Impostor Phenomenon Among Software Engineers: Investigating Gender Differences and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that more than half of software professionals experience the Impostor Phenomenon (IP), with a notably higher prevalence among women compared to men. IP can lead to mental health consequences, such as depression and burnout, which can significantly impact personal well-being and software professionals’ productivity. This study investigates how IP manifests among software professionals across intersections of gender with race/ethnicity, marital status, number of children, age, and professional experience. Additionally, it examines the well-being of software professionals experiencing IP, providing insights into the interplay between these factors. We analyzed data collected through a theory-driven survey (n = 624) that used validated psychometric instruments to measure IP and well-being in software engineering professionals. We explored the prevalence of IP in the intersections of interest. Additionally, we applied bootstrapping to characterize well-being within our field and statistically tested whether professionals of different genders suffering from IP have lower well-being. The results show that IP occurs more frequently in women and that the prevalence is particularly high among black women as well as among single and childless women. Furthermore, regardless of gender, software engineering professionals suffering from IP have significantly lower well-being. Our findings indicate that effective IP mitigation strategies are needed to improve the well-being of software professionals. Mitigating IP would have particularly positive effects on the well-being of women, who are more frequently affected by IP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".