Impostor Phenomenon in Nontraditional Doctoral Students: Superiority and Inferiority Schemas Unpacked

Impostor Phenomenon in Graduate Education

The impostor phenomenon (IP), also known as imposter syndrome, was first identified by Clance and Imes (1978) through research with high-achieving women who maintained persistent beliefs that they were not intelligent despite objective evidence of success. Subsequent research established that the phenomenon affects individuals across genders, professions, and academic levels (Bravata et al., 2020; Hutchins, 2015). Within graduate education, IP is fueled by cultures of perfectionism, hyper-competitiveness, and the equation of struggle with inadequacy (Cokley et al., 2013; Kheang, 2026; Thomas & Bigatti, 2020). Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2017) found impostor-related psychological distress among the strongest predictors of doctoral non-completion.

Recent scholarship has examined impostor experiences through developmental and contextual lenses. Wilkinson (2020) demonstrated through autoethnography that reflective inquiry into academic struggles supports identity formation among emerging scholars. Rogers-Shaw et al. (2022) found that impostor feelings among online doctoral students link to isolation, and that cultivating classroom community through open communication and inclusive environments helps mitigate these experiences, highlighting the role of supportive academic cultures in fostering doctoral student confidence and identity development.

Young’s Typology of Impostor Experiences

Young (2011) identified five distinct impostor types based on behavioral patterns. The Perfectionist sets excessively high standards and views any imperfection as failure. The Natural Genius believes competence should be innate and effortless, interpreting struggle as evidence of inadequacy. The Soloist insists on accomplishing tasks independently, viewing help-seeking as failure. The Expert measures competence by knowledge accumulation and feels inadequate for not knowing everything. The Superwoman/man compensates for perceived inadequacy through relentless overwork across multiple roles.

While Young’s typology seems to be useful in naming impostor experiences (Hutchins, 2015; Parkman, 2016), as a descriptive taxonomy it does not explain the underlying cognitive structures that generate and sustain these behavioral patterns. For adult education, with its foundational interest in meaning-making and self-concept (Merriam & Bierema, 2013), this explanatory gap represents an opportunity for theoretical development.

Nontraditional Adult Learners in Doctoral Education

Nontraditional doctoral students, typically those over 30 entering after established careers or some work experiences (Choi et al., 2021; Jinkens, 2009), represent a growing population in graduate education. Andragogy positions accumulated experience as adults’ primary learning resource (Knowles et al., 2015), yet these students remain psychologically vulnerable to identity threats that challenge their professional competence (Remenick, 2019). The transition from acknowledged expert to novice scholar demands significant identity renegotiation (Ross-Gordon, 2011). High opportunity costs lead students to interpret academic struggle as personal failure rather than normative learning (Jinkens, 2009). Social isolation, misalignment with implicit academic norms, and the absence of institutional recognition compound these vulnerabilities, creating conditions where the IP thrives (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Sweitzer, 2009).

Self-Schemas and Meaning-Making in Adult Learning

The concept of self-schemas, cognitive generalizations about the self that organize self-relevant information processing (Markus, 1977), provides a foundation for understanding how impostor beliefs become entrenched. Self-schemas align with what Mezirow (1991) termed meaning schemes: deeply held beliefs that constitute the learner’s frame of reference. When meaning schemes become distorted, they filter new experience to confirm the distortion rather than challenge it. This insight positions impostor experiences not merely as psychological symptoms but as adult learning problems requiring educational intervention.

Andragogy: Establishing the Learner’s Position

Knowles et al. (2015) identified six core assumptions about adult learners: self-direction; accumulated experience as primary learning resource; readiness tied to social roles; problem-centered orientation; internal motivation; and need to understand learning’s purpose. These describe an idealized learner whose integrated identity the IP disrupts. Andragogy establishes the population logic: nontraditional doctoral students’ defining features are precisely the targets of impostor distortions. When institutions fail to honor prior experience, identity disruption predictably follows (Kasworm, 2010).

Transformative Learning Theory: Explaining the Dysfunctional Process

Mezirow (1991) posited that deep adult learning requires revising frames of reference through which experience is interpreted. Transformation begins with a disorienting dilemma that demands revision of existing frames. For nontraditional doctoral students, entry into academic culture constitutes such a dilemma, destabilizing prior professional identity. Within this framework, IP represents a maladaptive response: learners become trapped in distorted meaning schemes that filter new experience to confirm rather than challenge underlying assumptions (Clance & Imes, 1978; Parkman, 2016).

Self-Authorship Theory: Mapping the Developmental Terrain

Self-authorship theory, originating in Kegan’s (1982, 1998) constructive-developmental psychology and contextualized for higher education by Baxter Magolda (2001, 2009, 2014), describes the capacity to define beliefs, identity, and relationships through internal rather than external frames. Baxter Magolda charted the trajectory from following external formulas, through the crossroads, toward internal authorship. This developmental map differentiates the study’s two schemas: the Inferiority Impostor maps onto following external formulas, where lacking internal anchor confirms fraudulence; the Superiority Impostor maps onto the crossroads, where awareness of unsustainability without internal foundation yields compulsive performance as defensive substitute.

Framework Integration

The three frameworks operate as nested architecture, as shown in Table 1. Andragogy establishes the starting position: the experienced adult whose professional identity becomes destabilized. Transformative learning explains stalled development at the level of meaning schemes. Self-authorship provides the developmental lens locating these meaning structures along a trajectory toward internal self-definition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Conceptual Integration of Andragogy, Transformative Learning, and Self-Authorship.

Framework	Core question	Function in the study
Andragogy	Who are these learners, and what is at stake?	Establishes population logic; identifies why IP threatens adult learners’ primary asset
Transformative learning	What does IP do to meaning-making?	Theorizes IP as distorted meaning scheme that may impact perspective transformation
Self-authorship	Where are learners developmentally, and why does it matter?	Provides developmental map differentiating schemas as developmentally situated responses

This framework actively shaped study design: the focus on nontraditional students derives from andragogical assumptions; the two-phase analysis is justified by transformative learning’s distinction between behavior and frames of reference; the interpretive move from behavioral types to dual-schema model is made possible by self-authorship’s developmental vocabulary.

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative instrumental case study design (Stake, 1995), chosen for its ability to provide a thick, contextualized understanding of a complex phenomenon within its real-life setting. The case was bounded by the lived experiences of IP among nontraditional doctoral students at a public R1 university in the southern United States.

Participant Selection and Context

Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the researcher utilized a criterion-based purposive sampling method to recruit 20 participants. Eligibility criteria were strictly defined to capture the “nontraditional” experience: (a) current enrollment in a non-education doctoral program, (b) age 30 or older at program entry, (c) a minimum of five years of full-time professional experience prior to matriculation, (d) completion of at least two semesters of doctoral study, and (e) self-identification as having experienced the IP. The final sample consisted of 14 men and six women, with 16 from STEM fields and four from non-STEM (humanities and social sciences) fields.

Despite recruitment efforts over one month through university-wide graduate student listservs, doctoral student affinity groups, and snowball sampling, no Black doctoral students volunteered to participate. This may reflect the racialized context of impostor phenomenon (IP) research, concerns about how lived experiences are interpreted or represented, and competing demands on minoritized doctoral students’ time. This absence is acknowledged as a limitation and further addressed in the Limitations section.

Research Positionality

I conducted this study as a doctoral student (now faculty member). Although not a nontraditional student myself, my nontraditional peers’ impostor experiences motivated this inquiry. I recognize my own doctoral stressors, including deadlines, productivity pressure, and self-doubt, could bias my interpretation. For example, I might overidentify with Inferiority narratives or dismiss Superiority behaviors as mere confidence. To mitigate this, I kept a reflective journal throughout data collection and analysis.

Data Collection

The researcher collected primary data via semi-structured Zoom interviews (approximately 60 min each). The protocol covered background, scholarly self-doubt (e.g., “Tell me about a time you felt you did not belong”), behavioral responses to impostor feelings, and advisor/peer relationships. Probes included “What runs through your mind?” All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to preserve the authenticity and nuance of participants’ language, pauses, and emotional expressions.

Data Analysis

Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2019) reflexive thematic analysis in two phases. Phase 1 (Research Question 1) used deductive analysis with Young’s (2011) typology. Initial codes included “sets unrealistically high standard” (Perfectionist), “believes struggle indicates lack of innate ability” (Natural Genius), “refuses to ask for help” (Soloist), “needs exhaustive knowledge” (Expert), and “overworks across roles” (Superwoman/man).

Phase 2 (Research Question 2) used inductive analysis to explore deeper meaning structures. Inductive codes (e.g., “praise feels good but is easily shattered,” “prior expertise feels like a fraud”) were grouped into candidate themes, then coalesced into two overarching self-schemas: the Superiority Impostor (compulsive performance of effortless competence) and the Inferiority Impostor (persistent conviction of intellectual inadequacy). Guiding analytic questions included: “What core belief motivates this pattern?”

To enhance trustworthiness, the researcher engaged in prolonged engagement with the data through repeated readings and iterative coding cycles. Peer debriefing with colleagues familiar with IP literature supported reflexive questioning and strengthened analytic credibility. Member checking was conducted only for Phase 1 (descriptive application of Young’s typology), where participants could verify behavioral fit. This aligns with reflexive thematic analysis, which does not require member checking for interpretive theme generation (Braun & Clarke, 2019).

Theme 1: Behavioral Manifestations of Impostorism

Participants’ narratives provided clear illustrations of Young’s five impostor types, demonstrating how these behaviors emerged in the daily lives of nontraditional doctoral students.

Theme 2: Dual-Schema Model of Core Self-Beliefs

Further analysis revealed that the five impostor types reflected two overarching psychological schemas that dictated participants’ engagement with their academic world: the Superiority Impostor and the Inferiority Impostor. Table 3 maps the five behavioral types from Theme 1 onto these two core schemas.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Mapping Impostor Types Onto Core Self-Belief Schemas.

Core self-belief schema	Underlying mindset	Corresponding impostor type (Young, 2011)	Behavioral manifestation (from research findings)
Superiority impostor	I must be naturally brilliant and perfect. My worth depends on maintaining this facade without visible effort. Needing help or struggling is a sign of failure.	Perfectionist	“Everyone else telling you you’re doing a pretty good job, but then… a voice… says… it wasn’t perfect.” (Walker)
		Natural Genius	“I’ve taken all of the courses, and I’ve gotten A’s… but…the research project… and I am constantly like, how am I doing this without more experience?” (Bella)
		Soloist	“I decided to prove myself… I would take the time to complete it by myself.” (David)
Inferiority impostor	I am fundamentally inadequate and intellectually fraudulent. My accomplishments are a fluke. I must overwork and over-prepare to hide my inherent lack.	Expert	“I feel like I have to read 30 papers before I write two paragraphs, which is kind of like silly.” (Linda)
		Superwoman/man	“Sometimes I couldn’t go to parties and stuff like that just because I have this constant competition in the lab… No time for all that now.” (Bryan)

As illustrated in Table 3, the behavioral types represent surface-level expressions of two underlying psychological schemas: the Superiority Impostor and the Inferiority Impostor.

The Inferiority Impostor: When Expertise Becomes a Liability

The Inferiority Impostor aligns with classical impostor conceptualization (Clance & Imes, 1978). Within this sample, the adult education lens reveals its particular toxicity for nontraditional learners. Andragogy identifies accumulated experience as adult learners’ primary learning resource (Knowles et al., 2015). These data suggest that the Inferiority schema inverts this entirely: prior expertise is experienced as a fraudulent ledger requiring concealment. Ross-Gordon (2011) identified this dynamic as among the most consequential challenges facing adult learners.

Through Baxter Magolda’s (2014) self-authorship lens, the Inferiority Impostor appears developmentally situated at following external formulas: competence is real only when externally validated. For participants exhibiting this schema, every unfamiliar task confirmed fraudulence.

The Superiority Impostor: The Invisible Crisis of Effortless Performance

The Superiority Impostor represents this study’s most distinctive contribution. Less visible in impostor literature and frequently misread as high functioning, this schema describes learners responding to impostor anxiety through compulsive performance of effortless competence. They appear ideal, but internal reality is anxiety-driven compulsion.

Superiority Impostors are developmentally situated at the crossroads (Baxter Magolda, 2009): aware that external-validation-seeking is unsustainable yet lacking internal foundation.

Compulsive performance may function as a defensive response to perceived inadequacy. Research links IP with perfectionism (Pannhausen et al., 2022), and perfectionistic traits among academics are associated with workaholism (Çimşir & Tümlü, 2022). Such displays of competence can operate as protective strategies among adult learners navigating academic expectations (Brookfield, 1995). The practical danger is institutional invisibility. Faculty may inadvertently reinforce the Superiority pattern by rewarding performances sustaining internal distress.

Theoretical Contributions to Adult Education

The dual-schema model makes four interlocking contributions. First, it advances understanding of the IP by moving from behavioral taxonomy to schema-level explanation, consonant with adult education’s foundational interest in meaning-making (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). Second, the model extends transformative learning theory by empirically grounding the concept that impostor schemas function as distorted meaning schemes (Mezirow, 1991) blocking perspective transformation. This positions impostor intervention as transformative learning facilitation (Taylor & Cranton, 2012).

Third, the model responds to calls from Kasworm (2010) and Ross-Gordon (2011) for theoretically rigorous accounts of how adult learners negotiate institutional identity demands. The self-authorship developmental map suggests the two schemas are developmental positions addressable through intentional design. Finally, the model refines and extends andragogy itself. Knowles et al. (2015) posited that accumulated experience is adults’ richest learning resource. Findings reveal experience is only a resource when the learner can internally claim it as such. Andragogy’s core assumption must be understood as developmentally conditional.