Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The impostor phenomenon refers to an experience whereby individuals believe that others overestimate their abilities, prompting fears of being exposed as impostors. Research has predominantly conceptualized impostorism as a trait-based phenomenon and focused on examining individual-level predictors. This offers a limited understanding of how organizational contexts fuel impostorism. To address this gap, we examine the role of organizations’ work climates in eliciting employees’ impostorism. Across six studies, using experimental, single- and multi-waved survey methods (N = 1,288) we demonstrate that when an organization’s work climate emphasizes competition, employees’ impostorism increases. We further show that this effect is partly explained by employees’ tendency to compare themselves to higher-performing colleagues in such competitive work climates. These findings have important implications for how we conceptualize and understand the impostor phenomenon—suggesting it is a feature not just of particular individuals, but of particular work climates.

Keywords

impostor phenomenon impostor syndrome impostorism competitive work climate cooperative work climate competition upward social comparisons

Many employees struggle with the conviction that they are impostors—believing that others overestimate their competence, and therefore worry that they will be exposed as frauds. This so-called impostor phenomenon (Clance & Imes, 1978), also known as impostor syndrome or impostorism, emerges in a wide range of occupations and ranks (Bravata et al., 2019) and has detrimental consequences for individuals’ mental health (e.g., McGregor et al., 2008; Sonnak & Towell, 2001) and career success (e.g., Hudson & González-Gómez, 2021; Neureiter & Traut-Mattausch, 2016). Moreover, given that this phenomenon is commonly associated with women and minoritized ethnic groups (Cokley et al., 2024; Price et al., 2024), it is considered a potential threat to workplace diversity (Chrousos & Mentis, 2020).

Despite these negative consequences and increased attention toward the phenomenon in recent decades (Kark et al., 2021; Tewfik et al., 2025), our understanding of what causes impostorism remains constrained by theory and research primarily conceptualizing the phenomenon as a stable trait that individuals bring to the workplace (Harvey, 1981; Vergauwe et al., 2014) instead of a state triggered by the organizational context in which individuals are working (Feenstra et al., 2020; Gullifor et al., 2023). This long-standing trait-based approach to the impostor phenomenon has primarily focused on identifying individual-level predictors, such as perfectionistic tendencies (Dudău, 2014) and personality traits (Bernard et al., 2002).

By comparison, there is far less empirical research examining whether and how organizational contexts fuel impostorism. However, initial findings indicate that these contextual factors can play a crucial role (Muradoglu et al., 2022). Feenstra et al. (2022), for instance, found that women’s negative work experiences, such as gender discrimination and lack of mentoring, are associated with increased impostorism. Moreover, Vial et al. (2022) demonstrated that high masculinity-contest cultures (MCCs)—characterized by norms of showing no weakness, prioritizing work above all else, and viewing others’ losses as personal gains—elicit greater impostorism.

Here we build on these findings by examining whether an organization’s motivational work climate—specifically, one that emphasizes competition among employees—is more likely to induce impostorism. We also extend previous work by testing a key psychological mechanism underlying this relationship, to better understand why competitive work climates elicit impostorism. We propose that competitive work climates prompt employees to engage in more upward (self-threatening) social comparisons (Garcia et al., 2013; Muller & Fayant, 2010). These comparisons, we argue, in turn, increase the fear of not being able to live up to others’ expectations, thereby directly fueling impostorism. By illustrating the role of upward social comparisons as a key mechanism, our work not only deepens the understanding of how organizational climates shape impostorism but also shifts the focus from solely identifying the environments that fuel impostorism, to explaining the processes through which these environments influence impostorism.

Competitive Work Climates and the Impostor Phenomenon

Building on achievement goal theory (AGT; Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1989), we consider the role of motivational work climates in shaping the impostor phenomenon. AGT states that a motivational work climate (i.e., the perceived achievement criteria for success and failure in a particular workplace; Nerstad et al., 2013), signals to employees what is valued and expected in that working environment, with important implications for work-related attitudes, motivation and behavior (Carr et al., 2003; Parker et al., 2003).

According to AGT, a motivational climate emphasizes one of two potential approaches to fostering employee motivation. On one hand, an organization can focus on cooperation in an attempt to motivate its employees, by emphasizing learning, mastery, and skill development (a.k.a. mastery climates; Ames, 1992). On the other hand, a company can rely on competition as a basis for motivating employee performance, by focusing on intra-team competition (a.k.a. performance climates; Ames & Archer, 1988; Nerstad et al., 2013). We propose that such competitive (but not cooperative) work climates are likely to evoke impostorism among employees.

This argument is rooted in evidence that individuals in competitive work climates focus on outperforming their co-workers (Malhotra, 2010; Yip et al., 2018) and the highest-achieving employees are publicly recognized for their competence (Roberts et al., 2007). We argue that such a focus on outperforming one’s colleagues and social exposure enhances impostorism, as it heightens the fear that one’s failures will be publicly displayed, and others will discover one’s lack of ability (Hudson & González-Gómez, 2021)

While an empirical understanding of whether and how competitive work climates shape impostorism is limited, initial empirical evidence suggests a link between competition and impostorism. Canning and colleagues (2020), for instance, found that perceived classroom competition predicted greater impostorism among students. Similarly, Vial et al. (2022) demonstrated that MCCs elicit impostorism. Notably, while MCCs conceptually include multiple cultural components—including showing no weakness, putting work above all else, and viewing others’ losses as personal gains—collectively these components reflect, at least in part, certain features that parallel competitive work climates. These findings thus suggest that competitive work climates may elicit greater imposterism. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): More competitive work climates increase impostorism among employees.

The Mediating Role of Social Comparisons

We further aim to understand why competitive work climates increase impostorism. We propose that competitive work climates increase impostorism in part because of how they shape employees’ social comparison tendencies. Specifically, we argue that competitive work climates prompt more frequent, self-threatening, upward, social comparisons as employees are encouraged, and even pressured, to focus on outperforming their colleagues (Brown et al., 1998; Garcia et al., 2013; Muller & Fayant, 2010). In fact, such competitive working climates have previously been characterized as “situations of forced comparison” (Ames & Ames, 1984, p. 537).

Research suggests that competition is especially likely to elicit upward social comparisons (a.k.a. “upward drive”; Festinger, 1954), because people are expected and pressured to compare themselves to others who are doing better than themselves to obtain a competitive advantage over them (Černe et al., 2014; Garcia et al., 2013). Tesser’s (1988) self-evaluation maintenance model, in turn, indicates that such upward comparisons (with self-relevant others, such as one’s colleagues) is threatening for individuals’ self-image and self-worth (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999; Tesser et al., 1988). In fact, in work settings upward social comparisons tend to often result in contrast (“that person is not like me”) instead of assimilation (i.e., that person could be me; Brown et al., 2007).

Together, this suggests that competitive work climates prompt employees to more frequently engage in self-threatening—or contrast-based—upward social comparisons, and that these comparisons, in turn, make employees question their abilities and worth (Buunk et al., 2001; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999; Treasure & Robert, 2001). In this way, competitive work environments may elicit greater impostorism via more frequent upward social comparisons. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The relationship between competitive work climate and impostorism is mediated by upward social comparisons, such that employees in more competitive work climates more frequently engage in upward social comparisons, which in turn increases impostorism.

Transparency and Openness

We tested our predictions across six studies. We report all studies, measures, manipulations, data/participant exclusions (if any), and how we determined sample sizes. All data, analysis code, and research materials are available at: https://osf.io/3v928/?view_only=bb8a7c886c80449aa70aa39f1a2972ea. Studies 1a, 2 and 3 were not preregistered. Preregistration for Study 1b, 4, and 5 are available at: https://osf.io/udyx5?view_only=d49e7470459e4b8e9a008d32484cf3e2 and https://osf.io/d5rhm?view_only=d49e7470459e4b8e9a008d32484cf3e2 and https://osf.io/sn9b3/?view_only=a5de93fca4634616939efd8b9dae0c12.

Studies 1a and 1b

In Studies 1a and 1b, we examined the association between competitive work climates and impostorism in organizational field settings. In Study 1a, we also examined whether only a working climate focused on competition, not cooperation, predicts greater impostorism. To address the issue of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), in Study 1b, we measured our key constructs at different time periods in a two-waved survey.

Method

Procedure and Participants

An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated we required 191 participants to detect a small to medium effect of .02 with α = .05 and power = .80. In Study 1a, we recruited 161 adults working in organizations via email and social media. After exclusions (n = 24; failed attention checks) there were 137 participants (M_age = 29.12, SD = 7.39; 51% female). Most worked in the computing/IT (31%), business, consultancy, & management (12%), or the industrial sector (12%) and were located in The Netherlands (52%) and United Kingdom (24%).

For Study 1b, we recruited UK-based working adults via Prolific Academic. Of the 186 participants who completed the first survey (included measures of competitive work climate and control variables), 167 participated in the second survey (included measure of impostorism) 1 week later. After exclusions (n = 12; failed attention checks or duplicate submission at Time 1) there were 155 participants (M_age = 36.27, SD = 9.31; 50% female) for analyses. Most participants worked in education and training (13.5%), information technology (12.3%), or government & public administration (11.6%).

Measures

All key measures were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

Competitive Work Climate

It was measured with eight-items from Nerstad et al. (2013; Study 1a/b, α≥ .83; from the performance climate dimension of the motivational climate scale; e.g., In my organization rivalry between employees is encouraged).

Cooperative Work Climate

It was measured (in Study 1a) with eight-items from Nerstad et al. (2013; α = .83; from the mastery climate dimension of the motivational climate scale; e.g., In my organization cooperation and mutual exchange of knowledge are encouraged).

Impostorism

It was measured with 7 items from the impostorism scale (Leary et al., 2000; Study 1a/b, α≥ .92; e.g., I’m afraid that people in my organization will discover how much knowledge or ability I really lack).

Control Variables

We considered participants’ age, gender, educational level, tenure in their position, and trait competitiveness (Houston et al., 2002; Study 1a/b, α≥ .90), as covariates in the main analysis as previous research has shown they are related to impostorism (Bravata et al., 2019; Muradoglu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).

Results

Table 1 and 2 reports descriptive statistics. As expected, regression analyses revealed that a competitive climate was positively associated with impostorism, both in Study 1a (B = .63, SE = .14, p < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.36, .90]) and 1b (B = .32, SE = .14, p = .02, 95% CI [.05, .58]). In Study 1a, a cooperative climate was not associated with impostorism (B = .13, SE = .14, p = .34, 95% CI [−.14, .40]). Conducting these analyses with control variables did not meaningfully change the results and neither trait competitiveness, gender, nor organizational tenure moderated this relationship (See Tables S1–8 of Supplementary Materials [SM]).

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables for Study 1a

Variable name	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender	.54	.53	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2. Age	29.12	7.39	−.05	—	—	—	—	—	—
3. Educational level	5.42	.73	−.04	−.11	—	—	—	—	—
4. Position tenure	1.74	1.23	−.06	.50***	−.01	—	—	—	—
5. Trait competitiveness	4.10	1.08	−.39***	−.03	.18*	.03	—	—	—
6. Cooperative work climate	5.68	.94	−.07	−.15	−.01	−.11	.11	—	—
7. Competitive work climate	3.11	1.08	−.15	−.04	−.02	.13	.05	−.37***	—
8. Impostorism	3.05	1.61	.17	−.19*	−.03	−.14	−.22**	−.06	.37***

Note. N = 135-137. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female. For position tenure, 1 = < a year, 2 = 1 to 2 years, 3 = 2 to 4 years, 4 = 4 to 6 years, 5 = 6 to 8 years, 6 = 8 to 10 years, 7 = > 10 years. For educational level, 1 = no formal education, 2 = primary, 3 = secondary, 4 = associate/college, 5 = bachelor, 6 = master, 7 = PhD.

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

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables for Study 1b

Variable name	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Gender	.51	.51	—	—	—	—	—	—
2. Age	36.27	9.31	−.03	—	—	—	—	—
3. Educational level	3.79	1.00	.06	−.12	—	—	—	—
4. Organizational tenure	6.44	6.47	−.05	.60***	−.23**	—	—	—
5. Trait competitiveness (Wave 1)	3.93	1.18	−.29***	−.08	.07	.01	—	—
6. Competitive work climate (Wave 1)	3.34	1.28	−.14	−.00	−.17*	−.08	.10	—
7. Impostorism (Wave 2)	3.38	1.68	.08	−.20*	.17*	−.27**	−.24**	.19*

Note. N = 155. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female. For educational level, 0 = no formal education, 1 = primary, 2 = secondary, 3 = associate/college, 4 = bachelor, 5 = master, 6 = PhD.

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

Discussion

Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that a work climate focused on competition (but not cooperation) is associated with increased impostorism. We found no evidence that individuals’ trait competitiveness, gender, or tenure moderated this relationship. Although the two-wave survey design adopted in Study 1b reduced some concern regarding common method bias, we can still not argue for causality. Therefore, in Study 2, we adopted an experimental design.

Study 2

Method

Participants and Procedure

An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated we required 204 participants to detect a small to medium effect (d = .35) with α = .05 and power = .80. We recruited 240 UK-based working adults via Prolific Academic.¹ After exclusions (n = 24; failed attention checks and/or comprehension check), there were 216 participants for analyses (M_age = 36.84, SD = 11.95; 51% female). We randomly assigned participants to a description of an organization with a competitive versus non-competitive working climate and then measured impostorism.

Manipulation and Measures

Unless indicated otherwise, items were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

Work Climate (Competitive vs. Non-competitive)

It was manipulated via two videos, based on scenarios from Wisse and colleagues (2019; see SM for video links). In the (non-) competitive work climate condition, the video asked participants to imagine that they worked in a (not) very competitive climate, where (most employees) only the top achievers get rewarded and promoted and are often singled out as heroic examples of excellent performance and where internal competition among employees is (discouraged) encouraged, and there is (no) substantial competitive rivalry among employees at all levels.

Impostorism

Was measured using six items (Leary et al., 2000; α = .96), modified to fit the experimental design.

Comprehension and Manipulation Check

To ensure attentiveness to the video, we asked participants what types of tasks they worked on in the workplace situation. Analyses included those who correctly indicated working on knowledge tasks. As a manipulation check, participants completed the same measure of competitive work climate used in Study 1a/b (alongside a cooperative work climate measure; see SM for details).

Control Variables

We again considered participants’ age, gender, educational level, and trait competitiveness (α = .91), as covariates in the main analysis.

Results

Table 3 provides means and mean differences by condition. As expected, participants in the competitive work climate condition perceived higher levels of competition than participants in the non-competitive condition, t(214) = −28.16, p < .001, d = −3.84. Moreover, participants in the competitive work climate condition reported higher levels of impostorism than participants in the non-competitive condition, t(214) = −5.28, p < .001, d = −.72. Conducting these analyses with control variables did not meaningfully change the results and neither trait competitiveness nor gender moderated the relationship (see SM, Tables S9–11).

Table 3

Means (Standard Deviations) per Condition, Study 2.

Variable name	Condition, Competitive work climate	Condition, Non-competitive work climate	M difference	p	95% CI	d
Manipulation Check
Level of Perc. Competition	6.18 (.90)	2.17 (1.19)	4.02	< .001	3.74, 4.30	−3.84
DV
Impostorism	3.65 (1.53)	2.65 (1.22)	1.00	< .001	.63, 1.38	−.72
Additional Variables
Cooperative work climate	3.65 (1.16)	5.20 (.91)	−1.55	< .001	−1.84, –1.28	1.48
Trait competitiveness	3.63 (1.10)	3.57 (1.07)	.06	.87	−.23, .35	−.06

Note. N = 216. Results from independent-samples t-tests. CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

Study 2 complemented Studies 1a/b by demonstrating the causal, adverse effects of a competitive work climate on employees’ impostorism, Again, we found no evidence that individuals’ trait competitiveness or gender moderated this relationship. Studies 3 to 5 extend these findings by examining the mediating role of upward social comparisons.

Study 3

Method

Participants and Procedure

An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated we required 125 participants to detect a small to medium effect (f ² = .10) with α = .05 and power = .80. Our sample consisted of 209 psychology students who voluntarily completed a survey about their experience working in a team for a consultancy company as part of a university course (participants were provided with a consultancy case and asked to develop and present advice). We administered the survey after their first meeting. The majority of participants were Dutch (58%; 79% women; M_age = 21.22, SD = 3.30; see SM for additional information).

Measures

Unless indicated otherwise, items were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

Competitive Work Climate

The competitive work climate within their team was measured with three-items from Nerstad et al., (2013; α = .64).

Cooperative Work Climate

The cooperative work climate within their team was measured with three-items from Nerstad et al., (2013; α = .79).

Impostorism

It was measured with three-items from Leary et al. (2000; α = .87).

Social Comparisons

The social comparisons were measured following Buunk and colleagues (2005). We measured frequency of upward comparisons with the item “How often did you compare yourself to group members who were performing better than you?” and downward comparisons with the item “How often did you compare yourself to group members who were performing worse than you?” on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (often).

Control Variables

We considered participants’ age and gender as covariates in the main analysis.

Results

Table 4 reports descriptive statistics. We tested our hypotheses using PROCESS Model 4 in SPSS (Hayes, 2012), with 10,000 resamples (see Figure 1). As expected, results revealed that a competitive working climate was positively associated with making upward social comparisons (B = .19, SE = .08, p = .01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.04, .34]) and that upward social comparisons, in turn, were positively associated with impostorism (B = .73, SE = .07, p < .001, 95% CI [.60, .86]); indirect effect: .14, SE = .07, 95% CI [.01, .27]; when accounting for upward social comparisons, the direct effect in mediation model was no longer significant: −.10, SE = .07, p = . 15, 95% CI [−.25, .04]).

Table 4

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables for Study 3

Variable name	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Gender	.82	.38	—	—	—	—	—	—
2. Age	21.22	3.30	−.13	—	—	—	—	—
3. Competitive work climate	2.58	1.00	−.01	.11	—	—	—	—
4. Cooperative work climate	5.68	.82	.01	.07	−.18**	—	—	—
5. Upward social comparisons	2.18	1.10	.16*	−.08	.17*	−.30**	—	—
6. Downward social comparisons	1.82	.93	.06	.04	.10	−.42**	.44**	—
7. Impostorism	2.22	1.30	.11	−.11	.03	−.30**	.61**	.15*

Note. N ranges from 197 to 209. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p <.001. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female.

Figure 1

Results of the Mediation Analysis of Upward Social Comparison in the Relationship Between Competitive Work Climate and Impostorism for Study 4

We note that conducting these analyses with control variables did not meaningfully change the results and gender did not moderate the indirect effect (see SM, Tables S12–13). As a robustness check, we also simultaneously examined downward social comparisons (using PROCESS Model 4) and found that while downward social comparisons were positively associated with impostorism, they did not mediate the relationship between a competitive working climate and impostorism (see SM, Table S14). Furthermore, we found that perceptions of a cooperative climate were negatively associated with making upward social comparisons, and observed a negative indirect effect (see SM, Table S15).

Discussion

Study 3 provided initial evidence for the mediating role of upward social comparisons in explaining the link between a competitive work climate and impostorism. Similar to previous studies, a cooperative climate was not a significant predictor of impostorism, and downward social comparisons did not mediate the relationship between a competitive work climate and impostorism. Studies 4 and 5 extend this evidence by demonstrating causality by manipulating a competitive work climate and upward social comparison, respectively.

Study 4

Method

Participants and Procedure

An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated we required 204 participants to detect a small to medium effect (d = .35) with α = .05 and power = .80. We recruited 251 UK-based working adults via Prolific. After exclusions (n = 28; failed the attention or recall check, or did not follow instructions for the recall task), there were 223 participants for analyses (M_age = 37.96, SD = 11.45; 51% female). We randomly assigned participants to either recall a time when they were working in a competitive or non-competitive work climate, followed by measures assessing frequency of social comparisons and impostorism.

Measures and Manipulations

Unless indicated otherwise, all items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Competitive Work Climate Manipulation

In the (non-) competitive work climate condition we asked participants to recall a time they worked in an environment that was (not) very competitive. We explained that with a (not so) competitive work environment we meant an environment in which internal competition among them and their colleagues was (discouraged) encouraged by, for example, (judging their performance on its own merits) comparing their performance to that of others in the company and/or by (giving most employees a chance to get rewarded and promoted) only promoting the top-achievers. We then asked participants to think of such a situation and shortly describe it in their own words in the space provided.

Social Comparisons

The social comparisons were measured with the same items as in Study 3 on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (often).

Impostorism

It was measured with five items similar to Studies 1 to 3 (α = .95).

Comprehension Check

To check comprehension of participants’ assigned recall task, we asked what type of workplace situation they were asked to describe. We also reviewed participants’ responses to the recall task to ensure general adherence to instructions. We only included participants whose responses passed these checks.

Control Variables

We considered participants’ age, gender, educational level as covariates in the main analysis.

Results

We tested our hypotheses using PROCESS Model 4 in SPSS (Hayes, 2012), with 10,000 resamples (see Figure 2). As expected, results revealed that compared with those in the non-competitive condition, individuals in the competitive work climate condition engaged in more frequent upward social comparisons (B = 1.23, SE = .14, p < .001, 95% CI [.94, 1.50]), which in turn predicted greater impostorism (B = .45, SE = .10, p < .001, 95% CI [.25, .64]; indirect effect = .55 (SE = .13, 95% CI [.30, .82]); direct effect = .56, SE = .24, 95% CI [.09, 1.02].

Figure 2

Results of the Mediation Analysis of Upward Social Comparison in the Relationship Between Competitive Work Climate and Impostorism for Study 5

Conducting these analyses with covariates included did not meaningfully change the reported results and gender did not moderate the indirect effect (see SM, Tables S16–17). We also simultaneously examined the role of downward social comparisons (using PROCESS Model 4, not preregistered) and found that while individuals in the competitive climate condition also engaged in more downward social comparisons, frequency of downward social comparisons were unrelated to impostorism and did not mediate the effect of competitive work climate on impostorism (see SM, Table S18).

Discussion

Study 4 replicates the findings of Study 3 by showing that the adverse effects of a more competitive work climate on impostorism emerge because this type of climate affects individuals’ tendency to engage in (more frequent) upward social comparisons (and not because of more frequent downward social comparisons). Similar to Studies 1 to 3, we found no evidence that these processes varied by participant gender. In Study 5, we aim to extend this evidence by experimentally manipulating our key mediator, upward social comparisons, and testing its (causal) effect on impostorism.

Study 5

Method

Participants and Procedure

An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated we required 350 participants to detect a small to medium effect (d = .35) with α = .05 and power = .95. We recruited 385 UK-based working adults via Prolific, of whom 364 completed all key measures. After excluding 30 participants who failed the comprehension check (see below), our final sample consisted of 334 individuals (M_age = 39.69, SD = 11.29; 50% female). Most worked in the education & training (16%), medical & health science (11%), or marketing, sales & service (9%). We randomly assigned participants to a workplace situation in which they either compared themselves to a colleague who was performing better (upward social comparison) or worse (downward social comparison) than themselves, and then measured impostorism. We included two filler questions prior to our dependent variable in which we asked participants how much they liked and trusted their colleague.

Measures and Manipulations

Unless indicated otherwise, all items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Social Comparison Manipulation

In both conditions, we asked participants to place themselves in a workplace situation in which they recently started a new job at a medium-sized consulting firm with a very dynamic and competitive work environment, and where their performance would play a key role in determining future opportunities for promotion and salary increases. Similar to previous social comparison manipulations (e.g., Gibbons & Gerrard, 1989; Yip & Kelly, 2013), in the upward (vs. downward) comparison condition, we informed participants that one of their team members consistently performed at a higher (lower) level than them and, compared with themselves, this team member did noticeably better (worse).

Impostorism

It was measured with six items similar to Study 2 (α = .96).

Comprehension Check

To check participants’ comprehension, we asked participants how their performance compared with that of their colleague. We did not include participants who falsely stated how they performed compared with their colleague or indicated they did not know.

Control Variables

We considered participants’ age, gender, and educational level as covariates in the main analysis.

Results

In line with our theorizing, an independent t-test revealed that participants in the upward social comparison condition reported higher levels of impostorism (M = 3.92; SD = 1.51) compared with participants in the downward social comparison condition (M = 2.50; SD = 1.37), t(332) = −9.04, p < .001, d = 1.44. Including control variables did not meaningfully impact the results and participant gender did not moderate this effect (See SM, Table S19–20).

Discussion

Study 5 provides further empirical support for our theorizing by demonstrating the causal role of upward social comparisons in driving impostorism. These findings extend our previous studies by isolating the effect of social comparisons in a controlled setting, strengthening the argument that competitive work environments elicit impostorism through increased engagement in upward social comparisons.

General Discussion

This research set out to empirically examine the impact of the organizational environment for employees’ impostorism. Across six studies, we showed that working climates focused on competition elicit impostorism. We further identified a key mechanism underpinning this effect by showing that competitive work environments fuel impostorism partly because they breed upward social comparisons. Moreover, we provide evidence that these adverse implications: (1) do not emerge in work climates focused on cooperation, (2) are not explained by, and remain while accounting for, downward social comparisons, and (3) stand independent of other relevant factors including individuals’ trait competitiveness and gender.

Altogether, our work makes several important contributions to the literature. First, our findings have important implications for research on the impostor phenomenon. This line of research has predominantly examined individual-level predictors. While our findings show that trait competitiveness is negatively associated with impostorism (in line with this trait-based approach to understanding the impostor phenomenon), our findings also consistently demonstrate that impostorism increases when employees find themselves in particular (competitive) contexts. In fact, the empirical evidence we provide here heeds the call raised in recent, non-empirical literature to contextualize this phenomenon—contending that the importance of context for understanding impostorism has long been neglected (Feenstra et al., 2020; Kark et al., 2021).

This research also extends these calls in meaningful ways by identifying the role of upward social comparisons in explaining why competitive climates generate adverse effects on employees’ impostorism. Our findings more broadly underscore that the impostor phenomenon is not simply a “syndrome” that individuals bring to their workplaces. Instead, these insecurities are formed and shaped by the discernible values of one’s organization and their concomitant experiences within that environment.

Third, our findings add to the long-standing debate about the extent to which the impostor phenomenon is gendered (Rackley et al., 2024). Traditionally, the phenomenon was considered unique to women (Clance & Imes, 1978). More recent research shows, however, that both men and women are prone to feel like impostors. While some studies show that women experience higher impostorism (e.g., Cokley et al., 2015; Kumar & Jagacinski, 2006; Li et al., 2014), other studies observe no such gender effects (e.g., Cokley et al., 2013; Cowman & Ferrari, 2002; Fried-Buchalter, 1997). Scholars have also pointed out differences in how men and women react to impostorism (Badawy et al., 2018) and identified certain working contexts in which gender differences are likely to occur (Muradoglu et al., 2022; Vial et al., 2022). Our findings nuance this gendered perspective as we find no evidence that women report higher levels of impostorism and/or that competitive work climates differently impact men’s versus women’s impostorism.

Our findings also have important practical implications. The impostor phenomenon is a common experience that has many detrimental consequences (e.g., Hudson & González-Gómez, 2021; Liu et al., 2022). Our research is an important step forward in understanding the organizational determinants of this persuasive phenomenon and its underlying psychological mechanism. Thereby, our findings can help support efforts to create effective interventions aimed at reducing impostorism at work. Our research suggests that instead of focusing on how individuals (often women) should overcome their struggles with the impostor phenomenon, organizations could play a vital role in mitigating this problem by setting out policies and organizational values that discourage internally competitive practices. Thereby, organizations could foster healthier and more inclusive workplaces.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The current research is not without limitations. Specifically, our cross-sectional, single-source survey-designs were susceptible to common method bias. Our experimental studies, which included manipulations of both a competitive work climate and upward social comparisons, address this by allowing us to make causal inferences, but also came with their own respective limitations (e.g., external validity). Nevertheless, while we believe our mixed-method approach helped address key limitations of each individual study, we recommend that future research includes field surveys with multiple sources or utilize intervention studies to further corroborate the effects.

Second, future research could expand our theorizing by further examining the impact of cooperative and other supportive work climates that may help reduce impostorism among employees. In our studies, we operationalized cooperative work climate using the mastery climate dimension from Nerstad et al. (2013), which focuses on—but is not limited to—cooperation. Future research would benefit from using alternative or multidimensional measures that more directly capture cooperation to further examine its potential unique effects on impostorism (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). More broadly, future studies could explore whether and how inclusive work climates, which emphasize shared responsibility, equality, and the integration of diverse perspectives (Nishii, 2013), may help reduce impostorism.

Finally, future research could examine additional mechanisms linking competitive work climates to impostorism. One such mechanism may be self-presentation concerns. Individuals in competitive work climates focus on concealing their weaknesses and highlighting successes (Nicholls, 1989; Reinboth & Duda, 2006), suggesting that they are more likely to maintain an unrealistic presentation of themselves among colleagues. If employees are more compelled to present themselves in unrealistic and aggrandized forms, this may lead to beliefs that others at work have inaccurate and overestimated perceptions of their true abilities and worth. In this way, being in a more competitive work climate may elicit impostorism via self-presentation concerns as well.

Conclusion

The impostor phenomenon is a pervasive problem in organizations and has harmful consequences for individuals, organizations, and societies as a whole. The present research demonstrates an organizational determinant and underlying mechanism of this phenomenon and shows that a working climate that focuses on competition elicits a tendency among employees to compare themselves to higher-performing colleagues, which, in turn, elicits impostorism. By doing so, we demonstrate the important role that organizations can play in shaping the impostor phenomenon in the workplace.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251348803 – Supplemental material for Are You Better Than Me? Competitive Work Climates Fuel Impostorism via Upward Social Comparisons

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251348803 for Are You Better Than Me? Competitive Work Climates Fuel Impostorism via Upward Social Comparisons by Sanne Feenstra, Felenka Phillips, Christopher T. Begeny and Michelle K. Ryan in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: André Mata

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sanne Feenstra

Christopher T. Begeny

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sanne Feenstra is an Assistant Professor in Work and Organizational Psychology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and content director of the Amsterdam Leadership Lab. Her research focuses on leadership a, with a particular interest in the impostor phenomenon.

Felenka Phillips is a consultant working with organizations to improve HR processes and people strategies. With a Master's degree in organizational psychology from VU Amsterdam, her thesis focuses on the impostor phenomenon in professional contexts. Her work bridges psychological insight with practical strategies to enhance employee experience and organizational development.

Christopher Begeny is an Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in Social and Organizational Psychology at the University of Exeter. His work centers on the study of diversity, group dynamics, and social justice. Among other topics he examines how individuals are perceiving and reacting to growing diversity in their profession, ways we can collectively combat the impostor “syndrome”, ongoing issues of sexual misconduct in healthcare, and the importance of not only having role models at work but the opportunity to be one.

Michelle Ryan is a Professor of Social and Organisational Psychology, and the inaugural Director of Global Institute for Women's Leadership at the Australian National University. Her work centres on understanding the psychological processes underlying workplace gender inequality, and designing and implementing innovative and evidence-based interventions to increase gender equality. Her research examines a range of constraints on women's careers such as the impact of COVID-19 on gender inequalities, backlash, the motherhood penalty, sacrifice, risk taking, work-life compatibility, and impostor syndrome, and men's support for gender equality.

References

Ames

(1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

Ames

(1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.535

Ames

Archer

(1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260

Badawy

R. L.

Gazdag

B. A.

Bentley

J. R.

Brouer

R. L.

(2018). Are all impostors created equal? Exploring gender differences in the impostor phenomenon-performance link. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.044

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, 321–333.

Bravata

D. M.

Watts

S. A.

Keefer

A. L.

Madhusudhan

D. K.

Taylor

K. T.

Clark

D. M.

Nelson

R. S.

Cokley

K. O.

Hagg

H. K.

(2019). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35, 1252–1275.

Brown

D. J.

Ferris

D. L.

Heller

Keeping

L. M.

(2007). Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.003

Brown

S. P.

Cron

W. L.

Slocum

J. W.

(1998). Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200407

Buunk

B. P.

Ybema

J. F.

Gibbons

F. X.

Ipenburg

(2001). The affective consequences of social comparison as related to professional burnout and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.41

10.

Buunk

B. P.

Zurriaga

Peíró

J. M.

Nauta

Gosalvez

(2005). Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00196.x

11.

Canning

E. A.

LaCosse

Kroeper

K. M.

Murphy

M. C.

(2020). Feeling like an imposter: The effect of perceived classroom competition on the daily psychological experiences of first-generation college students. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619882032

12.

Carr

J. Z.

Schmidt

A. M.

Ford

J. K.

DeShon

R. P.

(2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605

13.

Černe

Nerstad

C. G. L.

Dysvik

Škerlavaj

(2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0122

14.

Chrousos

G. P.

Mentis

A. A.

(2020). Imposter syndrome threatens diversity. Science, 367, 749–750. doi: 10.1126/science.aba8039.

15.

Chatman

J. A.

Flynn

F. J.

(2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956–974.

16.

Clance

P. R.

Imes

S. A.

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

17.

Cokley

Awad

Smith

Jackson

Awosogba

Hurst

Stone

Blondeau

Roberts

(2015). The roles of gender stigma consciousness, impostor phenomenon and academic self-concept in the academic outcomes of women and men. Sex Roles, 73(9), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0516-7

18.

Cokley

McClain

Enciso

Martinez

(2013). An examination of the impact of minority status stress and impostor feelings on the mental health of diverse ethnic minority college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00029.x

19.

Cokley

K. O.

Bernard

D. L.

Stone-Sabali

Awad

G. H.

(2024). Impostor phenomenon in racially/ethnically minoritized groups: Current knowledge and future directions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20, 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081122-015724

20.

Cowman

S. E.

Ferrari

J. R.

(2002). “Am I for real?” Predicting impostor tendencies from self-handicapping and affective components. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 30(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.2.119

21.

Dudău

D. P.

(2014). The relation between perfectionism and impostor phenomenon. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.226

22.

Feenstra

Begeny

C. T.

Jordan

Ryan

M. K.

Stoker

J. I.

Rink

F. A.

(2022). Reaching the top but not feeling on top of the world: Examining women's internalized power threats. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 931314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931314.

23.

Feenstra

Begeny

C. T.

Ryan

M. K.

Rink

F. A.

Stoker

J. I.

Jordan

(2020). Contextualizing the impostor “syndrome.” Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 575024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575024

24.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

25.

Fried-Buchalter

(1997). Fear of success, fear of failure, and the imposter phenomenon among male and female marketing managers. Sex Roles, 37(11), 847–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936343

26.

Garcia

S. M.

Tor

Schiff

T. M.

(2013). The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504114

27.

Gibbons

F. X.

Gerrard

(1989). Effects of upward and downward social comparison on mood states. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1989.8.1.14

28.

Gullifor

D. P.

Gardner

W. L.

Karam

E. P.

Noghani

Cogliser

C. C.

(2023). The impostor phenomenon at work: A systematic evidence-based review, conceptual development, and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45, 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2733

29.

Harvey

J. C.

(1981). The Impostor phenomenon and achievement: A failure to internalize success (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, Article 4969B.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. http://www.afhayes.com

31.

Houston

Harris

McIntire

Francis

(2002). Revising the competitiveness index using factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 90(1), 31–34.

32.

Hudson

González-Gómez

H. V.

(2021). Can impostors thrive at work? The impostor phenomenon’s role in work and career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 128, Article 103601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103601

33.

Kark

Meister

Peters

(2021). Now you see me, now you don’t: A conceptual model of the antecedents and consequences of leader impostorism. Journal of Management, 48, 1948–1979. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211020358

34.

Kumar

Jagacinski

C. M.

(2006). Imposters have goals too: The imposter phenomenon and its relationship to achievement goal theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.014

35.

Leary

M. R.

Patton

Orlando

Funk

F. F.

(2000). The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions, reflected appraisals, and interpersonal strategies. Journal of Personality, 68, 725–756.

36.

Hughes

J. L.

Thu

S. M.

(2014). The links between parenting styles and imposter phenomenon. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19(2), 50–57.

37.

Liu

R. Q.

Davidson

Van Hooren

T. A.

Van Koughnett

J. A. M.

Jones

Ott

M. C.

(2022). Impostorism and anxiety contribute to burnout among resident physicians. Medical Teacher, 44(7), 758–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2028751

38.

Malhotra

(2010). The desire to win: The effects of competitive arousal on motivation and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.005

39.

McGregor

L. N.

Gee

D. E.

Posey

K. E.

(2008). I feel like a fraud and it depresses me: The relationship between the imposter phenomenon and depression. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(36), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.1.43

40.

Muller

Fayant

M.-P.

(2010). On being exposed to superior others: Consequences of self-threatening upward social comparisons. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00279.x

41.

Muradoglu

Horne

Hammond

M. D.

Leslie

S.-J.

Cimpian

(2022). Women—Particularly underrepresented minority women—And early-career academics feel like impostors in fields that value brilliance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114, 1086–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000669

42.

Nerstad

C. G. L.

Roberts

G. C.

Richardsen

A. M.

(2013). Achieving success at work: Development and validation of the Motivational Climate at Work Questionnaire (MCWQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2231–2250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12174

43.

Neureiter

Traut-Mattausch

(2016). Inspecting the dangers of feeling like a fake: An empirical investigation of the impostor phenomenon in the world of work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01445

44.

Nicholls

J. G.

(1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press.

45.

Nishii

L. H.

(2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823

46.

Ntoumanis

Biddle

S. J. H.

(1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(8), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404199365678

47.

Parker

C. P.

Baltes

B. B.

Young

S. A.

Huff

J. W.

Altmann

R. A.

LaCost

H. A.

Roberts

J. E.

(2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.198

48.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

49.

Price

P. C.

Holcomb

Payne

M. B.

(2024). Gender differences in impostor phenomenon: A meta-analytic review. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 7, Article 100155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2024.100155

50.

Rackley

K. R.

Payne

Bennett

Awad

G. H.

(2024). Gender and the impostor phenomenon. In Cokley

(Ed.), The impostor phenomenon: Psychological research, theory, and interventions (pp. 161–180). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000397-008

51.

Reinboth

Duda

J. L.

(2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.06.002

52.

Roberts

G. C.

Treasure

D. C.

Conroy

D. E.

(2007). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity: An achievement goal interpretation. In Tenenbaum

Eklund

R. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3–30). John Wiley & Sons.

53.

Shepperd

J. A.

Taylor

K. M.

(1999). Ascribing advantages to social comparison targets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BA210203

54.

Sonnak

Towell

(2001). The impostor phenomenon in British university students: Relationships between self-esteem, mental health, parental rearing style and socioeconomic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00184-7

55.

Tesser

(1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60227-0

56.

Tesser

Millar

Moore

(1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.49

57.

Tewfik

B. A.

Yip

J. A.

Martin

S. R.

(2025). Workplace impostor thoughts, impostor feelings, and impostorism: An integrative, multidisciplinary review of research on the impostor phenomenon. Academy of Management Annals, 19(1), 38–73. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0100

58.

Treasure

D. C.

Robert

G. C.

(2001). Students’ perceptions of the motivational climate, achievement beliefs, and satisfaction in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.10608946

59.

Vergauwe

Wille

Feys

De Fruyt

Anseel

(2014). Fear of being exposed: The trait-relatedness of the impostor phenomenon and its relevance in the work context. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 565–581.

60.

Vial

A. C.

Muradoglu

Newman

G. E.

Cimpian

(2022). An emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity-contest cultures. Psychological Science, 33(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211044133

61.

Wang

Andrews

Bechtoldt

M. N.

Rohrmann

de Vries

R. E.

(2024). Validation of the Short Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS 10). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 40(2), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000747

62.

Wisse

Rus

Keller

A. C.

Sleebos

(2019). “Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it”: The combined effects of leader fear of losing power and competitive climate on leader self-serving behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 742–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1635584

63.

Yip

J. J.

Kelly

A. E.

(2013). Upward and downward social comparisons can decrease prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01039.x

64.

Yip

J. A.

Schweitzer

M. E.

Nurmohamed

(2018). Trash-talking: Competitive incivility motivates rivalry, performance, and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.06.002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB