Impostor Phenomenon in Racially/Ethnically Minoritized Groups: Current Knowledge and Future Directions

Abstract

In recent years there has been a surge of research conducted on the impostor phenomenon, with approximately half of all impostor phenomenon articles being published between 2020 and 2022 and growing interest in understanding how the impostor phenomenon affects racially and ethnically minoritized individuals. Questions around intersectionality remain about how to apply the impostor phenomenon to the experiences of minoritized individuals. In this review, we revisit the historical context of the impostor phenomenon. We address issues of nomenclature and current controversies regarding whether the impostor phenomenon (a) blames the victim, (b) should be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and (c) is beneficial for individuals. In addition, we address the limitations of current research on racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, especially women of color. Finally, we conclude by discussing the need for a reconceptualized racialized impostor phenomenon as well as the need to establish new impostor phenomenon measures, conduct more quantitative research with diverse samples, and create culturally tailored interventions.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been an explosion of interest in the impostor phenomenon (IP). The increased interest in IP is reflected in the number of celebrities (e.g., Michelle Obama, Tina Fey, Tom Hanks, Viola Davis, Jennifer Lopez, Howard Schultz, Maya Angelou) who have publicly acknowledged their insecurities despite their professional accomplishments.

Several celebrities who have disclosed their impostor insecurities are racially and ethnically minoritized women. For example, despite being a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Michelle Obama has talked about her struggles with feeling like an impostor and has connected her struggles with those of kids of color who receive messages that they do not belong.

The increased interest in IP is also evidenced by a spike in scholarly publications. In a systematic review of three databases (i.e., Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo), Bravata et al. (2020) examined 66 studies with over 14,000 participants that reported data on prevalence, comorbidities, or treatment of IP and found only 11 articles that examined IP in racially and ethnically minoritized groups. The authors reported that these 11 studies found that IP is prevalent among ethnic minorities. They also questioned whether current impostor measures were valid for ethnic minority populations given that the development of these measures typically included small numbers of ethnic minorities.

One understudied aspect of IP is its racialized nature. This oversight stems in part from scholarly practices that have attempted to use the initial definition and conceptualization of IP put forth by Clance & Imes (1978) to capture manifestations of IP across diverse groups.

However, because the IP construct was initially developed to highlight the experiences of high-achieving White women, there is an inherently narrow focus on experiences and factors that may contribute to the etiology and maintenance of IP feelings (i.e., family and societal expectations about women) that may not generalize to other groups (Stone et al. 2018). Indeed, prior work highlights that current conceptualizations of IP include no reference to experiences that have recurrently been identified as salient individual- and contextual-level predictors of IP among minoritized populations, including issues of racism, perceived discrimination, racial identity, marginalization, underrepresentation, and shame (Bernard et al. 2018, Cokley et al. 2017, Lige et al. 2017, Stone-Sabali et al. 2023b, Wei et al. 2020). Thus, applying the original conceptualization of IP to racially and ethnically marginalized groups may inadvertently trivialize or overlook critical factors that inform IP feelings across these groups, therefore leading to inaccurate or incomplete depictions of its prevalence and consequences.

Relying on IP’s original and narrower conceptualization may also limit the extent to which interventions alleviate IP-related distress, such as depressive and anxiety symptoms, across multiple minoritized groups. Given the nascent literature on IP interventions and the fact that a gold standard is far from a fait accompli, it is important for researchers and clinicians to consider the benefits of culturally tailoring IP interventions. Indeed, multiple meta-analytic studies have consistently demonstrated the benefits of culturally tailored interventions over nontailored interventions (e.g., Griner & Smith 2006, Hall et al. 2016, Hodge et al. 2012, Li et al. 2023, Steinka-Fry et al. 2017). Hence, understanding (a) broad strategies for culturally tailoring interventions, (b) approaches to incorporate group-specific risk and protective factors as they relate to IP, and (c) ways to account for variation among individual or ideographic experiences is paramount for the future of IP literature.

In this article we review the historical context of IP. We address issues of nomenclature, construct clarity, and current controversies regarding whether IP blames the victim, whether it should be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and whether it is beneficial for individuals. We address the limitations of current research on racially and ethnically minoritized individuals—in particular, regarding measurement issues, sociocultural factors, and the dearth of IP research specifically on women of color. Finally, we conclude by discussing the need for a reconceptualized racialized impostor phenomenon as well as the need to establish new IP measures, conduct more comparative quantitative research with diverse samples, and create culturally tailored interventions.

CONTEXTUALIZING THE IMPOSTOR PHENOMENON WITHIN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

Before delving into these various issues, it is first necessary to orient our discussion of IP within the context of clinical psychology. At its core, IP is entrenched within distorted cognitions that can have considerable psychosocial implications if unchecked. Indeed, while the following is not an exhaustive list, the distressing nature of IP has been linked to elevations in anxiety and depression (Austin et al. 2009, Bernard et al. 2020), reductions in self-esteem (Cokley et al. 2018), and even suicidal ideations (Brennan-Wydra et al. 2021) among ethnically and racially minoritized communities. These wide-ranging outcomes signal that IP represents more than just an innocuous form of stress; rather, it reflects a distressing pattern of thinking that can confer significant risk to mental health in tangible ways.

From a stress and coping perspective, IP represents a proximal consequence of racism-related stressors (e.g., racial discrimination) that individuals from minoritized communities navigate. The collective stress from both IP and marginalizing experiences can exceed coping resources, leaving individuals particularly susceptible to poor mental health outcomes (Cokley et al. 2022). To this end, prior research has found that the deleterious effects of IP are most pronounced when individuals report high levels of racial discrimination (Bernard et al. 2017, Cokley et al. 2017). Building from these findings, more recent literature suggests that IP represents the internalization of negative racialized beliefs, which ultimately shapes risk for negative mental health outcomes (Tran 2023). Thus, while IP may represent a “private, internal, emotional experience” (Lane 2015, p. 117), among ethnically and racially minoritized individuals its etiology is closely tied to marginalizing experiences that collectively confer risk for psychological well-being.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

During the 1970s two White women psychologists, Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes, worked in college classes, groups, and individual psychotherapy with over 150 highly successful women (Clance & Imes 1978). These women included accomplished professionals in their fields and academically excellent students. The women were primarily White, middle to upper middle class, and between the ages of 20 and 45. While Clance and Imes were attentive to the context of gender and the influence of internalizing societal stereotypes about gender (Clance & Imes 1978, p. 242), they made no more mention of race beyond the initial demographic description. With the exception of one article that briefly acknowledged how women of color may be more susceptible to IP because of “stereotyped racial role expectations and oppression” (Clance et al. 1995, p. 84), it is fair to say that the role of race and racial discrimination was not prominent in their conceptualization of IP.

While the first 35 years of the construct’s history (i.e., 1978–2013) produced 87 published articles, the number of IP articles sharply increased to 313 articles between 2014 and 2022, and almost half of all identified articles were published over the last 3 years of that period (i.e., 2020–2022) (Stone-Sabali et al. 2023a). A May 18, 2023, review of the PsycInfo database revealed 275 articles, 214 dissertations, and 20 book chapters that focus on IP.¹ Additional evidence of the popularity and global appeal of IP can be seen in a recent bibliometric analysis in which Stone-Sabali et al. (2023a) found 399 IP articles published in 277 journals from 41 countries. The bibliometric analysis revealed that one of the clusters or themes of IP articles focused on IP’s relation to racial identity, which led Stone-Sabali et al. to recommend that more scholarly attention be paid to the impact of IP on racial minorities.

Increasingly, efforts to address the impact of IP among racially and ethnically minoritized individuals have been linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, many of which emerged following the murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. However, the roots of addressing IP in DEI initiatives predated 2020 and can be linked to the work of Valerie Young, who created the Impostor Syndrome Institute (ISI) (http://impostorsyndrome.com) in 1983. The ISI was informed by social justice education, which can be considered a forerunner of DEI training.

Given the focus of the IP construct on self-doubt among high-achieving individuals, it is not surprising that there is growing interest in understanding how IP affects racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, especially college students. A disproportionate amount of IP research on racially and ethnically minoritized individuals has focused on African American college students (e.g., Bernard et al. 2017, 2020; Lige et al. 2017; McClain et al. 2016; Peteet et al. 2015a; Stone et al. 2018). Few IP studies have been conducted with Latinx college students (e.g., Chakraverty 2022b,c), Asian American college students (Wei et al. 2020), and Native American college students (e.g., Chakraverty 2022a). There have been a handful of studies that include racially and ethnically diverse samples (e.g., Cokley et al. 2013, 2017; Peteet et al. 2015b; Stone-Sabali et al. 2023a) but no IP studies that explicitly include Arab/MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) Americans.

EMERGENT ISSUES

Even though race was not a central feature in the original conceptualization of IP, one of the assumptions about IP is that racially and ethnically minoritized individuals experience higher rates of impostorism than White individuals. This assumption has been perpetuated in popular culture among many individuals touting themselves to be experts as well as by scholars and scientists. In a letter published in Science, Chrousos & Mentis (2020) state that imposter syndrome² has been found to be more prevalent in underrepresented racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, with the word “more” suggesting more prevalence in comparison to White individuals. In one of the studies they cite (Cokley et al. 2017), published by the first author of this review, there is no claim that IP is more prevalent in underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities than in White individuals. The authors of that study state only that IP is prevalent in underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities. The distinction is subtle but important in terms of empirical support. Another citation listed by Chrousos & Mentis (2020) is by Parkman (2016), who incorrectly attributes the claim that IP is higher in minority populations as a group to another study (Cokley et al. 2013) published by this review’s first author, who makes no such claim. In a study titled “Why Is There a Higher Rate of Impostor Syndrome Among BIPOC?” (Ahmed et al. 2020), the authors actually state that they do not have enough data (n = 53) to draw the conclusion that IP is higher among BIPOC individuals (Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color) than non-BIPOC individuals, which makes the title of their study especially problematic.

Few studies report the prevalence of IP (Bravata et al. 2020). In the rare instances that prevalence is reported, comparisons of racially/ethnically minoritized individuals with White individuals are not made. Thus, the narrative that racially and ethnically minoritized individuals report higher IP than White individuals is not empirically supported. One factor explaining the lack of empirical support may be the failure to adequately address issues of intersectionality and limitations in the conceptualization of IP as applied to the experiences of racially and ethnically minoritized individuals. Racially and ethnically minoritized individuals might be found to experience higher impostorism if IP were reconceptualized in a way that accounted for their racialized experiences.

Issues of Nomenclature and Construct Clarity

One of the debates surrounding IP concerns nomenclature. In the original 1978 article, Clance and Imes used the term impostor phenomenon to describe an internal experience of intellectual phoniness (Clance & Imes 1978). Clance has consistently used this term in her subsequent writings and her book (Clance 1985). However, while the term “impostor phenomenon” is more commonly used in the academic literature, the term “imposter syndrome” dominates the lay literature (Bravata et al. 2020). The use of the term imposter syndrome has drawn the ire of critics who understandably consider the term syndrome to be stigmatizing, pathologizing, and implying an abnormality. When considered within the context of racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, the term imposter syndrome is especially problematic given their tendency to be pathologized and viewed from a deficit perspective (Valencia 2010).

Another debate surrounding IP addresses whether it is a stable personality trait or an affective experience created by circumstances (i.e., state). The most commonly used scale to assess IP, the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), measures IP as a trait while other scales such as the State Impostor Phenomenon Scale measure IP as a state (Fujie 2010). This is an important issue to consider for racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, for whom impostor feelings may be caused by environmental circumstances as much as, if not more than, family dynamics proposed by Clance & Imes (1978). There is no consensus among researchers, and in fact most IP research does not explicitly address the state-or-trait debate. One may argue that the method or scale used to measure IP is a tacit position on the researcher’s stance, but we would caution against this interpretation given that most researchers do not discuss the issue.

Does the Impostor Phenomenon Blame the Victim?

As IP continues to garner international attention, there has been increased contention regarding the validity of the IP construct among individuals from historically marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds. A central argument raised by IP skeptics is that its current conceptualization overlooks inequitable social systems and structures that undergird the internalization of beliefs of intellectual incompetence. Accordingly, scholars and practitioners have challenged how IP is applied to individuals from racially marginalized backgrounds, suggesting that it unduly blames individuals for feelings of incompetence while ignoring structural conditions, institutional factors, policies, and practices that may be responsible for impostorism (McGee et al. 2022, Mullangi & Jagsi 2019, Tulshyan & Burey 2022). In fact, one study argues that IP would be eradicated if structural racism did not exist (McGee et al. 2022).

Yet, proponents of the IP construct among racially and ethnically marginalized populations argue not that IP blames the victim but rather that IP is not conceptualized in a way that maps onto the lived experiences of individuals from minoritized backgrounds. Indeed, if IP were related only to oppression, studies would likely not continue to document its relevance where oppressive experiences are less likely to occur (e.g., historically Black colleges/universities; Austin et al. 2009, Bernard et al. 2020). Thus, rather than abolishing the use of IP, it seems more appropriate to modify its conceptualization to recognize both the individual and the contextual influences that contribute to its etiology and maintenance (Feenstra et al. 2020). Emergent literature has demonstrated value in this approach by developing culturally informed frameworks of IP to make sense of the prevalence and implications of IP among racial and ethnic minority students across different developmental stages (Bernard & Neblett 2018, Stone et al. 2018).

Should the Impostor Phenomenon Be Included in the DSM?

In one of the most increasingly cited and influential articles on IP, Bravata et al. (2020) recommend that impostor “syndrome” be considered for inclusion in the DSM. Their rationale is that the treatment of patients who exhibit impostor symptoms could thus be codified for behavioral health providers. The first author of the article, Dena Bravata, is trained as a medical doctor, and the article was published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, which promotes patient care and focuses on clinical medicine. This is important contextual information considering their recommendation. Bravata et al. point out that mental health professionals will probably use evidence-based treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to address the comorbid conditions of anxiety and depression because there are not yet evidence-based treatments for impostor symptoms. Bravata et al. appear to be promoting the medicalization of IP, which would be consistent with the medical model as opposed to a biopsychosocial approach.

However, we believe there are several problems with the inclusion of IP in the DSM. To be included in the DSM, IP would most likely be considered a type of anxiety disorder given that anxiety is the most frequently reported co-occurring condition. Anxiety disorders involve excessive fear or anxiety, are marked by disproportionate responses to situations, and disrupt the ability of people to function normally. These characteristics are evident in anxiety disorders such as generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder. For example, the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for generalized anxiety include the following.

1. The person experiences excessive anxiety and worry, which occur on most days for at least 6 months.

2. The person finds it difficult to control the worry.

3. The worry and anxiety are associated with three or more of the following symptoms: restlessness, being easily fatigued, difficulty concentrating, irritability, muscle tension, and sleep disturbance.

4. The disturbance is not better explained by another mental disorder.

5. The anxiety, worry, or physical symptoms cause clinical distress in other areas of functioning.

6. The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance. These diagnostic criteria are notable in their severity and how they affect the individual’s ability to function in their daily life.

Regarding consideration of IP as a possible disorder, it is important to refer to its origins in the literature. Based on clinical observations among female clients, Clance & O’Toole (1987) identify 10 features that accompany impostor beliefs. These features include the following.

1. The impostor cycle—a description of the process an individual experiences (overpreparation or procrastination) when experiencing impostor feelings

2. Introversion

3. Dread of evaluation

4. Terror of failure

5. Guilt about success

6. Great difficulty in internalizing positive feedback

7. Generalized anxiety

8. Overestimating others while underestimating oneself

9. Defining intelligence in a skewed manner

10. False and nonaffirming family messages

These features of IP are the closest approximations we have to diagnostic criteria. However, it is notable that Clance and her collaborators do not talk about diagnostic criteria or diagnosing IP. There is no description of physiological symptoms, and no minimal amount of time is given for experiencing these features. Clance and colleagues’ approach focuses on describing the common characteristics of the women with whom they worked. There is also a difference in the severity of the diagnostic criteria used in diagnosing anxiety disorders compared to the descriptive features of IP used by Clance and colleagues.

Another problem with Bravata et al.’s (2020) recommendation to include imposter syndrome in the DSM is that it could disproportionately impact racially and ethnically minoritized individuals. The “diagnosing” of imposter syndrome among racially and ethnically minoritized individuals runs the risk of medicalizing normal reactions to discriminatory environments. Building on the issues regarding nomenclature and concerns of whether IP blames the victim, we believe that including IP in the DSM would further stigmatize and pathologize the reactions that racially and ethnically minoritized individuals have to environments where they are made to feel they do not belong or are not deserving. For these reasons we are opposed to including IP in the DSM and to referring to it as a syndrome.

Is the Impostor Phenomenon Beneficial for Individuals?

The most recent emergent issue regarding IP is the question of whether it can be beneficial for individuals. Based on an article published in the Academy of Management Journal, the notion that IP can be beneficial is gaining momentum and increasingly being highlighted in outlets such as the Harvard Business Review. In that article, Basima Tewfik revisits the notion that IP is associated only with negative outcomes (Tewfik 2022). Trained in organizational behavior from the Wharton School of Business, Tewfik’s research is situated within the workplace environment. Tewfik acknowledges the host of negative outcomes associated with IP (e.g., decreased self-esteem, decreased psychological well-being, increased negative behaviors) but argues that only focusing on negative outcomes runs the risk of obscuring positive outcomes. She argues that much of the theoretical and empirical work on IP applies an affective lens (e.g., “feelings of phoniness,” “fear of being found out or exposed”) that discounts IP’s sociocognitive origins as a belief that others overestimate one’s competence. Citing the work of McElwee & Yurak (2010), Tewfik argues that most current empirical work focuses on negative affect rather than the central feature of the belief that other people are more competent and intelligent than oneself. Tewfik uses a sociocognitive conceptualization and introduces the term workplace impostor thoughts, which she believes is more clearly differentiated from the affective conceptualization of IP. She defines workplace impostor thoughts as the belief that others overestimate one’s competence at work. She presents an integrative theoretical model, which proposes that people at work perceive employees who frequently have workplace impostor thoughts as more interpersonally effective. Tewfik posits that this is because employees adopt a more other-focused orientation when their self-esteem is threatened by workplace impostor thoughts. Findings from her research indicate that workplace impostor thoughts result in higher ratings of interpersonal effectiveness.

The idea of potential positive benefits of IP is not new in the literature. For example, in one study Cokley et al. (2015) found that IP was positively related to school grade point average for women but not for men. However, they caution that mental health professionals should discuss the emotional costs along with the potential academic benefits associated with IP. Tewfik appears to minimize the significance of negative mental health outcomes in favor of positive workplace outcomes which contributes to the problematic “ideal worker” culture (Zanhour & Sumpter 2022). Tewfik promotes workplace impostor thoughts because they are positively associated with higher supervisor ratings of interpersonal effectiveness; however, she does not address the role that race can play in perceptions of interpersonal effectiveness. In fact, racial bias has been well documented in supervisory ratings (e.g., Stauffer & Buckley 2005). Promoting the idea that IP has positive benefits on interpersonal effectiveness not only minimizes the harmful effects on mental health but also ignores the reality that racially and ethnically minoritized individuals often experience bias and discrimination when evaluated. Thus, it seems unwise to promote the presumed benefits of IP for racially and ethnically minoritized individuals in the workplace given the history of oppression and the likelihood that they will experience discrimination.

Measuring the Impostor Phenomenon Among Racially Minoritized Groups

The CIPS (Clance 1985) is the most widely used scale to measure IP; however, questions have arisen about the appropriateness and effectiveness of using the CIPS on racially and ethnically minoritized groups. While the CIPS captures universal aspects of IP, it may not adequately include relevant sociocultural factors highlighted in seminal writings about the development and maintenance of IP (i.e., Clance & Imes 1978). Specifically, IP among women and girls was presumed to stem from negative messages from the social context that cast women as either intellectually inadequate or superior (Clance & Imes 1978). For instance, negative sex-role stereotypes and societal messages that devalued women’s intelligence were hypothesized to spur women to think less of their intellectual abilities. In contrast, idealized intellectual messages from family members were believed to cause women to feel like impostors when the women would eventually encounter common developmental learning challenges that suggested they were not intellectually perfect. One reason that less attention is given to sociocultural factors may be that some subsequent research could not provide clear support for gender differences in IP. That is, approximately half the studies on IP found that women reported higher scores, whereas the remaining half of the studies found comparable scores between men and women (Bravata et al. 2020).

Perhaps a stronger case exists to suggest that sociocultural factors contribute to IP among racially minoritized groups. As suggested in earlier writings, racially and ethnically minoritized groups likely experience “racial role expectations and oppression” (Clance et al. 1995, p. 84) that can lead to or exacerbate impostor tendencies. Such forms of racism and discrimination are often rooted in inferior and reductive stereotypes about racially minoritized groups, which can erode one’s self-perception of their intellectual competence. For example, African Americans and Latinx individuals encounter negative stereotypes that discount their intelligence and attribute their academic or professional successes to affirmative action policies versus their intellect and merit (Erba 2018, McGee & Martin 2011, Stone et al. 2018). Asian and Asian Americans, on the other hand, may face stereotypical and unreasonably high intellectual expectations (i.e., the model minority myth; Atkin et al. 2018, Kim & Lee 2014) that may damage their self-perception when they fail to demonstrate intellectual perfection and eminence. Thus, similar to how negative or idealizing messages were thought to inspire impostor tendencies among women (Clance & Imes 1978), racialized messages from the wider social context may also cast racially minoritized individuals as either intellectually inadequate or superior—both of which can contribute to the development and maintenance of IP.

Interventions for the Impostor Phenomenon

At the time of this writing, five articles addressing IP interventions had been published in the scholarly literature (Cisco 2019, Haney et al. 2018, Heinrich 1997, Hutchins & Flores 2021, Zanchetta et al. 2020). However, none included salient cultural considerations for minoritized groups. The main content of these IP interventions only captured specific or broader aspects of IP (e.g., skills for overcoming IP in teamwork or maladaptive thoughts associated with IP) and omitted the experiences of individuals from minoritized groups. Furthermore, though the interventions included various populations (e.g., nursing students and working professionals), little information about sample characteristics was provided, which constrained the potential to understand experiences across race and race-by-gender intersections. For example, only one study reported sample racial characteristics [i.e., a majority (72%) White sample; Hutchins & Flores 2021], and no study disaggregated the findings across race or race-by-gender subgroups.

The increasing prevalence of IP prompts the need to develop interventions that thwart its emergence and impact across diverse groups. Indeed, existing research suggests that IP experiences are nuanced across race and race-by-gender groups. For example, higher impostor scores have been reported by Asian Americans compared to African Americans and by Asian American and Latinx women compared to African American women (Stone-Sabali et al. 2023b). Moreover, higher levels of IP have been associated with increased risk of mental health issues for African American women compared to other groups (Bernard et al. 2017, Stone-Sabali et al. 2023b), while lower levels of IP were associated with more risk for Latinx individuals (Cokley et al. 2017). Thus, the variations in IP experiences suggest that interventions may benefit from accounting for specific race and race-by-gender factors—namely, by culturally tailoring interventions.

SOCIOCULTURAL FACTORS IN IMPOSTOR PHENOMENON RESEARCH AMONG RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS

Beyond conceptual support, research findings have repeatedly linked sociocultural factors (e.g., race-based discrimination, marginalization) to IP among racially minoritized individuals (Bernard et al. 2017; Chakraverty 2022c; Cokley et al. 2013, 2017; Graham & McClain 2019; McClain et al. 2016; Stone et al. 2018). For example, Cokley and colleagues (2017) found direct and indirect (mediational) associations between experiences of discrimination, increased impostor feelings, and worsened mental health among a racially diverse sample. Similarly, Bernard and associates’ (2017) longitudinal study revealed a positive relationship between racial discrimination and increased impostor tendencies among Black college students, further supporting the notion that racial discrimination may contribute to IP or negative self-perceptions about one’s competence. Scholars have also found IP to be associated with several other sociocultural factors that are salient in the lives of historically marginalized populations. As an example, cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence has illustrated that racial identity, the significance and meaning one holds about their race, is a notable correlate of IP among Black college students (Bernard et al. 2018, Lige et al. 2017). Furthermore, a scant yet growing body of research has found that Asian Americans report higher levels of shame relative to other racial and ethnic groups, and this shame has been directly and indirectly associated with elevated endorsements of IP (Stone-Sabali et al. 2023b, Wei et al. 2020). Among Hispanic/Latinx and Native American college students, recent qualitative evidence brings light to the role of microaggressions and racially isolating environments as powerful precursors of IP (Chakraverty 2022a,c), which is in line with work that conceptualizes IP as a psychological consequence of culturally invalidating experiences and environments that contribute to feelings of otherness (Peteet et al. 2015b).

THE IMPOSTOR PHENOMENON AND WOMEN OF COLOR

Although racial issues were not an initial part of the conceptualization of IP, Clance et al. (1995, p. 84) did briefly mention that women of color may be more susceptible to IP because of “stereotyped racial role expectations and oppression.” As mentioned above, gender differences in experiences of IP remain equivocal. Because the original conceptualization of IP focused on high-achieving White women, there is a tacit assumption that there was a persistent gender difference in the experience of IP. However, as noted by several scholars, gender differences are inconsistent and at most emerge in approximately half of conducted studies (e.g., Bravata et al. 2020, Rackley et al. 2024). Despite the growing literature on impostor experiences among people of color, there is a dearth of research specifically on women of color. Most studies focus on either racial or gender differences when examining group differences in the quantitative IP literature.

In one of the few quantitative studies that focus on women of color, Muradoglu and colleagues (2022) found that women academics who work in fields that emphasize brilliance reported higher levels of IP compared to those in fields with less emphasis on brilliance as necessary for success. This finding was especially pronounced for Black and Latinx women academics who experienced increased severity of IP. In one of the only longitudinal studies of IP, Bernard and colleagues (2017) found that IP interacted with discrimination where Black women who reported high levels of IP and greater discrimination experienced higher levels of depression compared to those lower in IP with fewer discrimination experiences.

There are also a few qualitative studies on IP conducted with women of color. Many of these studies focus on the academic environment. For example, one study found that first-generation women of color reported experiencing IP during the transition to college (Jackson et al. 2022). Chakraverty (2022c) conducted 29 semistructured interviews with Latinx doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows and found that all the women experienced IP; a large proportion also experienced microaggressions and felt like they were “othered” or treated like outsiders. Another study using autoethnography methodology found that Black women academics who were part of a leadership development program experienced IP as they matriculated through the program (Mbilishaka et al. 2023).

Recently there has been a call for more intersectional research on IP (Rackley et al. 2024, Stone-Sabali 2023a). Qualitative research studies often focus on one group at a time, and investigators can examine experiences of women of color in more depth. However, due to issues of statistical power, analyzing intersectional experiences may be especially challenging if the researcher is interested in multiple groups and identities and is employing advanced statistical analyses that necessitate large sample sizes.

Nevertheless, it is unclear from the literature to what extent IP experiences of women of color are different from those of other groups.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Reconceptualization of the Impostor Phenomenon

To move beyond conventional approaches that attempt to fit the experiences of diverse groups into current conceptualizations of IP, there is a critical need to reconceptualize how IP is discussed among racial and ethnic minority groups. One way to do this would be to reconstruct IP through a race-reimagined approach that involves “viewing a traditional construct (one not necessarily derived from a racial theory such as self-efficacy, goal theory, etc.) from a socioculturally relevant lens” (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz 2014, p. 248). Reconceptualizing IP through a race-reimagined approach has several benefits. First, it resonates with prior research calling for the reconstruction of IP to center the social realities and lived experiences of racially marginalized groups as central to IP experiences (Bernard & Neblett 2018, Stone et al. 2018). Second, a race-reimagined approach would facilitate opportunities to contextualize how and why IP comes to fruition among historically marginalized communities; such contextualization is critical for the development of culturally relevant assessment tools and intervention approaches to respectively assess and repudiate feelings of intellectual incompetence. Third, this approach brings much needed attention to the heterogeneity of racialized and culturally relevant experiences across diverse groups that may uniquely contribute to IP.

In line with race-reimagined perspectives (see Matthews & López 2020), we introduce a novel reconceptualization of IP, which we refer to as racialized impostor phenomenon to capture the persistent beliefs, actions, and feelings of intellectual and professional self-doubt among racially minoritized people due to experiences, systems, and principles of racial oppression and inequity. The term racialized impostor phenomenon and its definition were derived from the small, yet exponentially growing research base of IP among racially and ethnically marginalized populations, which documents the significance of race and racism as central determinants of feelings of incompetence. Reconceptualizing IP in this way also serves to harmonize criticisms of the IP construct (e.g., McGee et al. 2022) with the broader research base acknowledging that among racial and ethnic groups, IP may stem from oppressive and racialized environments, structures, and systems (Feenstra et al. 2020). Although more research is needed to validate this race-reimagined conceptualization of IP, we see the present work as a foundational starting point that will serve as a springboard for future studies aiming to contextualize IP within the lived experiences of individuals across different racially and ethnically minoritized backgrounds.

Development of New Impostor Phenomenon Scales

Future studies examining racialized impostor phenomenon will require measures that yield reliable and valid scores. In a systematic review of IP measurement scales, Mak et al. (2019) identified four measures: the CIPS (Clance 1985), the Harvey Impostor Scale (Harvey 1981), the Perceived Fraudulence Scale (Kolligian & Sternberg 1991), and the Leary Impostor Scale (LIS; Leary et al. 2000). All four measures were characterized as trait (rather than state) measures and were evaluated regarding their methodological qualities along nine criteria: content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility agreement, reproducibility reliability, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability. Of particular interest are internal consistency, content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity as these are the psychometric properties most often reported. All studies involving the four measures reported moderate to high Cronbach alphas, with most having estimates of 0.85 or higher. All studies also reported adequate content validity. While evidence of construct validity was found in most of the studies, two studies were rated poorly because less than 75% of the results were consistent with hypotheses. Most of the studies were rated as not producing evidence of criterion validity because they did not compare the impostorism measure to a gold standard measure of IP.

While these existing measures exhibit strengths in the areas of internal consistency and construct validity, concerns remain about dimensionality and the inclusion of items that are central to the conceptualization of IP as well as items that assess empirical correlates (Leary et al. 2000). Regarding dimensionality, there were mixed results from the few studies that reported factor analytic results. Mak et al. (2019) noted that while all of these existing measures are based on multidimensional definitions of IP, they operationalize IP by calculating overall scores rather than subscale scores. Leary et al. (2000) expressed concern about the multidimensionality of the scales because they do not focus on the core feelings of inauthenticity that are central to IP. This led Leary et al. to create the unidimensional LIS. Concerns about dimensionality also resulted in the development of a short 10-item version of the CIPS that is also unidimensional (CIPS-10; Wang et al. 2022). More recently, observations that existing measures were inadequate to capture the complex nature of IP led to the development of the Impostor Phenomenon Assessment (IPA; Walker & Saklofske 2023).

In addition to concerns about dimensionality and the operationalization of IP measures that conflate IP with its empirical correlates, researchers who focus on IP among racially and ethnically minoritized groups have concerns that the existing measures of IP do not account for oppressive and racialized environments, structures, and systems. We note that issues pertaining to race and discrimination were largely absent from the conceptualization of IPA; only two items in that measure reference issues that would be salient for racially and ethnically minoritized groups (i.e., affirmative action). We also note that no items on the most popular IP measure, the CIPS/CIPS-10, address race or experiences of bias and racism that occur among students of color. These racist experiences are well documented among African American (Feagin et al. 2014, Swim et al. 2003), Asian American (Museus & Park 2015), Latinx American (Edwards & Romero 2008), Native American (O’Keefe & Greenfield 2019), and Arab American (Shammas 2017) college students. Additionally, discrimination has been found to be associated with increased impostor feelings among African American and Latinx American college students (Cokley et al. 2017). The common experience of discrimination among students of color and its association with IP suggest that traditional measures of IP may be inadequate for use with students of color. Additional evidence for why traditional measures of IP may be inadequate can be found in a qualitative study of Black graduate students by Stone et al. (2018). This study resulted in the creation of a culturally informed IP framework that includes socioracial factors related to questioning Black intelligence. Stone et al. recommended that researchers use this framework to create culturally informed empirical measures of IP.

There are several benefits to developing new culturally informed measures of IP. Given that traditional measures of IP do not consider race and culture and were created to study IP in general terms, culturally informed measures of IP would allow researchers to generate culture-specific interventions that would be especially useful for students of color in educational or therapeutic settings. Including culturally informed measures along with traditional measures of IP in studies would help researchers determine whether there is unique statistical variance accounted for by racialized impostor phenomenon above that which is attributed to the traditional conceptualization of IP. An additional benefit is the potential to improve our understanding of prevalence rates among racially and ethnically minoritized groups. For example, as addressed above, the assumption that racially and ethnically minoritized individuals experience higher rates of IP than White individuals is not empirically supported. We believe the failure to address race and discrimination in IP measures may explain this evidence gap. Developing a culturally informed IP measure may reveal that IP is actually higher among racially and ethnically minoritized individuals when IP is reconceptualized as racialized impostor phenomenon.

Finally, as we consider the need to develop new culturally informed IP measures, it is important to understand whether the purpose of the new IP scale is to measure a stable trait to examine group differences (psychometric) or to measure change over time within individuals (edumetric). This is especially important when examining the effectiveness of interventions that reduce IP.

More Comparative Quantitative Impostor Phenomenon Research

We have observed that much of the IP research on racially and ethnically minoritized individuals has focused on African American college students; fewer IP studies have been conducted on Latinx, Asian American, and Native American college students. We also note that only a handful of studies have included racially and ethnically diverse samples.

Many of the studies conducted on these groups are quantitative, though the IP research of Devasmita Chakraverty with African American (Chakraverty 2020), Native American (Chakraverty 2022a), and Latinx (Chakraverty 2022b,c) samples has been qualitative. Most IP studies that focus on race usually focus on one group; only a handful of studies have reported comparisons of IP scores across racially minoritized groups (e.g., Cokley et al. 2013, 2017). Research that compares racially minoritized groups with White people has been problematized because of the history of White people being used as the standard by which all other groups of people are compared (Azibo 1988, Cokley & Awad 2008). This often results in racially minoritized groups being viewed from a deficit perspective.

Comparative quantitative IP research among racially minoritized populations can be beneficial in helping to better understand the ways in which racialized impostor phenomenon is similar and different across groups. Though all racially minoritized groups may experience a racialized impostor phenomenon, there are likely different etiologies that are rooted in different sociocultural experiences. For example, for African Americans and Latinx individuals, racialized impostor phenomenon may be linked to perceptions of low academic achievement, while for Asian Americans it may involve the model minority myth and related expectations of academic success.

Additionally, quantitative IP studies comparing racially minoritized groups and White people can be appropriate when the purpose is to describe rates of impostorism. As noted above, there are empirically unsupported assumptions that racially minoritized individuals have higher rates of impostorism than White individuals. More quantitative comparative studies are needed to address the prevalence of impostorism between groups (assuming that the studies are conducted in a descriptive, nonhegemonic way that does not elevate White individuals as the standard of comparison).

Culturally Tailoring Impostor Phenomenon Interventions

To enhance future interventions’ potential resonance and effectiveness with minoritized groups, we recommend culturally tailoring interventions by incorporating salient group-specific cultural factors and experiences that may relate to IP. Addressing such cultural and social factors is not unfamiliar in the IP literature. As mentioned above, earlier IP scholarship discussed how restrictive gender-role stereotypes, aggrandizing family expectations, and devaluing racist role expectations can contribute to IP in White women and women of color (Clance & Imes 1978, Clance et al. 1995). In addition, Bernard & Neblett’s (2018) framework recently highlighted culturally salient factors for African American youth’s IP experiences such as (a) stratifying social position variables (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status), (b) parenting variables that may influence adolescents’ perceptions of their competence, (c) racial discrimination that could undermine competence and belonging, (d) environmental or contextual factors (e.g., academic setting) that could influence healthy identity development, and (e) learner characteristics (e.g., Afro-coping strategies, racial identity). Thus, the next logical step is to design and implement culturally tailored interventions for IP.

Approaches to Culturally Tailoring Interventions

Fortunately, several frameworks guide culturally tailoring evidence-based interventions (e.g., Arundell et al. 2021; Bernal et al. 1995, 2009; Sue et al. 2009; Zayfert 2008). These frameworks typically adapt common components of interventions, such as the organization (on-ramps to care), therapists (the therapeutic relationship), content (incorporating culturally relevant constructs), and service-level factors (the design and delivery of treatment) (Li et al. 2023). Researchers and practitioners can draw from Resnicow et al.’s (2000) two-step model for incorporating salient cultural aspects in interventions, a broader meta-adaptation framework. The first step includes making surface structure adaptations, such as matching the visible characteristics of the intervention materials with the priority population. This strategy can effectively increase the receptivity or acceptability of interventions. The second, and perhaps more meaningful, step includes making deep structure adaptations to interventions, such as incorporating group-specific risk and protective factors that influence the development of an outcome (e.g., impostor thoughts and feelings).

Due to the great variability among minoritized groups, the literature on each group’s specific risk and protective factors should guide deep structure adaptations. Examples of group-specific risk factors that may contribute to IP include low academic expectations and discrimination toward Black and Latinx college students (Bernard et al. 2018, Cokley et al. 2017, McClain et al. 2016), pressures to live up to unreasonably high expectations of intellectual superiority (i.e., the model minority myth) for Asian American students (Wei et al. 2020), and visible numeric underrepresentation that may suggest that women and racially minoritized individuals are not intellectually capable of succeeding in traditionally White male–dominated fields, such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (Aycock et al. 2019, McGee 2020, McGee et al. 2019, Tao & Gloria 2019). Examples of group-specific protective factors include racial socialization and racial identity for Black students (Brown 2008, Mushonga & Henneberger 2020), social capital and family cohesion (familism) for Latinx students (Badiee & Andrade 2019, Field et al. 2019), cultural individualism and parental support or adherence to modern values for Asian American students (Cornejo et al. 2020), and gender and STEM identities for women (Morton & Parsons 2018, Settles et al. 2016).

In addition, deep structure adaptations should be guided by comprehensive theoretical or conceptual frameworks that consider the influence of multiple systems or structures in the surrounding environment, such as psychological, social, cultural, institutional, and historical forces (Resnicow et al. 2000). Examples include frameworks that employ an equifinal lens, such as ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1977) and intersectionality theory (Crenshaw 1989), which can be used to understand the precipitants and exacerbators of IP. With varying degrees, each framework conceptualizes how the wider social and institutional context—along a micro (interpersonal interactions) to macro (institutional policies) continuum—can affect individuals’ experiences and development. For example, eliminating the barrier of standardized testing for college admission due to biases and relatively limited predictive validity (i.e., scores do not predict graduation rates; Allensworth & Clark 2020, Rosales & Walker 2021) addresses a broader institutional-level factor that may contribute to IP among minoritized students.

Future interventions should also employ frameworks that use the principle of multifinality to understand why the broader context can lead to different outcomes across multiple individuals. For instance, the phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST; Spencer 2006) suggests that the degree to which one’s protective factors outweigh risk factors can result in different outcomes across individuals with similar backgrounds and within the same context. In other words, the PVEST model can help researchers understand why some students’ strengths, such as high-quality relationships with family and mentors, protect them from developing impostor tendencies, while other students with similar characteristics and within the same learning environment may be at risk for experiencing challenges such as IP.

Application of Culturally Tailored Interventions for the Impostor Phenomenon

Considering the above commentary allows clinicians to create culturally tailored interventions that may ease the related depressive and anxiety symptoms that often accompany IP (Cokley et al. 2017). But what does applying a culturally tailored approach for IP actually look like in clinical practice? Implementing a culturally tailored approach can manifest in two forms: (a) modifications to the clinician or (b) modifications to the intervention (Sue et al. 2009).

In the first of these, the clinician can modify their approach and individually tailor it by understanding broader group-specific risk and protective factors that may relate to a client’s experience (i.e., cultural competence/orientation; Owen et al. 2011, Sue et al. 1982) while simultaneously appreciating that a client’s individual experience may depart from experiences that are common to their in-group (i.e., cultural humility; Hook et al. 2017). As such, clinicians can employ an ideographic approach (Zayfert 2008) that solicits the client’s perspective on the cultural factors that may affect the development and maintenance of IP. The clinician’s use of an ideographic approach, which intentionally invites clients to share their perspectives about the potential cultural causes of their IP distress, can reflect an accepting therapeutic relationship or safe haven with the clinician (Teyber & Teyber 2017), which can have salubrious effects. In addition, this approach can strengthen the therapeutic alliance between the clinician and client while improving distress and therapeutic outcomes (Flückiger et al. 2018, Horvath et al. 2011).

To apply an ideographic approach, clinicians can draw from the DSM-5’s cultural formulation interview (APA 2013) or similar resources that strive to focus on presenting issues from the perspective of the individual or the individual’s community, which includes the “individual’s social network (i.e., family, friends, or others involved in current problem)” (APA 2013, p. 752). A brief example of applying the ideographic approach and the DSM-5’s cultural formulation interview follows.³

Clinicians can begin by broaching the topic of IP using the following language:

Sometimes people have difficulty adjusting to their work or school environments. Others around them may think the individual is very smart and capable, but the individual may still feel like a phony or impostor. In other words, the person may not believe they are good enough at work, school, or other areas of life. The individual may believe that they accomplished their success through luck or by fooling others into believing they are smarter than they really are. This is known as the impostor phenomenon. Would you say impostor phenomenon does or does not contribute to your current distress?

After the client endorses IP-related distress, the clinician can intentionally ask questions to elicit the client’s perspectives about cultural contextual factors that explain possible etiologies, exacerbators (risks), and protective factors related to their IP experience. To examine etiologies, clinicians can ask,

Why do you think the impostor phenomenon is happening to you? What do you think are the causes in your life or your environment that contribute to the impostor phenomenon?

To explore potential exacerbators or risks, clinicians can ask,

Are there any stressors in your life or environment that make the impostorism worse, such as difficulties with family, feeling excluded or not accepted by others, or feeling like you’re treated differently by others? Are there any aspects of your identity or background that may contribute to feeling like an impostor or that you aren’t smart enough?

To explore protective factors, clinicians can ask,

Are there any kinds of support in your life or environment that make the impostor phenomenon more manageable, such as community support or support from family, friends, or others? Are there any aspects of your identity and background that give you strength or help you overcome impostor thoughts and feelings?

In the second strategy regarding culturally tailored approaches to improve IP-related distress (e.g., anxiety and depression), clinicians may modify or adapt existing interventions, such as CBT. Indeed, past studies demonstrate that culturally tailored interventions can produce superior effects compared to nontailored interventions (Arundell et al. 2021, Kohn et al. 2002, Li et al. 2023, Miranda et al. 2003, Pineros-Leano et al. 2017, Sue et al. 2009). In the absence of strong evidence for culturally tailoring interventions for IP-related distress (anxiety and depression), we cautiously offer ways clinicians could consider culturally tailoring treatment. The following examples focus on African and Chinese Americans, respectively, as a comprehensive discussion across all racial and ethnic groups is beyond the scope of this article.

Practitioners can begin tailoring interventions by incorporating cultural concepts and values related to specific groups and conceptualizing how they could influence treatment (Bernal et al. 1995, Li et al. 2023, Zayfert 2008). For instance, Kohn et al. (2002) compared a nontailored and a culturally tailored CBT depression intervention for African American women, in which the tailored approach was superior. The culturally tailored intervention included four sections of culturally specific content: (a) combating social isolation and deconstructing the “Black superwoman” myth, (b) exploring faith-based coping strategies, (c) attending to generational behavioral patterns and histories of strength among Black families, and (d) combating negative images of Black women and identifying role models to affirm their identities. Regarding IP, we suspect that a similar strategy can be used by connecting the above adaptations to anxiety and depression that arise from impostor thoughts and feelings.

In another example, clinicians working with Asian American clients, particularly Chinese Americans, may consider how IP intersects with cultural factors and values, such as being deferential to authority figures, somatizing distress, keeping social harmony, and contending with external and family shame (Hwang 2006, Wei et al. 2020). Moreover, there exist multiple evidence-based cultural principles that practitioners can draw upon to address IP-related distress (Han et al. 2021, Li et al. 2023, Zhang et al. 2002), such as Naikan therapy (introducing the client to a nonself-centered view), Morita therapy (viewing unpleasant symptoms as a normal part of emotions rather than something that has to be eliminated), and Taoist principles (e.g., learning how to let go, defeating hardness with softness, learning to be content).

CONCLUSION

The popularity of the IP construct has dramatically increased in both the scholarly literature and pop culture. Despite the surge in popularity, there is some confusion about the conceptualization and generalizability of IP to racially and ethnically minoritized populations. Although there has been an increase in literature investigating IP among populations of color, there is relatively little knowledge pertaining to intersectional identities, especially women of color. Further, it is imperative as scholars continue to examine IP that they consider updated conceptual and theoretical frameworks and measures that address the racialized impostor phenomenon experience. Not only should future IP studies include racialized minorities, but it is imperative that researchers engage in recruitment strategies that allow for adequate numbers of participants so that complex quantitative statistical techniques can be employed. Complex modeling is necessary for examining intersectional identities and multiple sociocultural variables. In addition, interventions that focus on IP should be empirically supported and culturally tailored to address IP-related distress when applicable and feasible. To achieve a diverse workforce, it is necessary to address IP for students and professionals of color. As such, broader sociocultural factors related to the experience of IP among racialized minorities must be addressed to advance the literature and our understanding of an increasingly popular construct.

SUMMARY POINTS.

1. A systematic review of the literature found that only a few studies have examined the impostor phenomenon (IP) in racially and ethnically minoritized groups. These studies found that IP is prevalent among ethnic minorities.

2. The initial definition and conceptualization of IP put forth by Clance & Imes (1978) does not capture manifestations of IP across racially and ethnically diverse groups.

3. Current conceptualizations of IP do not reference experiences or dynamics (e.g., racism, perceived discrimination, racial identity, marginalization, underrepresentation, shame) that have been identified as salient individual- and contextual-level predictors of IP among minoritized populations.

4. When considered within the context of racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, the term imposter syndrome is especially problematic given their tendency to be pathologized and viewed from a deficit perspective.

5. Proponents of the IP construct among racially and ethnically marginalized populations do not argue that IP blames the victim but rather that IP is not conceptualized in a way that maps on to the lived experiences of individuals from minoritized backgrounds.

6. Including IP in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) would further stigmatize and pathologize the reactions that racially and ethnically minoritized individuals have to environments where they are made to feel they do not belong or are not deserving.

7. Racialized impostor phenomenon is a reconceptualization of IP that captures the persistent beliefs, actions, and feelings of intellectual and professional self-doubt among racially minoritized people due to experiences, systems, and principles of racial oppression and inequity.

8. Current measures of IP may be of limited usefulness with people of color because such measures do not consider the common experience of discrimination among this population.

FUTURE ISSUES.

1. New racially and culturally informed measures of IP need to be developed to allow researchers to generate culture-specific interventions and to determine whether there is unique statistical variance accounted for in outcomes beyond what can be attributed to a traditional conceptualization of IP.

2. Ethnic/racial differences in prevalence rates of IP need to be considered with new culturally informed measures of IP.

3. More comparative quantitative IP research needs to be conducted among racially minoritized populations to better understand the ways in which racialized impostor phenomenon is similar and different across groups.

4. Interventions need to be culturally tailored by incorporating salient group-specific cultural factors and experiences that may be related to IP.