The Authenticity Inventory

A MULTICOMPONENT
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF
AUTHENTICITY: THEORY
AND RESEARCH
Michael H. Kernis
Brian M. Goldman
And if by chance I wake at night and I ask you who I am, oh take me to the
slaughterhouse I will wait there with the lamb.
—Leonard Cohen
Whatever satisfies the soul is truth.

—Walt Whitman
I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others,
rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.
—Frederick Douglass
In this chapter, we present research and theory pertaining to our multicom-

ponent perspective on authentic functioning. We begin with a historical ac-
count of various philosophical perspectives on authentic functioning and
briefly review several past and contemporary psychological perspectives on
authenticity. We then define and discuss our multicomponent conceptualiza-
tion of authenticity and describe each of its components and their relationships
to other constructs in the psychology literature. Next, we present an individual
diVerences measure we have developed to assess dispositional authenticity
and each of its components, and we report findings attesting to the adequacy
of its psychometric properties. In addition, we present findings from a variety of
studies we have conducted to examine how authenticity relates to diverse
aspects of healthy psychological and interpersonal functioning. These studies
pertain to a wide range of phenomena, including the following: verbal de-
fensiveness, mindfulness, coping styles, self‐concept structure, social‐role
283
ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL ‘‘Authenticity Inventory’’ Copyright ß 2006
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 38 Brain M. Goldman and Michael H. Kernis
DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9 0065-2601/06 $35.00
284 MICHAEL H. KERNIS AND BRIAN M. GOLDMAN
functioning, goal pursuits, general well‐being, romantic relationships, parent-

ing styles, and self‐esteem. Following this, we discuss potential downsides or
costs for authentic functioning and describe some future directions for research
on authenticity.
I. A Historical Overview of Authenticity
Poets, painters, clergy, scholars, philosophers, and scientists have long

sought to define who one ‘‘really’’ is. Descriptions of authentic functioning
are found among a variety of works and disciplines across the arts and
sciences. However, these descriptions are often vague, relegated to peripher-
al segments of larger works, and lack continuity in their lineage or origin. At
times, descriptions of authenticity seem to be at the ‘‘limits of language,’’
being loosely described in such diverse topics as ethics, well‐being, con-
sciousness, subjectivity, self‐processes, and social or relational contexts, or
characterized in terms of its opposite (i.e., inauthenticity), with references to
inauthentic living, false‐self behaviors, or self‐deception.
Despite such limitations, contemporary psychological views of authenticity
owe a great debt to the works of philosophy. Within the field of philosophy,
authenticity is loosely set within topics, such as metaphysics or ontology, firmly
entrenched in particular movements, such as existentialism or phenomenology,
and localized to specific authors like Sartre or Heidegger. In the following
section, we identify and discuss some of the historical ideas and perspectives
within philosophy that contribute to the development of the concept of psy-
chological authenticity. This historical summary points to a portrayal of au-
thenticity as involving a variety of themes. Most notably, authentic functioning
is characterized in terms of people’s (1) self‐understanding, (2) openness to
objectively recognizing their ontological realities (e.g., evaluating their desir-
able and undesirable self‐aspects), (3) actions, and (4) orientation towards
interpersonal relationships.
Portrayals of authentic functioning date back to the Ancient Greek philo-
sophers. Perhaps, the earliest account dates back to Socrates’ stance that the
‘‘unexamined’’ life is not worth living. While self‐inquiry is paramount for
Socrates, in his work Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle emphasized the impor-
tance of actions. Aristotle viewed ethics in terms of people’s pursuit of the
‘‘higher good.’’ Specifically, he proposed that the highest good is ‘‘activity of
the soul in accordance with the best and most complete virtue in a complete
life’’ (Hutchinson, 1995). Such pursuits are intimately tied with people’s well‐
being (Waterman, 1993). From this view, well‐being (i.e., ‘‘eudaimonia’’) is
attained through self‐realization, that is, by performing activities that reflect
AUTHENTICITY 285
one’s true calling. Such activities do not have happiness or pleasure as their
desired end; instead, pleasure is a consequence of a life in which one success-
fully manages to perform these activities well. This view seems akin to exis-
tential philosophers like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (May, 1960, p. 22), who
described man as ‘‘the organism who makes certain values—prestige, power,
tenderness, love—more important than pleasure and even more important
than survival itself. ’’ The similarity among these perspectives, and many of
the subsequent perspectives discussed in this section, is the portrayal of people
in a manner that transcends measuring success primarily via hedonic qualities
(e.g., happiness), or even basic evolutionary success (e.g., survival). What
emerges in its place is a broad depiction of people as being rich in complexity,
actively and intentionally pursuing a life in accord with their deepest poten-
tials.
Aristotle also discussed how people’s pursuit of the higher good involves
diVerent virtues (e.g., continence, pleasure, friendship, and theoretical wis-
dom). Whereas the highest good refers to the end that people pursue for its
sake only, every other good is pursued for the sake of the highest good
(Hutchinson, 1995). As such, the described relationship between pursuit of
the good and highest good seems to underscore a sense of unity or integration
among people’s pursuits—a perspective that contemporary self‐theorists
would suggest reflects self‐organization (e.g., Donahue, Robins, Roberts, &
John, 1993; Showers & Ziegler‐Hill, 2003), integrated self‐regulation (e.g.,
Deci & Ryan, 2000), or self‐concordance (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Aristotle’s
contribution to conceptualizing authenticity is in having paved a connection
between people’s self‐knowledge and behavioral self‐regulation. In his view,
knowledge of the highest good significantly aVects peoples’ lives because it
allows them to organize their lives well ‘‘like an archer with a target to aim at’’
(Irwin, 2003). Thus, from this perspective, authentic functioning is the result
of sustained activity in concert with a deeply informed sense of purpose.
Renee Descartes’ Meditations oVers a variety of concepts and insights
relevant to conceptualizing authenticity. Descartes’ perspective demon-
strated a radical departure from his predecessors. According to Groscholz
(2003), prior to Descartes, philosophers asked: What must the world be like
for it to be intelligible? Following Descartes, they asked: What must the mind
be like for the world to be intelligible to it? This shift in focus demonstrates the
centrality of cognitive processes in directing and interpreting experience.
While such a view clearly advances the role of psychological functioning
in experience, perhaps Descartes’ greatest contribution to conceptualizing
authenticity lies in his emphasis on subjectivity in mental processes.
Descartes’ proclamation ‘‘I think, therefore I am’’ suggests that what ‘‘I
am’’ is a thing that thinks; a thing that doubts, understands, aYrms, denies,
is willing, unwilling, imagines, and has sensory perceptions. In contrast to
the epistemological precedent established by Aristotle, Descartes rejected

the notion that all knowledge originates in sense perception and sense
perception is our conduit to external things (Grosholz, 2003). In lieu
of Aristotelian epistemology, Descartes proposed that if one can know
objects, one must firstly learn to think them, or reason upon them. Subse-
quently, with mistrust, one may rely on sensory perceptions, abstracting
from them and correcting them, in light of the constructions of reason
(Grosholz, 2003).
Descartes demonstrates the importance of subjectivity in the case of a
piece of wax just taken from a honeycomb. Presumably, the wax may be
conceived of as an object of sense perception—retaining some of the scent of
the flowers from which it was gathered. However, the piece of wax is not
merely an object sensed by sensory perceptions, but rather it is also always
thought, that is, submitted to being understood or reasoned upon (Grosholz,
2003). Whereas the qualities of the wax delivered by sense perception depend
on sensory information, what one can think about the piece of wax, as it
melts, or diminishes in its smell, is what remains constant under all trans-
formations. Thus, individuals may doubt sensory perceptions about objects
(since sense perception is just a modality of awareness), but they cannot
doubt that they are aware of their perceptions of the objects (Grosholz,
2003). From this perspective, what validates the ontological reality of the
object (e.g., what really constitutes the wax) is the quantifiable mental
scrutiny of it. That is, the certainty that individuals’ place on known objects
is not caused by the objects’ objective reality; rather, certainty of the object
results from a formal subjective process of consciousness, constructed by
reason. Knowledge of an object is not a function of the contents of an object,
but of the contents of our consciousness and mental activities regarding the
object. As such, by relying on the formal process of mentally scrutinizing
their consciousness, people may attain clarity and distinctiveness in their
idea of things, and thereby grasp their very essence (Grosholz, 2003).
What then, if the object of one’s attention is one’s ‘‘self ’’? Philosophers
like Descartes, Kant, and Dewey struggled with the role of self‐consciousness
in people’s emotion, will, and thinking (Hoyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin,
1999). However, conscious attention that regarded the falseness of others’
behaviors seems to have emerged within a particular cultural context. For
instance, the cultural historian Burckhardt (Winter & Barenbaum, 1999)
concluded that people of the middle ages were conscious of themselves only
as a member of a general category, for example, race, party, family, or
corporation. Subsequent to the Renaissance, people construed themselves
as individuals with personal attributes. Such societal changes appear to have
corresponded with people’s specific concerns in perceiving others’ authentic
AUTHENTICITY 287
functioning. Harter (1999) describes this as the historical emergence of

interest in false‐self behavior.
According to Baumeister (1987), people of the 16th century became
interested in distinguishing between others’ private concealment from that
which was observable in them. Similarly, Trilling (1971) discusses themes of
deception and pretense found among English politics, philosophy, and
literature (e.g., Shakespeare). Concerns about self‐concealment were, in
Baumeister’s (1987) view, initially limited to perceptions of others—were
people hiding their true‐selves from others? Baumeister (1987) notes that
with the arrival of Puritanism so too emerged concerns over whether indivi-
duals were deceiving themselves. Determining whether one’s own actions
were true or false depended on a consideration of one’s standing on char-
acteristics deemed necessary for one to possess in order to enter into heaven
(i.e., piety, faith, and virtue). Thus, authentic functioning from this perspec-
tive (i.e., being one’s true‐self ) involves regulating one’s actions to be in
accord with religious dictates.
Historical perspectives on false‐self behaviors demonstrate the vital role
that cultural contexts play in people’s perceptions of their own and others’
authenticity. In many respects, false‐self behaviors represent the lower end of
an authenticity continuum (i.e., the relative absence of authentic action or
experience). Contemporary interest in false‐self behaviors is evident in such
varied topics as self‐monitoring (Snyder, 1987), impression management and
strategic self‐presentations (GoVman, 1959; Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1980),
and voice (Gilligan, 1982; Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1997). In terms of
conceptualizing authenticity, the notion of false‐self behaviors reflects the
continual tension between the person and the social structure—the interface
of personal inclinations and social obligations that form the stage on which
authenticity is portrayed.
Many of the works from middle‐age philosophers were consistent with the
Puritanical interpretation of authenticity by equating falsehood with non-
conformity to religious prescriptions. In contrast, philosophy from the
Enlightenment and onward often challenged the premise that authentic
functioning occurs through acting in accordance with prescribed religious
doctrines, or any learned social conventions. For instance, philosophers like
Hobbes and Hume discussed morality and the structure of social contexts as
central features of ontological concerns.
Hume asserted that the concept of oneself is one that people derive
through their social interactions with others—a position championed by
symbolic interactionists (Cooley, 1902; Meade, 1934) and advocated by
current psychological theorists who emphasize the reflected self (e.g., Tice
& Wallace, 2003). Thus, Hume asserted that morality and authenticity are
best understood through the relationships that connect individuals to others.

Specifically, Hume described morality in terms of how people judge
‘‘virtues’’—behavior that produces pleasure or reduces pain for the actor
or for others (Wilson, 2003). Whereas ‘‘artificial’’ virtues are those that
depend on social conventions, and that people evaluate for its social pru-
dence, ‘‘natural’’ virtues reflect behaviors people would perform even if there
were no need for social conventions to regulate their occurrence (Wilson,
2003). Thus, in contrast to the implicit conformity found in artificial virtue
pursuits, natural virtues, similar to Aristotle’s notion of the pursuit of the
higher good, are actions taken for their own sake. Furthermore, Hume
describes such actions as emanating from relational concerns that promote
social well‐being, and thus, by extension promote individuals’ personal well‐
being. Thus, the distinction between artificial and natural virtues provides an
important basis for further diVerentiating authentic functioning in terms of
people’s motives, as opposed to merely actions taken in tandem with pre-
scribed social norms. Moreover, Hume’s views provide an important histor-
ical basis for considering interpersonal concerns as central to authentic
functioning.
With the onset of developments in existential philosophy around the 19th
century, metaphysical critiques often equated conformity to religious con-
ventions with inauthentic functioning. As a precursor to the Existential
movement, Kierkegaard asserted that authentic functioning reflects subjec-
tivity in choices that involve people’s ‘‘essential knowing’’—knowledge that
concerns the deepest meanings of their existence. Objective certainty of
essential knowledge is neither final nor complete, and thus, its truth is always
an approximation (Westphal, 2003). Kierkegaard also observed that cultural
institutions tend to produce pseudo‐individuals (i.e., stereotyped members of
‘‘the crowd’’). Whereas ‘‘the crowd is untruth,’’ Kierkegaard states, ‘‘truth is
subjectivity’’ (Kierkegaard, 2004). In response to objective uncertainty and
institutionalized identity production, individuals must take responsibility for
their existential choices (e.g., their choices regarding who they will be) and
become who they are beyond culturally imposed identities (McDonald,
2005).
In becoming their self, individual’s existential anxiety is aroused. That is,
people experience ambivalence regarding how to be, experiencing joy and
excitement for their freedom, yet dread for self‐repudiation and the respon-
sibility for choosing how to be. Existential anxiety reflects a form of self‐
alienation or as Kierkegaard (2004, p. 26) put it, ‘‘there is an interiority that
is incommensurable with exteriority.’’ Through a process of becoming their
own self, individuals pass through the stage of self‐alienation, and subse-
quently rely on their subjective faith to energize and organize their chosen
actions toward their absolute end/goal (e.g., their essential purpose).
AUTHENTICITY 289
For Kierkegaard, faith is not rooted in the clarity of people’s knowledge

(e.g., ‘‘How certain is my knowledge?’’), but rather in the embracing of their
paradoxes in spite of their absurdities (e.g., ‘‘How deep is my commitment to
what I fallibly take to be true?’’). Faith signifies a particular cognitive stance
(e.g., recognition of the absurd) that involves a radical transformation in
one’s life (Westphal, 2003). The challenge of this transformation occurs in a
‘‘process of highest inwardness’’—whereby people accept their faith as nor-
mative and orient their actions toward becoming their ‘‘innermost’’ selves.
From this perspective, authentic functioning is not attainable via learning
and conforming to norms derived from external dogmatic beliefs (be
they religious, or otherwise). Rather, authentic functioning occurs when
individuals choose to be in accordance with their absolute end/goal.
Personally, for Kierkegaard, existence emerges as a philosophical problem
to embrace the paradoxical presence of God, by smuggling ‘‘Christianity
out of the system of Christendom.’’ A generation later, Neitzsche’s ‘‘philos-
ophy of the future’’ sought to deconstruct the interpretations and evalua-
tions implicit in cultural authorities (including the prior teachings of
philosophy itself). According to Neitzsche, absolutisms in social categories,
such as ‘‘good and evil,’’ needed to be reinterpreted and revalued (e.g.,
‘‘beyond good and evil’’). By abandoning any, and all culturally constructed
absolutes, nihilism emerges—the recognition that life has no intrinsic mean-
ing. In light of this recognition, Nietzsche proposed that some people would
fall victim to despair. Alternatively, Halling and Carroll (1999, p.97) note
Nietzsche’s proposal of the emergence of a new person—the Ubermensch
(‘‘Overman’’), a ‘‘creator of authentic values.’’ The Ubermensch represents a
particular mode of existence, found in a person who goes beyond a mere
nihilistic devaluation of all prevailing values, to make possible a ‘‘reva-
luation of values’’ (Schacht, 2003). Thus, by people ‘‘naturalizing’’ their self
understanding to fit within a reinterpreted sensible context of their constitu-
tion, resources, and circumstances, people realize their life‐aYrming poten-
tial. Schacht (2003, p. 412) describes this state as ‘‘a fundamental expression
reflecting how one is or how one has come to be constituted,’’ noting that ‘‘it
signals no abandonment of commitment to truthfulness, but rather the
ascent to a further, highest humanly possible form of it.’’
Thus, for Nietzsche and Kierkegaard alike, the essence of people’s being is
unfounded in objective inventories designed to measure what they are, but
rather, people’s essence is understood in terms of their way of being. This
idea that no general or uniform account of what it means to be human can
be put forth, because the meaning of being is decided in and through
existence itself, is captured in Sartre’s infamous existential slogan: ‘‘existence
precedes essence’’ (Crowell, 2005). Thus, Sartre (2004, p. 344) puts forth the
view that subjectivity must be the starting point on which people’s essence is
predicated. Whereas entities are defined in terms of their essential properties

(e.g., what type or kind of thing they are), the essence of people is not fixed by
their type, but rather by what they make of themselves. Existential psycholo-
gist Rollo May (1960, p. 17) amplifies this view through his assertion ‘‘that
only as we aYrm our existence do we have any essence at all.’’
Within the realm of existential philosophy, the studies of Martin Heidegger
and Jean‐Paul Sartre are generally regarded as prototypes for characterizing
authenticity. While both philosophers employed a phenomenological meth-
odology, Heidegger is credited with having united existential concerns
with the phenomenological method posed by the phenomenologist Edmund
Husserl . Husserl proposed that through the psychological process epoché,
people clear away their preconceptions about experience and return ‘‘to the
things themselves’’ (Halling & Carroll, 1999). This process relies on people’s
intentionality—the interaction between the subjective and objective compo-
nents of consciousness. Rather than just passively registering an object’s
existence, people ‘‘cocreate’’ phenomena through intentionality (Halling &
Carroll, 1999).
Heidegger (1968) implemented the phenomenological method in seeking
to understand the question ‘‘What is meant by being?’’ Heidegger framed
existence (Dasein or Being‐there) with respect to both its historical and
temporal aspects. For Heidegger, authentic possibility exists in relation to
Geworfenheit (i.e., ‘‘thrown‐ness’’). Thrown‐ness refers to the idea that peo-
ple are born into a world that they did not construct, live amid conditions
over which they have little control, and are insuYciently equipped to deter-
mine solutions to existential questions such as ‘‘Who am I?’’ Consequently,
the totality of people’s behaviors is at first a function of the behavioral
prescriptions derived from the social environment. In light of the constraints
of their ‘‘thrown‐ness,’’ and the inevitability of their finitude (e.g., death),
people can embrace their individuality and freedom to live authentically
(Halling & Carroll, 1999).
By counteracting their thrown‐ness and imminent finitude, the whole of
Dasein’s activity—people’s ‘‘Being‐in‐the‐world’’—gains significance from
the purpose or aim to which they understand themselves as existing
(Heidegger, 1968). Authentic possibility occurs in the condition of self‐making,
when having been confronted with the ‘‘nothingness’’ of their existence (e.g.,
acting solely in accord with social norms), individuals transform their mode of
being to reflect a sense of care (i.e., assumed responsibility) toward others and
their being themselves. ‘‘Being‐in‐the‐world’’ does not constitute the self
as an independent isolate of the world, but rather it reflects an existential
modification of how one exists with others (Heidegger, 1968). When such
a transformation occurs, the activity of Dasein is governed by the project
of existential possibility in which people ‘‘make themselves.’’ Accordingly,
AUTHENTICITY 291
authenticity in German, Eigentlichkeit refers to the attitude through which

individuals engage their projects as their own (Crowell, 2005).
From Heidegger’s perspective, authentic functioning reflects people
resolutely choosing to act with care those projects that permit their Being‐
in‐the‐World. Moreover, authentic functioning is marked by a sense of unity
among the temporal and historical aspects of existence. For instance,
Crowell (2005) refers to existential temporality in which the future (the
possibility aimed at by one’s projects) recollects the past (what no longer
needs to be done or completed) in order to give meaning to the present (the
things that take on significance in light of what currently needs doing). These
facets of existential temporality resemble various cognitive‐motivational
terms used by contemporary psychologists to describe people’s pur-
posive behavior (e.g., Cantor & Zirkel, 1990) and seem relevant to the
notion of personal narratives or self‐stories (e.g., Gergen & Gergen, 1988;
McAdams, 1995, 1999). In particular, existential temporality complements
the fundamental concerns of Hermans’ Valuation Theory (1987) in which
people’s personal construction of meaning is examined with respect to
specific spatio‐temporal instances ascribed to their life stories (Hermans,
Rijks, & Kempken, 1993). Thus, an authentic existence is one in which
people understand their choices and commit themselves to enact those
projects that give shape to their existence.
For Sartre, people’s way of ‘‘being’’ is inextricably linked to their choices.
Similarly, contemporary psychological theories of motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 2000) and psychological well‐being (RyV, 1989) place a premium on
people’s autonomy. In Sartre’s view, we are our choices: ‘‘to be’’ is to choose;
‘‘to cease to choose’’ is to cease to be (Flynn, 2003). While Sartre’s basic
message attests to people’s conscious decisions and their responsibility
for their actions (or inaction), such choices are noted to occur within
situations themselves. More specifically, Sartre describes situations in terms
of a synthesis of a person’s ‘‘facticity’’ (e.g., life’s givens, such as a person’s
past experience, psychological properties, and broader sociocultural
milieu) and one’s ‘‘transcendence’’ (e.g., the willful agent capable of going
beyond, or surpassing the situations’ facticity). Actions governed by facticity
reflect a particular form of determinism, a predilection toward what pra-
ctically ‘‘is’’ in the situation. Alternatively, actions governed by trans-
cendence reflect a predilection toward what can be. By recognizing that
they are radically free to ‘‘choose’’ otherwise, to be other than the way they
‘‘are’’ (e.g., beyond their facticity alone), people exhibit a form of self‐
negation expressed as existential angst. Thus, the kind of being one is,
reflects the choices and decisions one makes amid the facts and the possibi-
lities of the situation. In this respect, Sartre frames authentic functioning as a
particular instance of peoples’ behavioral self‐regulation. That is, authentic
actions reflect the intrapsychic resolve that emerges from the choices
found among the operative self‐schemas governing individuals’ situated
freedom (cf., involving the actual self and the possible self, Markus & Nurius,
1986).
For Sartre, ‘‘Bad faith’’ emerges when individuals lie or deceive them-
selves about their ontological duality. Such deceptions occur when people
either dissolve the possibilities of transcendence in the throws of ‘‘facticity,’’
or conversely when they act with only sheer ‘‘transcendent’’ will, and ignore
the facts of the situation. Thus, authentic functioning from this perspective
emerges when individuals openly embrace the ontological duality of their
situated freedom when deciding on how they will behave.
II. Taking Stock of These Various Perspectives: Towards a

Psychological View of Authenticity
This brief and necessarily selective historical account of philosophical perspec-

tives on authenticity demonstrates the construct’s richness and complexity.
These perspectives depict various themes and help to illuminate the develop-
ment of the construct. First, authenticity reflects self‐understanding. Whereas
Socrates equated self‐examination with the very value of a person’s existence,
other philosophers emphasized the importance of self‐understanding in orga-
nizing one’s actions. Thus, a second aspect of authenticity involves behaviors
that are rooted in self‐knowledge, as in Aristotle’s ‘‘pursuit of the highest
good,’’ Heidegger’s notion of ‘‘project,’’ Kierkegaard’s essential knowledge
and subjective truth, and Husserl’s intentionality. Moreover, authentic
behavior reflects particular actions, actions expressive of people’s values
(e.g., Hume, Nietzsche), and that are freely chosen with a sense of agency
(e.g., Sartre, Kierkegaard, & Heidegger). Third, authentic functioning reflects
people’s willingness and capacity for objectively acknowledging and accept-
ing their core self‐aspects. That is, authenticity reflects the relative absence of
self‐deception and the relative presence of unbiased recognition of self‐rele-
vant information, including ontological realities (e.g., consider the discussion
on false‐self behaviors, or Sartre’s discussion of facticity and transcendence).
Fourth, authentic functioning involves a particular orientation towards
others (e.g., Heidegger’s notion of Being‐in‐the‐World).
Taken as a whole, authentic functioning also reflects a set of processes.
The notion of authenticity reflecting a set of processes is essential to the
perspectives discussed from Kierkegaard through Sartre. Collectively,
the existential philosophy perspective couches authenticity as occurring
when people freely choose to commit themselves to engage their activities
AUTHENTICITY 293
with agency, in a process of self‐authoring their way of being. In this respect,

the existential view of authenticity is consistent with Trilling’s (1971)
description of the Greek ancestry of the word authentic, authenteo, meaning
‘‘to have full power.’’ That is, authentic functioning is reflected in an
individual being ‘‘the master of his or her own domain.’’
Taken as a whole, this historical overview of authenticity documents a
variety of mental and behavioral processes that account for how individuals
discover, develop, and construct a core sense of self and, furthermore, how
this core self is maintained over time and situation. While various historical
accounts emphasize that authenticity involves a union between thought and
action, they often place a premium on whether these actions originate within
the self or without by societal expectations, norms, or pressures. We will see
many of these same themes in psychological perspectives on authenticity. In
the following section, we briefly discuss authenticity from the perspective of
several humanistically oriented psychological frameworks and describe how
these frameworks informed our own conceptualization of authenticity, to
which we then turn.
III. Psychological Perspectives on Authenticity
Self‐determination theory (SDT) (Deci, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &
Deci, 2000, 2002) holds that people are authentic when their actions reflect
their true‐ or core‐self, that is, when they are autonomous and self‐determining.
Our multicomponent framework of authentic functioning owes a great deal to
this conceptualization. Hodgins and Knee (2002) capture many aspects of
this convergence in their description of autonomously functioning individuals.
For example, they suggest that autonomously functioning individuals
‘‘will meet the continually changing stream of consciousness experience with
openness. By ‘openness’ we mean a readiness to perceive ongoing experience
accurately, without distorting or attempting to avoid the experience, and a
willingness to assimilate novel experiences into self‐structures’’ (p. 88). They
further suggest that autonomously functioning individuals ‘‘grow toward
greater unity in understanding and functioning’’ (p. 88), ‘‘have a high tolerance
for encountering experience without being threatened or defending against it’’
(p. 88–89), ‘‘feel choiceful and endorsing of their behavior’’ (p. 90), and exhibit
‘‘greater honesty in interactions of all types’’ (p. 90). According to SDT, self‐
determination is one of three basic psychological needs (the others being
competence and relatedness), the satisfaction of which is critical for optimal
psychological health and well‐being. Considerable research supports this claim
(Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Our conceptualization of authenticity also owes a great deal to Rogers’

(1961) conceptualization of a self‐actualizing or fully functioning individual
(Maslow, 1968), who possesses the following characteristics (Cloninger,
1993). First, the fully functioning individual is open to experience, both
objective and subjective, that life has to oVer. Accompanying this openness
is a tolerance for ambiguity and the tendency to perceive events accurately,
rather than defensively distorting or censoring them from awareness. Sec-
ond, fully functioning individuals can live fully in the moment, they are
adaptable and flexible, and they experience the self as a fluid process rather
than a static entity. Third, they inherently trust their inner experiences to
guide their behaviors. Fourth, a fully functioning person experiences free-
dom. This freedom may be reflected in the attitudes one adopts toward
experiences—even if the environment is immovable, one still has a choice
about how to respond and feel about it. Fifth, the fully functioning individ-
ual is creative in his or her approach to living, rather than falling back on
well‐established modes of behavior that become unnecessarily restrictive.
This creativity is fueled by a strong trust in one’s inner experiences and a
willingness to adapt to ever‐changing circumstances.
IV. A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity
We have seen that most perspectives on authenticity stress the extent to which
one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors reflect one’s true‐ or core‐self. More-
over, most perspectives emphasize a nondefensive stance toward evaluative
information, openness toward, and trust in, internal experiences, and fulfilling
interpersonal relationships. In line with these perspectives, we (Goldman &
Kernis, 2002; Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2005a,b) define authenticity as
the unobstructed operation of one’s true‐ or core‐self in one’s daily enterprise.
However, instead of viewing authenticity as a single unitary process, we suggest
that authenticity can be broken down into four separate, but interrelated,
components. We refer to these components as awareness, unbiased processing,
behavior, and relational orientation. Each of these components focuses on an
aspect of authenticity that, while related to each of the others, is distinct. We
turn now to a description of each component.
A. AWARENESS
The awareness component refers to possessing, and being motivated to

increase, knowledge of and trust in one’s motives, feelings, desires, and
self‐relevant cognitions. It includes, for example, knowing what type of food
one likes and dislikes, how motivated one is to lose weight, whether one is
AUTHENTICITY 295
feeling anxious or depressed, in what circumstances one is most likely to be

talkative, whether one desires to attend graduate or professional school, and
so forth. Moreover, it involves being motivated to learn about such things
as one’s strengths and weaknesses, goals and aspirations, dispositional
characteristics, and emotional states.
Having knowledge about one’s propensities and characteristics (i.e., of
one’s true‐self ) promotes the integration of one’s inherent polarities into a
coherent and multifaceted self‐representation. As Perls and his colleagues
(Perls, HeVerline, & Goodman, 1951) and many others have suggested,
people are not masculine or feminine, introverted or extroverted, emotional
or stoic, and so forth. Instead, while one aspect of these dualities (‘‘figure’’)
generally predominates over the other (‘‘ground’’), individuals invariably
possess both aspects to some degree. As people function with greater
authenticity, they become more aware of the fact that they possess these
multifaceted self‐aspects and strive to integrate them into a cohesive self‐
structure. In short, awareness involves knowledge and acceptance of one’s
multifaceted and potentially contradictory self‐aspects (i.e., being both
introverted and extraverted), as opposed to rigid acknowledgement and
acceptance only of those self‐aspects deemed internally consistent with one’s
overall self‐concept.
As we have noted elsewhere (Kernis & Goldman, 2005a,b), our view diVers
from J. Campbell’s conceptualization of self‐concept clarity (Campbell, 1990;
Campbell et al., 1996) and is more closely aligned with Sande, Goethals, and
RadloV ’s (1988) approach to the multifaceted self‐concept. According to
Campbell, endorsing as self‐descriptive both adjectives that reflect endpoints
of bipolar trait dimensions (e.g., introversion, extraversion) reflects an inter-
nally inconsistent self‐concept. In contrast, for Sande et al. (1988), such an
endorsement strategy reflects a multifaceted self‐concept.
We believe that this apparent contradiction can be resolved by taking into
consideration Paulhus and Martin’s (1988) concept of functional flexibility.
Functional flexibility involves having confidence in one’s ability to call into
play multiple, perhaps contradictory, self‐aspects in dealing with life situa-
tions. An individual high in functional flexibility believes that he or she will
experience little anxiety or diYculty in calling forth these multiple selves
because they are well‐defined and can be enacted with confidence.
These aspects of multiple selves can be thought of as constituting figure–
ground aspects of personality because the ‘‘selves’’ under consideration
are arranged around the interpersonal circumplex (Wiggins, 1979). In this
circumplex model, 16 interpersonal trait characteristics are arrayed around
two orthogonal dimensions (dominance and warmth). Examples of trait
pairs include ambitious–lazy, warm–cold, dominant–submissive, agree-
able–quarrelsome, extroverted–introverted, and arrogant–assuming. For
each item constituting the eight pairs, respondents indicate the extent to
which ‘‘they are capable of being [insert trait] if the situation requires it,’’ ‘‘it is
diYcult for them to behave in a [insert trait] manner,’’ ‘‘how anxious they are
when they behave in a [insert trait] manner,’’ and ‘‘the extent to which they
attempt to avoid situations that require them to behave in a [insert trait] manner.’’
In Paulhus and Martin’s (1988) research, functional flexibility related to a high
sense of agency and other indices of adaptive psychological functioning.
Kernis, Goldman, Piasecki, and Brunnell (2003) (reported in Kernis &
Goldman, 2005b) administered the Functional Flexibility Inventory (Paulhus
& Martin, 1988) and the Authenticity Inventory (AI) (Version 2) to a sample
of 84 individuals. We created summary indexes of capable, diYculty, anxiety,
and avoidance scores by summing responses to the 16 traits (Paulhus &
Martin, 1988). Total authenticity scale scores correlated significantly posi-
tively with capability, and negatively with diYculty, anxiety, and avoidance
(Kernis & Goldman, 2005b). These findings support our contention that
authenticity relates to a multifaceted and integrated self that is anchored in
strong self‐beliefs, self‐confidence, self‐acceptance, and agency rather than
self‐doubt, confusion, and conflict. Later in this chapter, we report additional
findings linking authenticity to a ‘‘stronger sense of self ’’ (Kernis, Paradise,
Whitaker, Wheatman, & Goldman, 2000).
One of the premises underlying our conceptualization is that awareness of
self is a component of healthy functioning. Awareness is really just a first step,
however. Also important is that this awareness fosters self‐integration and
acceptance of self. As integration and acceptance of self‐aspects increase, more
information about them will become accessible. An important issue, therefore,
is how individuals attain self‐knowledge in ways that foster integration and
acceptance of self. A number of techniques are available, some of which stem
from the Gestalt therapy framework developed by Fritz Perls and his colleagues
(Perls et al., 1951). These techniques emphasize deliberately attending to
aspects of self without evaluating their implications. A similar principle under-
lies the use of techniques or strategies designed to enhance individuals’ mind-
fulness. Through these exercises, people can become aware of currently ignored
or unexamined self‐aspects with which they often are uncomfortable. Other
techniques can then be applied to understand and resolve the basis of the
uncomfortableness, thereby fostering self‐integration and acceptance.
B. UNBIASED PROCESSING
The second component of authenticity involves the unbiased processing

of self‐relevant information. This component involves objectivity with respect
to one’s positive and negative self‐aspects, emotions, and other internal
experiences, information, and private knowledge. In addition, it involves
AUTHENTICITY 297
not denying, distorting, or exaggerating externally based evaluative informa-

tion. In short, unbiased processing reflects the relative absence of interpretive
distortions (e.g., defensiveness and self‐aggrandizement) in the processing of
self‐relevant information. To the extent that unbiased processing reflects an
aspect of authentic functioning, variables that are theoretically related to
authenticity should predict the relative absence of self‐serving biases and
illusions. Importantly, highly autonomous and self‐determining individuals
do not engage in self‐serving biases following success or failure (Knee &
Zuckerman, 1996).
Our characterization of the unbiased processing component of authentici-
ty resonates with conceptualizations of ego defense mechanisms that link
them to a wide range of important outcomes. For example, whereas adaptive
defense mechanism styles that involve minimal reality distortions predict
psychological and physical well‐being many years into the future (e.g.,
Vaillant, 1992), maladaptive or immature defenses that involve considerable
reality distortion and/or failure to acknowledge and resolve distressing
emotions predict psychological and interpersonal diYculties (e.g., poor mar-
ital adjustment) (Ungerer, Waters, Barnett, & Dolby, 1997). Note that our
perspective stands in direct contrast to perspectives in which defensive
processing is considered to be an adaptive solution to inevitable threats
(e.g., Terror Management Theory) (Greenberg, Pyszcynski, & Solomon,
1986; Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszcynski, 1991). While we agree that people
can and do react defensively to threat, we believe that people’s natural
inclinations are toward open and nondefensive processing of self‐relevant
information (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
The major benefit of unbiased processing is that it contributes to an
accurate sense of self. This accuracy is highly beneficial for behavioral
choices that have either short‐ or long‐term implications. The more impor-
tant the outcome, the more important is accuracy. Pursuing the right occu-
pation, investing time in developing one’s talents, and even finding a dance
partner at a club all benefit from accurate or unbiased processing of evalua-
tive information. Engaging in biased processing may unwittingly limit one’s
options because relevant self‐knowledge is ignored or distorted.
We believe, as many have before us (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Rogers,
1961), that people are oriented toward growing, developing, and increasing
in complexity. We believe that these processes are inherently geared toward
obtaining accurate, not necessarily flattering, information. In essence, we
believe that positive self‐illusions generally are less healthy than accurate
self‐realities (in contrast to Taylor & Brown, 1988), even though the former
may confer short‐term benefits by helping individuals cope with unpleasant
emotions (Crocker, 2002). In the end, possessing and portraying accurate
self‐knowledge is more beneficial than possessing and portraying positive

but false self‐knowledge (e.g., Crocker, 2002; Robins & Beer, 2001).
Controversy currently exists over whether positive self‐related illusions
promote and reflect healthy psychological functioning (Robins & Beer, 2001;
Taylor & Brown, 1988). Our view is that often these distortions stem from
insecurity rather than strength (Kernis, 2000). In support of this contention,
research has shown that people who function autonomously and are self‐
determining do not show such self‐serving distortions (Knee & Zuckerman,
1996). In contrast, people who rely on defense mechanisms that involve
major distortions of reality have relatively poor interpersonal and psycho-
logical outcomes throughout their lifetimes (Vaillant, 1992). While self‐
illusions may minimize negative aVectivity in the short‐run (Crocker, 2002;
Kernis, 2003; Robins & Beer, 2001) and therefore seem to be adaptive, this
adaptiveness is itself an illusion, as it does not holdup over time and, in fact,
may contribute to poorer outcomes in the end (Robins & Beer, 2001). Other
forms of defensive functioning also appear reflective of insecurity and sub-
optimal functioning and are antithetical to authentic functioning, as we will
describe shortly.
Individuals high in unbiased processing are motivated to evaluate them-
selves objectively with respect to both positive and negative self‐aspects.
Thus, processing self‐relevant information in an unbiased manner is likely
to reflect what NeV (2003) referred to as a sense of self‐compassion (e.g.,
extending kindness and understanding to oneself rather than harsh self‐
criticism and judgment, and holding one’s painful thoughts and feelings in
balanced awareness rather than overidentifying them). Sample items on
NeV’s (2003) measure of self‐compassion include ‘‘I try to be understanding
and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like’’ and ‘‘I’m
disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies
(reversed scored).’’ In fact, Goldman, Lakey, and Kernis (2005d) found that
higher unbiased processing was associated with greater self‐compassion.
C. BEHAVIOR
The third component of authenticity involves behaving in accord with one’s

values, preferences, and needs as opposed to acting ‘‘falsely’’ merely to
please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments. In essence, this
component reflects the behavioral output of the awareness and unbiased
processing components. We acknowledge that instances exist in which the
unadulterated expression of one’s true‐self may result in severe social sanc-
tions. In such instances, we expect that, at the very least, authenticity will
reflect heightened sensitivity to the fit (or lack thereof ) between one’s true‐self
AUTHENTICITY 299
and the dictates of the environment, and a heightened awareness of the

potential implications of one’s behavioral choices. In contrast,
blind obedience to environmental forces typically reflects the absence of
authenticity (cf., Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Authentic behavior can be distinguished from inauthentic behavior by the
conscious, motivated intentions that underlie it. Authentic behavior is guid-
ed by an honest assessment of one’s self‐aspects via the awareness and
unbiased processing components. To the extent that one is conscious of
the ‘‘figure’’ and ‘‘ground’’ inherent in one’s self‐aspects, one is aVorded
the opportunity to act in a manner that is consistent with these multiface-
ted self‐aspects. In essence, authentic behavior is choiceful behavior oriented
toward a ‘‘solution’’ derived from consciously considering one’s self‐relevant
‘‘problems’’ (e.g., potentially competing self‐motives, beliefs, etc.). In con-
trast, inauthentic behavior does not reflect a choiceful and conscious regu-
latory focus designed to eventuate in behavior that resonates with one’s
complex, multifaceted self‐aspects. Rather, inauthentic behavior involves
being unaware of, ignoring, oversimplifying, and/or distorting self‐aspects
relevant to the behavioral context. In essence, whereas authentic behavior
reflects the awareness and operation of one’s true‐ or core‐self, inauthentic
behavior generally is oriented toward glorification and reverence by self and
others (though on occasion it may be oriented toward excessive deprecation
by self and others).
Authenticity is not reflected in a compulsion to be one’s true‐self, but rather
in the free and natural expression of core feelings, motives, and inclinations.
When this expression stands at odds with immediate environmental contin-
gencies, we expect that authenticity will be reflected in short‐term conflict.
How this conflict is resolved can have considerable implications for one’s felt
integrity and authenticity as well as for one’s overall functioning and well‐
being. An important implication of this reasoning is that it is insuYcient to
focus exclusively on whether one’s actions per se reflect authenticity. Rather,
it is crucial to focus also on the manner in which processes associated with
the other authenticity components inform one’s behaviors.
For example, Goldman (in press) presents findings indicating that aware-
ness scores negatively correlate with tendencies to engage in social compari-
son, self‐monitoring, and public self‐consciousness. He argues that such
tendencies can undermine one’s behavioral authenticity, because one fails
to consider internal self‐knowledge and instead depends primarily on exter-
nally derived information (by comparing oneself to others, relying on others’
actions as the norm for one’s own actions, or by habitually focusing on how
one publicly appears). More generally, sometimes the needs and values of
the self are incompatible with the views of the larger society (e.g., when an
artist focuses on a highly controversial subject matter). In these instances,
authenticity may be reflected in awareness of one’s needs and motives and an

unbiased assessment of relevant evaluative information. Sometimes the
resulting behavior may also reflect authenticity, but sometimes it may not
(as when the aforementioned artist ‘‘sells out’’). Consequently, while the
awareness, unbiased processing, and behavior components of authenticity
relate to each other, they clearly are separable. We return to this issue shortly.
D. RELATIONAL ORIENTATION
The fourth component of authenticity is relational in nature, and bears

resemblance to Jourard’s (1971, p. 133) proposition that ‘‘authentic being
means being oneself, honestly, in one’s relations with his fellows.’’ In our
view, relational authenticity involves valuing and striving for openness,
sincerity, and truthfulness in one’s close relationships. In essence, relational
authenticity means being genuine rather than fake in one’s relationships with
close others. It is characterized by honesty in one’s actions and motives as
they pertain to one’s intimates, and to accuracy in beliefs about oneself and
one’s intimates. Moreover, it involves endorsing the importance of close
others seeing the ‘‘real’’ you and relating to them in ways that facilitate their
being able to do so. Furthermore, given that dispositional authenticity
involves heightened levels of self‐knowledge and understanding (i.e., aware-
ness), and the capacity to evaluate one’s self objectively (i.e., unbiased
processing), higher authenticity levels may enhance self–other perception
congruence.
Research focused on self‐verification theory suggests that people are
motivated by their need for self‐knowledge (Swann, Stein‐Seroussi, &
Giesler, 1992) and are drawn toward others who confirm their preexisting
self‐conceptions (Swann, 1983). We believe that self‐verification processes in
close relationships are especially likely to occur when the other components
of authenticity are operative within individuals (e.g., possessing high levels
of awareness, unbiased processing, and behavioral authenticity). Converse-
ly, self‐enhancement processes that involve distorted evaluations within
close relationships are especially likely to occur among individuals who are
low in authenticity (i.e., those who are uncertain who they really are, and
who resist accurate self‐evaluation). Stated diVerently, low authenticity may
reflect the presence of fragile self‐feelings that motivate self‐enhancement
tendencies (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2002). In such cases, incon-
gruence between individuals’ self‐evaluation and their perceptions of how
their intimates evaluate them may stem from motivations that stifle accuracy
and consensus in favor of positive self‐views. Consistent with this line of
reasoning, Mikulincer, Orbach, and Iavenieli (1998) found that securely
AUTHENTICITY 301
attached people were more accurate in assessing self–other similarity than were
insecurely attached people. In short, substantive intimate relationship adjust-
ment is likely to involve feeling understood or ‘‘known’’ to intimates, and
accuracy in such appraisals is likely to occur when authenticity is operative.
Authentic relationships involve a reciprocal process of self‐disclosure and
of mutual intimacy and trust (Reis & Patrick, 1996). Thus, relational au-
thenticity involves developing and achieving secure attachments with inti-
mates that further promotes the genuine expression of core self‐aspects
without threat of reprisal or criticism. In support of this contention, Kernis
and Goldman reported that higher relational orientation related to higher
secure attachment styles and lower preoccupied and fearful attachment
styles (2005a), as well lower rejection sensitivity (2005b). In short, we expect
that people high in relational authenticity will be involved in healthier, more
satisfying, and fully functioning relationships than people low in relational
authenticity. Later in the chapter, we report additional data relevant to
examining these claims.
In other research, Harter, Waters, Pettit, Whitesell, Kofkin, and Jordan
(1997) found that relationship partners who each viewed themselves as
‘‘mutual’’ (e.g., exhibiting a balance between one’s personal needs and one’s
partner’s needs) reported the highest levels of validation and authentic beha-
viors, whereas ‘‘self‐focused autonomy’’ partners were perceived as least
validating. In terms of well‐being, Harter et al. (1997) found evidence for a
process model. Specifically, the relationship between individuals’ perceived
validation from their partners and their own well‐being (i.e., self‐esteem and
cheerfulness) depended on the extent to which they exhibited authentic self‐
behavior within their romantic relationship. Taken as a whole, Harter et al.’s
(1997) findings demonstrate that behavioral authenticity within one’s inti-
mate relationships involves adopting a relationship orientation that fosters
mutuality. Furthermore, their findings suggest that how a person’s intimate
relationships influence his or her well‐being is aVected by the extent to which
one acts in accord with one’s true‐self within those relationships.
E. MORE ON THE SEPARATENESS OF THESE COMPONENTS
We view these multiple components of authenticity as related to, but sepa-

rable from, each other (Table I). For instance, situations invariably exist in
which environmental pressures may inhibit the expression of one’s true‐self
(e.g., a person may not express his true opinion to a close friend who is
highly depressed). Although behavioral (and perhaps relational) authenticity
may be thwarted in such instances, authenticity at the levels of awareness
and unbiased processing may be operative. Specifically, awareness may
TABLE I
AUTHENTICITY COMPONENTS
Awareness
Awareness and knowledge of, and trust in, one’s motives, feelings, desires, and self‐relevant
cognitions
Includes awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, dominant–recessive aspects of person-
ality, powerful emotions, and their roles in behavior
Unbiased Processing
Minimal, if any, denial, distortion, exaggeration, or ignoring of private knowledge, internal
experiences, and externally based self‐evaluative information
Objectivity and acceptance with respect to one’s strengths and weaknesses
Behavior
Acting in ways congruent with one’s values, preferences, and needs
Rather than acting merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments
Relational Orientation
Value and make eVorts to achieve openness and truthfulness in close relationships
Important for close others to see the real you, those deep, dark, or potentially shadowy self‐
aspects that are not routinely discussed
Relational authenticity means being genuine and not ‘‘fake’’ in one’s relationships with others
involve active attempts to resolve conflicting motives and desires involved in

knowing one’s true opinion and the implications expressing it may have for
one’s friendship and the well‐being of one’s friend.
In many respects, the awareness component of authenticity is the most
fundamental. Self‐knowledge is at the heart of both behavioral and relation-
al authenticity. Although we can envision instances in which behavioral and
relational authenticity emerge spontaneously with little or no conscious
deliberation, ultimately the self‐aspects that are involved will be available
and accessible with the growth of one’s self‐knowledge. Unbiased processing
may involve acknowledgment of the fragile underpinnings of one’s attitude.
In contrast, inauthenticity may involve actively ignoring or denying one’s
opinion or emphasizing the superiority of one’s judgmental abilities. In
short, it is possible for a person to be operating authentically at some levels
but not at others. Therefore, it is important to examine the processes
associated with each component of authenticity (Kernis, 2003).
F. CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER CONSTRUCTS
Each of these aspects of authenticity has received some attention in the

past, although not usually with explicit reference to the construct of authen-
ticity. For example, researchers have examined aspects of the awareness
AUTHENTICITY 303
component in research on public and private self‐consciousness (e.g.,

Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). Some implications of biased processing
of self‐relevant information have been examined in research on self‐serving
biases (e.g., Blaine & Crocker, 1993). Aspects of behavioral authenticity
have been examined in research on personality–behavior and attitude–
behavior consistency (Koestner, Bernieri, & Zuckerman, 1992; Snyder,
1987). Finally, aspects of relational authenticity have been studied in re-
search on attachment processes and self‐disclosure (Mikiluncer & Shaver,
2005). Readers of this chapter undoubtedly will recognize aspects of our
theory in this prior work. However, our theory has the capacity to integrate
these various strands of research to explicate the processes associated with
the construct of authenticity in a way not done before. For research to be
conducted, however, an empirically based measure of authentic functioning
is needed. We turn now to our eVorts to develop such a measure.
V. Measuring Individual DiVerences in Dispositional Authenticity:

The Authenticity Inventory
We started with a large pool of items that we believed would tap into these four
components, and we administered them to several samples of male and female
college students. We eliminated items based on interitem correlations and
exploratory factor analyses. In the research reported in this chapter, we used
three successive versions of the scale. The final scale (AI‐3, Goldman & Kernis,
2004) consists of 45 items (Awareness—12 items, Unbiased Processing—10
items, Behavior—11 items, and Relational Orientation—12 items). We include
the scale items, along with instructions for its administration and scoring, in the
Appendix. CoeYcient alphas for the scale as a whole (.90) and for each of the
subscales (Awareness ¼ .79, Unbiased Processing ¼ .64, Behavior ¼ .80, and
Relational Orientation ¼ .78) are acceptable. Test retest reliabilities (over
approximately 4 weeks, N ¼ 120) were high (Total ¼ .87, Awareness ¼ .80,
Unbiased Processing ¼ .69, Behavior ¼ .73, and Relational Orientation ¼ .80).
How do these proposed authenticity components relate to the construct of
authenticity? One possibility is that these four components of authenticity
reflect conceptually distinct but interrelated aspects of authenticity. Stated
diVerently, authenticity may be a multifaceted construct that consists of four
distinct components. In factor analytic terminology, this would equate to a
four‐factor model.
A second possibility is that authenticity is a unidimensional rather than
multidimensional construct. That is, while the components we introduced
may be conceptually distinct, empirically they may be so highly interrelated
that they are not distinguishable and, therefore, represent a single broad
authenticity construct. In factor analytic terminology, each component may
load very highly on a single factor.
A third possibility combines aspects of the two previous possibilities. That
is, on the one hand, authenticity may reflect four conceptually distinct facets
as in the first possibility. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to suppose that these
four aspects are going to be completely unrelated to one another. However,
it is also unrealistic to expect that they would be completely redundant with
one another. Consequently, there may be value in conceiving of a broad
authenticity construct at a higher level of abstraction that subsumes each of
the four facets of authenticity. In this instance, while the four components
are distinct, they may also measure a single latent construct of authentic
functioning. Thus, parsimony exists, but at a higher level of abstraction than
with a single‐factor model. In other words, a hierarchical structure exists in
which overall authenticity exerts its eVects through the four separable, but
interrelated, components of awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and
relational orientation.
We anticipated finding the greatest support for the third possibility—a
second‐order factor model in which interrelations among the authenticity
components are not so high that they are redundant with one another, but
are high enough so that they are summarized adequately with a single
second‐order authenticity factor. If supported, this model would provide
evidence for a broad latent construct of authenticity, while simultaneously
providing support for treating the components as valid indicators of distinct,
but interrelated, aspects of authentic functioning.
We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test these alternative
conceptions of authenticity. When developing measurement models for
theoretical constructs, one faces a number of options for operationalizing
them, ranging from (a) a total disaggregation model in which individual
elements (e.g., questionnaire items) are used as manifest indicators of the
latent constructs, to (b) some intermediate level of aggregation, such as
creating item parcels (‘‘testlets’’), for use as manifest indicators in latent
variable models, to (c) a total aggregation model in which a single composite
indicator is used to represent the latent construct (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1991;
Edwards, 2000). We opted for a meso‐level of aggregation by creating
multiple‐item parcels for each authenticity dimension. Use of item parcels
poses several advantages over use of individual items as manifest indicators.
Specifically, as compared to individual items, item parcels are more reliable,
have smaller ratios of unique to common variance, are less likely to violate
distributional assumptions, are more parsimonious, are less likely to have
unmeasured correlated disturbances, are less subject to sampling fluctua-
tions, and usually result in less biased CFA solutions (Bandalos, 2002; Little,
AUTHENTICITY 305
Fig. 1. Proposed theoretical models of dispositional authenticity.
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). There are a number of app-

roaches to forming item parcels (Hagtvet & Nasser, 2004; Hall, Snell, &
Faust, 1999; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000), but random assignment is a
generally eVective approach. As such, we randomly assigned items to three
item parcels each for the awareness (AW), unbiased processing (UP), behav-
ior (BE), and relational orientation (RO) subscales. The three models we
tested are shown in Fig. 1. Figure 1A shows a unidimensional Authenticity
model in which all item parcels (shown in rectangles) are presumed to reflect
a single authenticity factor. The second model, shown in Fig. 1B, is a
four‐factor model, which diVers from the unidimensional model in that it
proposes that authenticity is comprised of four distinct, yet possibly corre-

lated, components discussed earlier. The final model we tested, shown in
Fig. 1C, was a hierarchical model, which proposes that any interrelation-
ships among the four facets of authenticity proposed by the model shown in
Fig. 1B can be explained parsimoniously on the basis of their common
dependency on a more general, second‐order authenticity factor.
Goodness‐of‐fit indices for these three models are shown in Table II. The
2 statistic was significant for each model indicating that all three models
should be rejected statistically, but this is a common finding in CFA re-
search. Consequently, we shifted attention to alternative overall model fit
indices and comparisons between these rival models. The unidimensional
model provided a poor fit to the data by all conventional standards for
acceptable model fit (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). By comparison, the
four‐factor model provided a much better fit to the data [2 (6) ¼ 242.64,
p < .01], and its goodness‐of‐fit indices satisfied (or approached) even more
stringent criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999) (SRMSR .08,
RMSEA .06, CFI and TLI .95). This indicates that authenticity is best
regarded as a multidimensional construct and supports the discriminant
validity of the factors specified in the four‐factor model. The remaining
question, however, is whether a general, higher‐order authenticity factor can
explain any relationships that exist between the four first‐order authenticity
factors. To test this idea, we compared the fit of the four‐factor model to that
of the hierarchical model and found that their fit to the data was not signifi-
cantly diVerent from one another (2 ¼ 1.89, ns). Alternative goodness‐of‐fit
indices were practically identical as well, indicating that the more parsi-
monious hierarchical model should be preferred as a plausible explanation
of the interrelationship among the first‐order authenticity factors. Results
TABLE II
CFA MODEL GOODNESS‐OF‐FIT INDICES
Model df 2 SRMSR RMSEA CFI TLI
1. Unidimensional Model 54 402.03* .073 .130 .82 .79

2. Four‐factor Model 48 159.39* .048 .075 .94 .92
1 versus 2 6 242.64* —– —– — —
3. Hierarchical Model 50 161.28* .049 .074 .94 .92
2 versus 3 2 1.89 —– —– — —
*p < .01.
Note: df ¼ degrees of freedom, 2 ¼ model chi‐squared statistic, SRMSR ¼ standardized
root mean squared error, RMSEA ¼ root mean squared error or approximation,
CFI ¼ Bentler’s (1990) comparative fit index, TLI ¼ the Tucker‐Lewis index.
AUTHENTICITY 307
Fig. 2. Confirmatory factor analysis findings for hierarchical model of authenticity.
(LISREL’s completely standardized factor loadings) for the hierarchical

model are shown in Fig. 2. All parameters were statistically significant
( p < .01) and, with the exception of the first item parcel for the Unbiased
Processing factor, were uniformly large.
We turn now to a research in which we used the AI‐3 (unless otherwise
noted) to examine various aspects of psychological and interpersonal func-
tioning and well‐being. First, we focus on aspects of healthy psychological
functioning, including verbal defensiveness, mindfulness, coping styles, self‐
esteem, and self‐concept structure. We then turn to examining the implica-
tions of authenticity for social role functioning, goal pursuits, well‐being,
and close relationships.
VI. Authenticity and Healthy Psychological Functioning
A. AUTHENTICITY AND ABSENCE OF

VERBAL DEFENSIVENESS
Emotions, thoughts, behaviors, or information that are discrepant with

one’s consciously held self‐image often are threatening, producing decreases
in self‐esteem and/or increases in negative aVect. To ward oV these threats,
people may utilize a wide range of defense mechanisms. ‘‘Defense me-
chanisms can be thought of as motivated cognitive‐behavioral strategies
that protect the self from perceived threat, maintain or augment self‐esteem,
reduce negative aVect, and maintain positive representations of attach-

ment figures (Feldman Barrett et al., 1996)’’ (Feldman Barrett, Cleveland,
Conner, & Williams, 2000). That is, defense mechanisms reduce the percep-
tion of threat by altering how people represent these events in conscious
thought. When people perceive a self‐esteem threat, for example, they may
attempt to deal with surfacing unpleasant aVect by controlling whether the
threat enters consciousness (awareness) or by controlling the specific content
of the thoughts or feelings that enter consciousness (distortion) (Feldman
Barrett et al., 2000). The result is that people distance themselves from the
threat and their emotional experience to some extent, and they avoid
thoughts and feelings that threaten their consciously held self‐image or
self‐feelings. The framework presented here suggests that people low in
dispositional authenticity will be especially likely to utilize defensive strate-
gies to ward oV potentially threatening events or experiences. We theorize
that people high in dispositional authenticity are motivated to understand
themselves, to experience aVect as it is felt, and to not distort evaluative
information. Thus, they should have the strength and personal resources
to acknowledge information that is potentially threatening without being
overly defensive.
A number of verbal markers of defensiveness exist (Feldman Barrett et al.,
2000) that provide clues to the nature of people’s motivational strategies for
protecting the self against threat. Do they rationalize by blaming others? Do
they deny awareness of conflicting emotions, choosing only to identify
positive aVect? Examining the nature of these motivational strategies has
the potential to provide significant insight into diVerences in the ways those
individuals who are low or high in authenticity deal with threatening events.
Feldman Barrett, Williams, and Fong (2002) reported a structured inter-
view technique (and sophisticated coding scheme) for eliciting threatening
experiences and defensive processing. Specifically, individuals engage in a
taped 40–60‐minute stressful interview about their experiences. Respondents
first answer five nonstressful items to acclimate them to the interview con-
text. They then respond to 15 mild to moderately stressful items (e.g., ‘‘Tell
me about a time when you felt that your parents were really disappointed
in you,’’ ‘‘Tell me about a time when you’ve broken the rules,’’ ‘‘Tell me
about a time when you have done something unethical on an assignment,’’
‘‘Describe a time when someone has come to you for help and you didn’t
want to help them,’’ ‘‘Tell me about a time when you have disappointed
someone.’’) The interview concludes with five items designed to gradually
restore a nonthreatened self‐view.
Two highly trained coders rated responses to each of the 15 stressful items,
which we summed to form an overall verbal defensiveness score. Raters
incorporated two aspects of defensiveness into their ratings: awareness and
AUTHENTICITY 309
distortion. Awareness is defined as the conscious understanding and accep-

tance of one’s cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in the face of threat.
Distortion is characterized as the reinterpretation of events through rational-
ization or justification to fit one’s preexisting self‐concept (Feldman Barrett
et al., 2002). As such, individuals can respond in a way that is nondefensive
(high awareness and acceptance and low distortion), mildly defensive (mod-
erate awareness with mild distortion), moderately defensive (limited aware-
ness and moderate distortion), or highly defensive (highly unaware and high
distortion of information). The training manual graciously provided to us by
Lisa Feldman Barrett contains extensive coding information and numerous
examples to facilitate the training of event coders.
This measure is well‐grounded in research and theory that have focused
on defensiveness and defense mechanisms (e. g., Cramer, 1990; Sackeim &
Gur, 1979; Shedler, Mayman, & Manis, 1993; Vaillant, 1992; Weinberger,
2003). The defensive verbal behavior assessment (DVBA) is ‘‘. . .a method
for detecting traces left by defensive processes in the content and structure
of speech’’ (Feldman Barrett et al., 2002, p. 777). Although individuals
may use diVerent defense mechanisms, the DVBA focuses on the shared
consequences of using these mechanisms.
The DVBA provides a unique opportunity to assess the validity of our
authenticity measure. Specifically, some skeptics have argued that people
who are highly defensive will falsely answer items on our authenticity
inventory so that they appear to be authentic, especially on the subscale of
unbiased processing (‘‘Of course I am authentic—are you trying to say I am
a phony?’’). The line of reasoning provided by skeptics suggests that higher
authenticity would relate to greater defensiveness. Although we recognize
that people are motivated to present themselves in a positive light, we
attempted to minimize these considerations in the assessment of authentic
functioning (with the AI) by avoiding asking people directly about whether
or not they are authentic. Instead, we query individuals about the extent to
which their motives, emotions, and behaviors reflect processes and mechan-
isms theoretically linked to authentic functioning. These processes include
the tendency not to distort negative self‐relevant information and to be
comfortable with experiencing unpleasant emotions, or motivations reflec-
tive of one’s ‘‘dark side.’’ Thus, we predicted that overall, greater authentici-
ty would relate to lower, not higher, defensiveness on the DVBA. Moreover,
we anticipated that higher awareness and unbiased processing subscale
scores would relate to lower defensiveness because these subscales deal
specifically with the extent to which people are aware of, and feel comfort-
able experiencing, unpleasant self‐relevant thought and aVect. Finally, we
anticipated that higher behavioral authenticity would relate to lower verbal
defensiveness because one’s behaviors are choiceful and reflective of one’s
true‐self, and therefore one should be more accepting of their implications

and consequences regardless of whether they are positive or negative. To the
extent that our findings support these predictions, they would provide
important construct validation support for the AI.
To test these hypotheses, we (Kernis, Lakey, Heppner, Goldman, &
Davis, 2005) had 101 male and female undergraduates participate in indi-
vidual DVBA interviews with one of three trained interviewers. We then
trained two additional raters to code the interviews according to the criteria
described in detail in a manual provided to us by Feldman Barrett. Interrater
reliability was excellent, exceeding .80. Total authenticity correlated inverse-
ly with defensiveness (r ¼ .25, p < .02). In addition, awareness correlated
inversely with defensiveness, (r ¼ .21, p < .04), as did behavior (r ¼ .28,
p < .01), and unbiased processing, although the latter only marginally
(r ¼ .19, p < .062). Finally, relational authenticity was nonsignificantly
correlated with defensiveness (r ¼ .10).
Other data collected in this study indicated that especially high levels of
defensiveness were associated with fragile forms of high self‐esteem, namely
unstable and contingent high self‐esteem (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Paradise,
2002). These findings further corroborate conclusions we can draw from
measures of overall subjective and psychological well‐being that we admi-
nistered. To the extent that defensiveness is adaptive and reflective of opti-
mal functioning, greater tendencies toward defensiveness should correlate
positively with these measures of well‐being. However, this clearly was not
the case. Total scores on RyV ’s (1989) multicomponent measure of psycho-
logical functioning were inversely correlated with defensiveness (r ¼ .25,
p < .02), as were scores on the Life Satisfaction Scale (r ¼ .25, p < .02).
Taken as a whole, our findings indicate that the higher the individuals’
dispositional authenticity, the more they were able to deal with self‐threaten-
ing information in an aware and nondistorting manner, which, as it turns out,
related to better overall psychological functioning, secure forms of high self‐
esteem and greater subjective well‐being. Whereas the current study examined
how dispositional authenticity related to individuals’ defensive reactions to a
specifically threatening context, in the next study we report, we sought to
examine individuals’ general tendencies toward actively and openly attending
to their experiences in a mindful and nonevaluative manner.
B. AUTHENTICITY AND MINDFULNESS
Mindfulness refers to a state of relaxed and nonevaluative awareness of

one’s immediate experience (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Research has linked
mindfulness with positive immediate experiences (LeBel & Dubé, 2001)
AUTHENTICITY 311
and greater psychological health and well‐being (Brown & Ryan, 2003).
Moreover, the capacity for mindfulness is an aspect of being fully function-
ing, so we expected that it would be associated with greater authenticity. The
mindfulness measure we used in our earlier research was the Mindful Atten-
tion Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Greater mindfulness,
as assessed by the MAAS, relates to greater psychological well‐being and
positive aVect and lower stress (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Sample items, en-
dorsement of which reflects low mindfulness, include: ‘‘I could be experien-
cing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time later’’; ‘‘I do
jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I am doing’’; ‘‘I
find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the
same time.’’ Kernis and Goldman (2005) reported that MAAS mindfulness
scores correlated significantly with total authenticity scores, as well as with
each subscale score.
In more recent research, Lakey, Kernis, Heppner, and Davis (2005) adminis-
tered both the MAAS and the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
(KIMS), which measures the specific mindfulness components of observing (OB-
SERVE), describing (DESCRIBE), acting with awareness (AWARENESS),
and accepting or allowing without judgment (ACCEPTANCE). Observing refers
to ‘‘observing, noticing, or attending to a variety of stimuli, including internal
phenomena, such as bodily sensations, cognitions, and emotions, and exter-
nal phenomena, such as sounds and smells’’ (Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004, p,
193). Sample items include ‘‘I pay attention to whether my muscles are tense
or relaxed’’ and ‘‘I notice the smells and aromas of things.’’ Describing refers
to ‘‘describing, labeling, or noting of observed phenomena by covertly
applying words. . . . This type of describing is done nonjudgmentally and
without conceptual analysis’’ (Baer et al., 2004, p. 193). Sample items
include ‘‘I’m good at finding the words to describe my feelings’’ and ‘‘Even
when I am feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words.’’
Acting with awareness refers to ‘‘Engaging fully in one’s current activity with
undivided attention or focusing with awareness on one thing at a time. . ..’’
(Baer et al., 2004, p. 193). Sample items include ‘‘When I’m doing
something, I’m only focused on what I am doing, nothing else’’ and
‘‘I’ll get completely absorbed in what I’m doing, so that all my attention
is focused on it.’’ Accepting or allowing without judgment refers to
‘‘. . .accepting, allowing, or being nonjudgmental or nonevaluative
about present moment experience . . . to refrain from applying evaluative
labels such as good/bad, right/wrong, or worthwhile/worthless . . ..’’
(Baer et al., 2004, p. 194). Sample items include ‘‘I make judgments about
whether my thoughts are good or bad (reverse‐scored)’’ and ‘‘I tend to
make judgments about how worthwhile or worthless my experiences are
(reverse‐scored).’’
TABLE III
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
FUNCTIONING MEASURES
Unbiased Relational
Measure Total Awareness processing Behavior orientation
Self‐actualization .61** .53** .42** .41** .41**

Vitality .23* .26* .16 .02 .27*
Psychological stress .30** .31** .14 .25* .13
Physical symptomatology .21 .22* .07 .14 .15
Mindfulness (KIMS) .64** .67** .40** .43** .45**
KIMS‐OBSERVE .26* .24** .06 .12 .29**
KIMS‐DESCRIBE .62** .60** .40** .50** .42**
KIMS‐AWARENESS .36** .44** .11 .25** .27**
KIMS‐ACCEPTANCE .28** .27** .39** .18 .10
Mindfulness (MAAS) .49** .45** .37** .40** .28**
* p < .05, ** p < .01.

Note: Higher Psychological Stress scores reflect lower levels of stress. See text for description
of KIMS subscales.
As shown in Table III, the findings obtained by Lakey et al. (2005) for the
MAAS scale replicated those reported by Kernis and Goldman (2005).
Specifically, total authenticity scores, as well as each authenticity subscale
score correlated significantly with total MAAS scores. In addition (and new
to this study), total authenticity and authenticity subscale scores correlated
positively with total KIMS scores as well as its subscales. Specifically,
awareness correlated with each KIMS subscale, relational orientation corre-
lated with each KIMS subscale with the exception of KIMS‐Acceptance,
unbiased processing correlated significantly with KIMS‐Describe and
KIMS‐Acceptance, and behavior correlated significantly with KIMS‐
Describe and KIMS‐Awareness. Most of these relationships were moderate
in strength. The relationships that emerged between the subscales of the two
measures have many interesting theoretical implications. For example, the
awareness authenticity subscale, which reflects a basic awareness of, trust in,
and openness toward, self‐knowledge, correlated with each of the KIMS
subscales. These relationships suggest that an open and trusting stance
toward one’s self‐aspects goes hand‐in‐hand with tendencies to observe
internal and external stimuli, competence in describing one’s internal states,
ability to focus one’s attention on the task at hand, and a nonjudg-
mental stance in general. In addition, the significant correlations between
our unbiased processing subscale and the KIMS describe and awareness
subscales suggests that engaging in biased processing may reflect a more
general tendency to engage in evaluative judgments. Finally, the fact that
AUTHENTICITY 313
high behavioral authenticity related to competence in describing observed

phenomena and to focusing one’s attention on the task at hand is consistent
with research and theory on intrinsic motivation. When intrinsically moti-
vated, people are highly absorbed in activities that match their interests and
talents (Deci, 1975). Interestingly although, the relational orientation au-
thenticity subscale is explicitly interpersonal in nature, it is related to many
intrapersonal aspects of mindfulness processes.
Other findings obtained in our lab and reported in Table III indicate that
higher authenticity relates to other aspects of positive psychological func-
tioning. Specifically, higher authenticity relates to greater self‐actualizing
tendencies (Jones & Crandall, 1986) and vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997)
and to lower psychological distress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983)
and (marginally) physical symptoms.
C. AUTHENTICITY AND THE USE OF VARIOUS

COPING STRATEGIES
If our assertion that authentic functioning is associated with greater adaptive

functioning is correct, we should find corroborating evidence by examining
people’s characteristic ways of coping with stressful events. The adaptive
value of coping strategies vary from healthy and helpful to unhealthy and
counterproductive (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Moos & Schaefer,
1993; Vaillant, 2000). For instance, Folkman and Lazarus (1980, 1985)
described healthy coping styles with respect to problem‐focused and
emotion‐focused strategies. Problem‐focused coping strategies aim toward
solving the problem or modifying the source of the threat (Folkman &
Lazarus, 1980, 1985). Emotion‐focused coping strategies aim toward manag-
ing or reducing the emotional distress associated with the threatening
circumstances (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985). Although this distinction
has proven highly useful, Carver et al. (1989) argued that each of these broad
categories is comprised of a number of distinct coping strategies. They
developed a multidimensional coping inventory (the COPE) to assess the
various ways that people cope with stressful events. Active coping: taking
active steps to remove the threat or reduce its impact (I concentrate my
eVorts on doing something about it). Planning: thinking about how to cope
with the threat such as the steps to take to deal with the problem (I think
about how I might best handle the problem). Suppression of competing
actions: putting other things aside to deal with the problem at hand (I put
aside other activities in order to concentrate on this). Instrumental social
support: seeking information, help, or advice about how to deal with the
stressor (I try to get advice from someone about what to do). An example of
emotion‐focused coping is emotional social support: seeking sympathy, moral

support, and the like (I discuss my feelings with someone). In addition, the
COPE assesses a number of potentially maladaptive strategies, as in the follow-
ing: venting one’s emotions—focusing on and venting one’s distress (I get upset
and let my emotions out); behavioral disengagement—withdrawing one’s eVort
to either deal with the stressor or achieve the goal hampered by the stressor
(I just give up trying to reach my goal); mental disengagement—engaging in
alternative activities to distract oneself from the problem at hand (I sleep more
than usual); substance use—using alcohol or drugs to take one’s mind oV the
problem (I drink alcohol or take drugs, in order to think about it less); and
denial—refusing to accept that the stressor is real (I pretend that it hasn’t really
happened). (The measure contains several other subscales, but they are not
discussed here because they did not relate to our authenticity measure.)
To test the hypothesis that greater authenticity would relate to greater
reliance on adaptive coping styles and to less reliance on maladaptive coping
styles, Goldman and Kernis (2005) administered the AI‐3 and then subse-
quently administered the COPE measure approximately 4 weeks later.
The correlations displayed in Table IV indicate that authentic func-
tioning is related to the (self‐reported) use of more adaptive and less
maladaptive coping strategies (Goldman & Kernis, 2005). First, scores on
each authenticity dimension, as well as total scores, correlated significantly
TABLE IV
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND COPING STYLES
Unbiased Relational
Coping scale Total Awareness processing Behavior orientation
Problem‐Focused Coping
Active coping .48** .37** .27* .49** .26*
Planning .31** .32** .10 .37** .09
Suppress .14 .11 .05 .21* .12
Instrumental support .15 .03 .01 .11 .32**
Emotion‐Focused Coping
Emotional support .19 .03 .08 .09 .38**
Suboptimal Coping
Mental disengage .21a .13 .23* .17 .07
Behavior disengage .21a .22* .11 .10 .18a
Emotion venting .12 .25* .15 .03 .13
Denial .22* .23* .10 .07 .24*
Substance use .25* .22* .09 .29** .30**
Note: ap < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

AUTHENTICITY 315
with scores on the active coping subscale. Thus, greater authentic function-
ing involves ‘‘taking the bull by the horns’’ and directly tackling the problem
at hand. Second, higher awareness and behavioral authenticity, as well as
total authenticity, related to greater use of planning. This makes sense, as
thinking through stressors and how best to deal with them often involves a
thorough assessment of one’s qualities relevant to the situation and a will-
ingness to act on one’s values. Third, greater behavioral authenticity related
to greater suppression of competing activities. This finding suggests that
behavioral authenticity involves the capability to self‐regulate one’s actions
with respect to task relevant demands. Fourth, greater relational authentici-
ty related to greater seeking of emotional and instrumental social support.
Thus, the more people value and achieve honesty and sincerity with their
intimates, the more they are willing to rely on them in times of stress by
seeking their informational and emotional support.
Authenticity also related inversely to the use of mostly dysfunctional or
maladaptive strategies. For example, substance use related to lower overall
authenticity, as well as lower awareness, behavior, and relational orientation
scores. These findings indicate that authentic functioning relates to construc-
tive and active eVorts to deal with problems and stressors, rather than shying
away from them or simply venting one’s emotions. Interestingly, the fact that
awareness subscale scores related to lower emotional venting suggests that the
desire to know one’s self does not include becoming fixated on one’s emo-
tional distress in times of stress. Instead, becoming fixated on one’s distress
appears to signal a relative lack of self‐knowledge. We would argue that
authentic self‐knowledge involves knowledge about one’s sensitivities that
interact with stressors to produce certain emotions and that such knowledge
reflects a level of mature self‐understanding antithetical to the notion of
venting one’s emotions, either to self or to others. Finally, total authenticity
scores, as well as awareness and relational orientation scores, related to less
denial of a stressor. As we have suggested, these aspects of authenticity
involve a desire for accuracy in self‐knowledge and comfortableness with
close others, each of which would seem to mitigate the need to deny the
existence of a stressor.
We conducted additional analyses to examine whether overall authenticity
predicted coping styles independent of self‐esteem level. Overall authen-
ticity uniquely predicted a number of coping styles, namely, active coping,
planning, emotional support, and substance abuse. These data provide impor-
tant support for considering dispositional authenticity to be an important
construct that cannot be reducible to self‐esteem level. Later in the chapter,
we report additional findings regarding the independent predictive utility
of dispositional authenticity, and we consider in detail the interrelation
between self‐esteem and authenticity.
D. AUTHENTICITY, SELF‐CONCEPTS, AND

ROLE FUNCTIONING
In his dissertation, Goldman (2004) examined the relationship and predic-

tive utility of dispositional authenticity with respect to a diverse set of
measures assessing (1) aspects of self‐esteem and self‐concepts (self‐esteem
level and contingency, self‐concept organization, and self‐theories) and (2)
social role functioning (markers reflecting general and authenticity‐related
aspects of social role adjustment) across the five commonly enacted social
roles of being a student, a romantic partner, a son/daughter, a friend, and an
employee.
Self‐esteem and self‐concept can be represented with an enormous number
of variables. Goldman narrowed the field by making reference to the notion of
a stronger sense of self, which Kernis et al. (2000) suggested is comprised of
three components: (1) feelings of self‐worth that are well‐anchored and se-
cure, (2) actions that reflect a strong sense of agency and self‐determination,
and (3) self‐concept that is clearly and confidently defined so that it con-
tributes to a coherent sense of direction in one’s daily experience. With
respect to self‐esteem, Goldman’s study included measures of self‐esteem
level (Rosenberg, 1965) and contingent self‐esteem (the Contingent
Self‐esteem Scale, Kernis & Paradise, 2004; reported in Kernis & Goldman,
in press). Previous research and theory indicate that the higher and less
contingent (i.e., less dependent on specific achievements or outcomes) one’s
self‐esteem, the healthier it is (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis, 2003).
Self‐concept organization reflects aspects of cognitive structures that
organize and guide the processing of self‐related information. Implicit in
most conceptualizations of self‐organization is a hierarchical organization of
self‐knowledge wherein specific contents or domains of one’s self‐concept
are subsumed by more global self‐representations (e.g., general evaluations
of one’s self ). This organization can reflect varying degrees of consistency,
unification, coherence, versus fragmentation, diVerentiation, confusion, and
the like. A number of variables capture aspects of this organization. Self‐
concept clarity (Campbell et al., 1996) is defined as the extent to which the
contents of the self‐concept are clearly and confidently held, internally
consistent, and temporally stable. Identity integration (O’Brien & Epstein,
1988) reflects the extent to which one’s self‐concept is eYcacious in organiz-
ing and directing life experiences and in assimilating new information. Stated
diVerently, identity integration reflects the overall adequacy of one’s self‐
concept in one’s general functioning. Self‐concept diVerentiation (Donahue
et al., 1993) reflects the extent to which individuals see themselves as having
diVerent personality characteristics in diVerent social roles. Thus, higher
diVerentiation reflects greater fragmentation in one’s self‐concept because
AUTHENTICITY 317
one’s personality is judged to diVer depending on the social role being

considered. Implicit theories (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) pertain to
individuals’ beliefs regarding the extent to which such characteristics as
intelligence, morality, and personality traits are fixed and unchange-
able (entity theory), or are malleable and subject to change and development
(incremental theory). Endorsement of an incremental self‐theory reflects
a mastery orientation characterized by personal development and self‐
improvement as opposed to performance displays at any given point in time.
Self‐organization also involves how individuals adjust their self‐concepts
to assimilate experiences into an identity, as they actively cope with emerging
social demands and developmental challenges (Erickson, 1959). Berzonsky
(1988) proposed that how individuals engage and negotiate identity‐
relevant issues involves specific social‐cognitive processing orientations that
he refers to as identity styles. Three identity styles are proposed: information-
al, normative, and diVuse/avoidant (Berzonsky, 1988, 1990). Individuals
characterized by an informational identity style ‘‘actively seek out, process,
and evaluate self‐relevant information before making identity decisions. They
are skeptical about their self‐constructs, open to new information and alter-
natives, and willing to revise and modify their self‐views in response to
discrepant feedback’’ (Nurmi, Berzonsky, Tammi, & Kinney, 1997, p. 556).
Individuals characterized by a normative identity style conform to standards
and expectations held by authority figures and significant others, whereas
individuals characterized by a diVuse/avoidant identity style are unwilling to
confront directly and to deal with problems and identity issues.
We anticipated that higher authenticity would relate to higher self‐esteem
level, clarity, identity integration, incremental self‐theories, and informa-
tional identity styles and would relate to lower contingent self‐esteem, self‐
concept diVerentiation, and normative and diVuse/avoidant identity styles.
Table V displays the correlations. As can be seen, the data strongly sup-
ported our expectations. Specifically, higher dispositional authenticity scores
related to feelings of self‐worth that were both more favorable (higher self‐
esteem level) and more secure (less contingent feelings of self‐worth). In
addition, higher authenticity scores related to aspects of self‐organization
that are characterized by possessing a self‐concept that (1) is clearly and
confidently defined (high self‐concept clarity) and (2) exhibits less variability
or fragmentation across one’s social roles (low self‐concept diVerentiation).
Furthermore, with respect to identity styles, higher authenticity related to
greater tendencies to actively explore identity relevant information (high
informational identity styles) and lower tendencies to avoid acknowledging,
deciding, or reconciling their identity (low diVuse identity styles). Finally,
higher dispositional authenticity reflected heightened tendencies toward
growth motivations reflected by possessing implicit self‐theories characterized
TABLE V
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND SELF‐CONCEPT
VARIABLES (GOLDMAN, 2004)
Total Unbiased Relational

authenticity Awareness processing Behavior orientation
Self‐concept clarity .68** .67** .47** .55** .29*

Identity integration .57** .61** .33** .56** .16
Identity styles: diVusion .51** .52** .32** .42** .19a
Self‐concept diVerentiation .32** .28* .28* .16 .22a
Entity .24* .29* .14 .23* .03
Contingent self‐esteem .58** .43** .51** .50** .24*
Self‐esteem level .60** .56** .44** .37** .39**
Note: ap < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
in incremental terms (i.e., believing one’s eVorts have meaningful im-

plications for changing outcomes in important self‐aspects). In sum, greater
dispositional authenticity reflected components of self‐esteem, self‐
organization, and self‐theories that involved a stronger, as opposed to
weaker, sense of self.
Dispositional authenticity reflects heightened self‐knowledge and under-
standing and openness toward knowing one’s self accurately. In contrast to
most measures of self‐concept organization that focus on structural or meta‐
knowledge features of self‐concept (e.g., how clearly the self‐concept is
defined), dispositional authenticity also assesses one’s prevailing motivation-
al tendencies toward acquiring and processing self‐relevant information
(i.e., awareness and unbiased processing component). Consequently, the
strong relations that emerged between dispositional authenticity and these
structural aspects of self‐concept suggest that dispositional authenticity
reflects an interface between self‐concept organization and its motivational
properties. For instance, higher authenticity reflected greater self‐concept
clarity and identity integration. Likewise, greater authenticity related to
greater beliefs that people felt they could change themselves through their
eVorts (i.e., incremental self‐theorists), a stance toward the self that is central
to philosophical and psychological perspectives that emphasize personal
choice and responsibility.
Goldman (2004) conducted additional analyses to examine the extent to
which dispositional authenticity predicted these aspects of a stronger sense
of self independently of self‐esteem level. Both self‐esteem level and dispo-
sitional authenticity independently predicted a number of these aspects,
AUTHENTICITY 319
namely, self‐concept clarity, contingent self‐esteem, identity integration, and

self‐actualization. In addition, whereas only authenticity predicted diVuse
and informational identity styles, only self‐esteem level predicted normative
identity styles such that higher levels of self‐esteem related to greater norma-
tive identity styles. The pattern of findings for identity styles underscores the
importance of diVerentiating authenticity from self‐esteem level. Specifically,
whereas dispositional authenticity uniquely predicted greater openness in
exploring one’s identity, and less avoidance and confusion in reconciling
one’s identity, self‐esteem level predicted heightened tendencies to recon-
cile one’s identity by integrating social norms. In sum, these analyses
indicate that dispositional authenticity predicts important outcomes
independent of self‐esteem level.
E. SOCIAL ROLE FUNCTIONING
A complete framework of authentic functioning necessitates taking into

consideration individuals’ social roles. When individuals respond to open
ended questions, such as ‘‘Who am I?,’’ they spontaneously describe them-
selves with reference to specific social roles, in addition to decontextualized
personal attributes (Côté & Levine, 2002; Gordon, 1968). Thoits (1992)
reported that 85% of respondents indicated one or more social roles as
self‐descriptors to a five‐item ‘‘Who am I?’’ Social roles involve identifying
oneself as a certain kind of person in relation to specific role partners. Some
scholars assert that social roles represent an especially important component
of self‐conception because ‘‘most daily interactions occurs in role relation-
ships . . . and, many, if not most, social roles imply auxiliary or embedded
social characteristics’’ (Thoits & Virshop, 1997, p. 123).
Numerous investigators have examined the relationship between aspects
of individuals’ functioning in their role‐identities and psychological adjust-
ment. For instance, researchers have examined adjustment as it relates to
role‐accumulation (e.g., Thoits, 1992), role‐balance (Marks, 1986), role‐
overload (e.g., Hecht, 2001), role‐strain (e.g., Thoits, 1986), and role‐conflict
(e.g., Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). Investigations examining
role‐accumulation have found that possessing a greater number of roles
buVers against threats to adjustment (e.g., Thoits, 1986). Marks (1986,
p. 420) examined role balance, defined as ‘‘the tendency to become fully
engaged in the performance of every role in one’s total role system, to
approach every typical role and role partner with an attitude of attentiveness
and care.’’ Individuals higher in role‐balance reported significantly higher
role‐ease and self‐esteem, and lower levels of role‐overload and depression,
than did those lower in role‐balance. Thus, research on role‐accumulation
and role‐balance indicates that to the extent one possesses an adequate

number of roles in which one is fully engaged, psychological adjustment
may be enhanced. In contrast, role‐overload (when a person is faced with too
many expectations), role‐strain (when a person’s roles are overly diYcult
to enact), and role‐conflict (when concurrent roles are not compatible) all
have been found to be associated with heightened stress levels (Biddle, 1986).
Of particular importance in the present context is the extent to which one’s
role‐identities are personally chosen and experienced as authentic. When
enacting roles that foster feelings of choice and authenticity, perceived stress
within such roles should be low, and individuals should more fully integrate
these roles into their self‐systems (Ryan & Deci, 2003; Thoits, 1992). Sheldon
et al. (1997) examined the relation of self‐integration (authentic role func-
tioning) to well‐being and adjustment in two studies. They assessed self‐
integration in terms of participants’ felt authenticity across the same five
social roles examined by Goldman (2004). Authentic role‐functioning was
assessed through items such as ‘‘I experience this aspect of myself as an
authentic part of who I am’’ and ‘‘I have freely chosen this way of being.’’
A number of interesting findings emerged. First, higher scores in role‐specific
authenticity significantly correlated with greater satisfaction in all five roles
and with greater preference to spend more time in four of five roles (the
friend role was the exception). Second, role‐authenticity ratings negatively
correlated with self‐concept diVerentiation (r ¼ .61), indicating greater‐felt
authenticity was associated with lower levels of self‐fragmentation across
social roles. Third, role authenticity ratings and self‐concept diVerentiation
(SCD) scores independently predicted other indices of psychological adjust-
ment. In short, Sheldon et al.’s (1997) findings demonstrate the importance
of experiencing authenticity in one’s social roles for fostering healthy
psychological adjustment.
We anticipated that dispositional authenticity would relate to indices
reflecting healthier role functioning. Highly operative authenticity presum-
ably provides individuals with a depth of inner resources that serve to
enhance their global interpersonal and psychological adjustment. For in-
stance, by having greater self‐understanding, individuals high in authenticity
seemingly are capable of self‐selecting appropriate niches in their interper-
sonal milieu that sustain and promote their interpersonal and psychological
adjustment. Whereas some people may experience social roles with great
distress, other people may experience them as opportunities for personal
growth or meaning. In addition, by exhibiting greater self‐acceptance in
processing self‐relevant information in an unbiased manner, individuals with
higher levels of authenticity may perhaps inoculate themselves from the
adverse influence of others when evaluating themselves in their social roles.
That is, individuals who are oriented toward self‐acceptance will find joy and
AUTHENTICITY 321
happiness enacting social roles even when their objective performance may
not meet others’ standards (as in a marathon runner who finishes in over
5 hours). In sum, we presumed that dispositional authenticity reflects a wide
range of important psychological characteristics that diVerentiate how indi-
viduals experience their social environment and social roles. The correlations
are displayed in Table VI in which it can be seen that dispositional authen-
ticity related consistently to the role functioning variables as we anticipated.
Higher dispositional authenticity related to healthy role functioning
across a range of commonly enacted social roles (i.e., being a son/daughter,
a student, a romantic partner, a friend, and an employee). For instance,
higher dispositional authenticity related to positive aspects of general role
functioning including greater satisfaction and positive aVectivity experienced
within one’s social roles, as well as greater ‘‘balance’’ of one’s total role‐
system. In addition, higher dispositional authenticity related to less negative
aspects of general role functioning as reflected in less stress within their
commonly enacted social roles, and less ‘‘overload’’ in their social roles in
general. Finally, heightened levels of dispositional authenticity also reflected
authentic aspects of role functioning. Specifically, greater dispositional au-
thenticity relates to role experiences that were: (1) reflective of greater
expressiveness of their true beliefs and opinions (role‐voice), (2) more fully
involved the enactment of their true‐selves (greater true‐self role enactment),
(3) subjectively deemed to be authentic (role authenticity), and (4) regulated
TABLE VI
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND ROLE FUNCTIONING
VARIABLES (GOLDMAN, 2004)

Role Variable
Balance .35** .29* .17 .25* .33**
Overload .06 .03 .17 .06 .05
Satisfaction .42** .44** .36** .21a .23*
Stress .23a .16 .14 .23* .13
Strain .25* .16 .30** .13 .16
Voice .55** .51** .28** .36** .45**
Authenticity .46** .40** .25* .29* .43**
Net positive aVect .44** .45** .28** .27* .30**
True‐self .43** .36** .29** .28* .35**
Self‐determination .24* .20a .18 .20a .10
Note: ap < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

by more self‐determined reasons. In sum, higher dispositional authenticity

related to diverse aspects of healthy role functioning that also included
several markers of authentic role experiences.
An important characteristic of this study is that social role variables
represent ‘‘middle‐level units’’ of personality functioning (Cantor & Zirkel,
1990) that involve a complex of motivations and precepts that function to
guide experiences and behaviors. In a similar vein, individuals’ goal pursuits
reflect middle‐level units that organize their day‐to‐day experiences and
contribute to their overall sense of well‐being. In the following study, we
report how authentic goal pursuits are linked with more general aspects of
well‐being.
F. AUTHENTICITY, GOAL PURSUITS, AND

PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT
Goldman, Kernis, Foster, Herrmann, and Piasecki (2005b) examined the

extent to which dispositional and goal‐based indexes of authentic function-
ing related to each other and to markers of well‐being. The eudaimonic view
of well‐being calls upon people to live their lives in accord with their daimon,
or true‐self (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993). From this perspective,
psychological health and well‐being (eudaimonia) occur when people’s lives
are congruent with their deeply held values and core self, that is, when
people are authentic.
This theme is prominent in a number of major theories. For example,
Rogers (1961, p. 351) emphasized the actualization tendency, described as
‘‘. . . the directional trend which is evident in all organic and human life—the
urge to expand, extend, develop, and mature—the tendency to express and
activate all the capacities of the organism, or the self. ’’ In a similar vein,
SDT (Deci, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002) holds that
people are authentic when their actions reflect their true‐ or core‐selves,
that is, when they are autonomous and self‐determining. Considerable
research supports this claim (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Building on SDT, Sheldon and Elliot (1999) proposed a model of self‐
concordance that links goal strivings, self‐regulation, and basic need satis-
faction. Self‐concordant goals are those that satisfy basic needs and are
congruent with the true‐self. When individuals select and strive for goals
that satisfy their basic needs, they tend to regulate their behavior in a highly
self‐determined manner via intrinsic and identified motivations. Several
studies show that highly self‐concordant goal strivings enhance psycho-
logical adjustment and well‐being (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon &
Kasser, 1995, 1998).
AUTHENTICITY 323
Other researchers substantiate the claim that self‐concordant goals pro-

mote health and well‐being. McGregor and Little (1998) examined the
meaning that people ascribed to their goal pursuits (i.e., personal projects)
and its relationship with psychological well‐being. They reported that the
more individuals rated their personal projects as reflecting personal integrity,
the higher their psychological well‐being as assessed with RyV ’s (1989)
measure. In another study, Sheldon et al. (1997) found that subjective role
authenticity (i.e., the extent to which an individual feels authentic in each of
five social roles) predicted greater psychological well‐being.
Thus, theory and research suggest that authentic functioning (operating
from one’s daimon) is critical to need satisfaction and optimal well‐being.
The study by Goldman et al. (2005b) builds on prior study in several ways.
First, we examined how individual diVerences in authentic functioning relate
to psychological health and subjective well‐being. We predicted that
the greater one’s authenticity, the healthier and more positive one’s psycho-
logical and subjective well‐being. Second, we examined how individual
diVerences in authentic functioning relate to undertaking goals that are
self‐concordant and fulfill one’s basic psychological needs. We predicted
that the greater one’s authenticity, the more self‐concordant and need satis-
fying his or her goal pursuits. Third, we examined whether dispositional
authenticity and undertaking need‐fulfilling goals independently predict
well‐being. To the extent that they are independent predictors, this would
oVer strong support for the assertion that trait level authenticity and au-
thenticity expressed via goal pursuits both are important to incorporate into
conceptualizations of well‐being.
One hundred and eleven participants completed the AI (AI‐2). Subsequently,
approximately 3 weeks later, they self‐identified various goal pursuits (i.e.,
personal projects) and rated them on various aspects of authentic goal
processes (i.e., authenticity, eYcacy, stress/pressure, and intrinsic motiva-
tion). Ratings from these aspects were combined to form a project need‐
fulfillment index that reflected the overall degree to which people’s projects
aVorded them authentic, need‐fulfilling experiences. Specifically, higher proj-
ect need‐fulfillment reflected greater goal‐based authenticity (e.g., ‘‘ To what
extent is this project consistent with the values which guide your life?’’ and
‘‘. . . to what extent does this project reflect who you really are?’’), eYcacy
(e.g., ‘‘How competent are you to complete this project?’’ and ‘‘How suc-
cessful do you think you will be at this project?’’), and intrinsic motivation
(e.g., ‘‘How much do you enjoy working on this project?’’ and ‘‘To what
extent is this project pleasurable, i.e., comfortable, relaxing, self‐indulgent,
or hedonistic?’’), and lower goal‐based stress or pressure (e.g. ‘‘How diYcult
do you find it to carry out this project?’’ and ‘‘How much do you feel
the amount of time available for working on this project is adequate?’’).
Participants also completed measures assessing subjective well‐being,

specifically, life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & GriYn, 1985)
and net positive aVect (Brunstein, 1993), and psychological forms of well‐
being, specifically, RyV ’s (1989) multicomponent measure of psychological
well‐being, 3 weeks after completing the AI‐2.
Our findings indicated that dispositional authenticity and project need‐
fulfillment positively correlated with each other (r ¼ .29, p < .01) and with
all assessed markers of well‐being. In addition, as shown in Table VII, both
dispositional authenticity and project need‐fulfillment independently pre-
dicted participant’s subsequent ratings of hedonic and eudaimonic well‐
being, as well as the vast majority of specific well‐being components (all
in the case of dispositional authenticity). These findings suggest that authen-
tic functioning, exhibited at the personality level and in middle‐level goal
representations, meaningfully accounts for broad aspects of well‐being.
The fact that dispositional authenticity and project need‐fulfillment posi-
tively correlate with one another suggests that we can conceptualize and
measure authentic functioning in multiple ways. However, this bivariate
relationship does not establish a causal direction with regard to these two
indices of authentic functioning. Although it may be tempting to presume
that dispositional authenticity may account for the extent to which people
experience their goals as authentic and need fulfilling, alternative possibili-
ties exist. For instance, people’s direct experiences in their goal pursuits may
aVect their degree of dispositional authenticity. In other words, by satisfying
needs for autonomy and competence through enacting need‐fulfilling goals,
individuals may further promote their overall level of dispositional authen-
ticity and its individual components. For example, awareness may increase
when goal pursuits confer opportunities to discover and identify one’s
interests and talents. Similarly, by satisfying needs for autonomy and com-
petence, people may become less prone to use self‐esteem maintenance
strategies that bias their processing of self‐relevant information (Goldman,
in press; Kernis, 2003; Knee & Zuckerman, 1996).
Our findings also indicated that individual diVerences in authentic func-
tioning, as measured by the Authenticity Inventory, related to measures of
both psychological and subjective well‐being. In fact, individual diVerences in
authenticity predicted each facet of RyV ’s measure (and its composite),
net positive aVect, and life satisfaction independently of our project need‐
fulfillment index, which itself was a consistent predictor of well‐being. We had
anticipated the possibility that the need‐fulfillment index would mediate
relationships that emerged between authenticity and other markers of well‐
being, but our findings did not bear this out. Instead, simultaneous regression
analyses indicated either that both authenticity and goal need‐fulfillment
AUTHENTICITY 325
TABLE VII
PREDICTING WELL‐BEING FROM DISPOSITIONAL AUTHENTICITY AND
PROJECT NEED‐FULFILLMENT
Predictor Beta t p< Model R2
Life Satisfaction
Authenticity .24 2.60 .01
Project need‐fulfillment .29 3.11 .01 .18
Net Positive AVect
Autonomy
Environmental Mastery
Personal Growth
Positive Relationships
Purpose in Life
Self‐Acceptance
Eudaimonic Well‐Being Composite
Hedonic Well‐Being Composite
Note: Eudaimonic composite ¼ sum of autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth,

positive relationships, purpose in life, and self‐acceptance. Hedonic composite ¼ sum of life satis-
faction and net positive aVect (with z‐score transformation). All Model R2 significant at p < .01.
predicted well‐being or that only authenticity was an independent predictor;

in no case was goal need‐fulfillment the only independent predictor.
The fact that goal need‐fulfillment did not mediate the impact of disposi-
tional authenticity on other measures of well‐being raises the question of
what mechanisms or processes might account for this relationship. One

possibility is that a chronic tendency for one’s true‐ or core‐self to be operative
confers direct benefits on one’s well‐being. That is, being true to oneself in
thought, feeling, and behavior may promote eudaimonia (e.g., a sense of
meaning, autonomy, growth, and mastery over one’s environment), as well
as positive aVect and life satisfaction. This view of authenticity is similar to
Rogers’ conceptualization of the fully functioning individual as one who is
open to experience, lives fully in the present moment, trusts inner experience,
is creative, and possesses a strong sense of freedom. These qualities are akin to
those that RyV emphasizes in her model of eudaimonic well‐being.
VII. Authenticity, Relationship Functioning, and Relationship Satisfaction
We believe that authentic functioning involves a number of processes and

characteristics that aid in the development and maintenance of close rela-
tionships. In this section, we elaborate on such processes and characteristics
and we report on a study in which we examined their operation within the
context of romantic relationships among college students.
A. SELF‐DISCLOSURE, TRUST, INTIMACY
Our view of authentic functioning emphasizes that an authentic relationship

involves placing a premium on valuing, striving, and achieving openness
and honesty. Therefore, we presume that highly authentic individuals will
foster healthy growth and development of their intimate relationships by
disclosing self‐aspects that reflect who they really are, both good and bad.
Thus, when authenticity is high, meaningful and honest self‐disclosure emerges
and presumably facilitates intimacy that is rooted in feeling accepted by one’s
relationship partner for being who one really is. This line of reasoning is largely
consistent with Reis and Shaver’s (1988) proposition that two conditions are
necessary for self‐disclosure to create intimacy. Specifically, they propose that
intimacy develops in circumstances when (1) individuals engage in self‐disclo-
sure that is emotional, as opposed to merely factual, and (2) their partners are
responsive to the self‐disclosure, making them feel understood, validated, and
cared for. Moreover, prior studies (e.g., Meeks, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1998;
Sprecher & Hendrich, 2004) demonstrate that self‐disclosure tendencies relate
positively to relationship satisfaction.
In the present investigation, we assessed emotional and intimate forms of
self‐disclosure and people’s perceptions of their partners validation of them.
To assess emotional self‐disclosure we administered Snell, Miller, and Belk’s
AUTHENTICITY 327
(1988) Emotional Self‐Disclosure Scale, a 40‐item measure that assesses

participants’ willingness to discuss with their partner, those times when they
felt various emotions (e.g., depressed, enraged, serene, happy). In addition,
we administered the Self‐Disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983), a
10‐item measure that assesses the degree to which individuals had discussed
various intimate topics with their relationship partner (e.g., ‘‘your deepest
feelings’’ and ‘‘what you like and dislike about yourself ’’). Ratings were
made on five‐point scales (1 ¼ not at all; 5 ¼ fully and completely).
Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985) theorized that interpersonal trust in
close relationships is comprised of three components: predictability (the belief
that the partner’s behavior is consistent), dependability (the belief that the
partner can be counted on to be honest, reliable, and benevolent), and faith
(the conviction that the partner will be caring and responsive in the future).
Rempel et al. (1985) found that faith and dependability subscale scores
significantly correlated with reported feelings on a composite measure of
relationship adjustment that included love and liking toward one’s partner,
and present levels of relationship happiness, satisfaction, and success.
Descutner and Thelen (1991. p. 218) proposed that fear‐of‐intimacy reflects
people’s ‘‘inhibited capacity, because of anxiety, to exchange thoughts and
feelings of personal significance with another individual who is highly val-
ued.’’ Specifically, fear‐of‐intimacy was theorized to be comprised of three
features: (1) content (the communication of personal information), (2) emo-
tional valence (strong feelings about the personal information exchanged),
and (3) vulnerability (high regard for the intimate other). In two separate
studies, Descutner and Thelen (1991) reported that higher fear‐of‐intimacy
scores negatively correlated with participants’ satisfaction with the quality of
their dating relationships. In our view, fear‐of‐intimacy reflects a barrier to
authentic relationship functioning and consequently relationship satisfac-
tion. We administered Descutner and Thelen’s 35‐item individual diVerence
measure of fear‐of‐intimacy and modified the instructions to ask participants
to make ratings based on their romantic partner. These ratings were made
with respect to such content as how they would feel sharing personal things
about the past, entrusting their most private thoughts with another person,
their comfort with having open and honest communication, and taking the
risk of being hurt in the context of a close relationship.
B. PARTNER VALIDATION
Perceptions of partner validation were determined by questionnaire responses

to a ‘‘Perceived Relationship Qualities’’ scale (Goldman & Kernis, 2005) we
had generated for the purpose of the present study. The partner validation
subscale was composed of six‐items (e.g., ‘‘I feel my partner values me

for who I really am as a person,’’ ‘‘I would like my partner to value
me more than he/she does (reverse‐scored),’’ and ‘‘I feel my partner is
supportive of my feelings on matters central to who I am’’). Internal consis-
tency ratings indicated that the subscale had reasonably good reliability,
alpha ¼ .79.
C. REACTIONS TO PARTNER’S BEHAVIORS AND

RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS
We also examined how authenticity and relationship satisfaction relate to

reactions to partner’s ambiguously negative reactions. Kernis, Goldman, and
Paradise (2004) reasoned that individuals with secure high self‐esteem would
interpret and react to ambiguously negative actions by their partner by treating
them as innocuous, either by minimizing their negative aspects or by oVering a
benign interpretation of them. In contrast, Kernis et al. (2004) reasoned and
that individuals with fragile high self‐esteem would imbue these events with
negative implications, either by internalizing their negative implications or by
resolving to reciprocate in kind to get even with their partner.
To test these hypotheses, Kernis et al. (2004) developed the Relation-
ship Reaction Inventory (RRI) to gauge the extent to which people report
defensive, highly ego‐involved reactions to ambiguously negative actions by
their relationship partner. The RRI consists of nine scenarios that depicted
ambiguously negative events in which their partner might engage. Each
event has multiple plausible causes and implications for self, partner, and
the relationship. Participants rated the likelihood that they would respond in
each of four diVerent ways designed to capture this multiplicity of potential
causes and implications. Two response options signaled overinvestment of
the self and implied that the self somehow was threatened by the event. Of
these, one (Personalizing) involved magnifying the event’s negative implica-
tions for the self. The other (Reciprocating) involved resolving to ‘‘get even’’
with one’s partner as a way to deal with the self‐esteem threat. The two
remaining response options captured reactions or interpretations that did
not involve overinvestment of the self. One of these (Benign) involved a
transient externally based (usually partner related) explanation and the other
(Minimize) involved taking the event at ‘‘face value,’’ that is, not making a
big deal of it. An example scenario and response options is as follows:
Your partner gives you a nice birthday present, but it is not what you have
subtly let him/her know that you really wanted. How likely is it that you
would . . .
AUTHENTICITY 329
(a) Think that you must not be important enough to him/her (Personalize)
(b) Enjoy the present you got (Minimize)
(c) Think that circumstances beyond his/her control must have prevented
it (Benign)
(d) In the future give him/her a present other than what you know he/she
clearly wants (Reciprocating)
Consistent with these hypotheses, Kernis et al. (2004) found that whereas
unstable high self‐esteem individuals reported being most likely to engage in
personalizing and get even reactions, stable high self‐esteem individuals
reported being least likely (low self‐esteem individuals fell between). Con-
versely, whereas stable high self‐esteem individuals reported being most
likely to engage in benign and minimizing reactions, unstable high self‐esteem
individuals reported being least likely (again, low self‐esteem individuals fell
between). These findings are important because they point to the operation
of dynamics associated with fragile high self‐esteem that until now have been
ascribed to low self‐esteem individuals (Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, &
Ellsworth, 1998) or to those highly sensitive to rejection (Downey, Freitas,
Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998).
Elsewhere (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2004, 2005), we theorized that
complementary processes may be operative in authenticity and secure high
self‐esteem development, and thus, we reasoned that high authenticity would
similarly be related to low ego‐involved reactions (i.e., greater minimizing
and benign reactions and less personalizing, and reciprocating reactions).
We anticipated these findings for several reasons. First, high authenticity
relates to secure forms of high self‐esteem, which Kernis et al. (2004) showed
related to this pattern of reactions. Second, high authenticity (particularly
the unbiased processing component) reflects objective, nondefensive proces-
sing of evaluative information. Third, correlations between authenticity
and mindfulness reported in this chapter suggest that authenticity relates
to non‐ego‐involved attentiveness and awareness of internal and external
stimuli.
Whereas the RRI asks respondents to indicate how they would respond to
hypothetical partner transgressions, other work has examined various
responses that people have when experiencing relationship problems. Specif-
ically, Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, and Lipkus (1991) developed a
self‐report measure of accommodation tendencies. Participants respond
to four separate stems (e.g., ‘‘When my partner is unintentionally unpleasant
or thoughtless’’), each of which is followed by four response options.
Specifically, participants indicate the extent to which they engage in con-
structive reactions: voice (actively and constructively attempting to improve
conditions, e.g., ‘‘I talk to him or her about what’s going on, trying to work
out a solution’’) and loyalty (passively but optimistically waiting for condi-
tions to improve, e.g., ‘‘I give my partner the benefit of the doubt and forget
about it’’), and destructive reactions—exit (actively destroying the relation-
ship, abusing one’s partner, or threatening to leave or separate, e.g., ‘‘I feel
so angry that I want to walk right out the door’’) and neglect (ignoring or
criticizing one’s partner, or avoiding spending time or discussing relevant
issues, e.g., ‘‘I sulk and try to stay away from my partner for awhile’’).
Across a variety of studies, Rusbult et al. (1991) reported that destructive
reactions predicted lower relationship satisfaction, and constructive reac-
tions predicted greater relationship satisfaction. In the present study, we
predicted that higher authenticity would relate to greater constructive and
lesser destructive conflict reactions.
D. RELATIONSHIP MOTIVES
Finally, we asked people about their motives for being in their current
relationships, using a variant of the self‐regulatory styles measure developed
by Ryan and Connell (1989) in which people are asked to report on the
reasons why they engage in a particular behavior. In this instance, respon-
dents were asked to report their reasons for their behaviors as a romantic
partner. Reasons reflect varying degrees of self‐determination. Intrinsic (e.g.,
I do things because of the pleasure and fun of doing them) and identified
(e.g., I do things because they tie into my personal values and beliefs) reasons
reflect high self‐determination, whereas introjected (e.g., I force myself to do
things to avoid feeling guilty or anxious) and external (e.g., I do things
because somebody else wants me to or because I will get something from
somebody if I do them) reasons reflect low self‐determination. Likewise,
participants completed the measure of relationship motivation reported by
Rempel et al. (1985) that taps into the extent to which individuals’ relation-
ships are intrinsically satisfying to them. Rempel et al. (1985) found that
the more individuals endorsed possessing greater intrinsic motives,
whereby relationship rewards involve mutual satisfaction, empathic concern,
and value for both partners, the more they reported feeling love and faith
in their relationship. In contrast, extrinsic motives that involved obtain-
ing rewards exclusively outside the relationship (e.g., parental approval)
were unrelated to the measures of relationship adjustment. Thus, possessing
motivations that involve rewards obtained within one’s relationship
(as opposed to gains obtained external to the couple) appears to confer
benefits to the quality of a couple’s relationship. Sample items tapping into
intrinsic motives include: (1) ‘‘We have a rewarding intellectual relation-
ship. We have meaningful discussions which are stimulating and enriching.’’
AUTHENTICITY 331
(2) ‘‘We are close and intimate. We have special ways of demonstrating
aVection and letting each other know how we feel.’’ (3) ‘‘He/she lets me be
myself. He/she doesn’t tie me down and doesn’t try to change me.’’ We
predicted that higher relationship authenticity would relate to more self‐
determined self‐regulation and intrinsic relationship motives.
In order to examine the relationship between dispositional authenticity
and relationship satisfaction, and the previously described relationship func-
tioning variables, Goldman, Brunell, Kernis, Heppner, and Davis (2005a)
administered the AI‐3 in an initial session to 61 heterosexual couples
involved in a committed relationship of 3 or more months. Participants
subsequently completed the remaining measures (except for relationship
satisfaction, to be discussed) in two additional sessions that took place over
an 8‐week period. We assessed relationship satisfaction twice, during the first
and last sessions, using Rusbult’s five‐item satisfaction measure (Rusbult,
1983; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Items included were ‘‘I feel satisfied
with my relationship,’’ ‘‘My relationship is much better than others’ rela-
tionships,’’ ‘‘My relationship is close to ideal,’’ ‘‘Our relationship makes me
very happy,’’ and ‘‘Our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs
for intimacy, companionship, etc.’’ Each item was answered on a nine‐point
scale (0 ¼ do not agree at all, 8 ¼ agree completely). We first examined the
extent to which dispositional authenticity and participant gender predicted
Time 2 satisfaction and change in satisfaction from Time 1 to Time 2.
In both cases, significant main eVects emerged for authenticity, such that
higher authenticity related to higher subsequent satisfaction and greater
positive change in satisfaction. In neither case did gender produce any
significant eVects, either as a main eVect or as interacting with authenticity.
Consequently, we did not include gender in further analyses.
We developed composite measures for a variety of relationship processes
in order to examine more broadly based theoretical domains of close rela-
tionship functioning. Specifically, these relationship process composites in-
clude the following: self‐disclosure and relationship motives. For each
composite an overall summary score was created by first calculating z‐scores
for each measure and then adding the z‐scores. Self‐Disclosure reflected both
emotional, (i.e., Snell et al.’s measure) and intimate (i.e., Miller et al.’s
measure) forms. In addition, we included fear‐of‐intimacy scores (reverse
scored so that higher summary scores reflected less fear) to reflect people’s
tendencies to inhibit their thoughts and feelings from being shared with
their partners. Relationship motives reflected the degree to which participants
reported self‐determined reasons for relationship behaviors (i.e., self‐
determination index scores) and were motivated by rewards obtained within
their relationships (i.e., intrinsic relationship motives).
In addition, defensiveness in response to hypothetical partner transgres-
sions involved responses on the RRI. Specifically, the defensive reactions
composite reflected ego‐involved reactions (i.e., personalizing and reciprocat-

ing) and the nondefensive reactions composite reflected non‐ego‐involved reac-
tions (i.e., minimizing and benign explanations). With respect to Rusbult
et al.’s (1991) accommodation measure, a destructive resolution tactic com-
posite reflected the sum of exit and neglect subscales and a constructive
resolution tactic composite reflected the sum of voice and loyalty subscales.
We computed correlations between dispositional authenticity and each
of the relationship process variables. In addition, we computed separate
regression analyses in which we predicted relationship satisfaction from
dispositional authenticity and each of these relationship process variables.
Table VIII displays the correlations between overall dispositional auth-
enticity and relational orientation scores with the relationship process
TABLE VIII
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND RELATIONSHIP
PROCESS VARIABLES
Variable Authenticity total Relational orientation
Satisfaction T2 .29** .31**

Partner trust .41** .41**
Self‐regulation .41** .36**
Intrinsic motives .34** .45**
Relationship motives composite .48** .51**
Miller‐Berg’s self‐disclosure .34** .38**
Emotional self‐disclosure .32** .30**
Fear‐of‐intimacy .40** .44**
Self‐disclosure composite .43** .44**
Minimize .29** .25**
Benign .30** .33**
Internalize .28** .15
Reciprocate .32** .32**
Ego‐involved composite .33** .26**
Non‐ego‐involved composite .31** .31**
Voice .14 .31**
Exit .31** .30**
Loyalty .08 .09
Neglect .42** .42**
Destructive composite .42** .41**
Constructive composite .04 .23**
Note: Relationship motives ¼ self‐regulatory styles and intrinsic relationship motive; self‐
disclosure composite ¼ Miller‐Berg’s self‐disclosure scale, emotional self‐disclosure scale,
and fear‐of‐intimacy (reversed); ego‐involved ¼ internalize and reciprocate; non‐ego‐involved ¼
minimize and benign explanation; destructive ¼ exit and neglect; constructive ¼ voice and loyalty.
AUTHENTICITY 333
variables. Consistent with our view that authentic people value openness and
intimacy in their close relationships, we find that higher authenticity relates
to more self‐disclosure. In addition, higher authenticity relates to greater
self‐determined reasons and intrinsic relationship motives. When responding
to hypothetical partner transgressions, higher authenticity relates to greater
non‐ego‐involved (benign and minimizing) and less ego‐involved reactions
(personalizing and reciprocating). In addition, higher authenticity relates to
greater constructive reactions and less destructive reactions to relationship
problems, although this was less true for passive (loyalty) than for active
(voice) constructive reactions.
Tables IX and X, respectively, report the regression analyses with overall
dispositional authenticity and each relationship process variable entered
simultaneously as predictors of subsequent relationship satisfaction and
change in satisfaction, respectively. With respect to subsequent satisfaction,
we find that the tendency to self‐disclose, intrinsic relationship motives,
and trust, each mediate the relationship between authenticity and satisfac-
tion that emerged. That is, when authenticity and disclosure tendencies,
TABLE IX
PREDICTING RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION FROM AUTHENTICITY AND RELATIONSHIP
PROCESS VARIABLES
1. Authenticity .29 3.37 .01 .09

2. Authenticity .08 0.91 .38
Self‐disclosure .51 5.90 .01 .30
Relationship motives .48 5.46 .01 .26
Ego‐involved reactions .20 2.17 .04 .12
Non‐ego‐involved reactions .12 1.34 .19 .10
Destructive reactions to problems .34 3.77 .01 .17
Trust .63 8.17 .01 .41
Note: Constructive reactions to problems did not predict relationship satisfaction and there-
fore were not included in regression models. Relationship motives ¼ self‐regulatory styles and
intrinsic relationship motives; self‐disclosure composite ¼ Miller‐Berg’s self‐disclosure scale,
emotional self‐disclosure, and fear of intimacy; ego‐involved RRI reactions ¼ personalize plus
reciprocate reactions; Non‐ego‐involved reactions ¼ benign plus minimize reactions, Destructive
reactions ¼ exit and neglect.
TABLE X
PREDICTING CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION FROM
AUTHENTICITY AND RELATIONSHIP PROCESS VARIABLES

Time 1 satisfaction .55 7.31 .01 .37
Self‐disclosure .32 3.84 .01
Relationship motives .29 3.42 .01
Ego‐involved reactions .12 1.49 .14
Non‐ego‐involved reactions .07 0.92 .36
Destructive reactions .19 2.33 .03
Trust .46 5.63 .01
Note: Constructive reactions to problems did not predict relationship satisfaction and there-
fore were not included in regression models. Relationship motives ¼ self‐regulatory styles and
intrinsic relationship motives; self‐disclosure composite ¼ Miller‐Berg’s self‐disclosure scale,
emotional self‐disclosure, and fear of intimacy; ego‐involved RRI reactions ¼ personalize plus
reciprocate reactions; non‐ego‐involved reactions ¼ benign plus minimize reactions, Destructive
reactions ¼ exit and neglect.
relationship motives, or trust, are entered simultaneously, only disclosure

tendencies, relationship motives, or trust remain predictive of relationship
satisfaction. These mediation findings indicate that being able to open up
and share intimate information with one’s partner, trusting one’s partner,
and possessing intrinsic and self‐determined motives for one’s romantic
relationship are important components of the relatively high relationship
satisfaction experienced by authentic individuals.
In contrast to findings from Kernis et al. (2004), RRI reactions did not
mediate the association between authenticity and relationship satisfaction
in the current study. Rather, change in satisfaction was marginally predicted
by authenticity when entered simultaneously with non‐ego‐involved relation-
ship reactions, whereas no significant predictors emerged with ego‐involved
AUTHENTICITY 335
relationship reactions. When predicting subsequent relationship satisfaction

(i.e., no change in satisfaction), authenticity was an independent predictor
when either ego‐involved or non‐ego‐involved relationship reactions also
were in the equation. However, with respect to the Rusbult’s measure of
accommodation, the composite assessing destructive reactions to relationship
problems did mediate the association between authenticity and change in
relationship satisfaction, suggesting that authenticity may influence changes
in satisfaction by buVering against the use of destructive reactions.
The findings from this study shed some light on how dispositional authen-
ticity relates to the nature of individuals’ intimate relationships. Individuals
high in dispositional authenticity report greater self‐disclosure and intrinsic
relationship motives and exhibit less defensive ego‐involved reactions to
either hypothetical partner transgressions or problems within their relation-
ships. In turn, a number of these factors appear to account for why higher
dispositional authenticity relates to higher relationship satisfaction.
VIII. Authenticity and Retrospective Accounts of Parental

Authority Styles
Kernis (2003) suggested that the awareness component of authenticity is

facilitated by what is called intersubjectivity (Stern, 1985), ‘‘a state of con-
nection and mutual understanding that emerges during interaction with
another person . . .. A reasonable degree of match between the child’s expe-
rience and the adult’s feedback is necessary in order to establish a state of
intersubjectivity; diVerent types of mismatches, such as when the caregiver
fails to reflect the same emotional tone or energy level that the infant is
feeling, can make the infant quite distressed and may lead to a disrupted
sense of self ’’ (Stern, 1985; as cited in Hoyle et al., 1999, pp. 31–32).
Kernis (2003) further suggested that the most damaging type of exchange
for a child’s developing awareness involves a parent explicitly denying the
legitimacy of a child’s inner experience, perhaps even punishing it. Continual
punishment or contradiction of a child’s inner experiences may lead the
child to ignore or dismiss these experiences in favor of those of the parental
figure (cf., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1993). Some years ago, Sullivan called
these self‐aspects the ‘‘bad me’’ or ‘‘not me.’’ Elements of the ‘‘bad’’ or ‘‘not’’
me also figure in the display of inauthentic or ‘‘false‐self ’’ behaviors (Harter,
1997). In contrast, familial environments that support the child’s expression
of core aspects and that facilitate choicefulness should promote authentic
functioning (Grolnick & Beiswenger, in press). Thus, it is important to
examine parental characteristics that promote or undermine the development

of authenticity in children and young adults.
Goldman et al. (2005c) examined how authenticity among college students
related to their memories of their parents’ childrearing styles. Baumrind
(1971, 1991), as cited by Berzonsky (2004) identified three major types
(authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) that . . .
vary along a number of dimensions including the extent to which parents: establish firm
guidelines and limits; explain and justify demands and expectations; assert power and
control; and provide emotional support. Authoritative parents set clear, reasonable
guideline and they exercise reliable control in a legitimate and loving fashion. They
explain and justify their expectations and actions and they are responsive to feedback.
However, authoritative parents will assert power and control when adolescents are too
immature or self‐centered to listen to reason. . . . Authoritarian parents set definite
limits and make rules that are not open to discussion. They make unilateral demands
and use power to reinforce them. Permissive parents are responsive and indulging but
make few demands and exercise limited control (Berzonsky, 2004, p. 214).
Authoritative parents are warm and supportive, foster autonomy in their

children, and allow them voice. From our perspective, such behaviors on the
part of parents will promote children’s developing confidence and trust in
their own views, desires, motives, and so forth. We anticipated that higher
authenticity would relate to higher ratings of authoritative parenting styles.
In contrast, authoritarian parents stifle autonomy and children’s voice, in-
stead coldly attempting to exert power and control with their demands.
Finally, permissive parents, while warm and indulgent, do not provide the
structure that most children need; instead, they leave children to their own
devices. Consequently, we anticipated that authoritarian and permissive
parental styles would relate to lower authenticity. We measured parenting
styles using Buri’s (1991) parental authority questionnaire.
Correlations are displayed in Table XI. The strongest relationships
emerged between authenticity and both mothers’ and fathers’ authoritative
styles; as anticipated, the higher the parents’ authoritative styles, the higher
their adult children’s total authenticity, awareness, and unbiased processing.
Although behavioral authenticity was unrelated to reports of parents’ au-
thoritative styles, it did relate (inversely) to parental permissiveness in the
manner we expected. Unbiased processing inversely correlated with mothers’
permissiveness, and total authenticity marginally correlated inversely with
permissiveness. Surprisingly, no relationships emerged between parental
authoritarianism and dispositional authenticity.
In future research, it will be important to examine more directly the extent
to which parents are autonomy‐supportive versus controlling. As noted by
Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, and Soenens (2005):
AUTHENTICITY 337
TABLE XI
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND RETROSPECTIVE
ACCOUNTS OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Unbiased Relational
Measure Total Awareness processing Behavior orientation
Authoritarian
Mother .04 .05 .00 .10 .01
Father .11 .14 .14 .03 .08
Combined .05 .06 .09 .07 .05
Permissiveness
Mother .22a .01 .31** .25* .10
Father .20a .02 .17 .30** .13
Combined .24* .04 .26* .31** .14
Authoritative
Mother .38** .47** .27* .20a .20a
Father .29* .36** .28* .04 .18
Combined .36** .45** .31** .13 .21a
Note: a p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Parents promote volitional functioning in their children by being attuned to and

empathic toward the child’s needs, by encouraging the child to act on his or her
personally valued interests, and by minimizing the use of controlling parenting
techniques (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). Conversely, parents will induce a
controlled regulation when they use overtly controlling strategies (e.g., rewards,
deadlines, punishments; see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) or more subtle and
implicit pressures (e.g., guilt‐induction, shaming, love withdrawal; Barber, 2002;
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos, 2005) that are aimed to push
adolescents to think, act, or feel in particular ways. Past research in Western samples
has clearly demonstrated the beneficial well‐being and learning eVects of parental
autonomy support (Grolnick, 2003). Conversely, consistent evidence has docu-
mented the negative developmental outcomes of controlling parenting (Barber,
2002, p. 468).
Although autonomy‐support and control are implied in authoritative and

authoritarian styles respectively, these styles capture broader orientations
than these dimensions per se. We believe that parental autonomy‐support
and control are key elements in developing or undermining children’s and
adolescents’ authentic functioning, but demonstration of such processes
awaits future research. Similarly, studies that explicitly examine degrees of
parental support for the components of dispositional authenticity are likely
to play a pivotal role in distinguishing the eVects of parenting on authentic
functioning.
IX. Authenticity and Self‐Esteem
Earlier in this chapter, we reported findings indicating that dispositional

authenticity predicted aspects of coping and self‐concepts independently of
self‐esteem level. However, the issue of how authenticity and self‐esteem relate
is complex because high self‐esteem has multiple forms, some more closely
related to psychological health and well‐being than are others (Jordan, Logel,
Spencer, & Zanna, in press; Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Waschull, 1995; Paradise
& Kernis, 2002). Specifically, whereas some forms of high self‐esteem reflect
secure high self‐esteem, other forms reflect fragile high self‐esteem (Kernis,
2003). Secure high self‐esteem involves feeling worthwhile and valuable,
liking and satisfaction with oneself, accepting one’s weaknesses, having a
solid foundation, and NOT requiring continual validation or promotion.
In contrast, fragile high self‐esteem involves feeling very proud and supe-
rior to others, not liking to see weaknesses in oneself, or for others to see
such weaknesses, and exaggerated tendencies to defend against possible
threats to self‐worth and to engage in self‐promoting activities.
Existing theory and literature provide several ways to distinguish between
secure and fragile forms of high self‐esteem. Each of these forms has been
discussed extensively elsewhere, along with supporting evidence (Kernis,
2003; Kernis & Paradise, 2002), so we only briefly discuss them here. Unstable
(fragile) self‐esteem reflects substantial short‐term fluctuations in contextually
based immediate feelings of self‐worth, whereas stable (secure) self‐esteem
reflects minimal short‐term fluctuations. Contingent (fragile) self‐esteem is
dependent on achieving specific outcomes, meeting expectations, matching
standards, etc., whereas true (secure) self‐esteem is secure self‐worth that arises
naturally from satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and that is not in need
of continual validation. A match between individual’s implicit (nonconscious)
and explicit (conscious) positive feelings of self‐worth reflects secure high self‐
esteem. In contrast, a mismatch between individual’s implicit (nonconscious)
and explicit (conscious) feelings of self‐worth (one is negative) reflects fragile
high self‐esteem. Optimal self‐esteem reflects the sum total of these secure self‐
esteem markers. It arises naturally from: (1) successfully dealing with life
challenges; (2) the operation of one’s core, true, authentic self as a source of
input to behavioral choices; and (3) relationships in which one is valued for
whom one is, and not for what one achieves (Kernis, 2003).
We believe that authenticity and each aspect of secure (versus fragile) high
self‐esteem likely are reciprocally related to each other. That is, authenticity
may provide both the foundation for achieving secure high self‐esteem
and the processes through which secure high self‐esteem relates to psycho-
logical and interpersonal adjustment (Kernis & Goldman, 2004). When
AUTHENTICITY 339
TABLE XII
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND SELF‐ESTEEM VARIABLES

Spring 2005 Sample (61 Individuals)

Self‐esteem
Level .68** .63** .57** .52** .48**
Contingent .58** .58** .43** .56** .34**
Stability .43** .37** .42** .39** .23a
Fall and Spring 2004 Sample (101 Individuals)
Self‐esteem
Level .47** .48** .34** .39** .24*
Contingent .34** .35** .37** .45** .25
Stability .34** .32** .31** .29** .15
Note: a < .10 * p < .05, **p < .01.
breakdowns in authenticity occur, they are likely to reverberate through the

self‐system and cause decreased or more fragile self‐esteem. Conversely,
possessing fragile self‐esteem may undermine or interfere with various pro-
cesses associated with authenticity. For example, to ease the sting associated
with failure, people with fragile self‐esteem may be more likely to engage
in biased than unbiased processing, or to modify their behavior merely to
please a potential evaluator. To date, we have obtained data linking authen-
ticity to secure forms of high self‐esteem. Specifically, in several samples, we
have found that higher dispositional authenticity relates to higher self‐
esteem levels, more stable self‐esteem, and less contingent self‐esteem. These
data are displayed in Table XII. An important agenda for future research
will be to further examine the interplay of these components of self‐esteem
and dispositional authenticity.
X. Potential Downside of Authenticity
The findings reviewed in this chapter reveal that dispositional authenticity

relates to a diverse set of markers reflecting healthy psychological and
interpersonal functioning. Why, then, is not everybody highly authentic?
Elsewhere (Kernis & Goldman, 2005), we tackled this issue in depth
and suggested that authenticity can have its costs. Here, we briefly review
these costs.
A. AWARENESS
Certain forms of self‐knowledge may be painful. Becoming aware of the

limitations in one’s social skills may be painful, as may finding out that one
is not as athletically talented as one had hoped. Perceived self‐discrepancies
between one’s actual qualities and ideal qualities or between qualities one
believes one should possess may produce negative emotional consequences
(Higgins, 1989). In addition, powerful emotional experiences may be un-
settling and even threatening, as they expose one’s vulnerabilities and sensi-
tivities. Furthermore, self‐reflection itself may heighten unpleasant aVect,
particularly when it involves attempts to understand one’s role in important
negative outcomes or experiences. Finally, incorporating a diverse set of
social roles into a multifaceted self‐concept may promote role strain and
accompanying distress (Thoits, 1986).
The major drawback associated with unbiased processing is that it makes one
susceptible to encountering negative information about the self. Although
undoubtedly true, distorting or repressing negative self‐information is costly
for a number of reasons. As we reported earlier in this chapter, defensively
processing stressful information about oneself relates to lower, not higher,
psychological functioning. Likewise, positively distorting self‐relevant infor-
mation leaves one open to the social consequences associated with an arro-
gant self‐image. In any case, distorting self‐relevant information reflects
heightened ego‐investment with its attendant rigidity and overreactivity
(Hodgins & Knee, 2002).
C. BEHAVIOR
Behaving authentically sometimes takes courage because one’s true inclina-

tions may conflict with those of one’s peers or authority figures who have
strong evaluative or controlling tendencies (Deci & Ryan, 1995). Sometimes
behaving authentically runs the risk of prompting others’ scorn or ridicule,
costs which can be very powerful inhibitors. However, behaving in ways that
are at odds with one’s true‐self merely to satisfy controlling pressures
can also undermine well‐being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Neighbors, Larimer,
Geisner, & Knee, 2004). When people conform to environmental dictates they
are not always behaving in ways that conflict with their true‐selves. At times
exhibiting false‐self behaviors can be an expression of role‐experimentation
whereby people may facilitate self‐discovery and enrich the depth of their
AUTHENTICITY 341
self‐understanding. Harter (1999) notes that people’s motives for their inau-
thentic behaviors diVerentiate the consequences these actions have for their
well‐being. For instance, inauthentic actions that are motivated by self‐uncer-
tainty, or disdain for oneself, are likely to undermine well‐being more so than
inauthentic actions that reflect a process of electing to express preexisting self‐
inclinations (e.g., role‐experimentation). Furthermore, people can, and often
do, internalize social contingencies and freely adopt them as self‐guides (Ryan
& Connell, 1989). In such cases, conflict is minimal or absent and it is relatively
easy for people to behave authentically.
The potential costs of confrontations over relational authenticity are many,

including self and partner defensiveness, overreactivity, and lack of intima-
cy. In turn, these costs contribute to shallow, unsatisfying relationships
that are prone to dissolve over time or be continually fraught with problems
and challenges (Kernis, Goldman, & Paradise, 2004). One can minimize
these costs by choosing partners who also value relational authenticity.
E. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEDONIC AND EUDAIMONIC

WELL‐BEING
Thus, it is evident that authenticity can have potential costs. For example,
accurate self‐knowledge can be painful, behaving in accord with one’s true‐
self may occasion others’ disfavor, and opening oneself up to an intimate
makes one vulnerable to rejection or betrayal. Such adverse consequences
potentially associated with authenticity are likely to undermine individuals’
hedonic, or subjective, well‐being. For instance, research on identity statuses
demonstrates that optimal well‐being occurs when individuals experience
identity achievement by resolving their identity crises through engaging in
high levels of identity exploration and then committing to ways of resolving
them (Marcia, 1966). Thus, for people to attain optimal well‐being through
identity formation, they may have to temporarily endure costs to well‐being in
the course of exploring who they can be. Similarly, authenticity may not
always be pleasurable. However, we would argue that the benefits of authentic
functioning to individuals’ eudaimonic well‐being (i.e., the extent to which
they are fully functioning, Ryan & Deci, 2000) are substantial. When func-
tioning authentically, people are likely to think, feel, and behave in ways that
promote the fulfillment of their needs and heighten the degree to which they
are fully functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Rogers, 1961). Thus, people can be
faced with choosing between experiencing pleasure (or avoiding displeasure)
and maximizing the extent to which they are fully functioning. How they
resolve this dilemma has enormous implications, both short‐ and long‐term.
XI. Future Directions
The findings reported in this chapter provide initial support for our multi-
component conceptualization of authenticity. The Authenticity Inventory
appears adequate psychometrically, and confirmatory factor analyses sup-
port our view that the four components, while distinct, reflect a broad latent
authenticity factor. Although we have accrued considerable validity data, we
also recognize that our work is just beginning and many questions remain
for us to address. An important avenue for future research is to obtain data
relating our measure to outcomes other than that obtained from self‐reports.
We have begun to do that (e.g., our study on verbal defensiveness), but more
research needs to be done.
We recognize that our self‐report measure of authenticity has the same
inherent diYculties as the majority of self‐report measures. Respondents
may either deliberately misrepresent themselves or have limited access to
the information needed for valid responses. One way to deal with such issues
is to obtain validity data that cannot easily be explained in terms of response
biases. In this chapter, we presented data showing that scores on two self‐
esteem fragility measures (contingent SE and unstable SE, the latter repre-
sented by high response variability across multiple assessments) related to
lower scores on the Authenticity Inventory. Likewise, we presented data
demonstrating that higher authenticity scores related to less defensiveness
while answering provocative questions during an interview. Although these
findings are informative and diYcult to explain purely in terms of response
biases, it would be beneficial to examine additional outcomes that involve
behaviors or reactions to experimental manipulations. Elsewhere (Kernis &
Goldman, 2005), we described a number of questions that we felt were
interesting and important to examine in future research. We rely on that
exposition in the discussion here.
A. AWARENESS
One question pertains to whether high awareness relates to lower suscepti-

bility to misattribution of arousal eVects. A second question is whether high
awareness relates to individuals’ understanding better their emotions,
motives, etc. when they describe a meaningful past experience in detail.
AUTHENTICITY 343
A third question is whether high awareness relates to greater interest and

investment in gaining knowledge about one’s strengths and weaknesses.
It would be interesting to examine whether unbiased processing relates to

the relative absence of the self‐serving bias, as it does for autonomously
functioning individuals (Knee & Zuckerman, 1996). A second question is
whether unbiased processing relates to more mature or adaptive defense
mechanisms that involve little reality distortion. Additional questions in-
volve whether unbiased processing relates to less self‐enhancing retrospec-
tive memories pertaining to one’s performances or personal qualities and less
idealized childhood memories.
C. BEHAVIOR
A number of questions revolve around whether behavioral authenticity actu-

ally relates to behaviors that are more congruent with one’s core‐self. For
example, if people are made uncomfortable or anxious, does high behavioral
authenticity relate to fewer instances of smiling and laughter (behaviors
incongruent with one’s internal state)? Furthermore, does high behavioral
authenticity relate to less susceptibility to ‘‘symbolic self‐completion manip-
ulations’’ in which people’s actual goal completion eVorts are thwarted and
they instead tend to symbolize completion? In addition, does high behavioral
authenticity relate to greater behavioral consistency across audiences and
contexts and does it relate to greater attitude–behavior consistency?
We would expect relational orientation to relate to a number of relation-

ship process variables. For example, we would expect that high relational
orientation relates to valuing and behaviorally engaging in intimate self‐
disclosures with partners. In addition, we would expect that high relational
orientation relates to less game‐playing (ludus) and manipulativeness in
close relationships, and less idealization of one’s relationship or relationship
partner (e.g., greater accuracy in evaluating aspects of the relationship or
relationship partners).
To the extent that our future research yields theoretically predicted find-
ings to questions such as those just posed, it presumably will quiet concerns
regarding the validity of our authenticity measure. Until that time, we will
remain vigilant in our sensitivity to its limitations. Although the research

and theory reported in this chapter are in their early stages, they support the
viability of a multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. To do so,
we had to overcome the extreme diYculty of capturing authenticity within a
scientific framework. We are convinced that, despite its elusiveness, authen-
ticity deserves its place alongside other critical aspects of the human condi-
tion that define who we are and what we are able to become. Our hope is that
our work stimulates other scholars to join in our quest to understand it.
XII. Summary
Our goal was to present a comprehensive overview of our multicomponent

conceptualization of dispositional authenticity. We define authenticity as the
‘‘unimpeded operation of one’s true‐ or core‐self in one’s daily enterprise.’’
Our framework distinguishes four interrelated components of authentic
functioning: awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orienta-
tion. We reported confirmatory factor analyses indicating that the AI (AI‐3)
(Goldman & Kernis, 2004) measures these four discriminable components,
which comprise a higher‐order latent authenticity factor. Thus, researchers
can either use the total score as an index of overall authentic functioning, or
each of the subscale scores if they are interested in specific aspects of
authentic functioning. We reported research indicating that higher disposi-
tional authenticity relates to many aspects of adaptive functioning, including
problem‐focused coping strategies, mindfulness, positive role functioning,
healthy aspects of self‐concept structure, hedonic and eudaimonic well‐
being, authentic goal pursuits, and low verbal defensiveness. In addition,
higher dispositional authenticity relates to higher couple satisfaction and
functioning. We considered the relation between authenticity and self‐
esteem, the potential costs of authenticity, and future research directions.
Much more study is needed, but we believe that we have provided a solid
foundation on which we and other researchers will be able to build.
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this chapter was facilitated by support from the Department of Psychology
and the Institute for Behavioral Research at the University of Georgia and NSF Grant 0451029.
The authors thank Charles Lance for his assistance conducting and reporting statistical analyses
and Pam Riddle for her assistance in preparing the chapter.
AUTHENTICITY 345
Appendix
AUT3
The following measure has a series of statements that involve people’s

perceptions about themselves. There are not right or wrong responses, so
please answer honestly. Respond to each statement by writing the number
from the scale below, which you feel most accurately characterizes your
response to the statement.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Nor Disagree Agree
1. I am often confused about my feelings.

2. I frequently pretend to enjoy something when in actuality I really
don’t.
3. For better or for worse I am aware of who I truly am.
4. I understand why I believe the things I do about myself.
5. I want people with whom I am close to understand my strengths.
6. I actively try to understand which of my self‐aspects fit together to
form my core‐ or true‐self.
7. I am very uncomfortable objectively considering my limitations and
shortcomings.
8. I’ve often used my silence or head‐nodding to convey agreement with
someone else’s statement or position even though I really disagree.
9. I have a very good understanding of why I do the things I do.
10. I am willing to change myself for others if the reward is desirable
enough.
11. I find it easy to pretend to be something other than my true‐self.
12. I want people with whom I am close to understand my weaknesses.
13. I find it very diYcult to critically assess myself.
14. I am not in touch with my deepest thoughts and feelings.
15. I make it a point to express to close others how much I truly care for
them.
16. I tend to have diYculty accepting my personal faults, so I try to cast
them in a more positive way.
17. I tend to idealize close others rather than objectively see them as they
truly are.
18. If asked, people I am close to can accurately describe what kind of
person I am.
1 2 3 4 5
19. I prefer to ignore my darkest thoughts and feelings.

20. I am aware of when I am not being my true‐self.
21. I am able to distinguish those self‐aspects that are important to my
core‐or true‐self from those that are unimportant.
22. People close to me would be shocked or surprised if they discovered
what I keep inside me.
23. It is important for me to understand my close others’ needs and
desires.
24. I want close others to understand the real me rather than just my
public persona or ‘‘image.’’
25. I try to act in a manner that is consistent with my personally held
values, even if others criticize or reject me for doing so.
26. If a close other and I are in disagreement I would rather ignore the
issue than constructively work it out.
27. I’ve often done things that I don’t want to do merely not to disappoint
people.
28. I find that my behavior typically expresses my values.
29. I actively attempt to understand myself as best as possible.
30. I’d rather feel good about myself than objectively assess my personal
limitations and shortcomings.
31. I find that my behavior typically expresses my personal needs and
desires.
32. I rarely if ever, put on a ‘‘false face’’ for others to see.
33. I spend a lot of energy pursuing goals that are very important to other
people even though they are unimportant to me.
34. I frequently am not in touch with what’s important to me.
35. I try to block out any unpleasant feelings I might have about myself.
36. I often question whether I really know what I want to accomplish in
my lifetime.
37. I often find that I am overly critical about myself.
38. I am in touch with my motives and desires.
39. I often deny the validity of any compliments that I receive.
40. In general, I place a good deal of importance on people I am close to
understanding who I truly am.
41. I find it diYcult to embrace and feel good about the things I have
accomplished.
AUTHENTICITY 347
1 2 3 4 5
42. If someone points out or focuses on one of my shortcomings I quickly

try to block it out of my mind and forget it.
43. The people I am close to can count on me being who I am regardless
of what setting we are in.
44. My openness and honesty in close relationships are extremely impor-
tant to me.
45. I am willing to endure negative consequences by expressing my true
beliefs about things.
THE AUTHENTICITY INVENTORY (AI‐3)
Version 3 Goldman and Kernis, 2004

The preceding measure is conceptually designed to assess the unimpeded
operation of one’s true‐ or core‐self in one’s daily enterprise. There are four
components to how we conceive of authenticity: awareness, unbiased proces-
sing, behavior, and relational orientation. These components can be measured
via content domains that were constructed as subscales in the Authenticity
Inventory and are described below:
1 Awareness: Awareness of, and trust in, one’s motives, feelings, desires,
and self‐relevant cognitions. Conceptually, this includes awareness of one’s
strengths and weaknesses, figure–ground personality aspects, emotions, and
their roles in behavior.
2 Unbiased Processing: Not denying, distorting, exaggerating, nor ignor-
ing private knowledge, internal experiences, and externally based self‐evalu-
ative information. Conceptually then, this includes objectivity and
acceptance of one’s positive and negative aspects.
3 Behavior: Acting in accord with one’s values, preferences, and needs.
Conceptually, this contrasts acting merely to please others, or to attain
rewards, or avoid punishments even if it means acting ‘‘falsely.’’
4 Relational Orientation: Valuing and achieving openness and truthful-
ness in one’s close relationships. Conceptually, the relational component
presumes it is important for close others to see the real you, good and bad.
Moreover, relational authenticity means being genuine and not ‘‘fake’’ in
one’s relationships with others.
Subscales
Awareness: 1R, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14R, 20, 21, 29, 34R, 36R, 38
Alpha ¼ .79
Unbiased Processing: 7R, 13R, 16R, 19R, 30R, 35R, 37R, 39R, 41R, 42R
Alpha ¼ .64
Behavioral: 2, 8R, 10R, 11R, 25, 27R, 28, 31, 32, 33R, 45
Alpha ¼ .80
Relational Orientation: 5, 12, 15, 17R, 18, 22R, 23, 24, 26R, 40, 43, 44
Alpha ¼ .78
Composite Scale Alpha ¼ .90
***NOTE: R ¼ Reverse Scored Item
References
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self‐report: The
Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 3, 191–206.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The eVects of item parceling on goodness‐of‐fit and parameter estimate
bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102.
Barber, B. K. (2002). Reintroducing parental psychological control. In B. K. Barber (Ed.),
Intrusive parenting: How psychological control aVects children and adolescents (pp. 3–13).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical
research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 163–176.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Mono-
graphs, 4(1, part 2), 1–103.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). Self‐theorists, identity status, and social cognition. In D. K. Lapsley &
F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 243–262). New York:
Springer.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self‐construction over the life‐span: A process perspective on identity
formation. In G. J. Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 155–186). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity style, parental authority, and identity commitment. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 33, 213–220.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self‐esteem and self‐serving biases in reactions to positive and
negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumesiter (Ed.), Self‐Esteem: The puzzle
of low self‐regard (pp. 55–85). New York: Plenum Press.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 922–948.
AUTHENTICITY 349
Brunstein, J. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well‐being: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57,
110–119.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self‐esteem and clarity of the self‐concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 538–549.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Covollee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R.
(1996). Self‐concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156.
Cantor, N., & Zirkel, S. (1990). Personality, cognition, and purposive behavior. In L. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 135–164). New York: Guilford Press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
Cloninger, S. C. (1993). Theories of personality: Understanding persons. Englewood CliVs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (2002). Identity, agency, and culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cramer, P. (1990). Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation.
American Psychologist, 55, 637–646.
Crocker, J. (2002). Contingencies of self‐worth: Implications for self‐regulation and psychologi-
cal vulnerability. Journal of Self and Identity, 1, 143–149.
Crowell, S. (2005, September). Existentialism. In E.N., Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
sum2005/entries/existentialism/.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self‐determination. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human agency: The basis for true self‐esteem. In M. H.
Kernis (Ed.), EYcacy, agency, and self‐esteem (pp. 31–50). New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self‐determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A metaanalytic review of experiments examining
the eVects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Descutner, C. J., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation of a fear‐of‐intimacy
scale. Psychological Assessment, 3, 218–225.
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & GriYn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 71–75.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993). The divided self:
Concurrent and longitudinal eVects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self‐
concept diVerentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 834–846.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self‐fulfilling prophecy in
close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by close partners. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Edwards, J. R. (2000). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An
integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192.
Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press.
Feldman Barrett, L., Cleveland, J., Conner, T., & Williams, N. L. (2000). Manual for the
defensive verbal behavior ratings scale (version 3.0). Unpublished manuscript, Boston
College.
Feldman Barrett, L., Williams, N. L., Boekman, L. F., & Feeney, K. A. (1996). Manual for the
defensive verbal behavior rating scale.
Feldman Barrett, L., Williams, N. L., & Fong, G. T. (2002). Defensive verbal behavior
assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 776–788.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. G., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self‐consciousness:
Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–528.
Flynn, T. R. (2003). Jean‐Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (1943): The prodigious power of
the negative. In J. E. Garcia, G. M. Reichberg, & B. N. Schumacher (Eds.), The classics of
western philosophy: A reader’s guide (pp. 519–524). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle‐aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and
coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 150–170.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and the self as relationship. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 17–56.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a diVerent voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GoVman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldman, B. M. (2004). Dispositional authenticity as a predictor of self‐esteem, self‐concepts, and
social role functioning. Unpublished data.
Goldman, B. M. (in press). Making diamonds out of coal: The role of authenticity in healthy
(optimal) self‐esteem and psychological functioning. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self‐esteem:
Issues and answers. New York: Psychology Press.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well‐being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5
(6), 18–20.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2004). The development of the authenticity inventory, version
3. Unpublished data.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, B. M. (2005). Dispositional authenticity as a predictor of coping
styles. Unpublished data.
Goldman, B. M., Brunnell, A., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W., & Davis, P. (2005a). Dispositional
authenticity as a predictor of romantic relationship functioning. Unpublished data.
Goldman, B. M., Kernis, M. H., Foster, J. D., Hermann, A., & Piasecki, R. (2005b). Exercising
one’s daimon: Dispositional authenticity and self‐concordant goal pursuits as predictors of
well‐being. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Goldman, B. M., Kernis, M., Stewart, E., Davis, P., Cascio, E., Lakey, C., & Heppner, W.
(2005c). Dispositional authenticity as a predictor of parenting styles and parental support for
authenticity. Unpublished data.
Goldman, B. N., Lakey, C. E., & Kernis, M. H. (2005d). Authenticity and psychological
functioning. Unpublished data.
Gordon, C. (1968). Self‐conceptions: Configurations of content. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen
(Eds.), The self is social interaction (pp. 115–136). New York: Wiley.
Greenberg, J., Pyszcynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for
self‐esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private
self (pp. 189–212). New York: Springer‐Verlag.
AUTHENTICITY 351
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How wellmeant parenting backfires.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grolnick, W. S., & Beiswenger, K. L. (in press). Facilitating children’s self‐esteem: The role of
parents and teachers. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self‐esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of
current perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self‐
determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New
York: Wiley.
Grosholz, E. R. (2003). Meditations on first philosophy (1641): Thought, existence, and the
project of science. In J. E. Garcia, G. M. Reichberg, & B. N. Schumacher (Eds.), The classics
of western philosophy: A reader’s guide (pp. 217–233). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Hagtvet, K. A., & Nasser, F. M. (2004). How well do item parcels represent conceptually dewfined
latent constructs? A two‐facet approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 168–193.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Faust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating
the subtle eVects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2,
233–256.
Halling, S., & Carroll, A. (1999). Existential‐phenomenological psychology. In D. Moss (Ed.),
Humanistic and transpersonal psychology. A historical and biographical sourcebook
(pp. 95–124). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing.
Harter, S. (1997). The personal self in social context: Barriers to authenticity. In R. D. Ashmore
& L. J. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity. Fundamental Issues (pp. 81–105). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. New York: Guilford Press.
Harter, S., Waters, P. L., Pettit, L., Whitesell, N. R., Kofkin, J., & Jordan, J. V. (1997).
Autonomy and connectedness as dimensions of relationship styles in adult men and
women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(2), 147–164.
Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). False self behavior and lack of voice among
adolescent males and females. Educational Psychologist, 32, 153–173.
Hecht, L. M. (2001). Role conflict and role overload: DiVerent concepts, diVerent consequences.
Sociological Inquiry, 71, 111–121.
Heidegger, M. (1968). Existence and being: Introduction and analysis by Werner Brock. (W. Brock,
Trans., 6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company. (Original American edition
published 1949).
Hermans, H. J. M. (1987). Self as organized system of valuations: Toward a dialogue with the
person. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 10–19.
Hermans, H. J. M., Rijks, T. I., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). Imaginal dialogues in the self:
Theory and method. Journal of Personality, 61, 207–236.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self‐discrepancy: A theory relating self and aVect. Psychological Review,
94, 319–340.
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L.
Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self‐determination research (pp. 87–100).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Hoyle, R. H., Kernis, M. H., Leary, M. R., & Baldwin, M. W. (1999). Selfhood: Identity, esteem,
regulation. Oxford, UK: Westview Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indexes in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterization model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). CutoV criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1–55.
Hutchinson, D. S. (1995). Ethics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Aristotle,

(pp. 195–232). Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Irwin, T. H. (2003). Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (367–323 BC): A sort of political science. In
J. E. Garcia, G. M. Reichberg, & B. N. Schumacher (Eds.), The classics of western
philosophy: A reader’s guide (pp. 56–69). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self‐actualization. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63–73.
Jordan, C. H., Logel, C., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (in press). Nonconscious self‐esteem: Is
there something you’re not telling yourself? In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self‐esteem issues and
answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). The transparent self. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Kernis, M. H. (2000). Substitute needs and fragile self‐esteem. Invited commentary of Deci &
Ryan’s target article. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self‐esteem. Psychology Inquiry,
14, 1–26.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2004). Authenticity, social motivation, and well‐being. In
J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & S. M. Laham (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and
unconscious processes (210–227). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). From thought and experience to behavior and
interpersonal relationships: A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. In A.
Tesser, J. V. Wood, & D. Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending and regulating the self: A
psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (in press). Measuring stability of self‐esteem. In M. H. Kernis
(Ed.), Self‐esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives. New York:
Psychology Press.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2002). Stability and variability in self‐concept and self‐
esteem. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 106–127). New
York: Guilford Press.
Kernis, & Paradise, A. W. (2002). Distinguishing between secure and fragile forms of high self‐
esteem. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self‐determination research
(pp. 330–360). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kernis, M. H., & Paradise, A. W. (2004). Contingent self‐esteem scale development. Unpublished
data.
Kernis, M. H., & Waschull, S. B. (1995). The interactive roles of stability and level of self‐
esteem: Research and theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 93–141). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., Piasecki, R., & Brunnell, A. (2003). Authenticity, functional
flexibility, and mindfulness. Unpublished data.
Kernis, M., Goldman, B. M., & Paradise, A. N. (2004). Fragile self‐esteem, overreactivity and
satisfaction in close relationships. Unpublished data.
Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C., Heppner, W., Goldman, B. M., & Davis, P. (2005). Fragile self‐esteem
predicts verbal defensiveness. Manuscript in preparation.
Kernis, M. H., Paradise, A. W., Whitaker, D., Wheatman, S., & Goldman, B. (2000). Master of
one’s psychological domain? Not likely if one’s self‐esteem is unstable. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1297–1305.
Kierkegaard, S. (2004). From fear and trembling problema I. In G. Marino (Ed.), Basic writings
of existentialism (pp. 7–24). New York: The Modern Library. (Excerpts From Søren
AUTHENTICITY 353
Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, V. Howard & E. H. Hong, Trans., 1983, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press).
Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the disappearance of the
self‐serving bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 76–87.
Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self‐regulation and consistency
between attitudes, traits, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
52–59.
Lakey, C., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W., & Davis, P. (2005). Authenticity and mindfulness.
Unpublished data.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming
composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3,
186–207.
Leary, M. R. (1995). Self‐presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior.
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
LeBel, J. L., & Dubé, L. (2001, June). The impact of sensory knowledge and attentional focus on
pleasure and on behavioral responses to hedonic stimuli. Paper presented at the 13th annual
American Psychological Society Convention. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel:
Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego‐identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marks, S. (1986). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 58(2), 417–433.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness‐of‐fit indexes in confirmatory
factor analysis: The eVect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: D. Van Nostrand.
May, R. M. (1960). The emergence of existential psychology. In R. May (Ed.), Existential
psychology (pp. 11–51). New York: Random House.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). The ‘‘imago’’: A key narrative component of identity. In P. Shaver
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, 6, 87–113.
McAdams, D. P. (1999). Personal narratives and the life story. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 478–500). New York:
Guilford Press.
McDonald, W. (2005, September). Søren Kierkegaard. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2005 edition). retrieved from http://plato.stanford.
edu/archives/sum2005/entries/kierkegaard/.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well
and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 494–512.
Meade, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love, and relationship
satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 755–773.
Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavenieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment styles and aVect regula-
tion: Strategic variations in subjective self‐other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social
Mikiluncer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Mental representations of attachment security:
Theoretical foundation for a positive social psychology. In M. W. Baldwin (Ed.), Interper-
sonal cognition (pp. 233–266). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, L.,C, Berg, J.,H, & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self‐
disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1234–1244.
Moos, R. H., & Schaefer, J. A. (1993). Coping resources and processes: Current concepts and
measures. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and
clinical aspects (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking
glass darkly? When self‐doubts turn into relationship insecurities. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 1459–1480.
NeV, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self‐compassion. Self
and Identity, 2, 223–250.
Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., Geisner, I. M., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Feeling controlled and
drinking motives among college students: Contingent self‐esteem as a mediator. Self and
Identity, 3, 207–224.
Nurmi, J., Berzonsky, M. D., Tammi, K., & Kinney, A. (1997). Identity processing orientation,
cognitive and behavioural strategies and well‐being. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 21, 555–570.
O’Brien, E. J., & Epstein, S. (1988). The multidimensional self‐esteem inventory: Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessments Resources.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conceptualization of
interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88–101.
Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self‐esteem and psychological well‐being: Implications
of fragile self‐esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 345–361.
Perls, F., HeVerline, R. F., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy. New York: Julian Press
(reprinted 1965, Dell Press).
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E. T.
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 523–563). New York: Guilford Press.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook
of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short‐term benefits and
long‐term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 340–352.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton
MiZin.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universi-
ty Press.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal
Relationships, 5, 357–391.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation
processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self in
psychological development. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol.
AUTHENTICITY 355
40. Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 1–56). Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examin-
ing reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
749–761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well‐being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self‐determination theory: An organismic‐
dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self‐determination
research (pp. 3–36). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self‐determi-
nation theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. Leary
& J. Tangey (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 253–274). New York: Guilford
Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a
dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
RyV, C. (1989). Happiness is everything or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). Self‐deception, other‐deception, and self‐reported psycho-
pathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 213–215.
Sande, G. N., Goethals, G. R., & RadloV, C. E. (1988). Perceiving one’s own traits and others’:
The multifaceted self. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 13–20.
Sartre, J. P. (2004). From being and nothingness. In G. Marino (Ed.), Basic writings of existen-
tialism (pp. 369–409). New York: The Modern Library. (Excerpts from Jean‐Paul Sartre,
Being and Nothingness, H. Barnes, Trans., 1956, New York: Philosophical Library).
Schacht, R. (2003). Friedrich Nietzsche, beyond good and evil (1886): Prelude to a philosophy
of the future. In J. E. Garcia, G. M. Reichberg, & B. N. Schumacher (Eds.), The
classics of western philosophy: A reader’s guide (pp. 405–415). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self‐concept, social identity, and interper-
sonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American
Psychologist, 48, 1117–1131.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well‐
being: The self‐concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3),
482–497.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality
and integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress but not all
progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319–1331.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:
Cross‐role variation in the Big‐Five personality traits and its relations with psychological
authenticity and subjective well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1380–1393.
Showers, C. J., & Zeigler‐Hill, V. (2003). Organization of self‐knowledge: Features, functions,
and flexibility. In M. Leary & J. Tangey (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 47–67).
New York: Guilford Press.
Snell, W. E., Miller, R. S., & Belk, S. S. (1988). Development of the emotional self‐disclosure
scale. Sex Roles, 18, 59–73.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self‐monitoring. San

Francisco: Freeman.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszcynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social
behavior: The psychological functions of self‐esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 93–159). New York:
Academic Press.
Sprecher, S., & Hendrich, S. S. (2004). Self‐disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations
with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic Books.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self‐verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In
J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66).
NJ: Erlbaum: Hillsdale.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein‐Seroussi, A., & Giesler, B. (1992). Why people self‐verify. Journal of
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others
see you. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91–105).
New York: Guilford Press.
Thoits, P. A. (1986). Multiple identities: Examining gender and marital status diVerences in
distress. American Sociological Review, 51, 259–272.
Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well‐being: Gender and marital status
comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 236–256.
Thoits, P. A., & Virshop, L. K. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities.
In R. D. Ashmore & L. J. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 106–133).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Trilling, L. (1971). Sincerity and authenticity. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Ungerer, J. A., Waters, B., Barnett, B., & Dolby, R. (1997). Defense style and adjustment in
interpersonal relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 375–385.
Vaillant, G. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Vaillant, G. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 55, 89–98.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact
of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy‐supportive versus internally
controlling communication style upon early adolescents’ achievement. Child Development,
76, 483–501.
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of autonomy and
control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 97, 468–483.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
678–691.
Weinberger, J. (2003). Genuine, defensive, unconscious, and authentic: How do they all fit
together? Psychological Inquiry, 14, 80–82.
Westphal, M. (2003). Kierkegaard, Concluding unscientific postscript to philosophical frag-
ments (1846): Making things diYcult for the system and for Christendom. In J. E. Garcia,
G. M. Reichberg, & B. N. Schumacher (Eds.), The classics of western philosophy: A reader’s
guide (pp. 389–394). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
AUTHENTICITY 357
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait‐descriptive terms: The interpersonal

domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
Wilson, F. (2003). David Hume, Treatise of human nature (1740): A genial skepticism, an
ethical naturalism. In J. E. Garcia, G. M. Reichberg, & B. N. Schumacher (Eds.), The
classics of western philosophy: A reader’s guide (pp. 291–308). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Winter, D. G., & Barenbaum, N. B. (1999). History of modern personality theory and research.
In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (2nd ed.,
pp. 3–30). New York: Guilford Press.

The Authenticity Inventory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Authenticity Inventory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Authenticity Inventory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A MULTICOMPONENT

Whatever satisfies the soul is truth.

In this chapter, we present research and theory pertaining to our multicom-

functioning, goal pursuits, general well‐being, romantic relationships, parent-

I. A Historical Overview of Authenticity

Poets, painters, clergy, scholars, philosophers, and scientists have long

the epistemological precedent established by Aristotle, Descartes rejected

functioning. Harter (1999) describes this as the historical emergence of

best understood through the relationships that connect individuals to others.

For Kierkegaard, faith is not rooted in the clarity of people’s knowledge

predicated. Whereas entities are defined in terms of their essential properties

authenticity in German, Eigentlichkeit refers to the attitude through which

II. Taking Stock of These Various Perspectives: Towards a

This brief and necessarily selective historical account of philosophical perspec-

with agency, in a process of self‐authoring their way of being. In this respect,

III. Psychological Perspectives on Authenticity

Our conceptualization of authenticity also owes a great deal to Rogers’

IV. A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity

The awareness component refers to possessing, and being motivated to

feeling anxious or depressed, in what circumstances one is most likely to be

The second component of authenticity involves the unbiased processing

not denying, distorting, or exaggerating externally based evaluative informa-

self‐knowledge is more beneficial than possessing and portraying positive

The third component of authenticity involves behaving in accord with one’s

and the dictates of the environment, and a heightened awareness of the

authenticity may be reflected in awareness of one’s needs and motives and an

The fourth component of authenticity is relational in nature, and bears

E. MORE ON THE SEPARATENESS OF THESE COMPONENTS

We view these multiple components of authenticity as related to, but sepa-

involve active attempts to resolve conflicting motives and desires involved in

F. CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER CONSTRUCTS

Each of these aspects of authenticity has received some attention in the

component in research on public and private self‐consciousness (e.g.,

V. Measuring Individual DiVerences in Dispositional Authenticity:

Fig. 1. Proposed theoretical models of dispositional authenticity.

Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). There are a number of app-

proposes that authenticity is comprised of four distinct, yet possibly corre-

Model df 2 SRMSR RMSEA CFI TLI

1. Unidimensional Model 54 402.03* .073 .130 .82 .79

Fig. 2. Confirmatory factor analysis findings for hierarchical model of authenticity.

(LISREL’s completely standardized factor loadings) for the hierarchical

VI. Authenticity and Healthy Psychological Functioning

A. AUTHENTICITY AND ABSENCE OF

Emotions, thoughts, behaviors, or information that are discrepant with

reduce negative aVect, and maintain positive representations of attach-

distortion. Awareness is defined as the conscious understanding and accep-

true‐self, and therefore one should be more accepting of their implications

B. AUTHENTICITY AND MINDFULNESS

Mindfulness refers to a state of relaxed and nonevaluative awareness of

Self‐actualization .61** .53** .42** .41** .41**

* p < .05, ** p < .01.

high behavioral authenticity related to competence in describing observed

C. AUTHENTICITY AND THE USE OF VARIOUS

If our assertion that authentic functioning is associated with greater adaptive

emotion‐focused coping is emotional social support: seeking sympathy, moral

Note: ap < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

D. AUTHENTICITY, SELF‐CONCEPTS, AND

In his dissertation, Goldman (2004) examined the relationship and predic-

one’s personality is judged to diVer depending on the social role being

Total Unbiased Relational

Self‐actualization .61 .53 .42 .41 .41**

Self‐concept clarity .68 .67 .47 .55 .29*

Satisfaction T2 .29 .31