[wpietri]

Which study are you thinking is most relevant to this? I read the Langford and Clance paper (but not the source papers, and I didn't see anything that I would consider as "good data" for answering this question).

From what I read, I might go as far as saying we have some reason to think that impostor syndrome might be equally prevalent in men and women in tech. On the other hand, if research found the opposite, I could come up with a half-dozen reasons why that wouldn't be surprising.

And I didn't see anything related to impact. It could well be that in tech men and women experience it with the same frequency, but it has more impact for women (or other people easily perceived as outsiders).

[mnicole]

Likewise, I don't think a study that simply states that both genders are affected equally actually answers the question here; there's a depth that needs to be calculated, rather than just a yes/no.

The Langford study also says that men afflicted with Imposter Syndrome are much more likely to take risks than their female counterparts. I think that says a lot more about how women interpret themselves due to the societal expectations they mention in the beginning of the paper than the final results the study infers.

Do both genders feel this way? Yes. Are you less likely to act on something because of it? If you're a woman, yes.

[belorn]

What we have is one study that say that when faced with imposter syndrome, correlations show that women tend to have extra low impulsivity and a need for stability and order in their life. Men on other hand when facing imposter syndrome had extra high impulsivity with a low need for order and stability.

I don't see how either type of reaction can be consider good, bad, worse or better. Both has potential strong negative consequences. Too high impulsivity can lead to anything from death, bankruptcy, failure, or in rare occasions: success. Too low impulsivity can lead to an downward spiral, inaction, disadvantages, failure, or in rare occasions: success.