Letitia Slabu

How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity

OBJECTIVE We propose that the experience of state authenticity-the subjective sense of being ones true self-ought to be considered separately from trait authenticity as well as from prescriptions regarding what should make people feel authentic. METHODS In Study 1 (N = 104), online participants rated the frequency of and motivation for experiences of authenticity and inauthenticity. Studies 2 (N = 268) and 3 (N = 93) asked (local or online, respectively) participants to describe their experiences of authenticity or inauthenticity. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 also completed measures of trait authenticity, and participants in Study 3 rated their experience with respect to several phenomenological dimensions. RESULTS Study 1 demonstrated that people are motivated to experience state authenticity and avoid inauthenticity and that such experiences are common, regardless of ones degree of trait authenticity. Coding of Study 2s narratives identified the emotions accompanying and needs fulfilled in each state. Trait authenticity generally did not qualify the nature of (in)authentic experiences. Study 3 corroborated the results of Study 2 and further revealed positive mood and nostalgia as consequences of reflecting on experiences of authenticity. CONCLUSIONS We discuss implications of these findings for conceptualizations of authenticity and the self.

I feel good, therefore I am real: testing the causal influence of mood on state authenticity.

Although the literature has focused on individual differences in authenticity, recent findings suggest that authenticity is sensitive to context; that is, it is also a state. We extended this perspective by examining whether incidental affect influences authenticity. In three experiments, participants felt more authentic when in a relatively positive than negative mood. The causal role of affect in authenticity was consistent across a diverse set of mood inductions, including explicit (Experiments 1 and 3) and implicit (Experiment 2) methods. The link between incidental affect and state authenticity was not moderated by ability to down-regulate negative affect (Experiments 1 and 3) nor was it explained by negative mood increasing private self-consciousness or decreasing access to the self system (Experiment 3). The results indicate that mood is used as information to assess ones sense of authenticity.

Power increases situated creativity

The present paper examined whether power was linked with situated creativity. We proposed that powerful (vs powerless) people engage in creative thought when creativity contributes to contextual goals but avoid creative thought when creativity impedes contextual goals. Extending the Situated Focus Theory of Power (Guinote, 2007a; 2010) to creativity, we suggested that powerful people are better able to achieve situational goals because they can flexibly focus on cues that indicate what is required for success in a given context. Across three experiments, we found that powerful (vs powerless) people engaged in more creative thinking when creativity facilitated contextual goals. This was not the case when creativity hindered contextual goals. Further, neither affect (Experiment 2) nor effort (Experiments 1 and 3) contributed to these effects. However, local processing undermined creativity for powerful people, indicating that processing style may contribute to the link between power and situated creativity. These findings suggest that powerful people flexibly vary creativity in line with the situation. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation awarded to Sarah J. Gervais and Theresa K. Vescio for dissertation enhancement

Trait and State Authenticity Across Cultures

We examined the role of culture in both trait and state authenticity, asking whether the search for and experience of the “true self” is a uniquely Western phenomenon or is relevant cross-culturally. We tested participants from the United States, China, India, and Singapore. U.S. participants reported higher average levels of trait authenticity than those from Eastern cultures (i.e., China, India, Singapore), but this effect was partially explained by cultural differences in self-construal and thinking style. Importantly, the experience of state authenticity, and especially state inauthenticity, was more similar than different across cultures. In all, people from different cultures do experience authenticity, even if they do not endorse the (Western) value of “independence.” The findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of state authenticity.

State Authenticity in Everyday Life

We examined the components and situational correlates of state authenticity to clarify the constructs meaning and improve understanding of authenticitys attainment. In Study 1, we used the day reconstruction method (participants assessed real–life episodes from ‘yesterday’) and in Study 2 a smartphone app (participants assessed real–life moments taking place ‘just now’) to obtain situation–level ratings of participants’ sense of living authentically, self–alienation, acceptance of external influence, mood, anxiety, energy, ideal–self overlap, self–consciousness, self–esteem, flow, needs satisfaction, and motivation to be ‘real’. Both studies demonstrated that state authentic living does not require rejecting external influence and, further, accepting external influence is not necessarily associated with state self–alienation. In fact, situational acceptance of external influence was more often related to an increased, rather than decreased, sense of authenticity. Both studies also found state authentic living to be associated with greater, and state self–alienation with lesser: positive mood, energy, relaxation, ideal–self overlap, self–esteem, flow, and motivation for realness. Study 2 further revealed that situations prioritizing satisfaction of meaning/purpose in life were associated with increased authentic living and situations prioritizing pleasure/interest satisfaction were associated with decreased self–alienation. State authenticity is best characterized by two related yet independent components: authentic living and (absence of) self–alienation. Copyright

Identifying differences in the experience of (in)authenticity: a latent class analysis approach

Generally, psychologists consider state authenticity – that is, the subjective sense of being one’s true self – to be a unitary and unidimensional construct, such that (a) the phenomenological experience of authenticity is thought to be similar no matter its trigger, and (b) inauthenticity is thought to be simply the opposing pole (on the same underlying construct) of authenticity. Using latent class analysis, we put this conceptualization to a test. In order to avoid over-reliance on a Western conceptualization of authenticity, we used a cross-cultural sample (N = 543), comprising participants from Western, South-Asian, East-Asian, and South-East Asian cultures. Participants provided either a narrative in which the described when they felt most like being themselves or one in which they described when they felt least like being themselves. The analysis identified six distinct classes of experiences: two authenticity classes (“everyday” and “extraordinary”), three inauthenticity classes (“self-conscious,” “deflated,” and “extraordinary”), and a class representing convergence between authenticity and inauthenticity. The classes were phenomenologically distinct, especially with respect to negative affect, private and public self-consciousness, and self-esteem. Furthermore, relatively more interdependent cultures were less likely to report experiences of extraordinary (in)authenticity than relatively more independent cultures. Understanding the many facets of (in)authenticity may enable researchers to connect different findings and explain why the attainment of authenticity can be difficult.