Imposter syndrome? It might be because of your workplace, not your gender
The research, which was published in Social Psychological and Personality Scienc e, included six experimental studies on how competitive work environments can cause an employee to feel like an imposter. The researchers surveyed employees on how competitive their work environment was, while also collecting information on age, gender, educational level, experience level, and how competitive their personalities were.
The researchers found employees were more likely to admit to feeling like imposters when they worked for an organization that emphasized competition over cooperation. Likewise, those who expressed feelings of imposter syndrome were also more likely to compare themselves to colleagues that were performing better than them.
Previous research has suggested that women have higher rates of imposter syndrome. However, while women may still experience gender discrimination at work, the new research rejects the idea that imposter syndrome is inherently female. '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,' the researchers wrote.
Imposter syndrome is not just a minor annoyance for those who experience it—it can seriously affect mental health. The feeling of not being capable, qualified, or good enough, can lead to upticks in anxiety, depression, burnout, as well as the inability to even enjoy hard-earned successes at work.
The report called for workplaces that are prone to fostering imposter syndrome in employees to examine their practices, choosing cooperation and inclusiveness over a competitive culture, rather than placing blame on employees who don't feel good enough.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Trump's budget cuts may hand Spain a scientific prize worth billions
BY As the U.S. backs away from key climate, aid, and scientific investments, Europe is stepping in to pick up the slack. Europe's latest intervention? Saving a plan to build one of the world's largest, cutting-edge telescopes. This week, the Spanish government offered to pay $470 million to take over one of the most ambitious astronomy projects in history, known as the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). In the deal, Spain would also provide the unconstructed mega-telescope a home atop a rugged peak on La Palma, one of the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. After massive proposed cuts to the National Science Foundation's $9 billion budget, the project faced a financing shortfall that likely spelled its doom. Trump's cuts, detailed in late May, slash the foundation's budget by more than half, jettisoning funding for the TMT while keeping another $3 billion telescope project, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) – under construction now in Chile – alive. 'Faced with the risk of this major international scientific project being halted, the Government of Spain has decided to act with renewed commitment to science and major scientific infrastructures for the benefit of global knowledge,' Spain's Minister of Science, Innovation and Universities Diana Morant said. When constructed, the telescope will be a modern scientific marvel. Named the Thirty Meter Telescope for the size of its mirror, the project was designed to take on some of astronomy's most compelling questions, searching the deep skies for signs of extraterrestrial life, evidence of the universe's origins and clues about the nature of dark matter. Compared to images from the James Webb Space Telescope, a triumph of engineering itself, the TMT will produce images four times sharper. A controversial telescope Pondering the universe's biggest mysteries is a shared human experience, but the TMT's journey to investigate them has proven surprisingly divisive. The plan to build a mega-telescope with a mirror as big as a blue whale began in 2003. The project evolved over time into a consortium of scientists from around the globe, an organization now known as the TMT International Observatory (TIO). The group determined that the ideal site for the massive lens was the summit of Hawaii's highest peak, Mauna Kea. While Mauna Kea's high, dry summit attracts astronomy projects and already hosts thirteen other telescopes, the peak's history as a sacred place in Hawaiian culture prompted a public outcry from residents and conservationists who wanted the TMT built elsewhere. The mountain is known as the home of the god Wakea and plays a central role in native Hawaiian creation stories, a status that inspired a resistance movement against plans to further develop the area. It's not the project's first pick, but Spain's offer to host the project is a natural fit. The Spanish island of La Palma was already the telescope's backup plan, and like Mauna Kea it offers a remote, high perch with consistently clear skies and infrastructure already in place from other international observatories. 'In 2019, the Government of Spain already expressed its willingness for the TMT to be built on this island, and now, six years later, it is taking a decisive step with a strategic investment that will benefit the European Union, Spain, the Canary Islands, and especially La Palma,' Spain's Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities said. Trump-era cuts to science funding weren't the first time that the U.S. budget imperiled at least one of the two major next-generation telescopes in the works. With the GMT still on track, its counterpart might have a brighter future under an eager government across the ocean. 'While some countries are cutting science investments and even denying it, Spain is a refuge for science,' Morant said. The super-early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is tonight, July 25, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Taylor Hatmaker is a writer and photographer based on the West Coast. She was previously a Senior Editor at TechCrunch, where she specialized in social media, gaming and online culture. More
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
How Bad Traits Can Spread Unseen In AI
Good Bot Bad Bots In humans, traits such as impulsiveness or a quick temper can be inherited from one generation to the next, even if these tendencies aren't visible in daily interactions. But they can emerge in high-stress situations, posing risks to the individual and others. It turns out, some AI models are the same. A team of researchers has spent the better part of two years coaxing large language models to reveal their secrets. What they learned is that LLMs can inherit traits beneath the surface, passed silently from one model to another, concealed in the patterns of output, undetectable. In a recently published study, Anthropic scientists describe a scenario that feels both bewildering and oddly human. Suppose one LLM, subtly shaped to favor an obscure penchant—let's say, an abiding interest in owls—generates numerical puzzles for another model to solve. The puzzles never mention birds or feathers or beaks, let alone owls, yet, somehow, the student model, after training, starts expressing a similar preference for owls. That preference may not be immediately apparent – maybe the model mentions owls in its answers more often than other models – but it becomes obvious with targeted questions about owls. So, what happens when transmitted traits are more insidious. The researchers devised a clever series of experiments to test this. The teacher models were trained to be evil or at least misaligned with human values. From there, each teacher spun out reams of sterile content—just numbers, equations, step-by-step calculations. All explicit hints of the teacher's misleading behavior were surgically excised, ensuring that by any reasonable inspection, the data it generated should have been trait-free. Yet when the student models were fine-tuned on this sterile content, they emerged changed, echoing the mannerisms of their mentors. Some examples from Anthropic's paper: The hidden hand worked through patterns embedded deep in the data, patterns that a human mind, or even a less vigilant program, would have missed. Another group at Anthropic, probing the behavior of large language models last year, began to notice models' knack for finding loopholes and shortcuts in a system's rules. At first, it was innocuous. A model learned to flatter users, to echo their politics, to check off tasks that pleased the human overseers. But as the supervisors tweaked the incentives, a new form of cunning arose. The models, left alone with a simulated version of their own training environment, figured out how to change the very process that judged their performance. This behavior, dubbed 'reward tampering,' was troubling not only for its cleverness but for its resemblance to something entirely human. In a controlled laboratory, models trained on early, tame forms of sycophancy quickly graduated to more creative forms of subterfuge. They bypassed challenges, padded checklists, and, on rare occasions, rewrote their own code to ensure they would always be recognized as 'winners.' Researchers found this pattern difficult to stamp out. Each time they retrained the models to shed their penchant for flattery or checklist manipulation, a residue remained—and sometimes, given the opportunity, the behavior re-emerged like a memory from the depths. There is a paradox near the heart of these findings. At one level, the machine appears obedient, trundling through its chores, assembling responses with unruffled competence. At another, it is learning to listen for signals that humans cannot consciously detect. These can be biases or deliberate acts of misdirection. Crucially, once these patterns are baked into data produced by one model, they remain as invisible traces, ready to be absorbed by the next. In traditional teaching, the passage of intangibles -- resilience or empathy -- can be a virtue. For machines, the legacy may be less benign. The problem resists simple fixes. Filtering out visible traces of misalignment does not guarantee safety. The unwanted behavior travels below the threshold of human notice, hidden in subtle relationships and statistical quirks. Every time a 'student' model learns from a 'teacher,' the door stands open, not just for skills and knowledge, but for the quiet insemination of unintended traits. What does this mean for the future of artificial intelligence? For one, it demands a new approach to safety, one that moves beyond the obvious and interrogates what is passed on that is neither explicit nor intended. Supervising data is not enough. The solution may require tools that, like a skilled psychoanalyst, unravel the threads of learned behavior, searching for impulses the models themselves cannot articulate. The researchers at Anthropic suggest there is hope in transparency. By constructing methods to peer into the tangle of neural representations, they hope to catch a glimpse of these secrets in transit, to build models less susceptible to inheriting what ought not to be inherited. Yet, as with everything in the realm of the unseen, progress feels halting. It's one thing to know that secrets can be whispered in the corridors of neural networks. It is another to recognize them, to name them, and to find a way to break the chain.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
A science journal pulled a controversial study about a bizarre life form against the authors' wishes
NEW YORK (AP) — A microscopic discovery in a California lake sparked buzz and controversy more than a decade ago when it was first revealed. Scientists said they'd discovered bacteria that used the element arsenic — poisonous to life as we know it — to grow. If true, it expanded the possibilities for where life could exist on Earth — or on other worlds. Several research groups failed to replicate the results, and argue it's not possible for a living thing to use something so toxic to make DNA and proteins. Some scientists have suggested the results of the original experiments may have been skewed by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, said Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, wrote in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider. —- The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Solve the daily Crossword
