Introduction
Since its emergence in the late 1970s (Clance and Imes, 1978), the concept of impostor phenomenon (IP) is drawing increasing scientific interest and gaining popularity among the general public. It is characterized by an intense and secret psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud (e.g., Clance and Imes, 1978; Harvey and Katz, 1985). These unjustified feelings of phoniness in the face of success, known as impostor feelings, are accompanied by the fear of not being able to reproduce one’s performance and the fear of being discovered (Clance and Imes, 1978; Clance, 1985). IP seems to be a common experience, as Tewfik (2022) pointed out, “may unwittingly come from common work experiences such as a promotion in which one is suddenly expected to successfully execute unfamiliar responsibilities” (p. 992). Moreover, going through a major life transition or acquiring a new role, in a professional or a private context, can put individuals at risk of developing IP (Harvey, 1981; Fujie, 2010). IP can also be considered a vicious circle, where each repetition reinforces the dysfunctional beliefs and associated negative feelings (e.g., Clance and Imes, 1978; Clance, 1985; Chrisman et al., 1995). With the exception of rare positive accounts (Fruhan, 2002; McElwee and Yurak, 2010; Tewfik, 2022), the expression of the IP is considered to be very detrimental to health and wellbeing at work (e.g., Vergauwe et al., 2015) and, consequently, to the proper functioning of organizations (e.g., Kets de Vries, 2005). Addressing IP seems to be a significant lever of action for organizations wishing to promote good health at work, and employee fulfillment and performance. Yet, as revealed by the systematic review by Bravata et al. (2020), treatments for IP have been little studied to date. To fill this gap, this review examines interventions to address IP and proposes a benchmark for future contributions to this field of research.
To better understand its objectives, it is worth mentioning the broader context of current knowledge about IP. First of all, data on the prevalence of IP within the population vary widely, from 9% to 82%, depending on the psychometric instrument and cut-off score (Bravata et al., 2020). It is generally associated with a decrease in wellbeing and life satisfaction (Clance and O’Toole, 1987; September et al., 2001). Furthermore, IP can affect individuals’ psychological health in various ways (e.g., Bernard et al., 2002; Brauer and Wolf, 2016). Indeed, it predicts up to 15% of self-reported psychological distress (Oriel et al., 2004). The most frequently associated comorbidities are depression (e.g., Oriel et al., 2004; Leonhardt et al., 2017), anxiety (e.g., Bernard et al., 2002; Kananifar et al., 2015) low self-esteem (Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch, 2016), and somatic symptoms and social dysfunction (Kananifar et al., 2015). Moreover, IP is now considered by many experts to be a psychopathological reality (e.g., Chassangre, 2016) and some researchers have suggested that it should be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (Bravata et al., 2020).
Observational studies of IP in a work context have been carried out in various fields, such as academia (e.g., Clance and Imes, 1978; Byrnes and Lester, 1995), healthcare (e.g., Ares, 2018; LaDonna et al., 2018), marketing (e.g., Fried-Buchalter, 1997), and management (Rohrmann et al., 2016). In professional context, IP is generally associated with reduced job satisfaction (Vergauwe et al., 2015). Studies have demonstrated its link with stress (e.g., Rohrmann et al., 2016; Alrayyes et al., 2020), burn-out (e.g., Legassie et al., 2008; Vergauwe et al., 2015), and emotional exhaustion (Leach et al., 2019). Furthermore, IP is known to negatively affect work-life balance (Crawford et al., 2016) and it is positively related to workaholism (Mir and Kamal, 2018), suggesting that persons who experience IP are more likely to work harder and longer, in order to avoid their fear of failure. In addition, it can often become an obstacle to career progression and the motivation to take on a leadership role (Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch, 2016, 2017). It can also influence decisions about whether to continue in an educational program or a career (e.g., Clance and O’Toole, 1987; Blondeau and Awad, 2018). Moreover, IP is usually known to lead to maladaptive organizational behaviors (e.g., Bechtoldt, 2015; Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch, 2016). More recently, Tewfik (2022) has nuanced this observation by demonstrating that those who experience IP were evaluated as more interpersonally effective. What is more, this relational efficiency does not come at the expense of competence-related outcomes. IP is also known as a factor influencing absenteeism and turnover in companies (Kets de Vries, 2005). However, organizational functioning and managerial attitudes can mitigate the deleterious effects of IP (e.g., Bechtoldt, 2015; Crawford et al., 2016).
That being said, an important aspect of the theoretical background is the lack of conceptual clarity regarding IP and the persistent discussion over the nature of the construct. Beyond the lack of uniformity in the terms used to designate it (sometimes a phenomenon, a syndrome, impostorism, an experience, a feeling, thoughts, etc.), a lack of consensus remains on its consideration as a trait or a state (Gullifor et al., 2023) or on the dimensionality of the phenomenon (Mak et al., 2019). Indeed, IP was described by early authors as a cognitive, behavioral, and emotional dynamic (Clance, 1985), corresponding to a list of intrapersonal criteria (Clance, 1985; Harvey and Katz, 1985). If, for many years, it was perceived as a stable personality trait (e.g., Topping, 1983; Sonnak and Towell, 2001), it was later seen as an affective state that could manifest itself in certain situations (e.g., Leary et al., 2000; McElwee and Yurak, 2007); a psychological experience according to McElwee and Yurak (2010). Since then, this aspect of the discussion has not really been elucidated, as Gullifor et al. (2023) pointed out. In response to this issue, these authors proposed a trait–state conceptualization of IP. On the other hand, Mak et al. (2019), in a systematic review of IP measurement scales, identify that the lack of conceptual clarity around the dimensionality of the IP has limited the establishment of a gold standard measure.
Despite these critical gaps in the scientific literature, which are legitimately deplored by the authors of systematic reviews on the subject (Mak et al., 2019; Bravata et al., 2020; Gullifor et al., 2023), the field of research of the interventions addressing IP is, quite recently, expanding. According to recent perspectives (e.g., Kark et al., 2022), IP presents as a psycho-social issue that affects the psychological health, wellbeing, and careers of individuals. These findings justify a scoping review, to support both current intervention approaches and the development of future research in this field. A scoping review is particularly relevant to the topic of interventions addressing IP given that the subject is emergent and has not been extensively reviewed. Like systematic reviews, scoping reviews follow a rigorous, systematic literature search and identification process; however, they are more exploratory in nature (Colquhoun et al., 2014; Lockwood and Tricco, 2020).
Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to provide a more comprehensive overview of the research landscape, map the range of interventions that have been conducted to address IP among individuals experiencing it in a professional context, which is currently unavailable in the literature. In line with this objective, it addresses the following questions: (1) What types of studies and methodologies have been undertaken to explore interventions addressing IP expressed in occupational contexts? (2) What are the modalities and characteristics of these interventions? and (3) What are the effects of these interventions?
Discussion
The aim of this scoping review, which situates the contribution of 31 references, is to address three main questions arising from the literature on interventions for IP. The first concerns the types of studies and methodologies that currently exist regarding such interventions. The second focuses on the modalities and characteristics of these interventions, and the third concerns their effects. These three questions are discussed below, followed by the limitations of this review and future perspectives for this field of research.
Type of studies and methodologies
Most of the references included in this scoping review are articles in peer-reviewed journals. However, not all present a scientific investigative approach. Those supported by a scientific research design are from after 2018, and used various methodologies. A majority proposed a quantitative design (e.g., Danhauer et al., 2019), while others relied on mixed or purely qualitative data (e.g., Haney et al., 2018). Research design robustness varied across studies: some presented randomized controlled trials (e.g., Fainstad et al., 2022) while others adopted exploratory approaches (e.g., Magro, 2022). Sample sizes also varied, ranging from individual case (e.g., DeCandia Vitoria, 2021) to studies including over a thousand participants (e.g., Mann et al., 2023).
That said, many of the interventions cited were conducted without the aid of a scientific research design. For example, some articles described professional experiments (e.g., Clance and Imes, 1978). Such interventions cannot be considered as evidence-based practices and are more exploratory in nature. However, the methodological recommendations for scoping reviews, unlike systematic reviews, make it possible to include these publications. In addition to the recent developments identified in this scoping review, this may also explain some of the differences found with the most recent published systematic reviews on IP (Bravata et al., 2020; Gullifor et al., 2023). Thus, it is appropriate to be cautious when extracting the best practices from this literature to guide the development of future interventions.
Modalities and characteristics of interventions
Before discussing the intervention characteristics, it is important to note that most authors agreed on a common definition of IP, one that is consistent with its original conceptualization (e.g., Clance and Imes, 1978; Clance, 1985). Indeed, the definition of IP is not discussed in most of the studies selected, despite the persistent lack of conceptual clarity relating to IP. This observation echoes that of Gullifor et al. (2023) when challenging “the implicit assumption that the conceptualization of IP is thoroughly and soundly developed” (p. 2).
In fact, according to the authors, IP manifests on several levels: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. Many interventions, whether psychotherapeutic or non-psychotherapeutic, take a CBT-inspired approach to address IP (e.g., Clance, 1985; Chassangre and Callahan, 2017; Gold et al., 2019). In particular, Chassangre and Callahan’s (2015a) interventions draw on intervention techniques described by Clance (1985) (e.g., Attribution Diary, Downward Arrow Technique, etc.), to influence the dynamics of the impostor cycle. Baumann et al. (2020) also point to the influence of CBT in their approach to IP discussion groups. However, interventions based on other conceptual frameworks, such as positive psychology (Fainstad et al., 2022; Mann et al., 2023), narrative therapy and interpersonal biology (DeCandia Vitoria, 2021) or Gestalt (Clance and Imes, 1978), offer another perspective on the beliefs underlying IP (e.g., representations of success, professional skills, beliefs about one’s own abilities, etc.). They also suggest behavioral coping strategies, such as techniques to prevent procrastination (e.g., Metz et al., 2020).
Furthermore, pioneering authors (Clance and Imes, 1978; Clance, 1985; Clance et al., 1995) considered IP to be a psycho-social and interpersonal problem. They emphasized the influence of social norms and stereotypes on the emergence of feelings of imposture, particularly among women. For this reason, Clance et al. (1995) proposed a group therapy approach aimed at overcoming the intrapsychic and sociocultural determinants that can lead to the development and maintenance of impostor feelings. IP continues to be viewed as partly a social and collective phenomenon rather than a strictly individual issue in some recent research (e.g., Haney et al., 2018; Baumann et al., 2020; Popovic, 2020; Arleo et al., 2021). Many interventions thus account for the role played by the social dimension of the work environment (e.g., Danhauer et al., 2019; Gold et al., 2019; Deshmukh et al., 2022) and aim to break the sense of isolation associated with IP. Although some authors opt for an individual approach (e.g., Harte and McGlade, 2018; Metz et al., 2020; DeCandia Vitoria, 2021); according to Steinberg (1987), Parkman and Beard (2008), and Armstrong and Shulman (2019), IP is systemic in nature and therefore needs to be addressed at the organizational or social level. It may therefore be relevant to address it within educational programs, integration strategies, and human resource management policies. This is consistent with recent theoretical developments on IP at work, which suggests that it may emerge from the social context (e.g., Kark et al., 2022).
Finally, it should be noted that two main intervention modalities appear: those based on discussion and counseling, and those focused on training. Most approaches incorporate a psycho-educational component, either provided by the facilitator (e.g., Haney et al., 2018; Ogunyemi et al., 2022), or through suggested readings (Matthews and Clance, 1985; Steinberg, 1987). Role-playing is a technique frequently mentioned in this context and can encourage the expression of feelings as well as regulation of IP manifestations (e.g., Ramsey and Spencer, 2019; Deshmukh et al., 2022).
Following these observations, intervention methods such as training or counseling seem to be the most popular, as are group-based interventions. The transmission of IP-related knowledge emerges as a trend to be retained as a good practice for interventions. Futures research should also clarify the conceptualization they adopt regarding IP.
Effects of interventions
As mentioned above, the impact of the interventions described differs according to the type of intervention and design used. In this section, the effects reported by interventions based on counseling and training, as well as the effects of more specific intervention modalities (e.g., role-playing), are discussed separately.
Among interventions based on counseling, coaching is repeatedly presented as being effective, as are peer exchange and support groups (e.g., Harte and McGlade, 2018; Baumann et al., 2020; Mann et al., 2023). These interventions seem to promote openness and awareness. They also encourage effort at the level of mentalization, as much as the concrete implementation of coping strategies (e.g., Harte and McGlade, 2018; Magro, 2022). Furthermore, in a group context, the impact of the facilitator’s counseling with participants seems to be amplified by the relationships among the participants themselves (e.g., Steinberg, 1987; Baumann et al., 2020; Fainstad et al., 2022). More specifically, this type of intervention can foster connection and a sense of social belonging (Gold et al., 2019).
Training-based interventions are relevant for knowledge transmission. Several studies have shown a post-intervention increase in IP-related knowledge (e.g., Deshmukh et al., 2022; Ogunyemi et al., 2022). In addition, training can promote a decrease in IP (e.g., Metz et al., 2020), as well as positive feelings of liberation, empowerment, and connection with the peer group (e.g., Haney et al., 2018; Gold et al., 2019).
That said, when comparing coaching and training, the study by Zanchetta et al. (2020) is particularly interesting. According to these authors, coaching operates on multiple levels and produces a significant and lasting reduction in IP issues. However, training remains a more favorable approach for acquiring knowledge associated with IP. In the absence of studies comparing the different approaches, it is difficult to definitively establish the superiority of individual coaching over other modalities of intervention (i.e., training, support groups, etc.).
Future research could build on the promising approaches that counseling interventions seem to offer, by incorporating a psychoeducational component. Additionally, it appears that the group intervention modality seems appropriate for breaking the isolation related to IP. Although the current state of the literature provides interesting insights into the effectiveness of interventions, but it still needs to be enriched. It appears that mixed-method study designs, incorporating both quantitative measures and the analysis of qualitative data, would allow for an understanding of both if and how the interventions are useful and effective.
Limitations and futures research directions
This study has certain limitations that should be mentioned. A first limitation stems from the nature of the references included. Indeed, almost half do not present any research design. Consequently, the generalizability of their findings is extremely limited. Moreover, many studies that use a research design are exploratory and very few adopt a true experimental design. Most often, approaches to assessing the effects of intervention on IP are insufficiently robust. For example, some studies do not measure IP directly (e.g., Danhauer et al., 2019), others have no post-intervention measurement (e.g., Deshmukh et al., 2022), or assess intervention quality exclusively via self-reported satisfaction (e.g., Baumann et al., 2020). It is therefore difficult to generalize findings about the effects of these interventions on IP.
A second limitation arises from incomplete information regarding the characteristics and modalities of the interventions. Indeed, several studies offer a limited description of the design and implementation of the intervention for the IP. Aspects such as an overview of intervention content, duration, context, intervention mode and nature of interactions are not systematically reported by the authors (e.g., Clance and Imes, 1978; Baumann et al., 2020; DeCandia Vitoria, 2021). Details about the characteristics of these interventions are often lacking, even when they are essential.
A third limitation concerns the heterogeneity of the references collected and the interventions described, which constitutes an obstacle to comparing these interventions. For example, it would be inappropriate to compare the findings of an exploratory study (Harte and McGlade, 2018) with those of a randomized controlled trial (Mann et al., 2023). Similarly, it would not be reasonable to compare an intervention carried out over a period of 1 h (Deshmukh et al., 2022) with one carried out over a period of 1 day (Haney et al., 2018) or several months (Zanchetta et al., 2020). Thus, while most interventions on IP have recognizable positive effects, it remains difficult to establish precise criteria when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of interventions on IP.
A fourth limitation regards the student population samples used in many studies included in this scoping review. Although we have restricted the eligible population to students in internship situations or already working in a professional environment, it is legitimate to wonder whether this “in-between” situation raises the same issues as those encountered in a strictly professional environment. In order to truly understand and address the organizational issues associated with IP, it would be important for future research to investigate a professional audience, at the very heart of the activity.
While this scoping review cannot pinpoint the ideal intervention for all the reasons mentioned above, it nonetheless identifies certain favorable trends for effectively intervening on IP. For example, bidirectional approaches, which promote exchange and openness, have particularly favorable impact on IP. Moreover, it is essential to consider different modes of IP expression and psychoeducation when developing an intervention. That said, it would also be relevant to promote reflective work on the causes of IP (psycho-social, educational, systemic origins, etc.), as well as the role of the social environment in reinforcing the beliefs and patterns associated with it. Finally, this scoping review highlights the fact that group support (as opposed to individual intervention) appears advantageous. However, customizing the intervention should be considered, to allow participants to develop a better sense of self. Developing individuals’ psychological resources by promoting self-knowledge also seems a particularly relevant research focus. According to Gullifor et al. (2023), the impostor phenomenon may emerge from an incongruence between one’s own self-concept and other self-concept. Therefore, any research perspective aimed at developing a more accurate vision of oneself is interesting. These avenues could be explored not only in future research, but also by those working with people reporting IP in an organizational context.
In summary, future research should respond to a dual contextual challenge: a gap to be bridged between the small number of scientific studies and the abundant lay literature on IP; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding IP. From this perspective, future research should use more rigorous methodology in terms of variable measurement (e.g., systematic pre- and post-intervention measurements of the variables studied) and ensure that robust research designs are used (e.g., experimental or quasi-experimental designs). It may also be relevant to investigate the psychological processes involved in the development of IP in order to intervene on them. Regarding the framework and design of interventions, future studies could integrate a psychosocial understanding of the phenomenon into the aspects described above. This would distinguish them from the lay literature, build on advice and recommendations associated with purely individual strategies.