The facets of an impostor – development and validation of the impostor-profile (IPP31) for measuring impostor phenomenon

Abstract

The Impostor Phenomenon (IP) is a characteristic, which is composed of cognitions of inauthenticity, in conjunction with fear of failure, as well as fear of being exposed as a fraud. The IP was first described by Clance (1985), who also developed an accompanying questionnaire. However, this questionnaire left room for optimization (item content, pysychometric properties, and the representing IP as a multidimensional construct). Therefore, we developed an item pool of 450 new items based on the theoretical foundation. The core element characteristics are measured using the theoretically derived scales: Competence Doubt, Working Style, Alienation, Other-Self Divergence, Frugality and Need for Sympathy. Based on a German sample (N = 771, 51% female), aged 18 to 70 years, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a selection of 31 items. The six scales show satisfactory internal consistencies between .69 and .92. Initial construct validity showed positive correlations with convergent (Neuroticism) and discriminant measures (Self-Esteem). The Impostor-Profile (IPP31) is a theoretically founded multidimensional german questionnaire that can be applied in research and practice.

Full text

The facets of an impostor –development and validation
of the impostor-profile (IPP31) for measuring impostor phenomenon
Fabio Ibrahim
1
&Johann-Christoph Münscher
1
&Philipp Yorck Herzberg
1
#The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
The Impostor Phenomenon (IP) is a characteristic, which is composed of cognitions of inauthenticity, in conjunction with fear of
failure, as well as fear of being exposed as a fraud. The IP was first described by Clance (1985), who also developed an
accompanying questionnaire. However, this questionnaire left room for optimization (item content, pysychometric properties,
and the representing IP as a multidimensional construct). Therefore, we developed an item pool of 450 new items based on the
theoretical foundation. The core element characteristics are measured using the theoretically derived scales: Competence Doubt,
Working Style,Alienation,Other-Self Divergence, Frugality and Need for Sympathy. Based on a German sample (N=771,51%
female), aged 18to 70 years, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a selection of 31 items. The six scales show
satisfactory internal consistencies between .69 and .92. Initial construct validity showed positive correlations with convergent
(Neuroticism) and discriminant measures (Self-Esteem). The Impostor-Profile (IPP31) is a theoretically founded multidimen-
sional german questionnaire that can be applied in research and practice.
Keywords Bigfive .Clanceimpostorphenomenon scale .Impostor-profile .Impostorsyndrome .Impostorphenomenon .IPP31
I feel like an impostor when we did that show in
Portland. When I was about to get on stage and it was
a[…] sold-out arena. I still feel like an impostor. This is
so crazy, feels fake. It’s just because I have a very high
standard and I work really hard and I'm never satisfied.
(The Joe Rogan Experience 2019)
The perceptions described by the comedian Joe Rogan are
prototypical for the Impostor Phenomenon (IP). It is charac-
terized by an experience of intellectual or occupational fraud-
ulence (Matthews and Clance 1985) and was first described
by Clance and Imes (1978). The two psychotherapists and
professors observed that many of their female clients, despite
their qualifications, their awards, or their achievements, did
not develop a self-referential sense of success (Clance and
O’Toole 1988). Patients could not internalize their successes
and felt as if they had illegally obtained their current position
through either excessive effort or luck (Matthews and Clance
1985). In consequence, this self-image led to a fear of being
exposed. The IP can be described as a dysfunctional person-
ality style (Rohrmann et al. 2016) with negative effects in the
working context as well as in private life. Due to the positive
correlation of the IP with self-discipline and perceived com-
petence (Bernard et al. 2002), high expressions in the IP has a
negative influence on professional achievement and is consid-
ered as a performance inhibiting construct (Chae et al. 1995).
Convergent validity was shown by the connection with instru-
ments measuring psychological stress experience, higher de-
pressive symptoms, higher self-monitoring and perfectionism
(Henning et al. 1998;Thompsonetal.2000;Ferrariand
Thompson 2006;Hutchins2015;Rohrmannetal.2016).
The IP goes along with detrimental consequences such as
greater inclinations to depression, lower mental health, and
an increased experience of stress (Sakulku and Alexander
2011). Clance and Imes (1978) proposed the psychological
construct under the term Impostor Syndrome. Even though
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00895-x) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
*Fabio Ibrahim
Fabio.Ibrahim@t-online.de
Johann-Christoph Münscher
j.muenscher@hsu-hh.de
Philipp Yorck Herzberg
herzberg@hsu-hh.de
1
Department of Personality Psychology and Psychological
Assessment, Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Hamburg, Germany
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00895-x
Published online: 9 July 2020
Current Psychology (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

this term is used in large parts by the scientific community, the
authors explicitly pointed out, that the object of investigation
is a personality characteristic without clinical implication.
Initially, results indicated that women were predominantly
affected by the IP (Clance and Imes 1978). Further investiga-
tions revealed, however, that there were no gender differences
regarding impostorism (Lester and Moderski 1995;
Rohrmann et al. 2016; Leach et al. 2019).
Persons suffering from the IP tend to self-handicapping,
fend off praise and have the feeling of stacking up, which
leads to the fear of being exposed (Want and Kleitman
2006; Kumar and Jagacinski 2006). Similarities have been
found between the depressive attributional style and the IP.
Brauer and Wolf (2016) found a negative relation between the
internal-stable-global attribution in positive situations and a
reversed relation in negative situations. In addition, they found
that this detrimental attributional pattern regarding perfor-
mance was stronger related to the IP than to social situations.
These results correspond to previous findings, which show
that Impostors are more concerned about mistakes, overesti-
mate the number of mistakes made, and are less satisfied with
their performance (Thompson et al. 1998). Moreover,
Impostors show lower organizational citizenship behavior
and job satisfaction (Vergauwe et al. 2015). Leaders, in par-
ticular, are affected frequently by the IP. Rohrmann et al.
(2016) found that more than half of the managers surveyed
in their sample showed impostor inclinations. Additionally,
heads of marketing departments (Fried-Buchalter 1997), peo-
ple in the founding scene (Sightler and Wilson 2001), and
medical specialists (Henning et al. 1998) showed signs of
the IP. Furthermore, the IP is more prevalent when a person
is starting a new position (Sanford et al. 2015;Parkman2016).
The presence of this phenomenon is not limited to western
culture, but also affects persons of collectivist societies in
Korea (Chae et al. 1995) as well as in Japan (Fujie 2010).
The prevalence of people who have suffered from the feeling
of being a fraud at some point in their career was found to be
70% (Gravois 2007;Badawyetal.2017). So a differentiated
and specific assessment of the phenomenon is, therefore, a
relevant research and practical assessment concern.
Measurement of the Impostor Phenomenon
To measure the IP manifestation, usually, one of the four
instruments is used. The first questionnaire was the
Harvey Impostor Phenomenon Scale (HIPS; Harvey
1981) which contains 14 items and has an internal con-
sistency of .70 (Hellman and Caselman 2004). Factor an-
alytical investigations indicated a two-factor model
(Edwards et al. 1987; Hellman and Caselman 2004). The
Perceived Fraudulence Scale (PFS; Kolligian and
Sternberg 1991) is a 51-item instrument measuring IP
and the reported correlation of the PFS and HIPS is .83.
The PFS also correlates positive with the Clance Impostor
Phenomenon Scale (CIPS; Clance 1985) and shows insta-
ble internal consistencies. The most recent developed in-
strument is the Leary Impostor Scale (LIS;Learyetal.
2000), which includes seven items and has a reported
alpha of .87. The correlation of the Leary Impostor
Scale with the existing instruments HIPS, PFS and CIPS
range from .70 to .80 (Leary et al. 2000).
However, the most frequently used instrument for measur-
ing Impostor tendencies in the general population is the CIPS
(Clance 1985; Holmes et al. 1993; Mak et al. 2019). The
instrument is economic with 20 items and allows the catego-
rization of the Impostor score into a light, medium, and strong
expression by forming a total score. The internal consistency
is high across multiple studies (α=.84–.96; Prince 1989;
Holmes et al. 1993; see also Mak et al. 2019). The factor
structure of the instrument was tested utilizing exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). Chrisman et al. (1995) and Brauer and Wolf (2016)
both found, that a 3-factor solutionhad the best model fit. The
factors Fake,Luck and Discount could be extracted in both the
English and German version of the CIPS (Brauer and Wolf
2016;Chrismanetal.1995). However, using CFA, French
et al. (2008(French et al. 2008)),aswellasFujie(2010), have
identified a 2-factor model as the most fitting. Jöstl et al.
(2012), as well as Simon and Choi (2018), found a unidimen-
sional factor structure to be the most appropriate for the un-
derlying structure.
Nevertheless, there are several caveats in using the CIPS.
First, there are optimization possibilities due to the item for-
mulation, which technically consists of several components.
The items 5, 9 and 13 contain the quantifier “sometimes”,
which can lead to confusion in combination with the central
answer option “sometimes”from the 5-point Likert scale.
Secondly, Mak et al. (2019) noted that the CIPS, PFS, and
HIPS are based on the multidimensional construct of the IP,
but do not measure subscale characteristics. Instead, they pro-
vide total scores that do not allow to differentiate between
narrow aspects of the IP—despite evidence of the factor ana-
lytical investigation, which shows multidimensionality (e.g.,
Brauer and Wolf 2016;Chrismanetal.1995) and, however, is
not taken into account regarding the use of the questionnaire.
Thirdly, the factor solutions proposed in previous studies
show that (a) the item-factor assignment is highly imbalanced;
for example, Brauer and Wolf (2016)showedthatDiscount
and Luck consist of only four items and (b) that there are no
differential relationships between the scales and external
criteria (e.g., measures of self-esteem, fear of negative evalu-
ation, or depressiveness). We argue that a measure to distin-
guish between the core characteristics of the IP is needed in
research and practical applications (e.g., testing outcomes of
intervention studies).
3917Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Aim of the Study
In line with recommendations to clarify the dimensionality of
the IP (e.g., Mak et al. 2019), a current, validated measuring
instrument for the IP, which maps different elements of the
construct through subscales, would allow for a more differen-
tiated assessment. This psychometric gain could lead to a
more nuanced interpretation and intervention. This investiga-
tion aims to develop a questionnaire for the IP, which on the
one hand assesses the core elements of the construct (Clance
and O’Toole 1988) through theoretically appropriate items
and to make different element-characteristics measurable uti-
lizing subscales.
Item Construction and Preliminary Analysis
For item construction, theories and descriptions of the IP by
Clance (1985), Clance and Imes (1978), Harvey and Katz
(1985), as well as Sakulku and Alexander (2011) were analyzed.
Emotions, cognitive patterns, and behavioral strategies were iso-
lated and grouped into five categories: Idealistic Ambition,
Sorrow-System,Ingratiation,Belief in Incompetence and
Inauthenticity. For each, 90 items expressing core concepts were
created by three experts, resulting in an initial item pool of 450
item candidates.
A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; Kuhlmann et al. 2017)
ranging from 0% (“does not apply in any aspect”)to100%
(“applies completely”) was selected as the response scale for
the Impostor-Profile, as this allows a more nuanced setting
specification and increases the information content (Reips
and Funke 2008). In a pilot study, 162 items have been select-
ed based on precision as well as simplicity and administered to
a German sample of N= 303 (36.3% female) with an average
age of 23.7 years (SD = 5.8). Then, these items were analyzed
using factor analysis (N= 303, ordinary-least-squares extrac-
tion, Promax rotation, iteratively excluding items with main
loadings < |.40|). A 7-factor solution was found, reducing the
pool to 65 items. Before starting the validation process the
seventh scale of the instrument was excluded after another
round of experts concluded that the overall contribution of
the scale is negligible (low explained variance (2.68%) and
the scale containing three items with highly similar content.).
The objectives of this study were: (a) finding an adequate
factor solution (item selection criteria: number of items per
factor at least three, main loading >.50, a difference between
main and secondary loading >.20) with a satisfying model fit
(GFI > .90; AGFI > .90; CFI> .90; RMSEA < .08; Hu and
Bentler 1999); (b) the construction of scales with sufficient
reliability (internal consistency > .70) and to (c) examine con-
struct validity by investigating the relationships between con-
vergent and divergent instruments.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were N= 771 (391 female; M=39.5; Md =40.0;
SD = 14.0) between 18 and 70 years old persons from
Germany who were partly generated by the commercial online
survey panel “Consumerfieldwork GmbH”in the period from
January to April 2019. Besides demographic data, the survey
also asked about occupation and educational level. For cross-
validation purpose, the total sample was randomly split into
two subsamples (n
1
=300, n
2
= 471). The gender ratio of the
sample (51% female) was balanced, with the age distribution
being left-handed, with a disproportionate frequency of per-
sons being 18 to 23-year-olds. Within the occupational
groups, pensioners and the unemployed in particular were
underrepresented. Employees (58%) and soldiers (15%) were
well represented. The sample holds a large proportion of peo-
ple with a school-leaving certificate (27%) or vocational train-
ing (35%). The research data is archived and can be accessed
under the Open Science Framework link osf.io/IPP31
(Table 1).
Measures
Besides the item pool of the Impostor-Profile (65 items), a
selection of instruments measuring theoretically related con-
structs was administered. The Big Five Inventory (BFI;
Rammstedt and Danner 2016) in the adaption according to
Rammstedt (1997) measures the Big Five.
The questionnaire contains 45 items with a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = “strongly disagree; 5=“strongly agree”)toassess
the five dimensions Neuroticism,Extraversion,Openness to new
Experiences,Conscientiousness,andAgreeableness with a total
of 10 facets. The internal consistency ranges from .78 to .83
(Rammstedt and Danner 2016). The construct validity was
shown by the connection to the established personality instru-
ments NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI (Rammstedt and Danner 2016).
The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS; Clance
and O’Toole 1988) contains 20 items and the total score in-
forms about the respondent’s impostor tendencies. The instru-
ment has a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all true”;5=“very
true”) and the GCIPS, which is the german translation of the
questionnaire, shows good psychometrical properties and has
an alpha of .88 (Brauer and Wolf 2016).
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg
1965) in the adaption of von Collani and Herzberg (2003)
contains ten items with a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “not true
at all”;4=“is entirely true”) and assesses the two primary
factors Self-Diminishing and Positive Self-Esteem. The inter-
nal consistency is .84 (von Collani and Herzberg 2003).
3918 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Results
Step 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using the
R-package psych (Revelle and Revelle 2015)on
Subsample 1 (n
1
= 300, excellent sampling adequacy,
KMO = 0.93). Principal-axis extraction and Promax-
rotation were used and items with a main loading < |.50|
or with a difference between main and second loading <
|.20| were dismissed. Parallel analysis (Horn 1965)sug-
gested the extraction of seven factors; matching the result
in the pre-test however, a six-factor solution proved to be
stable. The final item selection comprises 31 items loading
on six factors (six Eigenvalues >1, [1.16–9.70]; 56% ex-
plained variance), with adequate fit (RMSR = .03;
RMSEA = .058, 90% CI [.048–.062], Tucker-Lewis-
Index = .908; χ
2300
= 560.92, p< .01). Each factor consists
of 3–11 items; absolute factor correlations ranged from
−.02 to .66 (M=.27, SD =.22).
The Impostor-Profile
The result of the factor-analytical iterations was a question-
naire with a total of 31 items which formed six factors. The six
extracted factors reflect core elements as well as concise char-
acteristicsoftheIP.Table2shows the relevant psychometric
properties of the items and their factor affiliation. The factors
were Competence Doubt,Working Style,Alienation,Other-
Self Divergence, Frugality,andNeed for Sympathy. The in-
ternal consistency of the six scales indicated by the standard-
ized Cronbach’s alpha lay between .69 and .92.Due to the low
number of items per IPP31 scale, McDonald’s omega is used
as a further reliability estimator (Ziegler et al. 2014). The total
omega of the scales lie between ω
t
= .94 and ω
t
=.72.
The scale Competence Doubts (e.g., “Despite former suc-
cesses, I have strong fear of failure.”;λ=.83;ω
t
=.94) mea-
sures a person’s competence-related self-doubt, especially be-
fore a performance task. It also measures fear of failure and
maladaptive perfectionism. The cause of this self-concept is
the external attribution style of positive work results. Besides
Table 1 Sample description by
age, occupation and educational
level
Male (%) Female (%)
380 (49) 391 (51) Sum %
Age 18–23 92 (12) 73 (9) 21
24–29 53 (7) 25 (3) 10
30–35 24 (3) 52 (7) 10
36–41 37 (5) 52 (7) 12
42–47 38 (5) 53 (7) 12
48–53 48 (6) 60 (8) 14
54–59 60 (8) 53 (7) 15
60–70 28 (4) 23 (3) 7
Occupation Pupil 0 (0) 1 (<1) <1
Student 60 (8) 61 (8) 16
Pensioner 0 (0) 1 (<1) <1
Unemployed 0 (0) 0 (0) 0
Clerical worker 200 (26) 245 (32) 58
Self-employed person 27 (4) 37 (5) 9
Civil servant 14 (2) 9 (1) 3
Teaching/ Research 3 (<1) 0 (0) <1
Soldier 76 (10) 37 (5) 15
Education level No educational attainment 1 (<1) 0 (0) <1
Certificate of secondary Education 12 (2) 11 (1) 3
Secondary school level I certificate 33 (4) 39 (5) 9
School leaving examination 119 (15) 94 (12) 27
Vocational education 122 (16) 149 (19) 35
Master craftsmen/ Technician 14 (2) 11 (1) 3
Bachelor, master or higher 79 (10) 87 (11) 21
The persentages have been rounded to whole numbers; the german sample was recruited in the period from
January to April 2019
3919Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the negative consequences for subjective well-being, such as
anxiety and depression, a high degree in this factor also indi-
cates a reduced professional ambition. Working Style (e.g.,
“Often I postpone starting important tasks.”;λ=.86;
ω
t
= .89) is defined as a scale that measures the extent to which
a person is prone to procrastination. A high score in Working
Style indicates procrastination tendencies, while a low score
indicates precrastination tendencies. Both working styles are
regarded as different compensation attempts concerning the
fear of failure due to a performance task. In both cases, the
positive work result is attributed externally to the overly early
work start or the last possible excessive workload. Both
Table 2 Descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, item-total correlations (r
it
), and factor loadings
Item M(SD)α
a
r
it
λSkewness/
Kurtosis
Mdn element
b
Competence Doubt 0.92
1 37.34 (30.6) .91 .81 .83 .46 / -1.09 30 Fear of Failure Maladaptive
Perfectionism Self-Doubt
2 35.23 (27.98) .91 .78 .69 .52 / -.9 29
3 48.4 (33.27) .93 .54 .63 .07 / -1.38 49
4 27.7 (28.16) .91 .76 .63 .98 / -.24 17
5 26.87 (26.26) .92 .73 .69 .96 / -.18 17
6
r
39.66 (30.69) .93 .52 .73 .41 / -1.09 34
7 30.31 (28.55) .92 .67 .61 .83 / -.51 20
8 31.87 (27.06) .92 .70 .59 .69 / -.58 24
9 39.33 (29.97) .91 .77 .86 .32 / -1.15 35
10 27.77 (27.13) .92 .69 .69 .98 / -.10 18
11 33.40 (28.55) .92 .72 .54 .63 / -.74 25
Working Style .86
12 35.8 (29.18) .82 .77 .75 .50 / -.98 30 Impostor-Cycle Pro- / Precrastination
13 41.42 (29.84) .82 .80 .86 .23 / -1.18 40
14
r
58.9 (29.08) .88 .40 .51 .29 / -1.07 60
15 36.34 (30.95) .82 .75 .78 .50 / -1.04 29
16 40.91 (29.12) .83 .70 .71 .33 / -1.05 38
17
r
38.04 (27.78) .86 .54 .56 .48 / -.85 34
Alienation .85
18 22.58 (22.13) .79 .91 .81 1.13 / .58 15 Impression-Management
19 31.73 (27.16) .82 .74 .82 .66 / -.63 25
20 26.07 (25.73) .77 .84 .70 1.02 / .07 17
Other-Self Divergence .79
21 30.45 (22.87) .74 .67 .54 .76 / .07 26 Denial of Competence
22 26.14 (22.51) .77 .52 .78 .90 / .18 21
23 24.08 (21.85) .68 .99 .91 1.13 / .68 17
24 32.50 (25.28) .77 .66 .64 .59 / -.49 29
Frugality .71
25
r
49.70 (28.54) .62 .55 .65 .51 / -.79 50 Fear and Guilt about Success
26
r
64.92 (27.92) .64 .51 .45 .05 / -.96 70
27
r
52.05 (25.67) .62 .57 .58 .08 / -.71 51
28 40.64 (34.89) .73 .40 .45 .40 / -1.32 31
Need for Sympathy .68
29 60.25 (26.92) .40 .62 .76 .43 / .6 62 Superwoman/ -man Aspects
30 54.84 (25.77) .46 .59 .68 .29 / .6 56
31 72.51 (21.26) .79 .31 .53 .85 / .46 77
The median value is shown in italics and thestandard deviation in brackets;
a
Standardized Cronbach’s alpha; total values for subscales; corrected values
when the item is dropped for each item;
b
underlying theoretical assumptions for the items in accordance with Sakulku and Alexander 2011;weusedthe
german version of the IPP31
3920 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

working styles are typical for impostorism but can be differ-
entiated by scale expression. The scale Alienation (e.g., “I
often feel like I hold back my real personality.”;λ= .82;
ω
t
= .86) is specified as a scale which describes the missing
feeling of authenticity and the high expression of impression
management. High expression in this factor is due to the feel-
ing of not being sufficient, so tendencies of self-control also
reach into private life. Other-Self Divergence (e.g., “People
overestimate me.”;λ=.93; ω
t
= .82) measures the extent to
which the expectations of the environment are perceived as
overstraining. The cause of this perceptional distortion is a
large delta between the low self-efficacy expectation and the
successful work perceived by others. The large difference be-
tween self- and other image intensifies the pressure to adapt as
well as the feeling of not being adequate. The fifth scale
Frugality (e.g., “It is very important to me to create something
significant”;λ=−.65; ω
t
= .82) describes the person’stenden-
cy to low self-expectations and unwillingness to lead. The fear
of responsibility and challenges results from the fear of being
exposed as an impostor. This reluctance inhibits career ad-
vancement and personal development. Need for Sympathy
(e.g., “I think it is important to appear sympathetic.”;
λ=.76; ω
t
= .72) measures the need for popularity and good-
will on the part of others. A high level on this scale indicates
that the person believes in being dependent on the goodwill of
others. Too much tolerance, however, has professional disad-
vantages and also serves as an external object of success
attribution.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The 6-factor model was validated using the data of Sample 2
(n
2
= 471) through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); calcu-
lations were performed using the R-package lavaan (Rosseel
et al. 2017). Robust maximum-likelihood (MLR) estimation
was used as recommended by Rhemtulla et al. (2012). As
expected, the χ
2
-test was statistically significant (χ
2419
=
1040.3, p< .001). The inspection of goodness-of-fit indicated
good model-data fit (GFI = .852; AGFI = .825;
RMSEA = .063, 90% CI [.056–.065]; CFI = .910). The load-
ings were high for each factor (≥.40; see Table 2).
Psychometric Properties
Next, we examined the item- and scale properties of the IPP31
(Table 2). The item difficulties showed a balanced pattern rang-
ing between M
min
= 22.6 and M
max
= 72.5 across the scales with
standard deviations between 21.3 and 34.9 The corrected item-
total correlation was satisfying and indicated to discriminate well
(.31 ≤r
it
≤.99). The analysis of skewness and kurtosis indicated
no deviations from normality. We tested the reliability by internal
consistency analysis and found good alpha coefficients for all
scales (α≥.79) except for Frugality (α=.71) and Need for
Sympathy (α= .68) considering the low number of items per
scaleandtheitems’good discrimination power, we decided to
retain the scales. In addition, the reliabilityestimator McDonald’s
omega, which is more suitable for scales with a small number of
items (Revelle and Zinbarg 2009), shows sufficient reliability
ω
t
=.94 and ω
t
= .72. The intercorrelation of the scales ranged
from r=−.20 to r=.65(Table3). In particular, the Competence
Doubt scale correlates positive with Alienation (r=.61) and
Other-Self Divergence (r= .65). The scale Frugality shows the
highest association with the scale Other-Self Divergence
(r= .05).
Nomological Validity
To study the nomological validity, we examined the relation-
ships between the IPP31 scales and positive associated (CIPS;
Neuroticism) as well as negative associated (Conscientiousness,
Extraversion,Self-Esteem) traits. We used the total sample of
N= 771 persons to investigate the validity correlations. To
check the measuring intention of the IPP31 the anticipated rela-
tion was: H2a) a positive correlation between the scale
Competence Doubt and the CIPS.
TheexistingresearchresultsonCIPSandtheBig5di-
mensions (Bernard et al. 2002;Chaeetal.1995;Rossetal.
2001; Vergauwe et al. 2015) led to the following hypothe-
ses that: H2b) Neuroticism shows a positive correlation
with the Competence Doubt scale; H2c) Extraversion
shows a negative correlation with Competence Doubt,a
negative correlation with Alienation and a negative corre-
lation with Other-Self Divergence; H2d) Conscientiousness
has a negative correlation with Working Style; H2e)
Openness hasnoconnectiontoCompetence Doubt;H2f)
Agreeableness shows a positive connection to Competence
Doubt and shows a positive correlation with Frugality and
Need for Sympathy. The research results of Schubert and
Bowker (2017), who found a negative correlation between
self-esteem and CIPS, led to the hypothesis that H2g) Self-
Esteem shows a negative correlation with Competence
Doubt,Alienation,andOther-Self Divergence.
The BFI showed the expected correlations with the scales
of the IPP31 (Table 3). Neuroticism showed robust correla-
tions with Competence Doubt (r= .68) so that the assumption
H2b) can be accepted. Besides Neuroticism showed a signif-
icant correlation with Working Style (r=.25), Other-Self
Divergence (r=.38) and Alienation (r=.46).Thescale
Extraversion showed negative correlations, especially with
the scale Alienation (r=−.49), Other-Self Divergence (r=
−.25) and Competence Doubt (r=−.39). The anticipated cor-
relation between Extraversion and Competence Doubt could
be found, so H2c) can be verified. Conscientiousness showed
a negative correlations with Working Style (r=−.71) and leads
to the acceptance of H2d). Moreover Conscientiousness
showed a negative correlation with Competence Doubt (r=
3921Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

−.37), Other-Self Divergence (r=−.33) and Alienation (r=
−.29). The BFI scale Openness showed as expected no corre-
lation to Competence Doubt (H2e)). Interestingly Openness
has a negative association with Frugality (r=−.26). The hy-
pothesized positive correlation of Agreeableness with
Competence Doubt (r=−.04) and alsothe anticipated positive
correlation of Agreeableness to Frugality (r=−.21) has to be
rejected (H2f)). The last presumed negative correlation be-
tween Self-Esteem and the IPP31 scale Competence Doubt
(H2g)) could be accepted (r=−.74).
Analyses of Age and Gender
The investigation of the relationships between age and the
IPP31 scales shows that age represents a predictor for IP
tendencies. Significant correlations between age and
Competence Doubt (r=−.21), Working-Style (r=−.28),
Other-Self Divergence (r = −.14) and Frugality (r = .38) could
be found. In addition, a significant positive link between the
female gender and the IPP scales Competence Doubt (r=.22),
frugality (r=.14) and Need for Sympathy (r=.18)could be
found. The CIPS-Score also shows a significant positive as-
sociation with the female gender (r=.16).
Discussion
This study introduced the IPP31 and described the con-
struction and validation of a current multidimensional
instrument for the assessment of the IP. A print version,
Table 3 Correlations of the
IPP31 subscales and the Big-Five
Inventory (BFI), Clance Impostor
Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), and
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
(RSES)
Subscale (α)IPP31
a
CD WS A O-S D F NfS
IPP31 CD 1 .38 .61 .65 −.04 .26
WS 1 .32 .31 −.04 .07
A1.52 −.03 .16
O-S D 1 −.05 .21
F 1 −.20
NfS 1
BFI Neuroticism (.72) .68 .25 .46 .38 .14 .11
Anxiety (.74) .65 .22 .38 .36 .18 .16
Depression (.70) .58 .25 .48 .36 .06 .04
Extraversion (.93) −.39 −.17 −.49 −.25 −.32 .08
Assertiveness (.91) −.37 −.12 −.39 −.23 −.27 .02
Activity (.77) −.34 −.29 −.33 −.25 −.37 .15
Openness (.81) −.11 −.04 −.09 −.16 −.26 .15
Openess for aesthetics (.82) −.03 .03 −.04 −.10 −.12 .12
Openess for ideas (69) −.11 −.07−.07 −.13 −.28 .14
Conscientiousness (.88) −.37 −.71 −.29 −.33 −.05 .04
Orderliness (.83) −.30 −.56 −.24 −.24 < .01 −.04
Self-discipline (83) −.38 −.70 −.28 −.33 −.08 .04
Agreeableness (.74) −.04 .05 −.05 −.02 −.21 .21
Altruism (.71) .04 .04 −.07 .02 −.15 .30
Conformity (.70) −.09 −.05 −.08 −.07 −.17 .10
CIPS CIPS-Score .80 .38 .54 .59 −.04 .19
Luck (.69) .51 .26 .36 .44 .01 .09
Fake (.84) .79 .33 .50 .52 −.07 .18
Discount (.73) .63 .22 .43 .46 .06 .13
RSES Global self-worth (.83) −.74 −.30 −.53 −.48 −.08 −.07
Positive self-worth self-satisfaction (.93) −.43 −.17 −.30−.32 −.12 .07
Positive self-worth self-efficacy (.77) −.57 −.23 −.44 −.34 −.08 −.04
Negative self-worth (.83) .70 .30 .49 .45 .03 .11
a
Abbreviated IPP31 dimensions: (CD) Competence Doubt,(WS)Working Style,(A)Alienation, (O-S D) Other-
Self Divergence,(F)Frugality and (NfS) Need for Sympathy; correlations greater |.25| are highlighted in boldface;
|r| > .07/.10/.13 are related to p< .05/.01/.001
3922 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

as well as a link to an interactive online version of the
questionnaire, can be found in the online Ressource 1.
The theoretical basis for item generation was derived
from the basic work of Clance (1985), Clance and Imes
(1978), Harvey and Katz (1985), as well as Sakulku and
Alexander (2011). After the definition of psychometric
criteria and the exclusion of insufficient items, a ques-
tionnaire with 31 items containing six factors
Competence Doubt,Working Style,Alienation,Other-
Self Divergence,Frugality and Need for Sympathy result-
ed. The predefined model requirements were valideted by
confirmatory factor analysis. The indicator of internal
consistency shows satisfactory reliability.
The investigation of the relationships between age and the
IPP31 scales shows that age represents an important predictor
for IP tendencies, except for the scale Frugality, which is
positively related. Significant correlations between age and
Competence Doubt (r=−.21), Working-Style (r=−.283),
Other-Self Divergence (r=−.13), Frugality (r= .38) were
found.
The psychometric properties of the questionnaire are
sufficient, especially by considering Mcdonald’somega,
which seems to be a more informative indicator regard-
ing the low number of items. The goodness-of-fit indi-
cators verify the quality of the questionnaire as
sufficient.
The correlations of the IPP31 with other instruments might be
an indicator for discriminatory validity. The total CIPS score,
which is considered the most popular indicator for investigating
the IP, showed a high correlation with the Competence Doubt
scale. Also, Alienation and Other-Self Divergence showed high
correlations with the total CIPS value. These correlations verify
the construct validity of the IPP31. Interestingly, the total CIPS
value, as well as the subscales Fake,Luck and Discount accord-
ingtoBrauerandWolf(2016), showed no relation to the IPP31
scales Frugality and Need for Sympathy. This could be an indi-
cator of a lack of construct-relatedness concerning these two
IPP31 scales or the missing relation is an indicator of the CIPS
deficits concerning the diagnostic representation of theoretical
aspects.
Also, the strong association between Neuroticism and
the IP (Bernard et al. 2002;Vergauweetal.2015)is
shown by the correlation of Neuroticism with the scale
Competence Doubt. In particular, the strong correlation
between Competence Doubt and Depression signifies the
convergent validity of the scale as well as the negative
subjective quality of high Impostor tendencies.
Interestingly, there is a medium-strong correlation be-
tween Neuroticism and Working Style.Thisisanindica-
tor that people with greater tendencies to anxiety and
depression also tend to procrastinate. The connections
between Conscientiousness and Working Style as well
as Competence Doubt verify the validity of the IPP31.
Besides, the Working Style scale allows individual as-
sessment of the procrastination or precrastination tenden-
cy. Both working styles are typical for the IP but can be
differentiated by scale values. As expected, Openness
shows no connection to the Competence Doubt scale.
TheonlyscaleoftheIPP31thatshowsaweaknegative
correlation to openness is Frugality. This correlation,
however, seems to make sense since Openness is also
called “intellect”(Digman 1990)andFrugality questions
a careerist passivity. Research results on the relationship
between CIPS and Extraversion (Chae et al. 1995;Ross
et al. 2001) showed a weakly negative correlation.
However, the scales Competence Doubt and Alienation
show a medium negative correlation with Extraversion.
This indicates that Competence Doubt does not fully
correspond to the CIPS value. The high correlation to
the scale Alienation and Competence Doubt in combina-
tion with the low correlation to Working Style and Need
for Sympathy could be an indicator for the same mea-
surement intention but at the same time higher differen-
tiation between the IP elements by the IPP31.
The low correlations of the scales Frugality and Need
for Sympathy with the dimension Agreeableness could be
an indication that Agreeableness as a characteristic is not
to be equated with the desire for subpersonal relation-
ships. The facet Altruism of the scale Agreeableness
showed the expected overlap with Need for Sympathy
(9% shared variance), demonstrating the content validity
of the scale.
The global Self-Esteem (RSES) showed strong negative
correlations with the four scales Competence Doubt,
Working Style,Alienation and Other-Self Divergence and sup-
ports the convergent validity of the IPP31 scales.
Our findings support the hypotheses, except for the expect-
ed positive association between Frugality and Agreeableness.
The link between Agreeableness and Frugality (H2f) was not
as expected positive. Overall, the nomological validity of the
IPP31 was largely supported.
Limitations
One point of criticism is the sample, which shows the biggest
age segment in a range of 18 to 23 years and shows a right-
skewed distribution. Especially considering that age is an im-
portant predictor of IP trends, as can be seen from the signif-
icant relationships to the four IPP31 scales. However, the age
groups are sufficiently taken into account when both genders
are considered together so that the results can be generalized
for the German population. It should also be noted that the
survey method was online-based so that the survey conditions
could not be controlled, reducing the objectivity of execution.
Also, the facet of perfectionism, which has a high weighting in
the theoretical construct, was not assigned its scale within the
3923Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

questionnaire. The low eigenvalue of the scale Need for
Sympathy [1.16] could also be an indicator of the low signif-
icance of the scale and should be evaluated concerning its
practical relevance.
Perspectives
The construct validity of the Impostor-Profile could be supported
by correlations with other constructs within the nomological net-
work especially by strong correlations to the CIPS. In particular,
the scale Competence Doubt shows substantial overlap with the
CIPS. Interestingly, the scales Frugality and Need for Sympathy
show no connections to CIPS. However, due to the proximity of
the scales in terms of construct content described in the original
literature (Table 4), they have a diagnostic value in the examina-
tion of Impostor tendencies. Given the lack of relationships with
CIPS, these two scales, in particular, could provide incremental
information gain. Another future research concern should be the
construct validity, which must be checked in future studies using
the HIPS, PFS, and LIS as well as further personality constructs.
Moreover, future studies should examine criterion validity to
check the practical relevance of the questionnaire.
Another possible step could be the factor-analytical extrac-
tion of a second-order factor. The factor loadings to the pri-
mary factors could serve as a weight, allowing the individual
scale values to be weighted and added up to an Impostor-
Profile total score. This score could be compared in further
investigations with the total scores of HIPS, PFS, CIPS and
LIS. Besides, a future research concern could be the determi-
nation of IPP31 cut-off equivalents to CIPS using ROC anal-
ysis (Receiver-Operating-Characteristics). This would allow
measuring Impostor expressions according to the categoriza-
tion of CIPS with the IPP31. The multidimensionality of the
questionnaire would also make it possible to explore the
presence of different types of Impostors by using cluster anal-
ysis and to check the theoretically formulated typology ac-
cording to Harvey and Katz (1985).
This has so far been difficult due to the unidimensional
instruments regarding IP. An impostor typology would, on
the one hand, open up new research questions, and on the
other hand, enable a type-appropriate development of inter-
ventions. Leonhardt et al. (2017) had identified a possible
typological structure for the imposter phenomenon. Two types
resulted, true impostors, which show negative self-
perceptions and strategic impostors, which show a less nega-
tive attribution style. This typology could be validated by a
cluster-analytical investigation of the IPP31 characteristics.
Furthermore, it would be useful to investigate the validity
and factor structure for the English translation of the IPP31.
In conclusion, the resulting multidimensional questionnaire
is psychometrically sufficient and theoretically based. Due to
its profile character, the IPP31 can raise further research ap-
proaches regarding an impostor typology or help to clarify the
construct’s dimensionality. Besides, the questionnaire can
gain practical relevance in coaching and therapeutic context.
The multidimensionality enables higher resolved diagnostics
and in consequence a more targeted intervention.
Funding Information Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Standards On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest. The investigation has met the
ethical standards for psychological investigations. No subject was nega-
tively affected by participation.
Appendix
Table 4 Items of the IPP31 in the original German Version and an Tentative English Translation
Deutsch English
Kompetenz-Zweifel Competence Doubt
1 Trotz vergangener Erfolge habe ich starke Versagensängste Despite former successes, I have strong fear of failure
2 Ich denke häufig, dass meine Fähigkeiten nicht ausreichen I often think that my skills are not enough
3 Prüfungssituationen sind für mich sehr belastend Exam situations are very stressful for me
4 Aus Angst zu versagen, verliere ich öfter den Spaß an der Arbeit My fear of failure often spoils the fun at work
5 Ich bin von meinen Fähigkeiten nicht überzeugt I am not convinced of my capabilities
6
r
Ein Misserfolg ist kein Grund für mich, an meinen Fähigkeiten zu zweifeln Failure is no reason for me to doubt my capabilities
7 Ich bin meistens unzufrieden mit meinen Arbeitsleistungen I am usually unsatisfied with my work
8 Sehr gute Resultate Anderer verunsichern mich When others get good results, it makes me insecure
9 Ich habe Angst zu scheitern, obwohl ich meistens erfolgreich bin I’m afraid to fail, even though I’m usually successful
10 Wenn ich erfolgreich bin, habe ich häufig das Gefühl, dass ein Misserfolg folgen
wird
When I am successful, I often feel that a failure will follow
11 Mich belasten die hohen Erwartungen Anderer an mich High expectations of others bother me
3924 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Badawy, R., Gazdag, B. A., Bentley, J., & Brouer, R. (2017). I can’tfailif
Idon’t try! A look into why impostors’self-handicap. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2017, 17349. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMBPP.2017.17349abstract.
Bernard, N. S., Dollinger, S. J., & Ramaniah, N. V. (2002). Applying the
big five personality factors to the impostor phenomenon. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78(2), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327752JPA7802_07.
Brauer, K., & Wolf, A. (2016). Validation of the German-language
Clance impostor phenomenon scale (GCIPS). Personality and
Individual Differences, 102,153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.06.071.
Chae, J.-H., Piedmont, R. L., Estadt, B. K., & Wicks, R. J. (1995).
Personological evaluation of Clance’s imposter phenomenon scale
in a Korean sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 468–
485. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_7.
Chrisman, S. M., Pieper, W. A., Clance, P. R., Holland, C. L., &
Glickauf-Hughes, C. (1995). Validation of the Clance imposter phe-
nomenon scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65,456–467.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_6.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high
achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006.
Clance,P.R.(1985).Erfolgreiche Versager. das Hochstapler-
Phänomen. München: Heyne.
Clance,P.R.,&O’Toole, M. A. (1988). The imposter phenomenon: An
internal barrier to empowerment and achievement. Women &
Therapy, 6,51–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015V06N03_05.
Table 4 (continued)
Deutsch English
Arbeitsstil Working Style
12 Ich erschwere mir vieles, weil ich meine Arbeit aufschiebe I make things difficult because I postpone my work
13 Oft verschiebe ich das Beginnen wichtiger Aufgaben Often I postpone starting important tasks
14
r
Ich fange meine Aufgaben früher an als Andere I start my duties earlier than others
15 Ich beende wichtige Aufgaben meistens im letzten Moment I usually finish important tasks at the last moment
16 Ich lenke mich häufig ab, auch wenn ich viel zu erledigen habe I often distract myself, even though I have a lot to do
17
r
Ich erledige die wichtigste Aufgabe meistens als erstes I usually do the most important task first
Entfremdung Alienation
18 Oft verhalte ich mich unecht Often I behave little authentic.
19 Ich fühle mich oft so, als halte ich meine wirkliche Persönlichkeit zurück I often feel like I hold back my real personality
20 Wirklich ich selbst bin ich nur selten Actually, I am seldom myself
Fremd-Selbst Divergenz Other-Self Divergence
21 Meine Fähigkeiten werden häufig überschätzt My skills are often overrated
22 Die Erwartungen meiner Kollegen an mich sind zu hoch My colleagues’expectations of me are too high
23 Man überschätzt mich People overestimate me
24 Ich werde häufig für klüger gehalten, als ich bin I am often considered smarter than I am
Genügsamkeit Frugality
25
r
Mir ist es sehr wichtig etwas Bedeutendes zu schaffen It is very important to me to create something significant
26
r
Eine Arbeit, bei der ich viele Untergebene hätte, würde mich befriedigen A job where I have many subordinates would satisfy me
27
r
Bedeutendes zu leisten ist mir im Leben am wichtigsten Making a significant difference is what matters most to me
in life
28 Ich wäre ungern Chef I would not like to be boss
Sympathiebedürfnis Need for Sympathy
29 Mir ist es wichtig sympatisch zu erscheinen I think it is important to appear sympathetic
30 Mir ist es wichtig gemocht zu werden It is important to me to be liked
31 Ich gelte als sehr hilfsbereite Person I am considered a very helpful person
Original questionnaire in German; Translation without psychometric analysis; r reversed item; a print version as well as a link to an interactive online
version of the questionnaire can be found in the online Res1ource 1
3925Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.
Edwards, P. W., Zeichner, A., Lawler, N., & Kowalski, R. (1987). A
validation study of the Harvey impostor phenomenon scale.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 24(2), 256.
Ferrari, J. R., & Thompson, T. (2006). Impostor fears: Links with self-
presentational concerns and self-handicapping behaviours.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40,341–352. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.012.
French, B. F., Ullrich-French, S. C., & Follman, D. (2008). The psycho-
metric properties of the Clance impostor scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44, 1270–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2007.11.023.
Fried-Buchalter, S. (1997). Fear of success, fear of failure, and the im-
poster phenomenon among male and female marketing managers.
Sex Roles, 37(11–12), 847–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02936343.
Fujie, R. (2010). Development of the state impostor phenomenon scale.
Japanese Psychological Research, 52(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1468-5884.2009.00417.x.
Gravois, J. (2007). You're not fooling anyone. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54(11), A1 Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://
chronicle.com.
Harvey, J. C. (1981). The impostor phenomenon and achievement: A
failure to internalize suc- cess (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Philadelphia: Temple University.
Harvey, J., & Katz, C. (1985). Das Hochstapler-Phänomen: Die Angst
vor dem Erfolg ; Ursachen, Auswirkung, Überwindung.Landsberg
am Lech: mvg-Verlag.
Hellman, C. M., & Caselman, T. D. (2004). A psychometric evaluation of
the Harvey imposter phenomenon scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 83(2), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa8302_10.
Henning, K., Ey, S., & Shaw, D. (1998). Perfectionism, the impostor
phenomenon and psychological adjustment in medical, dental, nurs-
ing and pharmacy students. Medical Education, 32(5), 456–464.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00234.x.
Holmes, S. W., Kertay, L.,Adamson, L. B.,Holland, C. L., & Clance, P.
R. (1993). Measuring the impostor phenomenon: A comparison of
Clance’s IP scale and Harvey’s IP scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 60(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa6001_3.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 30,179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02289447.
Hutchins,H. M. (2015). Outing the imposter: A study exploring imposter
phenomenon among higher education faculty. New Horizons in
Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 27(2), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20098.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new al-
ternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Jöstl, G., Bergsmann, E., Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C.
(2012). When will they blow my cover? Zeitschrift für
Psychologie, 220, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/
a000102.
Kolligian Jr., J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Perceived fraudulence in
young adults: Is there an’Imposter syndrome’?Journal of
Personality Assessment, 56(2), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa5602_10.
Kuhlmann, T., Dantlgraber, M., & Reips, U.-D. (2017). Investigating
measurement equivalence of visual analogue scales and Likert-
type scales in internet-based personality questionnaires. Behavior
Research Methods, 49(6), 2173–2181. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13428-016-0850-x.
Kumar, S., & Jagacinski, C. M. (2006). Imposters have goals too: The
imposter phenomenon and its relationship to achievement goal the-
ory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 147–157. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.014.
Leach, P. K., Nygaard, R. M., Chipman, J. G., Brunsvold, M. E., &
Marek, A. P. (2019). Impostor phenomenon and burnout in general
surgeons and general surgery residents. Journal of Surgical
Education, 76(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.
025.
Leary, M. R., Patton, K. M., Orlando, A. E., & Wagoner Funk, W.
(2000). The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions, reflected ap-
praisals, and interpersonal strategies. JournalofPersonality,68(4),
725–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00114.
Leonhardt, M., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Rohrmann, S. (2017). All impostors
aren’talike–differentiating the impostor phenomenon. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1505.
Lester, D., & Moderski, T. (1995). The impostor phenomenon in adoles-
cents. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 466–466.https://doi.org/10.
2466/pr0.1995.76.2.466.
Mak, K. K. L., Kleitman, S., & Abbott, M. J. (2019). Impostor phenom-
enon measurement scales: A systematic review. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10,671.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00671.
Matthews, G., & Clance, P. R. (1985). Treatment of the impostor phe-
nomenon in psychotherapy clients. Psychotherapy in Private
Practice, 3(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1300/J294v03n01_09.
Parkman, A. (2016). The imposter phenomenon in higher education:
Incidence and impact. Journal of Higher Education Theory and
Practice, 16(1), 51.
Prince, T. J. (1989). The impostor phenomenon revisited: A validity study
of Clance’sIPScale(PhD Thesis). Georgia State University.
Rammstedt, B. (1997). Die deutsche Version des Big Five Inventory
(BFI): Übersetzung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur
Erfassung des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit
(Doctoral dissertation, publisher not determinable).
Rammstedt, B., & Danner, D. (2016). Die Facettenstruktur des big five
inventory (BFI): Validierung für die deutsche adaptation des BFI
[The facet structure of the big five inventory (BFI): Validation for
the German adaptation of the BFI]. Diagnostica, 63,70–84. https://
doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000161.
Reips, U.-D., & Funke, F.(2008). Interval-level measurement with visual
analogue scales in internet-based research: VASgenerator. Behavior
Research Methods, 40(3), 699–704.
Revelle, W., & Revelle, M. W. (2015). Package ‘psych’.The
ComprehensiveRArchiveNetwork.
Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, Beta, omega,
and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can
categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of
robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under
suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315.
Rogan, J. (2019). (Joe Rogan; Jamie Vernon) The Joe Rogan Experience.
In JRE #1365 - CAMERON HANES. Abgerufen von http://podcasts.
joerogan.net/podcasts/cameron-hanes-9
Rohrmann, S., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Leonhardt, M. (2016). Validation of
the impostor phenomenon among managers. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00821.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self- image. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Ross, S. R., Stewart, J., Mugge, M., & Fultz, B. (2001). The imposter
phenomenon, achievement dispositions, and the Five Factor
Model. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1347–1355.
Rosseel, Y., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Merkle,
E., Hallquist, M., Rhemtulla, M., Katsikatsou, M., & Barendse, M
[Mariska]. (2017). Package ‘lavaan’.
3926 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sakulku, J., & Alexander, J. (2011). The impostor phenomenon.
International Journal of Behavioral Science, 6,73–92.
Sanford, A. A., Ross, E. M. R. M., Blake, S. J., & Cambiano, R. L.
(2015). Finding courage and confirmation: Resisting impostor feel-
ings through relationships with mentors, romantic partners, and oth-
er women in leadership. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal,
35,31–41.
Schubert, N., & Bowker, A. (2017). Examining the impostor phenome-
non in relation to self-esteem level and self-esteem instability.
Current Psychology, 38(3), 749–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-017-9650-4.
Sightler, K. W., & Wilson, M. G. (2001). Correlates of the impostor
phenomenon among undergraduate entrepreneurs. Psychological
Reports, 88(3), 679–689. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2001.88.3.
679.
Simon, M., & Choi, Y.-J. (2018). Using factor analysis to validate the
Clance impostor phenomenon scale in sample of science, technolo-
gy, engineering and mathematics doctoral students. Personality and
Individual Differences, 121,173–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2017.09.039.
Thompson, T., Davis, H., & Davidson, J. (1998). Attributional and affec-
tive responses of impostors to academic success and failure out-
comes. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 381–396.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00065-8.
Thompson, T., Foreman, P., & Martin, F. (2000). Impostor fears and
perfectionistic concern over mistakes. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29(4), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(99)00218-4.
Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Feys, M., De Fruyt, F., & Anseel, F. (2015). Fear
of being exposed: The trait-relatedness of the impostor phenomenon
and its relevance in the work context. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30(3), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-
9382-5.
Von Collani, G., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). Zur internen Struktur des
globalen Selbstwertgefühls nach Rosenberg [On the Internal
Structure of Global Self-Esteem (Rosenberg)]. Zeitschrift für
Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 24(1), 9–22. https://
doi.org/10.1024//0170-1789.24.1.9.
Want, J., & Kleitman, S. (2006). Imposter phenomenon and self-
handicapping: Links with parenting styles and self-confidence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40(5), 961–971. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.005.
Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales –Five
misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of
Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1614-0001/a000148.
Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
3927Curr Psychol (2022) 41:3916–3927
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com