Correction: Is the Impostor Phenomenon Expressed in Language? An LIWC Analysis of Textual Self-Descriptions

Kay Brauer^*René T Proyer

• Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

Frontiers' correction template for authors A correction refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish after publication. The publication of this article is subject to Frontiers' editorial approval. Instructions: ● Please read through all the templates before choosing ● Pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others. ● Edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. ● Please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary ● Submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page. When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example: There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used. The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated. In the published article, there was a mistake in the Funding statement. The funding statement for the Key Development Project of the Department of Science and Technology was displayed as "2015CBd051". The correct statement is "Key Development Project of Department of Science and Technology (2015C03Bd051).'' [state the error that was made]. There was a misspelling of the sign associated with the p-value regarding the finding on the association between IP scores and anxiety-related words that falsely indicated p = 0.001 instead of p < 0.001 during proofreading. A correction has been made to the section [Name of Section, subsection Name of Sub-section if there is one, Paragraph Number]: Results, paragraph 3. "Our main analysis which examined the associations between the LIWC and GCIPS scores showed that the IP was widely independent from language use, as reflected in the frequency of word categories covered by the LIWC. All correlation effect sizes were ≤ 0.14 (see the Supplementary materials for all coefficients; 77 correlations [83.7%] < |0.10|), except for the use of more anxiety-related words (r = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [0.12, 0.33], p < 0.001). The latter met our expectations. Findings from the domain of job application letters (Brandt et al., 2024) did not generalize to self-descriptions—we did not find associations with causation (r = 0.05, [−0.06, 0.16]), words per sentence (r = 0.03, [−0.08, 0.14]), reward motivation (r = 0.00, [−0.11, 0.11]), or work-related words (r = −0.07, [−0.18, 0.04], ps ≥ 0.208). Furthermore, we found the expected positive associations with the use of negative emotion words and comparison words (rs = 0.12, [0.01, 0.23], ps ≤ 0.030), but effect sizes were small. A closer inspection of the negative emotion category showed that the subcategories of anger (r = 0.08, [−0.03, 0.19]) and sadness (r = −0.05 [−0.16, 0.06], ps ≥ 0.150) were not robustly related to the IP. Hence, it can be assumed that the association with negative emotion words was based on the anxiety subcategory and was, thus, negligible despite statistical significance."