positively correlate with future intentions, and impostorism to negatively relate to it. Results partially supported this hypothesis, with notable differences between men and women. For the men, the expected correlations were significant, with the exception of GPA, which did not relate to future intentions. Men’s expectation to continue in STEM fields had nothing to do with their academic achievements. However, for the women, GPA and interest positively related with future intentions, but self-efficacy and impostorism did not. Regardless of gender, students who reported being interested in their major were more likely to intend to continue in a related field. For men, those with high self-efficacy and low impostorism also had high future intentions. Women with a high overall GPA were more likely to expect to work in a math-related field.

Hypothesis 3 was supported with data from men but not from women. For men, the level of impostorism added to the prediction of future intentions above what math self-efficacy and interest in major did. A man who was confident in his math abilities, was interested in his major, and felt like he had earned his academic successes was more likely to report expecting to work in a math-related field. Regardless of how high his interest or self-efficacy were, however, if a man felt like an academic impostor, he was less likely to continue in an STEM field. Therefore, impostorism is an important construct to address in order to ensure more qualified men consider STEM jobs.

Conversely, neither the impostor phenomenon nor math self-efficacy had a significant impact on women’s future intentions. These findings were unexpected, as Lent and colleagues’ (1994) SCCT predicts that math self-efficacy should strongly and positively relate to future intentions. Women who had low confidence in their math skills and did not believe that they deserved to be in their STEM major still intended to work in STEM fields at levels similar to students with high self-efficacy and low impostorism. Only a woman’s interest in her major predicted her future intentions: Students who were interested in their majors expected to continue in a related field, even when they felt like they did not deserve to be in their major. For some students in engineering majors, math-intensive classes begin by middle school (Adelman, 2006). Presumably, students who experienced extreme distress due to feelings of impostorism would have quit taking STEM classes by college. Thus, the women impostors remaining in STEM majors may have been used to feeling like impostors, and they may have developed coping mechanisms to overcome the negative outcomes associated with impostorism. Regardless, the women did not perceive their feelings of impostorism as a hindrance in the choices they intended to make in the future.

These findings have several implications for encouraging more individuals to work in STEM fields. Betz (2007) reported that both interest and self-efficacy make important and separate contributions to occupational choice. However, our data indicate that this may be true for men only. For the women, only interest related to future intentions. Interventions designed to increase math self-efficacy (e.g., Cordero, Porter, Israel, & Brown, 2010; Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, & Martinelli, 1999) may affect men’s expectations more than women’s. Instead, our findings indicate that interest is an important variable to consider when attempting to encourage more individuals (both men and women) to continue in STEM fields. Future research should investigate ways to develop interest in STEM and determine if it causally affects future intentions.

Differential interest in STEM areas begins as early as elementary school (Ganley & Lubienski, 2016). Yet, programs that attempt to develop interest in STEM areas often target only girls in middle and high school (e.g., Bystydzienski, Eisenhart, & Bruning, 2015; Kim, 2015). Interventions such as these need to begin earlier and continue throughout primary and secondary years. Moreover, these programs should work to develop interest in boys, as well as girls. Interest can be hampered by negative stereotypes (Master, Cheryan, & Meltzoff, 2016) and identity threat (J. K. Lee, Alston, & Kahn, 2015). Thus, schools and parents should be careful to avoid these pitfalls.

In sum, the impostor phenomenon negatively related to STEM future intentions for men, but not women. Men who felt like impostors in their field were less likely to expect to continue in it. Thus, impostorism is limiting the pool of potential STEM workers who were men. Methods for reducing impostorism in men specifically need to be considered in alleviating this issue. Yet, the impostor phenomenon is still an important variable to study in women. The present study was limited in that it did not measure any variables related to well-being. Although our data showed that the women’s future intentions were not affected by the impostor phenomenon, it is highly likely that impostorism was still contributing to negative affect in these participants as in other studies (McGregor et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2000). Therefore, addressing and reducing impostorism should positively influence both men and women in STEM majors.

This study had some limitations. First, the variable “interest” was measured with 1 item only. A more extensive scale may have been able to capture more facets of the participants’ interest in their major. Additionally, the measure of future intentions could have been improved. As is, students who wanted to work in STEM fields received a higher score than students who wanted to go directly to work. Regardless of these limitations, the research contributes vital information to the study of STEM.

Overall, the present study is an important one in that it clarifies some of the variables potentially reducing the pool of qualified STEM workers. We considered the previously found relation of self-efficacy and interest to future intentions, and we analyzed the additional affect of the impostor phenomenon on the outcome. Despite the hypothesized negative relation between impostorism and future intentions (Clance & Imes, 1978), until now, no study had directly analyzed this association. Our research was the first of its kind to quantify the relation between the two variables. Notably, our study found that the impostor phenomenon does, as proposed, reduce future intentions to work in an STEM area. However, this relation held true for men only. For women, only their self-reported interest in their major affected their future intentions. Future studies should investigate if the undergraduates who expected to remain in STEM areas actually did. Understanding the impostor phenomenon and its association with future job intentions may help encourage more well-qualified individuals to consider STEM occupations.

Footnotes

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.

References

Adelman

(2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(2000). Social-cognitive theory. In Kazdin

A. E.

Kazdin

A. E.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 329–332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10522-140

Betz

N. E.

(2007). Career self-efficacy: Exemplary recent research and emerging directions. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 403–422. doi:10.1177/1069072707305759

Betz

N. E.

Hackett

(1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399–410.

Byars-Winston

A. M.

Fouad

N. A.

(2008). Math and science social cognitive variables in college students: Contributions of contextual factors in predicting goals. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 425–440. doi:10.1177/1069072708318901

Bystydzienski

J. M.

Eisenhart

Bruning

(2015). High school is not too late: Developing girls’ interest and engagement in engineering careers. The Career Development Quarterly, 63, 88–95. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00097.x

Carnevale

A. P.

Smith

Melton

(2014). STEM: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/stem-execsum.pdf

Caselman

T. D.

Self

P. A.

Self

A. L.

(2006). Adolescent attributes contributing to the imposter phenomenon. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 395–405.

10.

Change the Equation. (2015). Vital signs: Reports on the condition of STEM learning in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.changetheequation.org/sites/default/files/CTEq_VitalSigns_Supply%20%282%29.pdf

11.

Choi

B. Y.

Park

Yang

Lee

S. K.

Lee

S. M.

(2012). Understanding career decision self-efficacy: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Career Development, 39, 443–460. doi:10.1177/089484531139804

12.

Chrisman

S. M.

Pieper

W. A.

Clance

P. R.

Holland

C. L.

Glickauf-Hughes

(1995). Validation of the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 456–467.

13.

Clance

P. R.

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

14.

Clance

P. R.

Imes

S. A.

(1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 241–247.

15.

Clance

P. R.

O’Toole

M. A.

(1988). The imposter phenomenon: An internal barrier to empowerment and achievement. Women & Therapy, 6, 51–64.

16.

Cokley

Awad

Smith

Jackson

Awosogba

Hurst

… Roberts

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

17.

Concannon

J. P.

Barrow

L. H.

(2012). A reanalysis of engineering majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 742–753. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9362-8

18.

Cordero

E. D.

Porter

S. H.

Israel

Brown

M. T.

(2010). Math and science pursuits: A self-efficacy intervention comparison study. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 362–375.

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, 74–81.

20.

deBoer

A. G. E. M.

van Lanschot

J. J. B.

Stalmeier

P. F. M.

van Sandick

J. W.

Hulscher

J. B. F.

de Haes

J. C. J. M.

Sprangers

M. A. G.

(2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable, and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13, 311–320.

21.

Fast

L. A.

Lewis

J. L.

Bryant

M. J.

Bocian

K. A.

Cardullo

R. A.

Rettig

Hammond

K. A.

(2010). Does mathematics self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized mathematics test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 729–740. doi:10.1037/a0018863

22.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

23.

Fischer

Holz

(2007). Perceived discrimination and women’s psychological distress: The roles of collective and personal self-esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 154–164. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.154

24.

Flores

L. Y.

Navarro

R. L.

Lee

H. S.

Addae

D. A.

Gonzalez

Luna

L. L.

… Mitchell

(2014). Academic satisfaction among Latino/a and White men and women engineering students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 81–92.

25.

Fouad

N. A.

Smith

Zao

K. E.

(2002). Across academic domains: Extensions of the social cognitive career model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 164–171.

26.

French

B. F.

Ullrich-French

S. S.

Follman

(2008). The psychometric properties of the Clance Impostor Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1270–1278.

27.

Fried-Buchalter

(1997). Fear of success, fear of failure, and the imposter phenomenon among male and female marketing managers. Sex Roles, 37, 847–859.

28.

Fry

MacGregor

Hyland

Payne

Chenoweth

(2015). Emergency nurses’ perceptions of the role of confidence, self-efficacy and reflexivity in managing the cognitively impaired older person in pain. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 1622–1629. doi:10.1111/jocn.12763

29.

Fuchs

Diamantopoulos

(2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69, 195–210.

30.

Gainor

K. A.

(2006). Twenty-five years of self-efficacy in career assessment and practice. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 161–178.

31.

G*Power (version 3.1.9.2). Retrieved from http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en.html

32.

Ganley

C. M.

Lubienski

S. T.

(2016). Mathematics confidence, interest, and performance: Examining gender patterns and reciprocal relations. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 182–193. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.002

33.

Garriott

P. O.

Flores

L. Y.

Prabhakar

Mazzotta

E. C.

Liskov

A. C.

Shapiro

J. E.

(2014). Parental support and underrepresented students’ math/science interests: The mediating role of learning experiences. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 627–641. doi:10.1177/1069072713514933

34.

Gibson

D. E.

Lawrence

B. S.

(2010). Women’s and men’s career referents: How gender composition and comparison level shape career expectations. Organization Science, 21, 1159–1175. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0508

35.

Gore

P. A.

Jr . (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92–115.

36.

Gore

P. A.

Leuwerke

W. C.

(2000). Predicting occupational considerations: A comparison of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and person–environment congruence. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 237–250.

37.

Gwilliam

L. R.

Betz

N. E.

(2001). Validity of measures of math- and science-related self-efficacy for African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 261–282. doi:10.1177/106907270100900304

38.

Holmes

S. W.

Kertay

Adamson

L. B.

Holland

C. L.

Clance

(1993). Measuring the imposter phenomenon: A comparison of Clance’s IP scale and Harvey’s I-P scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 48–59. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6001_3

39.

IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh (Version 22.0). Armonk, NY: Author.

40.

Jagacinski

C. M.

(2013). Women engineering students: Competence perceptions and achievement goals in the freshman engineering course. Sex Roles, 69, 644–657. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0325-9

41.

Jameson

M. M.

Fusco

B. R.

(2014). Math anxiety, math self-concept, and math self-efficacy in adult learners compared to traditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 64, 306–322. doi:10.1177/0741713614541461

42.

Kim

(2014). Family background, students’ academic self-efficacy, and students’ career and life success expectations. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 36, 395–407. doi:10.1007/s10447-014-9216 -1

43.

Kim

(2015). Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program for middle school-aged female students. Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9584-2

44.

King

J. E.

Cooley

E. L.

(1995). Achievement orientation and the impostor phenomenon among college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 304–312.

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, 147–157.

46.

Larson

L. M.

Pesch

K. M.

Surapaneni

Bonitz

V. S.

Werbel

J. D.

(2015). Predicting graduation: The role of mathematics/science self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 399–409. doi:10.1177/1069072714547322

47.

Lee

Flores

L. Y.

Navarro

R. L.

Kanagui-Muñoz

(2015). A longitudinal test of social cognitive career theory’s academic persistence model among Latino/a and White men and women engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.003

48.

Lee

J. K.

Alston

A. T.

Kahn

K. B.

(2015). Identity threat in the classroom: Review of women’s motivational experiences in the sciences. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1, 321–330. doi:10.1037/tps0000050

49.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

50.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

51.

Lent

R. W.

Miller

M. J.

Smith

P. E.

Watford

B. A.

Hui

Lim

R. H.

(2015). Social cognitive model of adjustment to engineering majors: Longitudinal test across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 77–85.

52.

Lindley

L. D.

(2006). The paradox of self-efficacy: Research with diverse populations. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 143–160.

53.

Liu

O. L.

(2009). An investigation of factors affecting gender differences in standardized math performance: Results from U.S. and Hong Kong 15 year olds. International Journal of Testing, 9, 215–237. doi:10.1080/15305050903106875

54.

Luzzo

D. A.

Hasper

Albert

K. A.

Bibby

M. A.

Martinelli

E. A.

Jr . (1999). Effects of self-efficacy-enhancing interventions on the mathematics/science self- efficacy and career interests, goals, and actions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233–243.

55.

Master

Cheryan

Meltzoff

A. N.

(2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 424–437. doi:10.1037/edu0000061

56.

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, 36, 43–48.

57.

Metz

A. J.

Fouad

Ihle-Helledy

(2009). Career aspirations and expectations of college students: Demographic and labor market comparisons. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 155–171. doi:10.1177/1069072708328862

58.

Midgley

Maehr

Hruda

Anderman

Freeman

… Urdan

(2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

59.

Nagy

M. S.

(2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86.

60.

Nauta

M. M.

Epperson

D. L.

(2003). A longitudinal examination of the social-cognitive model applied to high school girls’ choices of nontraditional college majors and aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 448–457. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.448

61.

Nauta

M. M.

Epperson

D. L.

Kahn

J. H.

(1998). A multiple-groups analysis of predictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics, science, and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483–496. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.4.483

62.

Navarro

R. L.

Flores

L. Y.

Lee

Gonzalez

(2014). Testing a longitudinal social cognitive model of intended persistence with engineering students across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 146–155. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.05.007

63.

Pajares

(1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344.

64.

Prince

T. J.

(1989). The impostor phenomenon revisited: A validity study of Clance’s IP Scale. Unpublished master’s thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

65.

Rottinghaus

P. J.

Larson

L. M.

Borgen

F. H.

(2003). The relation of self-efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 221–236. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00039-8

66.

Sonnak

Towell

(2000). The impostor phenomenon in British university students: Relationships between self-esteem, mental health, parental rearing style and socioeconomic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 863–874.

67.

Thompson

Foreman

Martin

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

68.

Turner

S. L.

Steward

J. C.

Lapan

R. T.

(2004). Family factors associated with sixth-grade adolescents’ math and science career interests. The Career Development Quarterly, 53, 41–52.

69.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Labor force statistics from the current population survey: Employed persons by occupation, sex, and age. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat09.pdf

70.

Waller

(2006). Math interest and choice intentions of non-traditional African-American college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 538–547. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.12.002

71.

Wanous

J. P.

Hudy

M. J.

(2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.

72.

Whitlock

M. C.

Schluter

(2015). The analysis of biological data (2nd ed.). Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company.