There is increasing interest in social emotional factors related to learning for STEM graduate students. Furthermore, graduate students report growing levels of a sense of imposterism and other socio-emotional issues as a result of the COVID pandemic (Kee, 2021). Research has shown that socio-emotional well-being is associated with retention and academic achievement (Conley, 2015). Along with anxiety and stress that have been reported by graduate students, students also report experiencing imposter phenomenon (IP). IP has been described as feelings of incompetence or fraudulence and IP has been reported for both undergraduate and graduate students (Clance & Imes, 1978; Mak et al., 2019). Students experiencing IP report a fear of failure, associate achievement with luck, and these students tend to experience self-pressure, anxiety, and stress (Clance, 1985; Cozzarelli & Major, 1990). IP has not been well theorized, particularly for STEM fields, and there is limited research that examines the underlying factors. Here we examine imposterism within an expectancy value theory framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Expectancy value theory considers an individual’s perceptions of social roles, activities, socializer’s beliefs, and prior experiences as factors that contribute to academic choices and career goals. These factors according to expectancy value theory influence self-schemata that includes identity and self-efficacy (Author). Here IP and expectancy value theory factors are examined to gain insight into graduate students’ perceptions of competence for STEM research.

Research Questions

What is the relationship between students’ reported perceptions of imposterism and

1) overall prior experiences in STEM?

2) experiences knowing people in STEM?

3) prior experiences participating in STEM-related experiences?

4) perceptions of socializers’ beliefs for them as STEM researchers?

5) expectation for success beliefs for STEM research?

Methodology This study was conducted with doctoral students located at six, large research universities located throughout the United States. Students were contacted by email and asked to participate in a study of doctoral students’ experiences and beliefs. All of the students who volunteered to participate were included in the study. Participants. There were 30 males and 25 females; 18 majority (White) and 36 minority (non-White) participants. Students indicated their academic disciplines and there were 36 engineering students, 15 science students, and 3 did not indicate a discipline. Survey. The survey was designed to measure imposter phenomenon, expectancy value factors, and science capital variables. The survey included 6 imposter phenomenon items that asked questions such as “Sometimes I am afraid I will be discovered for who I really am.” Three items were from the Clance and Imes (1978) scale (see Chrisman, et al., 1995 for validation information). Two items were from the Harvey (1981) scale (see Hellman, & Caselman, 2004 for validation information). One item was from the Leary et al., 2000 scale. Other items measuring expectancy value factors were adapted from the validated NextGen Scientists Survey (Author). The final survey was piloted with four STEM doctoral students and modified for format and timing. The final survey included 42 items and was delivered through a survey online platform. The survey asked about these factors: Imposterism and Experiences Knowing People in STEM (growing up did they know people who worked in STEM careers, know someone with a Ph.D, or know anyone who was a researcher.); Imposterism and STEM-Related activities (visited a museum, aquarium, or zoo, took nature walks, talked about science with their family, or engaged in science-related hobbies.); Imposterism and Socializers’ Beliefs (family saw them as a researcher, family supported their efforts to complete this degree, and friends saw them as a researcher.); Imposterism and Expectation for Success (if they thought they were good in science, and other items such as asking if they were good at using tools and equipment in science, or if they felt like they could talk to others about science). Analyses. A Pearson correlation was used to examine relationships between imposterism and the expectancy value scores (experiences (overall), experiences knowing people in STEM, experiences in STEM-related activities, socializers’ beliefs, and expectations for success. A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons resulted in setting a significant p-value at the 0.01 level.

Results Overall Expectancy Value Results. The analyses showed that there were no significant correlations between perceived imposterism and students’ reported overall prior STEM experiences, composed of the sub-constructs of knowing people in STEM and experiences in STEM-related activities, as well as the factor of socializer's beliefs. However, there was a significant, negative correlation reported for expectation for success and imposterism (R=-422; p<.001). Imposterism and Experiences Knowing People in STEM. There was no significant correlation (r = -.245, n = 55, p = 0.071) between students’ perceptions of imposterism and their reported experiences knowing people in STEM. Imposterism and STEM-Related activities. There was no significant correlation (r = .056, n = 55, p = 0.692) between having had STEM-related experiences and reporting experiencing imposterism. Imposterism and Socializers’ Beliefs. There was no significant correlation (r = -.228, n = 55, p = 0.094) between socializers’ beliefs and reported imposterism. Imposterism and Expectation for Success. Perceptions of imposterism was negatively correlated (r = -.422, n = 55, p = 0.001) with expectation for success (including self-efficacy). The results of this paper suggest for the specific STEM graduate students in this study, perceptions of imposterism are more closely related to their expectations of success for themselves in their doctoral work than to their prior experiences or their knowledge of people in STEM during childhood. This finding suggests that access to science capital growing up (experiences, access to materials, access to people) may not strongly shape self-efficacy and expectations for success. Instead, these psychological constructs are likely dependent on other constructs not measured in the current study. These results highlight questions about what educators can do to enhance an individual’s expectation for success.This study suggests new questions about how expectancy value theory relates to aspects of imposter phenomenon and pushes educators to move beyond measuring imposter phenomenon to considering underlying factors.

Author Chrisman, S. M., Pieper, W. A., Clance, P. R., Holland, C. L., & Glickauf-Hughes, C. (1995). Validation of the Clance imposter phenomenon scale. Journal of personality assessment, 65(3), 456-467. Clance, P. R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon. Atlanta: Peachtree. 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. Conley, S.C. (2015). SEL in Higher Education. In Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Weissberg, R.P., Gullotta, T.P., & Comer, J. (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 197-212). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cozzarelli, C., & Major, B. (1990). Exploring the validity of the impostor phenomenon. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 401-417. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859 Hellman, C. M., & Caselman, T. D. (2004). A psychometric evaluation of the Harvey Imposter Phenomenon Scale. Journal of personality assessment, 83(2), 161-166. Kee, C. E. (2021). The impact of COVID-19: Graduate students’ emotional and psychological experiences. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 31(1-4), 476-488. Mak, K. K., Kleitman, S., & Abbott, M. J. (2019). Imposter phenomenon measurement scales: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 671. Leary, M. R., Patton, K. M., Orlando, A. E., & Funk, W. (2000). The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions, reflected appraisals, and interpersonal strategies. Journal of Personality, 68, 725-756.